A couple questions about RAW 3.5 Initiative

[Talakeal]

During the very long argument about Initiative in my own system on the front page, a couple of points were raised about Initiative in 3.5 that I wanted to clarify.

1: Even though most people use the Pathfinder system of rolling initiative individually for every enemy, by 3.5 RAW all enemies are supposed to share a single turn by default. But, how are you supposed to determine the initiative count for this unified enemy turn? Roll for everyone and take the best? Take the worst? Take the mean average? Take the median average? Always go on 20? Nominate one leader to set initiative for the entire team? What?


2: Is there anything stopping all of the players who go after the monster's turn from delaying their initiative count to an arbitrarily high initiative count in the second turn? Does this then effectively allow said players to go in any order they like for the rest of the combat?

For example, Bob has an initiative of 7, Alice an initiative of 3. They both delay, and then Bob acts on count 9999999999 in the second round and Alice on Initiative count 99999999998 in the second round. Then on the third round Alice wants to go first, so Bob delays to 99999999997, and so on.


Thanks!

[Kish]

During the very long argument about Initiative in my own system on the front page, a couple of points were raised about Initiative in 3.5 that I wanted to clarify.

1: Even though most people use the Pathfinder system of rolling initiative individually for every enemy, by 3.5 RAW all enemies are supposed to share a single turn by default.

Huh?


At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).


2: Is there anything stopping all of the players who go after the monster's turn from delaying their initiative count to an arbitrarily high initiative count in the second turn? Does this then effectively allow said players to go in any order they like for the rest of the combat?

Certainly. That's not a balance issue because going first at 20 initiative on round 2 is not as good as going first at 3 initiative on round 1. If you want to act after a specific ally of yours it makes sense to delay, but there's always the cost that delaying is delaying. If you roll a 3 and delay until initiative count 20 on the next round, your initiative count is now 20 and you chose not to act at all on the first round. There's no "I go at 20 on round 2...and then again at 3, because I rolled a 3 and no one can take that away from me!"

[Talakeal]

Huh?

That is interesting. The SRD lacks the section that immediately follows character initiative titled "Monster initiative". Maybe that is why most people don't realize it is a rule?

It is at the bottom of page 136 in the 3.5 PHB. If you don't have the book, you should be able to find a free .pdf online to check for yourself.

It reads "Typically the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets one turn each round, and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even individual creatures. For example, the DM might make one initiative check for an evil cleric of Nerull and a separate initiative check for all seven of her zombie guards."


Certainly. That's not a balance issue because going first at 20 initiative on round 2 is not as good as going first at 3 initiative on round 1. If you want to act after a specific ally of yours it makes sense to delay, but there's always the cost that delaying is delaying. If you roll a 3 and delay until initiative count 20 on the next round, your initiative count is now 20 and you chose not to act at all on the first round. There's no "I go at 20 on round 2...and then again at 3, because I rolled a 3 and no one can take that away from me!"

Why is it not as good though?

Either way, you are going after the monster's first turn but before the monster's second turn, and now you can act in any order you like. What is the downside here?

[RSGA]

The main downside would be that you have taken one action to the monster's two, overall.

[Kish]

In the specific circumstance where:

You rolled 3 for initiative.
All the enemies, for one reason or another, are acting on initiative count 10.
You have an ally who you know, for one reason or another, will buff your attacks on initiative count 21.
You have a DM guarantee that "all the enemies act on initiative count 10" will remain the case for the entire battle.

it probably makes sense to delay your initiative such that you do not act at all on round 1 and your initiative count becomes 20. The delay action wouldn't exist if it never made sense to use it.

Something has still been lost, in acting later than you could, because the part I bolded is effectively never true. The DM is not doing anything inappropriate if she says, "A new enemy joins the battle. They'll be acting on initiative 2. You would be right before them, but you delayed and now you're not."

[Khedrac]

2: Is there anything stopping all of the players who go after the monster's turn from delaying their initiative count to an arbitrarily high initiative count in the second turn? Does this then effectively allow said players to go in any order they like for the rest of the combat?
This is often a good tactic, but one needs to be careful - if another opponent joins the combat on round 2 they automatically join at the top of the initiative order and your delaying character may go from "waiting to deliver a devastating attack instead of an OK one" to "never got to attack at all".

[Talakeal]

Do new enemies join at the top of the order or do they roll normally? If its the later, wouldn't delaying until initiative count 999999999999 be better than acting at initiative 3? If the former, yeah, I can see that.

Which one is RAW? I can't recall, its been too long since I played 3E.

[Biggus]

That is interesting. The SRD lacks the section that immediately follows character initiative titled "Monster initiative". Maybe that is why most people don't realize it is a rule?

It is at the bottom of page 136 in the 3.5 PHB. If you don't have the book, you should be able to find a free .pdf online to check for yourself.

It reads "Typically the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets one turn each round, and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even individual creatures. For example, the DM might make one initiative check for an evil cleric of Nerull and a separate initiative check for all seven of her zombie guards."


Not sure if a sentence beginning "typically" counts as RAW. Sounds more like "this is the default assumption" than "this is the rules", especially considering that the very next sentence says it's up to the DM whether they do that or roll individually.

[Talakeal]

Not sure if a sentence beginning "typically" counts as RAW. Sounds more like "this is the default assumption" than "this is the rules", especially considering that the very next sentence says it's up to the DM whether they do that or roll individually.


Yeah, I guess optional rules are still technically RAW.

But the way it is phrased to me clearly indicates that this is the default way to play, and in my experience it went so much faster before everyone switched over to rolling for each monster individually.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'd say that the assumption is that it makes sense for all the monsters to act as a group if they're all the same monster with the same initiative bonus. That's a pretty typical setup for an average, random encounter. The party is more likely to run into "5 orc warriors" or "2 otyughs" or whatever, rather than a mixed group of creatures with different stats. That's more the purview of a specially crafted encounter or a boss fight with minions.

So sure, saying that the DM just takes one turn for all the monsters is probably true 50-75% of the time unless the DM is one who likes to make things interesting by mixing things more often. But really, the fact that it's immediately followed up by saying the DM can choose take different turns for different groups of monsters or just roll individually if they want says a lot.

[Jay R]

I tend to roll NPC initiative in subgroups. The orc captain rolls alone with his +6, his two sergeants roll together with initiative +3, and all the basic orc soldiers will go together with their initiative +0.

In an upcoming game, the PCs will face a rival party, and, for the first time, I'm rolling each character's initiative separately.

On a separate issue, what do people think about rolling NPC initiative in advance? Since that party is setting up an ambush, and I already know that the PCs will be stepping into it, I went ahead and rolled, and mapped out their first round of action (which will be a surprise round or just the first round, depending on whether the PCs's roll a good Listen check, or take some action that prevents the ambush from being a surprise.

I know my players are OK with it, because I have sometimes done it in the past. I always tell them when I do it. But in general, what do people think?

[KillianHawkeye]

On a separate issue, what do people think about rolling NPC initiative in advance? Since that party is setting up an ambush, and I already know that the PCs will be stepping into it, I went ahead and rolled, and mapped out their first round of action (which will be a surprise round or just the first round, depending on whether the PCs's roll a good Listen check, or take some action that prevents the ambush from being a surprise.

I know my players are OK with it, because I have sometimes done it in the past. I always tell them when I do it. But in general, what do people think?

Mathematically, it doesn't make a difference. However, it does give you more time to plan a strategy that includes the information of which creatures or groups are going to act in what order, which is a piece of information you wouldn't have time to think about if you rolled initiative on the spot.

[holbita]

One thing that I feel forced to mention...

Delaying to 999999 is not possible, you can only reduce your iniative, so you can turn your initiative 17 into a -10 initative and act at the end of the current turn. You cannot use the delay action to increase your initiative, and even if you could... doing so would be a horrible idea, as it would mean losing a turn.

Regarding monsters rolling initiative, I do it so creatures with the same modifier roll together for simplification, that's it. Anyone with a different modifier gets their own roll.

[Talakeal]

Delaying to 999999 is not possible, you can only reduce your iniative, so you can turn your initiative 17 into a -10 initative and act at the end of the current turn. You cannot use the delay action to increase your initiative, and even if you could... doing so would be a horrible idea, as it would mean losing a turn.

I don't believe that is correct. From the delay section of the SRD:

"If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round."


As for being a horrible idea, while you are technically not acting in the first round if you do this, functionally there is no difference between going after your opponents this round and before your opponents next round except for more flexibility in coordinating with your teammates. At least AFAICT.

[Telok]

On a separate issue, what do people think about rolling NPC initiative in advance? Since that party is setting up an ambush, and I already know that the PCs will be stepping into it, I went ahead and rolled, and mapped out their first round of action (which will be a surprise round or just the first round, depending on whether the PCs's roll a good Listen check, or take some action that prevents the ambush from being a surprise.

Works great. I had (in a different system but functionally the same for this) a fight the PCs triggered during an illegal auction of dangerous/illegal technomagic & information. Were about 10-12 different groups of 2-8 characters each, plus the PCs & the trigger monster (they opened a stasis field with an insane murder demon dual weilding grenade launchers). I called the game for the night and we would pick back up in at combat start next week. At home I rolled out the first three rounds of combat without the PCs being direct targets (except from the demon after a round or so), just splash damage.

At game time it worked great. I had a couple pages of notes so anyone the PCs interfered with could be struck out and done dynamically. The NPCs (except a pair of cult heretics) weren't there for a fight to the death so it was mostly a confused rush to the exits with occasional spells & aoe effects. By the end of round 3 (10 to 15 second duration rounds) the room was mostly empty and the fanatics reached the PCs who were engaged with the demon. Ran great.

[Pugwampy]

I just roll a D20 initiative for my army . Including my 1 or 3 bosses.

[Chronos]

I once ran a combat with 10 interchangeable enemies versus my party of six. That's way too much bookkeeping for table time, so I pre-rolled not only their initiative and all of their attacks, but also all of the saves any of them might have to make. Nobody complained, and really, if everyone's having fun, that means you're doing it right, regardless of what the books say.

[Jay R]

There are some situations when it makes sense to delay, primarily to coordinate with allies.

I will often wait for the caster who is casting haste, or the bard who will start singing to inspire courage.

Some spells make a difference. If I’m using freezing glance on an opponent, I want to go immediately before my target. Suppose I have initiative 20, my ally has 18, and the enemy has 15. If I immobilize him on 20, and my ally hits him on 18, then the enemy gets another saving throw, and may get to to move and attack on 15. But if I let my opponent attack him on 18, then I immobilize him on 16, he loses his initiative on 15. In the next round, my ally hits him on 18 again. If the enemy makes his saving throw, I have another chance to immobilize him on 16, before he can act on 15.

[loky1109]

I don't believe that is correct. From the delay section of the SRD:

It was 3.0 part:

Delaying Limits: A character can only voluntarily lower her initiative to –10 minus her initiative bonus. When the initiative count reaches –10 minus a delaying character’s initiative bonus, that character must act or forfeit any action that round
I don't know why this didn't put in the PHB 3.5

[Kish]

I mean, they explicitly put something else there: that if you delay long enough that your initiative count wraps around, you can keep delaying all fight if you want, but you're still only going to have one delayed action and your initiative count will become whatever it is when you finally act.

That said, I think most players would understand that saying they're acting on an initiative count with six digits is asking the DM to throw a book at them.

[loky1109]

I mean, they explicitly put something else there: that if you delay long enough that your initiative count wraps around, you can keep delaying all fight if you want, but you're still only going to have one delayed action and your initiative count will become whatever it is when you finally act.

That said, I think most players would understand that saying they're acting on an initiative count with six digits is asking the DM to throw a book at them.

What should I do if two characters are trying to delay more each other? Whose initiative will be lower?

[Doctor Despair]

What should I do if two characters are trying to delay more each other? Whose initiative will be lower?

Whoever has the lower dexterity modifier, of course

[Tzardok]

That said, I think most players would understand that saying they're acting on an initiative count with six digits is asking the DM to throw a book at them.

The way I've always played it, the number you roll stops mattering as soon as the order of turns is established. People don't say things like "I want to delay to Initiative count 22" or whatever (nobody remembers what creature acts on what count anyway), they say "I want to delay until after the barbarian acts" or "The skeleton acts now? I'd like to take my turn now".

[Kish]

What should I do if two characters are trying to delay more each other? Whose initiative will be lower?
They both sit out the fight. Whichever one's side loses is presumably killed still standing there waiting.

If they're the only combatants, they glare at each other until they realize this isn't working.

[Zombimode]

The way I've always played it, the number you roll stops mattering as soon as the order of turns is established. People don't say things like "I want to delay to Initiative count 22" or whatever (nobody remembers what creature acts on what count anyway), they say "I want to delay until after the barbarian acts" or "The skeleton acts now? I'd like to take my turn now".

Exactly. Initiative is an ordinal number, not a cardinal one.
Initiative 22 is not 5 more (or 5 "faster") then 17. It is just higher then 17, and also higher then 21 and so on.
17 is higher then 1 and also higher then 16.
(17, Ini Mod +5) is higher then (17, Ini Mod +3).
(17, Ini Mod +5, has won the coinflip) is higher then (17, Ini Mod +5, has lost the coinflip).

Once the initial order has been determined, the number looses its meaning and can be discarded.

[Talakeal]

Exactly. Initiative is an ordinal number, not a cardinal one.
Initiative 22 is not 5 more (or 5 "faster") then 17. It is just higher then 17, and also higher then 21 and so on.
17 is higher then 1 and also higher then 16.
(17, Ini Mod +5) is higher then (17, Ini Mod +3).
(17, Ini Mod +5, has won the coinflip) is higher then (17, Ini Mod +5, has lost the coinflip).

Once the initial order has been determined, the number looses its meaning and can be discarded.


The way I've always played it, the number you roll stops mattering as soon as the order of turns is established. People don't say things like "I want to delay to Initiative count 22" or whatever (nobody remembers what creature acts on what count anyway), they say "I want to delay until after the barbarian acts" or "The skeleton acts now? I'd like to take my turn now".

It matters in one important way, it limits the number of times someone can delay without losing a turn.

If delay only changed the sequences, the players could just freely act in any order they like as often as they wanted.*

For example, if Bob acts at 26, Alice acts at 17, and the Monster acts at 15, Bob can only delay until after Alice once without losing a turn, and will then be at 16. At this point, if Alice wants to delay until after Bob, she is going to lose a turn to the monster.**


*Not that I think this is a problem, in my home brew system this is explicitly allowed.
** Discounting ties for the sake of this example.

[Telok]

The way I've always played it, the number you roll stops mattering as soon as the order of turns is established. People don't say things like "I want to delay to Initiative count 22" or whatever (nobody remembers what creature acts on what count anyway), they say "I want to delay until after the barbarian acts" or "The skeleton acts now? I'd like to take my turn now".

Pretty much this. We used to use a magnetic whiteboard with magnet strips that had paper pasted on them. New entrants just showed up at the botom of the count and swapping around was easy.

Wouldn't suggest it for AD&D or systems where you can have other things that take multiple counts within the round to complete.

[Duke of Urrel]

What should I do if two characters are trying to delay more each other? Whose initiative will be lower?


There was a passage in the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK version three – not 3.5, but 3.0 – that explained how to determine a contest between two potential combatants who choose to delay rather than fight. The passage was on page 34. A friendly colleague of the Playground, "Pair o' Dice Lost," shared it with me. Here it is.


Multiple Characters Delaying: If multiple characters are delaying, the one with the highest initiative bonus (or highest Dexterity, in case of a tie) has the advantage. If two or more delaying characters both want to act on the same initiative count, the one with the highest bonus gets to go first. If two or more delaying characters are trying to go after the other, the one with the highest initiative bonus gets to go last.

For instance, Lidda and an elf stranger run across each other in a back alley in a big city. Lidda’s initiative count is 17, higher than the elf’s. She doesn’t want to commit to attacking, fleeing, or parleying, so she delays, intending to act after the elf acts. The elf’s initiative count is 12. He delays, too. The initiative count drops down, and neither character acts. (If there were other characters in the encounter, they would act on their initiative counts.) Finally, the count reaches –17, Lidda’s limit (thanks to her +7 initiative bonus), and the elf still hasn’t acted. Lidda has to choose, and the elf (who apparently has a higher initiative bonus) will get to respond. “Well met,” says Lidda, crossing her fingers.


This passage sets a limit to how far you can delay your turn in competition with somebody else. The rule is that you cannot act on an initiative count lower than zero minus your initiative bonus. (This elf must have had an impressive initiative bonus to beat Lidda's +7 bonus.)

[Darg]

There was a passage in the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK version three – not 3.5, but 3.0 – that explained how to determine a contest between two potential combatants who choose to delay rather than fight. The passage was on page 34. A friendly colleague of the Playground, "Pair o' Dice Lost," shared it with me. Here it is.




This passage sets a limit to how far you can delay your turn in competition with somebody else. The rule is that you cannot act on an initiative count lower than zero minus your initiative bonus. (This elf must have had an impressive initiative bonus to beat Linda's +7 bonus.)

I can understand why that rule was removed. It was just a way for the game to force an action where in real life none would be forced. I mean, you are allowed to just stand around not doing anything as long as you want.

[Khedrac]

Do new enemies join at the top of the order or do they roll normally? If its the later, wouldn't delaying until initiative count 999999999999 be better than acting at initiative 3? If the former, yeah, I can see that.

Which one is RAW? I can't recall, its been too long since I played 3E.
I checked to find the source and it turns out to be both...

Newcomers Are Aware: If any (or all) of the newcomers are aware of one or both of the sides in a battle, they take their actions before anyone else. In effect, they go first in the initiative sequence. Their initiative check result is considered to be 1 higher than the highest initiative check result among the other participants in the encounter. If differentiation is needed for the actions of the newcomers, they act in order of their Dexterity scores, highest to lowest. The reason for this rule is twofold.
• Since they’re aware, but there’s no way to get an action ahead of everyone else (because the encounter has already started), they go first to simulate their advantage. This happens whether the other sides are aware of the new side or not.
• Placing the newcomers at the beginning of the round means that those who had the highest initiative check results prior to their arrival are the first characters to have an opportunity to react to them. This is an important advantage for characters with high places in the initiative order.
Newcomers Not Aware: If any or all of the newcomers are not aware of the other sides when they enter the encounter (for example, the PCs stumble unaware into a fight between two monsters in a dungeon), the newcomers still come into play at the beginning of the round, but they roll initiative normally. If one of the other characters involved in the encounter has a higher initiative check result than one or more of the newcomers, that character can react to those newcomers before they get a chance to act (the newcomers are caught flat-footed).

If more than one new group enters an existing encounter at the same time, you must first decide if they are aware of the encounter. Those that are unaware, “stumbling in,” roll initiative. Those that are aware act first in the round, in the order of their Dexterity scores, even if they are not in the same group.
Note, I would use order of initiative modifer not dexterity modifer to order those joining at the top of the round even though the rules say dexterity.

[loky1109]

I can understand why that rule was removed. It was just a way for the game to force an action where in real life none would be forced. I mean, you are allowed to just stand around not doing anything as long as you want.

It wasn't. If you don't want to action - you still could skip your turn. Point of this rule is you couldn't gain an advantage over somebody with better initiative modifier (if you want to act after foe, you probably want it because you think it'll give you advantage). There are not many ways to gain advantage via acting after in D&D 3.5, but I'm sure there are some cases.

[Ozreth]

That is interesting. The SRD lacks the section that immediately follows character initiative titled "Monster initiative". Maybe that is why most people don't realize it is a rule?

It is at the bottom of page 136 in the 3.5 PHB. If you don't have the book, you should be able to find a free .pdf online to check for yourself.

It reads "Typically the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets one turn each round, and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even individual creatures. For example, the DM might make one initiative check for an evil cleric of Nerull and a separate initiative check for all seven of her zombie guards."



Why is it not as good though?


I've owned the 3.5 PHB for 20 years and today I was flipping through and noticed this rule for the first time and was a little shocked. This essentially makes it side initiative or group initiative or whatever you want to call it. I had to google the wording to see if it had been discussed before and only found two hits of people quoting it. Very surprising.

With that being the case, does player initiative order matter beyond who gets to go first? Even in a scenario where monsters are grouped, why not have the groups of players that go in between the monsters act freely rather than in turn order?

This reading also makes it seem like the "delay" action is simply there to codify the idea of deciding to go after one of your party members when you're all discussing what to do. It ends up the same.

[Crake]

2: Is there anything stopping all of the players who go after the monster's turn from delaying their initiative count to an arbitrarily high initiative count in the second turn? Does this then effectively allow said players to go in any order they like for the rest of the combat?

For example, Bob has an initiative of 7, Alice an initiative of 3. They both delay, and then Bob acts on count 9999999999 in the second round and Alice on Initiative count 99999999998 in the second round. Then on the third round Alice wants to go first, so Bob delays to 99999999997, and so on.


Thanks!

3.5 did away with initiative counts and even the concept of discreet rounds starts and ends.

If you want to have initiative counts and discreet start and ends to rounds, look at 3.0. There, delay can only reduce your initiative count and had a limit of -10-init score (so highest init mod gets to go last if they want), and if you want to come in at the top of the next round, you need to do a refocus action, which sets your initiative to 20+init score, so someone who rolled higher than that will still go before you.

3.5 just threw all that out in favour of cycles. Any time something is being measured in rounds, you just put in an initiative slot for it where it started, but otherwise there is no real distinct “round 1” “round 2” etc.

All that is to say, yes, the players can most certainly shift their initiative around in the first round so they all act together on whoever’s initiative was last, however they cant act interchangeably. You cant move, then wait for your buddy, then act (this can be achieved to a degree with readied actions, but its not as perfect as free acting, since ready is a standard action, you could not act, and then wait, and then move), each character still needs to act out their whole turn before the next character goes.

That said, acting together really isnt that big of an advantage compared to acting first. I think youll find most players just act when their turn comes around

[Ozreth]

That said, acting together really isnt that big of an advantage compared to acting first. I think youll find most players just act when their turn comes around

Other than perhaps they will be more likely to discuss their plan for the "round" rather than acting as individuals. If that's your thing (and your groups thing).