Skip to main content

Reworking initiative

I'm not a huge fan of initiative in D&D. In fact, in the game I run, we use a simplified system that does away with rolling for initiative completely, more on that later. 
In my time, I've been a LARPer, done reenactment combat and martial arts, albeit soft martial arts (taijiquan, baguaquan and hsingyi) and formal sparring rather than full on competition. But in all of those, I can tell you initiative isn't really a thing, there's more a feel of momentum, the tide is running with you or against you, whether that's a massed battle or a spar - and that it can fluctuate, ebb and flow, rapidly.
On a more personal note, it's my feeling that if you have fixed initiative, as we do in D&D, at least a subset of people tend to turn off, then as their turn comes around they start to pay attention again. This leads to the DM having to explain the situation to them at the start of their turn so they can decide what to do. Sometimes that's inevitable, with the D&D initiative order you might have planned your move but the person who goes before you does something spectacular (for example, the hexblade pulls off a critical hit and dumps an Eldritch Smite in there for spectacular amounts of damage, taking out the BBEG so you're suddenly thinking "damn, where are the minions, what can I do to them?" and the DM has to explain your options clearly) and I have no problem with that. But with some players it's every turn. The wizard, why is it always the wizard, does spend the time other players and mobs are taking their turns considering spell options, gets to their next turn and analyses everything. In a fluid fight - say you're a decent level party clearing minions, so the other party members might be taking out 2+ each on their turns, having a few options stacked up makes sense in case this happens or that happens, but not every single spell you've got prepared, please...
All of that aside, I'm not entirely sure why, in D&D, Dex is the god-stat for initiative? It makes sense for a dex based fighter-type, sure (rogues, most rangers, monks). But why not Wis, since initiative is about noticing what goes on around you and being able to understand threats and respond to them - that makes it a perception type thing, no? Why not, if you're a Int-based caster and initiative is a measure of your ability to act aggressively (which is what initiative essentially boils down to) your ability to do fine finger movements? (Wizards can cast with big, dramatic gestures after all, which isn't really a Dex-based thing.) Why isn't it your ability to think clearly? Or, perhaps more pertinently to enunciate well? (Of course this gives the edge to Cha casters.)

Killing the Dex God-Stat

The simplest change I would introduce would be to make each class have their own initiative stat. 
Wizards get Int, Clerics get Wis, Bards get Cha, Monks and Rogues keep Dex and so on. Mostly this is pretty obvious.
A few classes would get a choice. Fighters, and to a lesser extent rangers are the most obvious, you can sensibly build a Str or Dex based version of either, so you get to choose what to take for your initiative stat.

Momentum

I would also introduce a mechanic for momentum. I have a few thoughts for this. 
  • One would be to set the fight up with break points. I recently ran a fight with six eighth level party members against two eleventh level hexblades. Breakpoints? Whenever a hexblade goes down, or whenever a party member is knocked unconscious seem reasonable. 
  • Another would be to simply roll a dice, perhaps a d6 for how many rounds the momentum lasts before it shifts.
  • Finally the most unpredictable one and one that requires additional bookkeeping, but the one that in many ways I favour. Track the number of critical hits and misses by each side, and when they reach a predetermined number, say momentum shifts. I think critical hits should be equal to the number of characters (whether that's PCs or NPCs) on a given side, the number of misses should be twice that number. If you win momentum, by reaching the critical hit target, you get +5 (say) on the next roll, if you lose it (by reaching the miss total) the other side get +5 on the next roll.
In all these cases, whatever the trigger, when momentum shifts, you roll initiative again, and keep going in your new initiative order.

Doing away with rolling

I promised to share what I do. Everyone, players and foes alike, has the option of a Fast Action or a Slow Action. If you take a Fast Action you can either Move or take an Action, you can always take a Bonus Action. If you take a Slow Action, you get all three as normal. Players take their fast actions, then enemies, then players' slow actions, then enemies. 
If you planned a fast action and your target dies, leaving you unable to see an enemy you can convert to a slow action, so you can move and act. 
If you have advantage on your initiative roll from somewhere, you can take a fast action and do move, action and bonus action. Barbarians get this at level seven for example. There may still be reasons NOT to do this - if the party is retreating you might want to go slow so you can go after everyone else but you don't have to.
The benefit of this, from my perspective as a DM, is that the party get to act tactically, and they often pull this off. "I'm going to do this to help them do that." I like that, and we don't have nonsense about shuffling the turn order to get it to work. I also do it back to them when the enemies are smart and/or tactical thinkers. 
The downside? Sometimes spell or feature effects start now and end at the end of your next turn. So if you go first in a fast action this turn and last in a slow action next turn, it lasts a LONG time. But while it does happen occasionally, it is occasionally. If the party mess around like that, I just turn it back on them to remind them not to abuse it. 

Initiative in Fudge D&D

All of this is rather moot in Fudge D&D: although there is sometimes a place for it in determining surprise and how quickly you get to act. But because Fudge D&D went all in on rolling combat, once you're up and running, combat flickers and shifts much more organically.
Honestly, although I'd live with the disappearance of the Dex-only initiative and one of those momentum rules, I think, but given free reign, I'd probably port the rolling combat over, even if we end up keeping classes, levels, d20 and everything else. I love the fluidity and the attention it brings to everyone.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Skill Points, Level 0 and RP aids (like sex aids, but more PG)

I outlined in  this post  that I was leaning towards to a skill points system. Im brief, I outlined the idea that you'd get a fixed number of points + Int modifier for free spend, and then your Initiative modifier for a more restricted spend. Your free spend points can go on skills, tools, vehicles, languages, weapons or spells, your restricted spend ones generally must go on weapons or spells. Your skills, tools, vehicles, weapons and spells (and I guess for completeness it should apply to languages) would have five tiers of skill, giving you a +1 to +5 bonus. Expertise for a few classes (or via feats) would let you extend that, possibly at high as +10, certainly to +7.5 (which would round to +8). A couple of things need to be shaken down fully here. If we have the current 18 skills, and you can get 21 raises, and we say you get 3 points, + Int mod + another mod, that could be 63+30+24+120=237 points to spend on skills, but only 90 points worth. Of course a chunk will be rest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thinking the Unthinkable: Class-free, Level-free D&D?

A disclaimer. I really don't think this will fly.  Not that it's impossible to write such a system for an FRPG, RuneQuest did it, Warhammer kind of did it, GURPS Fantasy (and others) certainly did it. So you can certainly write coherent and successful FRPG systems that don't have character classes and don't have levels.  However, would they be D&D? If you think of D&D, what do you think of? If you're of a certain age, you might think of the satanic panic. Or the cartoon show. But typically you think of a party with a fighter type, a thief type (now reframed as a rogue), a divine caster type and an arcane caster type. If you're a bit less informed you go fighter, thief, cleric and wizard, a bit more informed you might say something like well it could be paladin, monk, druid and sorcerer instead, but you still think of those four roles. If you've played 5e, you might erase the cleric for a bard or a second combat character, and call them by their subcl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Hybrid (soft-hard) Magic in 6e (optional rule)

Brandon Sanderson, a fantasy author and teacher of writing, described two core magic systems in fantasy. The first is a hard system, in which there are clear rules. The characters do x and y is the result. Magic is essentially a kind of science or engineering, even if they don't understand it that way, and it achieves basically predictable results. The second is soft, where magic works in mysterious way and no one (possibly not even the magicians, certainly not everyone else) is entirely sure what's going on to achieve it, nor necessarily quite what the outcome will be. He says some other things too, about what the effect of this in your storytelling, which are quite interesting, but not entirely relevant here. If you'd like to read more, there's a  wiki link .  In broad terms, something like the Dresden Files or most of Sanderson's own stories use Hard Magic because it's predictable while Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones use soft magic because it's mys...
Post a Comment
Read more