I just tried this today for the first time. I went through an entire dungeon that would normally take me 2-3 hours in just 1:20 or so. It was dynamic, it was exciting. My players were thrilled, afraid, confident, apprehensive! It was a roller coaster of emotions as the situations changed between combat and non-combat rather fast. Most fights lasted 3 rounds, boss fight lasted 4 rounds, the paladin went down once but survived. They loved the challenge level, the speed and how realistic it felt. All players came to me individually to tell me how they loved the feeling of team-work and being engaged 100% of the time instead of waiting for their turn. There were minor mistakes when I didn't process ranged attackes first in one fight, but I caught the mistakes in the act and corrected, and everyone understood since this is a new system for us all. The "No Initiative" system is great, improved my game 100%. I don't ever wanna go back.
Thanks, Carlos. That's great to hear. It's not for everybody, but I'm glad it worked for you. Some critics ask why I want to rush through my games. I tel them I don't; I want to play MORE game in less TIME. Enjoy!
@@benvoliothefirst Thanks. Another way to do it is to have everyone declare their moves, THEN roll for initiative, then make all die rolls simultaneously and sort it all out. I may make another initiative video where I compare systems, and I'll mention it.
dude how did you handle movement, at the start of the round? at the end? is it one or the other either you attack or you move? i have some trouble wrapping my head around the movement, what if a goblin tries to reach an archer and attack, but the archer moves away and attacks...does the goblin swing at the air? does he throw a knife? does he reach the archer first and attacks her before she moves? the logical thing the goblin would try is to sprint to at least reach the archer...but that wasn't what he chose to do at the begging of the round, so is it allowed?
@@Firegodot yeah, dungeon craft left so many questions unanswered that I think only newbie DMs are gonna try it out. If you know a thing or two about DnD mechanics or game design you're gonna find dozen of reasons this won't work. My biggest question is how does he resolve the order in which characters make their move. And who does he wanna fool. Because clearly he had some initiative in the video. Some characters go before the others. When he left that unanswered I laughed out loud
I'd like to see an encounter played the "normal" way and then played again using your method see the time difference and then the players opinions on which they found better and more enjoyable. Having the not so identical twins might convert older players over to this system. That would make for an interesting video in my opinion.
I'll think about it Chris. I do something similar in an upcoming video when I compare D&D combat to Runequest combat. So we'll see. Thanks for watching.
Your right. He should put this to the test. I like his idea. (The only one of his ideas I like so far.) But does it work? (Probly not a simple "yes/no.")
Regardless if it changes peoples minds, I would love to see this experiment done. To me this system seems like you can keep around lower cr fights even at higher levels and still have fun, but I do wonder about multi attacks and abilities of that nature.
It's an... interesting concept, but there are too many things potentially going on, and the craziest thing is that it is putting too much dependence on the DM. As well informed as they potentially are, they can't know all the details of what each ability each character has! The responsibility of the skills and abilities should be with the player, and having the -narrator- DM expect to keep all that is unrealistic, at best. What about area-of-effect, de-buffs(like slow or haste!?), bosses with multi-turn supermoves? I just don't see enough yet to be convinced. Initiative, merely by nature, exists because it is a game. A game has order and rules, otherwise it's chaos!😅
He limits the time the players have to plan. This method is guaranteed to be faster. It removes one roll and the time it takes the DM to assign each player and npc a slot.
I tried this with my old group and they hated it, they would barely give it a chance. Then I tried it with a group of new players, and they loved it. As the DM I love it too. Way faster, more dynamic, and fun.
@@MetalloDevasto The way i can think about it is that movement counts as an action like: You can attack and move at the same time as long as you move half of your speed and your attack has a penalty because you are moving Or if you want to move more of your half speed you need to commit your full action to the movement In that regard, you can make the movement as a risk consideration for everyone, including the creatures to defeat like: A goblin decides to move to get closer but in doing so can create a opportunity attack for the figther to strike him *or whatever everyone thinks is more fair*
I for one, prefer any system that doesn't allow the PCs a chance to think "Roll d20, for initiative" just alerts them to the attack before it starts.. vs this, surprise or "initiative score" which all pretty much throw them into immersive combat
So I left a comment earlier voicing my doubts about this system but having run it with my players all of them seem to love it. They dont have to wait 20 minutes to hit something again and arent stuck on the one player who never remembers his spells and doesnt decide what to do until his turn. It creates stressful combat scenarios where everyone has to decide quickly and it makes everything so much more entertaining and we were able to make it through 3 encounters in a single session. That's almost unheard of for us.
+ethandinapoli2643, writes _"[...] and arent stuck on the one player who never remembers his spells and doesnt decide what to do until his turn"_ A simple rule solves that problem, when it's your turn you must immediately state what you're doing (or you do nothing), you've have time while other players are going to figure out what you want to do. The very first person to act in a combat gets a little time.
Im not sure if you've heard of the system called Shadow of the Demon Lord, but it has a very unique way to do initiative. At the start of each turn, each player declares either Fast Turn or Slow Turn. Fast turns go first, but they only get 1 action. Slow turns go after fast turns, but they get two actions (only 1 attack tho). Players always go before monsters and the order in which the players go changes every turn based on who chooses fast turn or slow turn. It adds a lot of strategic thought into initiative that I like a lot. You get questions like "Should I take a fast turn and hit the zombie with my sword or take a slow turn to retreat and reload my weapon". And it allows for better coordination between players so that they can set up cool combos with each other. Its a really neat system with an awesome way to choose initiative that I love that I thought i'd share with everyone
Love it. Modification: The natural result of the attack roll affects the timing of the attack. If the PC rolls a 17 and the moster rolls a 16 and they both hit, the PC's hit lands first. If they happen to kill the monster, the monster's attack will never happen. Except for ranged attacks. Resolve all ranged attacks first to preserve your notion that ranged attacks should happen first (...when at range -- if they are not at range I would reverse this). In fact, you could do this for multiple ranges. You could have a "spear range" whereby if you begin at that range, your attack will go first against a shorter weapon, even with lower initiative... until they close with you.
I run this type of initiative and use “reach” as a weapon property. Ranged weapons and spells go first, then polearms go, then great weapons then 1h or versatile weapons etc. Whatever is logically longer goes first. If they are the same reach whoever’s attack roll is highest hits first. I also stole the First Strike ability from magic the gathering that I apply as a type of magic weapon to denote mythical weapons of speed or haste without breaking the game. I also allow crossbows to be used with either strength or dexterity modifiers. This allows a more realistic tactical application of weapon systems and strategy that my players enjoy.
As an intermediate, you can also use Moldvay's initiative which is that both teams roll one dice for initiative, and everyone on each team goes at the same time. It throws off the "balance" and lets characters get alpha striked and such, but personally I'm pretty damn tired of everything being "balanced" and "fair".
I disagree entirely with your description of dexterity. Regardless of what it means in the real world, in dungeons and dragons dexterity is tied to (quoting from 5e PHB) "any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." It is tied to skills such as acrobatics. Dexterity is far more than being nimbpe with your fingers.
Wonshuan 6 yeah he’s assuming the DEX stat is simply manual dexterity and not combined with overall agility as it is in D&D. Some games have both stats so one can make the distinction but as you point out D&D does not. DEX includes overall agility and coordination too.
@@rodneip7077 I agree that d&d RAW, assumes higher Dex equals, you are faster in combat. An argument can be made, that a higher Str, can also mean I can attack before you, if my muscles are well toned and yours are not. How about a higher Con. You are healthier than me, which allows you to move faster than I can in a fight. I think arguments can be made for Int and Wis as well. I get to attack first because I'm smarter about it, or have better judgment ( Wis ), than my enemy... And how about a higher Cha? I have a more out going personality and I'm better looking than you. So I should be able to attack first... Ok ok. Maybe not Charisma. 👍
@@DarkerDelve sub classes in D&D 5e do exactly what your describing, on the Top of my head theirs a Wizard sub class you can add your INT and for Rogue the Swash buckler sub class you can add your charisma.
Hey people! Tried it in two different tables. It works and does put more strain on the DM. Combat went much faster, was much more engaging and dangerous. However I felt the need for a small change to accomodate with even better results. Everyone declares their action (or bonus action) and roll a d20. If the action required a roll that number is it (e.g attack), if not it is used only for initiative. All results and damages are calculated before we move to the secondary actions and/or bonus actions and remaining movement (with the proper reactions). This was done to keep balance as the proposed method makes spellcasters significantly more powerful and leads to many DM calls. I believe it makes the combat even more realistic and still quite fast. Battles took only a third of the original time with this method and it is actually simpler. "Everyone rolls a d20" now let's see what happened is faster than "you roll an attack, you roll spell damage and so on.
So how did you parse out movement, bonus actions, free actions and reactions. I'm convinced in my soul PDM's method is THE way to go, but, I can I shine the kvetching if I told players "oh everyone gets one move and one action from now on, all those particular action economy brownies you got when you chose that class don't matter now", so would love to learn how you dealt with them.
@@tubebobwil It has worked in our table as such: Everyone declares either an action, a bonus action and where they are moving to. We roll d20s and follow their sequence (having multiple dice helps a lot). If someone has multiple attacks, they roll right after their attacks resolves, and proceed to roll to hit their next attack. If the new roll is equal or higher their current attack and hits, the hit happen immediately. If it is lower, it is placed in order with the remaining d20s. When everyone has taken either an action or a bonus action, they can declare their next action/bonus action for their turn. After everyone is done, a new turn begins. It sounds complicated but we have finished the curse of Strahd, three one shots, three isolated adventures and are currently in a new campaign and no player wants to go back to the previous system. It honestly takes less half the time. I would say a third as I can normally have two combat encounters (with at least five enemies) per 2h online session and still have at least 45min outside combat. I hope it helps! (PS. there are a few other details that do not come up as much.
@@Piper-o4j one declares either an action or bonus action in each half of the turn and it occurs in the order of the rolls. You can move as much as you can before either action (we started dividing movement in two steps, but it made little to no difference). Reactions are very simple, the character rolls their reaction as a soon as the trigger happens and it is resolved according to the roll - it simply enters the d20 stack as another action. About rolling the d20, sometimes your action require then that result is your actual roll, so if an attack hits rolling an 18 on the dice, it mean it happened before another who rolled a 16. But let's say someone uses a magic missile, then no roll would be required, however we need the d20 to decide the order, so only in these cases the dice represents only initiative
A further adjustment that you might do, to make the d20 result be the initiative and the action result, plus speed things a bit more: If you have more than one attack, say Extra Attack, off-hand Bonus Action attack, monk's Flurry Of Blows, etc., the one d20 is the result of all that character's attacks for the round. Compare it to each target's AC individually, if applicable, but you can cut out so much rolling this way and no need to worry about which attack roll applies to which target, because you are using the same roll for all of them. Hitting with all your attacks or missing with all your attacks will balance out over time to how often you'd hit and miss with some attacks, when rolling separately within a round, so mathematically, it doesn't change much. I'd still make a new roll for any triggered Reaction roll, however, because that's a hard limit of once per character per round and it would be too easy to choose when and who to attack with an opportunity attack, if you knew before the trigger allowed the Reaction that you'd rolled well or not.
I took this advice and ran my last session this past sunday with no initiative. Everyone loved it and it worked great. I used a little 2 min sand timer, but ultimately didn't really need it. Thanks!
Yes, yes! This is essentially old-school AD&D combat. It simulates all these actions happening simultaneously. Everyone declares their actions at the beginning of the round before initiative is even rolled. Initiative was only really important in melee if one's blow killed their opponent before the opponent's blow, essentially intercepting the attack. Otherwise, it was a factor in who moves or charges first at the opening of combat. I like the idea of no initiative, because i don't like the style of combat where all combatants are taking turns, which seems more like a turn-based computer game than table top playing. Okay, rant over.
I prefer 2nd edition evolved initiative where everyone's initiative is combined throughout the combat round. A fighter may attack on initiative twice (two weapons) on 9 and again on 12 while the troll attacks 11 with all three attacks. This give the fighter a chance to drop the troll before the troll starts to shred them. Perhaps a mage could retarget their magic missile when they finally finish casting the spell on 10 to drop the troll instead of attacking 2 orcs behind the troll. The only downside is it can be more complicated until one gets used to it, but it is far more realistic and believable.
honestly, it takes a few seconds for something to "die" like, to actually fall down dead, so if 2 people attack it at once, it really wouldn't matter if someone killed it "first"
This approach became vital to my PBEM game. Can you imagine trying to run a traditional initiative style combat when every turn had to be communicated by email and took 2 days to complete? Instead, everyone sent in their intentions and I resolved the next round of combat based on those intentions. Still took 2 days but now it was the entire combat round, not just one player's turn. One interesting thing that evolved from the change was that where players had not discussed combat tactics in advance the intentions submitted often resulted in collisions and conflicts. e.g. two characters trying to attack the same opponent, or in some cases everyone waiting for someone else to do something. This merely increased the tension and fun of the combat encounters. In one encounter the elven wizard was being threatened by a thug and both the human characters decided to be the hero and step forward to save her. One decided to rush the thug and try to attack him, the other decided merely step between the thug and the elf to shield her. They both arrived at the same point at the same time and had to role an agility test to avoid colliding. They failed, they then rolled dexterity to remain on their feet and the charging character failed 'Tripped over their colleague's foot and landed at the feet of the surprised thug dropping their weapon that skittered off between the thug's legs.' That incident got talked about for weeks after the session, but couldn't have happened with an 'I go U Go' system. The player who tripped also became obsessed with their character being clumsy and sank a fortune in boosting its Dexterity.
Must say, this combat system is amazing! After watching this video, maybe 7-8 times, i finally tried it at my table. We raided a heavy combat dungeon (Graud Haug, Storm Kings Thunder) in 3 hours, with RP encounters. Regular play would have been at least 2 sessions! Will be using this from now on 👍
Unless the DM collects action on paper, just having people speak their intent is in itself an iniative because people hear everyone's moves and can plan accordingly in that half second of heads up.
Three Knock Theater Does everyone declare actions before rolling initiative? And what actually happens with those rolled numbers .. please don't say someone writes them down and people figure out the full batting order each time.
Three Knock Theater Oh gawd, oh lordy no. Those init rolls are 100% ephemeral. At our 2e table it goes like this: DM: "what do you do?" Players: "I attack left goblin", "I attack right goblin", "Magic missile x 3 on ogre boi" DM: "OK, the goblins are advancing with scimitars, the ogre is striding forward, maul in hand" DM: "Sounds like a plan .. who will prevail .. roll initiative" Everyone: rolls a d10, but nobody says anything. DM: "Left goblin got a 2m anyone faster than that? No? OK, mage in middle, you take 3 dmg" DM: "init 3? 4? 5?" Mage: me, I got a 5 .. so, my magic missiles will hit on 6 (meaning init count 6) .. 7 dmg DM: "Ogre got a 6" (players know if the ogre hits, the spell cast is disrupted, the tension mounts), "he swings at you .. and his maul slams with a sickening thud ... into the ground! It's a miss" DM: right goblin rolled a 9 .. Player: "yeah, I beat that" "hit, 7 damage " DM: "With a feeble gurgle, still grasping his spear, right goblin falls" DM: DM: "new round, angry lil goblin to the left of ya, dead goblin twitching on the right, ogre in the middle" DM: "What do you do?" The key is to remember that with init every round the numbers are entirely ephemeral, and you only need to know who is up next, and you can do that by simply counting up from 1, or if the participants are few even jumping ahead in the count.
Three Knock Theater IIRC, RAW weapon speed only comes into play to resolve init ties. We house-rule that tie-resolving noise away - simultaneous stuff happens, sometimes both die in a grisly embrace of blood and steel. The most we do is have a -1 init mod for fast weapons (ws .1,2,3), no mod for ws 4,5,6 (many weapons), +1 for 7,8,9 (most polearms), and +2 for ws 10+ (two hand sword, some pole arms). WS is modded by DEX reaction adjustment and by magic pluses .. so both of those numbers only count for 1/3 of an init each, thus not overblowing their impact. Players apply those mods to their d10 init roll.
You left out the best part; it saves time! People aren't spending the first 2-5 minutes of the combat rolling, adding mods, then communicating the info the GM who then needs to record the info on their method of choice. And God forbid somebody wants to "hold their action," now you have to track all of that as well!
This looks like it puts a whooole lot more strain on the DM. Keeping track of what everyone is doing while narrating and forming a plan for each enemy as well as incorporating any potential unique conditions/narrative events is already hard as it is, personally i can't really see myself adding having to interpret 15 different rolls all at once on top of that as well as having to do all those things at once. This might just stem from me being a new DM tho, practice makes perfect i suppose. I also feel like the more chaotic pacing leads to an inability for an individual player to as accurately as possible describe what they want to do and that coupled with humans' tendency for peer pressure might lead to them having a harder time thinking outside the box. Why jump from the balcony onto a chandelier, cut the rope and let it fall down on my enemies when i can just go down the stairs and hit them with my sword like all the other people are doing right now? I can also see this system making it harder to coordinate specific strategies as all the players go at the same time and can't really react to each other on the same round. Not entirely sure how this system would handle held actions either. The eggtimer idea is neat tho, can't believe i never thought of that before.
Nebbus i actually disagree with the lack of creativity i see where it comes from and i think there are some players who can get pulled along. But ive had players where they come up with this insane combo play but it takes 25 minutes to execute because its turn then wait then turn then person not in the combo then turn. Then its can i talk to that person? Well on your turn. Or even worse. You stab the baddie and he roars! Whats he do?! Youll find out on his turn. Its quite clunky in that way. I think both have pros and cons but i think this rewards significantly more creativity. And with dms being over burdened this isnt for every dm. But those who want to its worth it.
"held actions" wouldn't make any sense, imho. Readied actions would either work the same, or would effectively be a normal action, depending on the specific situation. E.G. a readied action when you try to amush someone from behind a corner would be effectively the same and handled as the surprise round example in the video, and a readied shot "if the guy does something" will either trigger or not trigger, resulting in you possibly losing your turn (which works the same way n the base game). I feel this would be really tough on the GM as well, although you can always go slower if it starts getting out of hand. And while there may be 15 rolls happening at once, there's only like 4 mini-encounters (meaning actual two (or a couple) people engaging in combat) going on at any given time, so I think you would narrate the fight starting at one end of the battlefield, describing each of these "clusters of fighters" and what's just happened to them, to the other. Definitely more straining, but doable, and with the benefits of increased speed, action, and realism, it might be worth at certain kinds of tables, imho. However, I have never DM'd before, so take this with a grain of salt.
@@btCharlie_ I designed a game system for my home brew game where we can play using D6s only. It is very different but this system would be perfect for our game. I'm the GM and for me moving pieces would not be to hard, all I have to do really is state an attack, once the round is completed THEN we can fluff it out accurately to what the dice decided and move on. My players prefer a streamlined experience anyway.
Just remember...tabletop gaming is not about "winning" it's about having fun with friends and telling a story, bottom line. If you're playing to "win" you're playing the game wrong.
As an army veteran I agree--your homebrew is much more realistic. As a DM I think it would be a fun experiment for some fights but initiative helps resolve rules in a more efficient way. And by rules I mean tons of them from spell effects to all different weapons and physical characteristics of monsters, horses, obstacles--there's just too much to compute. I agree that dex is arbitrary for initiative--I just did an experiment with 6 Players and 4 henchman/pets on the PC side: I just assigned 10 different static initiatives for the player side and rolled one ten sided die for all my monsters. The PC "order" was based completely on Dexterity! The Level 5 Fighter and Paladin in the Party put a stop to my experiment after one session--with good reason--why would they go towards the end? Just because their dex scores are each 10? They have all the combat exp in the world compared to the other characters. We since went back to rolling regular initiative every few rounds or so.
As a Marine Veteran, his idea is completely unrealistic. Doesn't account for randomness. His assumptions are flawed. Just cause we're trained to fight doesn't mean we're always better than a civlian with no training. I've plenty a soldier get pounded in a bar fight by a coal miner. Never a Marine though... just kidding. Seriously though, that's what the initiative roll is all about, the randomness in life. He also forgets that no one is actually taking turns in DnD, its all happening at the same time in the same 6 seconds.
@Khyber everyone uses the “The turns represent everyone acting in the same 6 seconds at the same time” but it really doesn’t. what happens when a fighter wants to move 30 feet to attack a goblin, but that goblin wants to move 30 feet away from the fighter to attack the cleric? If the fighter rolls higher initiative, then he moves and attacks the goblin even though the goblin shouldn’t still be in that spot if it was truly simultaneous.
I agree--that's why I say Professor DungeonCraft's idea is slightly more realistic. Your example is a perfect example of how opposing initiatives are unrealistic. But I'm still going to use them for the time being because my Players with dex. scores under 17 demand it. lol.
@@Blackwind_Legacy that randomness is represented in the dice rolls. 100 nights where one Marine fights one Coal Miner in a bar, do you think the Marines will win more often on those successive nights? If so, the attack rolls represent that. It's why I decided while I like the idea of a proficiency die vs. a flat proficiency bonus number, I'm already getting the randomness from the attack roll.
My GM's in house rules for combat was the following: No innitiative, but turns would be taken by Ranged, Spellcaster and Melee in that order. The "attacking" party goes first, what party attacks gets determined by a perception check with advantages/disadvantages, or whoever has the surprise factor. PCs can arrange between themselves an order and the master does the same for the NPCs. While you're engaged in combat you do realiza what is going on around you - to a certain degree - at least from round to round. If the enemy's head has been blown off by a magic missile, the warrior is not gonna waste his time attacking a dead enemy, he will take a different action... Attack the nearest live enemy, preparing to block an incoming strike from a charging goblin from behind, etc.
Some things im trying to understand before I go live with this in my game. How do you handle movement? If I target an area with fireball, but then the monster moves out of that area to melee another player...does my fireball just whiff? What is the order of operations if a player says I want to melee attack that goblin, and then my goblins action is running away...How does my player catch up to the goblin....like ever? What if I want to run up and melee a goblin but that goblin wants to run into a gas cloud....I just blindly run into the gas cloud with him? There seems to be a lot of corner cases that completely hurt the system...or there is something im not getting? The only possible things I can think of, is running it like: all ranged attacks and spells happen first...Then all movement happens......then all melee actions happen... I dunno but a bit of clarity would be great... Thanks!
@Baby Seal didnt he say that the ranger would kill the goblin before he got a chance to move though? I like the idea but It could be explained a bit better.
@@kincaid549 He was also going on the theory that if it's a race for what goes first, the attack role was representative of the initiative for action general. The door example where the guys was closing it vs the others charging it, the higher roll conquered. So in combat if the wizard casts a spell and the person runs, whichever one rolls better could go first. He made the point about what would be the point of being a wizard who always had to wait. Wizards prepare spells daily, they use them based on casting times, would make sense that a faster attack could go first.
@@devenhall8785 another great thing is to modify roles you get to use your attack attribute as a bonus. So if a wizard with a 17 int rolls a 12 he actually gets 15 moving him up in the action speed.
Seems like a lot of what he is doing is combining initiative and attack, which has a lot of sense to it. So, you could just roll an initiative die to see when you cast even if that die doesn’t determine the extent to which particular models take damage.
I think what some of you are failing to see is that he's not telling you it's movement then attacks 🙄🙄 if the wizard or whatever other class decides to use a swift action, those swift actions can be used anytime throughout the round. Those free actions? Literally anytime. Don't wait. Use it when you feel like between movement or combat. What he's saying is everything should happen at once instead of one at a time. 1 goblin and 1 fighter are engaged in combat. The goblin moves forward, the fighter uses a swift action to take a 5 foot step then attacks, not giving the goblin the opportunity to strike. It's about a better story than it is about playing a video game with paper, which is where a huge amount of these comments come from are rules lawyers, min maxers, and individuals that see the game as more of numbers. For example, the majority of the comments here are most likely GMs who would already have a bias against the system since they'd need to take time out of the session to teach the players these new rules. If we ignore the timer and just have the events happen all at once this method makes significantly more sense.
I think this system would work well for smaller encounters/fights that you don't want to spend forever on. For more crucial battles, using initiative builds tension, more enthralling for story telling. I think it has its applications, just depends on the players too. Some people live for the combat system, could lose interest without it
As one who has done historical martial arts, I can tell you that "turns" are real in a fight...to a point. Both parties are not always in the offensive at the same time. More often then not one is offensive and the other defensive until a gap i the guard of the attacker is seen and taken advantage of. I think this is what the initiative system does; give the simulation of the attack/defend reality of combat.
That's disingenuous. There's exchanges in fighting... sometimes it's both sides being offensive, sometimes it's one being offensive and one being defensive, sometimes it's both sides being defensive (i.e. standoff or evaluating). It doesn't usually matter who goes a split second before the other (I might rule that a crit lands first, to represent the lucky KO punch seen in hand to hand contests)... if both sides are launching attacks simultaneously, it could leave both sides dead or one dead or neither dead (i.e. determined by the rolls). If one attacks and one defends, what matters is the execution of the maneuver (i.e. determined by the rolls). If neither side is actively doing anything to the other, timing doesn't matter at all.
And that's splitting hairs. The idea of turn based combat is just that; to break down an encounter in a way that allows for a varied and large and complex rule set to be applied in a relatively quick and organized way. A real battle would indeed be chaotic, messy, and terrifying. A roleplaying game's combat system shouldn't be.
Six Guns, how many strikes against your opponent can you score within 6 seconds of a HEMA fight? Like a full, slow count to 6? I would imagine, say if your are both fighting say axe and shield, that it would be a lot more than just one (if I'm way off base, I apologize). Wouldn't you have to break down the fight into much smaller increments to achieve what you are suggesting rules-as-written gives you over PDM's proposed alternative?
This is great! I ditched initiative years ago too for the simultaneous nature of combat but have still been doing "turn order" by just going around the table for keeping order at the table, blah blah nuance. I like requiring all action declarations and rolling dice all at once, that sounds like a good way to remove the need for any turn order.
New DM here. I dislike initiative, so after mentioning the idea of removing it and describing the system demonstrated in this video to a much more experienced DM than me, he pointed out the problem of legendary actions. Removing initiative breaks the legendary actions mechanic. Do you have a solution?
@@Flanker-NineZero I think I might! A couple of disclaimers first though: I am not re-watching this initiative video before replying because I just don't have time right now. Also, even though I think 5e is a great system from an observational standpoint, I haven't actually played D&D since 3.5. I am a hobbyist designer though and feel reasonably well informed on the mechanics of 5e. That being said, I did just read up on the legendary actions mechanic and I think it would continue to work just fine. With no initiative system, you aren't dumping rounds - you just aren't tracking turn order by initiative So, turn order becomes whatever you want, probably the order people are sitting around the table and then all the monsters - or x# of monsters after each player so it's not all at once. However, everyone still gets the same number of turns per round, the order just isn't that important. Legendary actions give monsters an EXTRA action outside their normal actions that they can take after another creature's turn. So, you're fighting a dragon, the round starts. He takes his actions, everyone else starts taking theirs, he interrupts the order to use a legendary action, then the turn order continues. When everyone's taken a turn, the round resets, the monsters start taking their actions, and the dragon gets his legendary actions back for this round. I don't think it would break anything, but, like I said, I don't play 5e so I can't be absolutely sure without some playtesting on my part. If you use it and find some issue with it though, I'd love to hear from you again on what happened! Also, if my answer is nonsense in relation to the video's initiative system, let me know and I'll make some time to actually re-watch it :-D
This may work really well for Pathfinder. The three action economy mixes actions with movement which would make it clear what is going on with when a character is attacking while a monster is moving (for example). Actions that take multiple action points to perform would leave the character stationary for that pass.
This is one aspect I really envy in the One-Roll Engine games. The order by which things are resolved is part of the roll. There are several games based on this system, so there are variances, but I'll try to describe it in general. 1. An appropriate Ability+Skill is used to determine the order of announcing actions. This is similar to the D&D concept of DEX based Initiative, but could also be based on observation or mental skills as the situation demands. 2. Going from slowest to fastest character, every player announces their intended actions. This gives a benefit to having higher "Initiatie" as you have the benefit of "reading" the battlefield, while slower characters get "locked into" their actions. 3. Everyone rolls to determine success and results. ORE uses a set matching mechanic, so success requires finding matching values in the dice you roll. Better abilities give you more dice to roll with higher chances of success. Larger matching sets generally decides more success: faster, stronger, more powerful, etc. 4. Higher success results can preempt lower successes or failures. So a successful attack can be used to stop all opponent's attack. There are a couple other rules around this in various specific games.
It is catching on. I have been in life or death combat and it is scary. You have to fight, intimidate, posture, and even flee. You are definitely not able to think about the long term consequences of your actions, and you act first to BUY time. I love it. Combat is becoming soooo slow and it's also losing the risk factor it once has as you level up. Parasympathetic response is basically earned AFTER combat and maybe before.
I really love the Call of Cthulhu Initiative System. Just note down all your Characters Dexterity and go in order. So you as a keeper know exactly who would go first and between the roleplaying and the action is no pause at all. It's just: "Kevin" what do you do now? And the combat blends in nearly perfectly. The swedish fantasy game "Symbaroum" has more or less the same rules about who goes first. I like how on point and slick this system is.
CoC is great. It makes it easy for Keeper--and who goes first doesn't make much difference anyway. If played correctly, characters should be using their initiative to be the first out the door. You don't need to be able to outrun the Deep Ones--you just need to be able to outrun the character with the lowest Dex....
If I think how much time we lose to play a fight with 5 players "reacting" depending what the player before did... this way is a game changer. Thank you!
1 issue I have with your statement on magic. "why would anyone use magic is a sword is faster", the counter argument to this is "why would anyone pick up a sword if a spell is just as fast"
Not everyone has offensive at-will spells and weapons tend to do more damage than at-will spells. Spell slots are more powerful that weapons, but they are limited per rest. Also, why wouldn't a spell caster...CAST SPELLS.
I have another problem. Namely, that magic is, in the long run, on avg, more powerful than a sword. It isnt just as fast as a sword. It is slower, takes an extra few seconds, but causes explosions, baths of acid, warps reality. Instead of just causing piercing/slashing/bludgeoning. Also, it is dumb to characterize all magic as the same speed. It breaks the balancing element of casting time. I almost think this system would be better if you literally went second by second, each round had six seconds, and you decide what to do in each second, choosing from your action, bonus action, and movement. You could give each of those speeds, ie how many seconds they take, and then use that.
“Why would anyone do something okay instead of something really good?” is not at all the same as “why would anyone do something good instead of something just as good?”
I have thought of a declaration based system earlier, but while it really adds realism, I see several problems with it. A) Whoever declares later clearly has the advantage. This could be solved by having everyone write their declaration down, then show them. B) It puts a lot more strain on the GM. You not only have to track where everyone is at the start of the round, but also where they are in the middle of it. This is because the creatures (including PCs) are moving at the same time, trying to intercept each other. This also gives the possiblity of creatures accidentaly colliding. C) In many cases, you still have to determine the order, in which everything happens. And using To Hit rolls for this does not seem correct to me for two reasons: 1: There are actions that do not have To Hit rolls. Many spells do not have them, as well as using items. This means that for such actions, you will have to roll initiative anyway. (Such as the door example. That was an initiative roll of Ranger vs. Goblins) 2: Even if all actions, whose order has to be determined do use To Hit rolls, using how well someone hits as how soon he does it does not make sense. How well you hit is not the same as how fast. Also, order should be: First, all stationary attacks go off. Hitting and missing determined for melee ones. Second, hitting determined for stationary ranged attacks. Third, order of interceptions determined. This is the hardest step for the GM. He/She has to determine where and in what order any interceptions happen. Let's say goblin 1 wants to attack a wizard, but a fighter wants to attack goblin 1. Goblin 2 wants to attack the fighter. Both fighter and goblin 1 will die from 1 hit. Which will happen first: Will goblin 1 reach the wizard? Will the figher reach goblin 1? Or will goblin 2 reach the fighter? At this point the GM has to factor in the distances, directions and speeds of the three moving creatures and determine it. Fourth, hitting determined for ranged attacks after moving. In such system, all stationary attacks would have a chance to hit, even if the attacker died while making it. Using items and spells would be in the same step as attacking with the same range. Of course, if two actions, that can not both happen, or the order of them happening is particularly important (Ex.: someone being healed and dying, teleporting away and dying, being teleported to multiple locations at once, ...) are to happen in the same step (other than 3), their order still has to be determined with initiative roll. Self-target is considered melee, as is using ranged attacks in point-blank range.
Great critique. I don't think he's really thought it through, or even used it in a large scale DnD 5e campaign. Notice how he rushes through the explanation in a few minutes. So many edge cases, gaps, and even more chances for arguments. HOWEVER, I do like the system as a general idea, but maybe trying to stuff DnD 5e into that box wont really work.
7:51 How did the order of movements and engagements happen, it looks like the fighter got to decide where he moved first, how was that decided? Then 2 Goblins got to decide where they moved next? In this example there is batting order to it. How did the fighter decide he would attack a goblin if there was no goblin there, what if no goblin decided to move there? 7:58 now after seeing this formation an archer is "moving into position" did he decide that before anything happened like you said at 7:47, if so how did he decide he would have line of sight to attack goblin there if he didn't know a goblin would be there? How did the formation in 7:51 go to the one in 8:00 while simultaneous players and NPC knowing what, how and where they would be able to attack things? Correct me if wrong, but this "system" seems to have some fatal holes it needs to sort out.
You are correct. Basically, the DM is kind of mollycoddling combat in the players favour by allowing them to really control who goes where and accommodating them. One of the problems is that this homebrew creation consists of a movement phase, that is what determines where everyone is, and I would guess that the attacks are declared after the movement phase has been resolved. But what just lacks any semblance of realism, beside the 6 goblins just patiently waiting until their next movement phase, is that those six goblins were not even allowed to instantly move up and act since they have been sitting on their hands the entire fight. Instead, they are now waiting like a PC would be and somehow this is seen as realistic or believable? I call BS on this system because it wreaks of DM mollycoddling, favouring the PCs. But to each their own, though this makes PC accomplishments less credible because the DM is tilting the rules to favour the PCs.
@@craigtucker1290 I could see a movement phase and then the action/bonus action/object interaction/reaction phase helping this be somewhat cohesive. But that's not what he said he does, he said they must decide everything first. Then I guess the GM decides what every NPC will do and either secretly records it or just leaves it up the players to trust them. In this example I could see the players deciding they will the attack same 3 targets multiple times between them, and deciding they will move to form a skirmish line, where I guess they take up two tiles each and the ranged characters will stay in the back. But what happens if those 3 pre-chosen enemies don't move right up to exactly where the three specific melee PCs moved to? They just don't do anything I guess, that has to be really lame and boring for the players. In the end it feels more like random luck if you actually get to hit anything. Or, that the GM isn't actually doing what he decided before hand or is deciding after hearing or seeing what the PCs decide their plan is or is just deciding everything on the fly and cheating the system entirely. In the later cases it would just feel like the GM is just deciding if the PCs do well or TPK or anything in-between. The PCs plans only get work well so long as the GM is cheating for them, being very predictable and providing no counter play or they just get randomly very lucky. A melee PC getting to attack anything with this would be a rare event.
@@SpiderWaffle Except his actual example shows a movement phase and then an attack phase despite what he did say. Not that I agree with his method as it really lacks any believability and certainly doesn't seem realistic. I look at his system as requiring a certain degree of DM capitulation or mollycoddling to accommodate player choices. But to be honest, most of his DMing style is by DM fiat rather than relying on the numbers or any established system as well as how he "feels" things should work which is the worst type of DMing out there. I watched his complaints about 2nd edition, alignment, and the murder mysteries he wrote in Dungeon Magazine for that edition and being worried that spells like detect evil or know alignment would reveal the killer, despite that is not how those spells work. He actually stated he never owned a rulebook and so seems unqualified since he really doesn't know how things are supposed to work in game, at all. Even to this day, he doesn't understand alignment by putting out videos that all priest should be lawful because they follow a certain ethos, but that is not what the lawful alignment actually means. But, yes, I agree with you in that it seems like the GM is cheating or mollycoddling in his example to make it work, giving an advantage to the players that they are not due. Furthermore, it seems unbelievable and very unrealistic that the 6 goblins that were not able to act just have to sit there and don't get to act at all, not even take the place of their fallen comrades until next round. This style of lack of initiative also eliminates those saved just in time moments that we all enjoy like an ally striking down a troll before it can land a killing blow on your character or the archer who gets a shot off that disrupts an opposing spellcaster. Instead it is one big combat orgy where all the players could end up wasting several attacks on the same creature that would have gone down after the first successful strike, but magically stayed upright to take several attacks instead.
Overall, this system seems to drain most of the strategy out of combat. Watching this video after reading "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" seems like a step backwards. But to each their own.
@@craigtucker1290 yeah honestly all of this guys video about how to improve gameplay feel like they just strip the fun and RP out of D&D. And the way this guy describes the Wizard vs Fighter. How does it NOT make sense that the wizard casting a spell takes longer then a fighter swinging a sword. Wizards have the KNOWLEDGE of spells but they still have to prepare them. A swordsman (essentially) just has to swing and strike. I could see a sorcerer being much faster at casting a spell because its basically just willpower.
WE JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE WITH MY GROUP BUT NONETHELESS *THANK YOU* FOR BRINGING SOME SANITY TO D&D TH-cam. INIAITIVE IS THE WORST AND MOST BYZANTINE TRADITION I CAN THINK OF IN THE GAME AND WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET TO FINALLY THROW IT IN THE TRASH. BRAVO.
@Dungeon Craft I DID! FELT LIKE A LITTLE MIND MELD ACROSS THE INTERWEBS. I THINK I HAVE ONE IMPROVEMENT WHICH IS WHEN IT'S TIME FOR AN INITIATIVE ORDER THE DM JUST ASKS "WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST?" AND THEN SOMEONE SAYS "ME" AND THEN THEY GO. THAT'S IT. IDK, SOMETIMES U JUST DARE TO DISTURB THE UNIVERSE I GUESS.
I went through your channel and didn’t see a vital video: you using this with a group as well as standard initiative in a combat situation. I want to see it in action, that will allow me to better determine viability. Thanks
I am absolutely trying this out with my own homebrew-hacked D&D game. After fiddling with Mike Mearls "Greyhawk Initiative" and using alternate die (d10, d12), this really seems the most intuitive and "gritty", which is PERFECT for the vibe I'm trying to capture at my table.
I'm getting a game ready for a group of five complete noobs. We have a pretty tight time constraint and I was struggling to design an attractive adventure that fit in roughly two hours. I've been play-testing this system at home, designing the encounters around it and my estimation is that I'm going to be able to cut down combat time by around 60-70%, allowing me to make my adventure much more interesting. For final boss fights I'll stick to traditional initiative but for fights with more than three or four monsters this is by far much better in both time and fun.
Dungeon Craft - I love your approach about doing away w/ initiative. I can see how this makes D&D's abstract combat system far more exciting. It plays less like a tactical war game, and feels more like a real and memorable combat experience. Thanks!
I really REALLY like your initiative system, but my brain is having a hard time processing it. I would really like to implement it in my gaming sessions.
I don't think I'll be shifting to this method anytime soon as my players are too used to the old initiative style, but I do like the way this frantic all fight better resembles the chaos of a melee. If I get a new group at some point I think I will try this but I will let the players narrate their side in the order they choose so they retain agency and a part of telling the story. Imagine a Dice Tower setup like these beautiful towers from Fates End (www.kickstarter.com/projects/kimbolt/fates-end-3d-printable-dice-towers?ref=user_menu) set to roll into a joined dice pool in the center of the players- everyone has their own tower and their own distinct dice, rolled all together in a mess and then the players narrate through how their actions worked out in an order of their choosing, but the catch is if they slow down or stall or pause in their choosing of who goes next, that's when the DM has the monster/ group of monsters act!
Hi, at first, it is writte in wore english, just on the fly translated, a first draft of an idea ... I wanted to introduce my concept, basing on many of your ideas. New Initiative System You have up to now a pool of initiative points. proficient bonus + DEX + WIS. (The INI feat gives you only 3 points) This is a pool of points, can be refreshed every short rest. Basing on the idea, a fight doesn't start with 'roll for initiative' pause, the fight start with a 90seconds orientation and determination phase. everyone has to build his own action chain****, and before the timer ended, everyone has to say short, roughly and quick what he want to do and roll his d20 dice(s)** As higher the result as earlier the chraracter can act. But the dice rolls are not fix. There are three kinds of actions, that can modify the result (only for counting the turn order) quick action - making a check and talk, only talk normal action - make an action (attack, climb, run) and moving afterwards* slowly action - move first and than make the action At this point the most complicated point is coming... mark the dice with a quick tokken or a slow tokken. Not only because of the action type, also because at this point, after rolling, you can invest initiative points, to modify the result (you see your chance-to speak with real inititive view). As higher the result as earlier the chraracter can act, each fast or initiaive point give you a +5 bonus to the turn order result (not to the result of your action) Those with high INI can spend as many points as they want, so they can act really quickly in this turn (but a natural 20 is still first even if someone pimps its value to over 20)
Spending the INI Points is just a short time window, after that the pimped dice resulta can be evaluated. the highest result can start his acting sequence, with his triggers, conditions and terms (that was just a rough attempt) but it can happen that it wouldn't work because of the timing some conditions have changed in that massive way that the plan doesn't work) than he can follow part conditions or in his worse case he can do nothing. That is the dynamic of a fight, every second counts and those how are to slow can't act. Only those how have still initiative points in there pool can use them to change ther action chain, just spend one of the point and you can change something and act (not a full action just a modified, but better than do nothing. Oh.. forgotten... if some have the same results, they wil lhandle both actions at the same time The mechanic with the tokkens makes it a little bit complicate at the beginning, but the benefits are high, dynamic figths - less waiting time, more stressful figths, more dynamic and more tactical options, or more tactic thoughs required. I think if everyone knows about the use of the +5 tokkens and the roll all dices in one area the DM can see ( or one area and everybody knows his colour ;) ) it will work fast. The DM rolls also for his creatures an with there initiative tokkens for the turn order ;) if he needs the initiative tokkens should been game depending, only if he has a plan.... it will hurry up the game if he doesnt use the tokkens. But he can... and in soem situations he should spend massive tokkens ;) It is the first concept... with this rules I will make he first test, it is better to have something written down to have something into hands. Uh.. I need tokkens for the players here hands... *this is the standart action (if everyone knows that first moving will give the -1 penulty) so it shouldn't modified to make the game quick. It is still not realistic, but to catch the high dynamic of a fight into simplfied rules is impossible) ** prof Bonus and weapon etc bonus didn't count for find out the order sequence, it make it to complicate ;) ***magic use needs also a dice, as in one of your other videos... no limit of spellslots, but a dice roll ( 8 + spell level against your casting value (d20 + prof.b. + attribut) - this is not really planned until the end - **** action chain examples: (attack) action + moving action melee attack against orc 1 + holding position (if orc died before attack is done an no alternate target is near by, he can't act ) rushing forward + attacking one in reach enemy range attack against same target as dwarf attacks, find new tactical position (this means he must know the dwarfs target or must wait until the dwarf attacks) running to point x and fire to orc 2 if i get a good line of sight wait until an enemy comes to me and hack'n slay cast fireball to the center of the orcs (in worse case the fireball comes if the orcs are gone or other charaters are in melee with them...)
I've just recently started implementing this system with my group, and I have one question. Do you know how to better manage large numbers of enemies and potential allies in combat? I found this system really easy to implement effectively when I only had to concern myself with a few actions, but when the numbers exceeded 10 or so, it became a lot more difficult for me to manage everything. Is this just something you get better at with experience?
I would start grouping opponents together and giving them the same exact stats. Say, like in this example where the PCs are facing 12+ goblins, either chunk the goblins into big groups like three groups of four and roll 3 times, or even consider just rolling one die for all of them and resolving that way. That way, you are creating way less mental overhead for yourself, and also are keeping play smoothly rolling forward. Additionally, for resolving PC actions, also simplify as much as you can. As I said, give all opponents of the same race/species/class identical stats (same hp, same stat bonuses same attack damage, etc.), unless they're a big bad evil guy or significant to the story and they need different stats. It might be a slight shift away from core 5e mechanics, but you can try using a suggestion from one of PDM's later dungeon craft videos where he suggests adopting the idea of "targets" from RuneHammer's Index Card RPG rules (I highly recommend, and you can even download a free pdf of the quick start rules, which has a large chunk of the GM mechanics available for free. They are very helpful in getting you to think about how you can simplify running your games). Basically, instead of having to fiddle with individual monster ACs, the dungeon room or encounter has one static DC (let's say DC 11). Every opponent's AC and every PC ability check in that encounter space then has the DC of that target number. Non significant enemies of the same type have the same stats so you aren't micromanaging handfuls of statistics. If you want a different AC for allies, I would perhaps suggest just setting a different constant for all allies, that way you don't have to keep track of which ally has which armor class.
I simmed this with my friend today. We are stuck on: where do player actions like disengage and help and dodge come in? Do those supercede the ranged/casting/sword hierarchy? How do you deal with movement outside of charging at each other? If the DM moves in any other ways the player turns fall apart. Couple that with enemies dodging or disengaging and we had strung out not fun encounters following this system. More information is needed. It's very interesting but not workable without significantly altering existing rules.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 hey, thanks for the reply! It seems like disengage makes it difficult to avoid cat and mouse scenarios. What about other player actions, help, dodge, etc? We liked so much about this and discussed it for hours so I'm really looking forward to this new video you mentioned.
@@CoachCNY I don't play with them all. I am a Moldvay B/X guy. I love disengage, though, because it allows both the players and the villains to get away to fight another day.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Interesting--I only have a general idea of Moldvay B/X (the red box right?) and most of my experience with D&D is 5e. Our biggest concern beyond 'Other Actions' was movement. Having the players declare their plan and "lock in" seemed to get thrown into the shredder the instant I, as DM, moved in an unexpected way. I'd like to know more about how you determine movement order and maneuvering. My players in particular are very strategic! I am looking forward to your new video! The initial playtesting was fun, but not cohesive enough to adopt--yet. So, I still have questions, but am grateful you took the time to explain a bit to me, and hope I can learn from the new vid. Thanks again!
I was going to recommend Dungeon World, so I’m glad you took note of it at the end of the video. The problem I have with your method as described here is that the game described here, 5e, and my weekly home game, Pathfinder, is that these systems are made with initiative in mind. I saw one of your comments that said you don’t play with bonus actions, but that’s nearly half of what a character can do in their turn. Bonus actions in 5e practically define what makes your character unique from any other wizard or fighter. In Pathfinder, I’ve often thought about nixing certain mechanics to make things run faster or more smooth, but then there’s a character with a class ability that has exceptions to the standard rule, giving them that edge. I could give numerous examples of this, and in the case of a feat, the players could just not take that feat, but what happens when it’s a class ability? Should I give them a free feat to replace their basically non-functioning move? Traits and a lot of other things come to mind with Pathfinder, too. I, personally, prefer the rules of Dungeon World, but my friends’ don’t care for it as much. I like that, in that game, all players are kept interested in any combat and even in social events because if they don’t, they need to have things explained all over again. I’m not against taking out initiative at all, but you really should play a game that is built around that concept rather than try to change how another is. I do like the idea of having a skirmish like this happening once in a while, but I wouldn’t take action economy away from the players.
The good news is that there's no reason not to include Bonus Actions with simultaneous combat. Rogue wants to Dash? Fine. Wizard moves his Flaming Sphere? Great! Ranger uses an "off-hand" attack? No problem! Monk does a backflip, breaks the necks of two guards, and saves the day? Rote!
I am definitely going to try and adapt the system for my table. One of my biggest frustrations as a DM, and it always results in the players being way more powerful than they should be, is that combat takes so long in standard 5E that I only ever plan one or two combat encounters per adventuring day. if I do anything more than that, the game ends up feeling like it’s 90% combat and 10%, exploration and role-play. This system looks like it could knock a two hour combat encounter down to half an hour at most. That is something that I would absolutely love to put in my game.
I've been coming back to this video for years, absolutely obsessing over this idea. I really love the concept but here's the problem I can't seem to work out in my head--how do the players themselves declare actions vs their opponents declaring actions? What if the players have competing interests? I get that you can make everybody roll off simultaneously, but that's just sorting out the results. Making a declaration of your action is important information that can affect what others do, so how do you get everyone to declare simultaneously without having them write it down every turn? Isn't the order of declaration a type of de facto initiative?
Hi Aaron. So here's the thing--I don't do initiative this way anymore. I have a new video coming (it's on Patreon now--I run about 10 weeks ahead) where I champion the idea of d6 initiative. Re=reading the Basic rules, I think a d6 is the best way. THAT said--I still declare the opponents FIRST. I say, "This dude is charging. This orc is shooting a bow. This shaman is waving his arms like he's casting a spell. Then the players react to that. This forces the players to think about how they deploy themselves. Are they going to double-up on an orc and risk overkilling him, or split up and risk being more vulnerable. If your players over-strategize, use a sand timer. THEN initiative is determined. The NO initiative thing works best when you have 3 players. I've got SEVEN coming over tomorrow. Hope that helps. May all your rolls be 2020s!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Well I'll finally have to sign up for your Patreon then to check it out. I'm working on an RPG system/setting that could almost be called Things I Learned Watching Dungeon Craft, and having a no-initiative system is integral to it. Trying to work out the kinks after a playtest by returning to these videos for inspiration. (It uses cards and centers around dueling if you're curious.)
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Would you perhaps consider editing the video description to indicate that you no longer use this system? Would save future DMs who are earnestly looking for the best methods who could learn from your experience instead of spending time trying it on our own.
OD&D has no initiative system. It’s not in the booklets. It defaults to the CHAINMAIL rules. Dave Arneson did simultaneous resolution. I think that’s the way it works in ept too.
Gygax only included "initiative" (and he disliked that term,) to determine who goes first because everyone at the table declaring actions at the same time was chaos. Per the original rules, everything happened simultaneously, weapons had speeds and spells had casting times to determine when things happened in the round. In current editions of D&D, actions, spells, and movement happens simultaneously and instantaneously in your turn, so to speak, so some sort of initiative order is required to make it work. If you are slow, you pretty much get no chance in combat, or are forced to bat cleanup if there's anything left. Your system brings back the spirit of the original rules.
Hmmm, interesting but rather difficult to apply. The initiative system does add order to an otherwise chaotic table. Then again, I DM for a group of 8. But I'd like to take some of that idea
I love this, it's simple, makes sense and fast. The variables I would add if need is movement and complexity add penalties to the roll. Only if needed however. Greater detail means a slower game. A d20 is measurements of 5% change. A fighter moving 2 inches gets a -2 to their engagement check against the target who's standing there. A spell gets a penalty vs complexity, (Vocal, Semantic, material) To cast a spell. Actions that aren't opposed such as a ranged attack are basically free since the attempt isn't challenged in any way. This can all be added up to action costs. Every movement and action effects the roll. Goblins vs the ranger to the door. The goblins are 2 inches away, the ranger is 3, both roll, goblins at a -3 (Reach the door and pass through or get a door to the face) the ranger at a -5 (3 to get to the door, 1 to grab the door and close it, another to lock it). This gives us an idea of what happens as well. The what if breakdown A tie. Goblins reach the door right as the ranger locks the door. Goblins win +1. Goblins reach the door but it's slammed on them. Failing a reflex means they are knocked down and the Ranger locks the door. Goblins win by +2. The lead goblin reaches the door and fights to keep it open, failing a knock down means the ranger slams the door against the goblins but it may not close all the way. One of the goblins may make it through or is crushed against the door and the frame, possibly crushing it. Next round it's goblins vs the ranger to contest the door. Goblins win by +3. The goblins rush past the door and swarm the defenseless ranger who has a hand on the door, the other on their bow. RIP Ranger.
I'm not worried about Players, I'm worried about amount of work I'd have to put in combat as DM. With initiative I have some time to get ideas, to focus on description of each action. This seems to be barely manageable (but with experience it could get better) and really exhausting (and DMing is exhausting experience even without this kind of improvisation). With this, I would be happy as a player, but as a DM I'd avoid every combat I could because it won't be fun for me. It'd be just work.
That is a personal choice. And it's okay to avoid combat because you don't like it. But if I'd avoid comat because it's exhausting and back-braking, I'd better be playing a different game where I actually can enjoy combat if I want to. And some of my players like combat too - I shouldn't avoid (which I would do if the combat system was repulsive for me).
I really don't care about whether it's realistic. We're talking about a game where skinny guys in robes terrify big burly guys with great swords by wiggling their fingers... Reality went out the window in the first sentence. However, it is a game, and a game has to make a certain amount of sense in order to hold the players' interest. I think this system can accomplish both goals, and in principle I think it moves the game forward in the direction that 5e is already moving... Simplifying for the purpose of giving more game experience within a shorter real life time period. Older versions of D&D each eventually bogged down in rules stacked on rules, and variations stacked on variations. The sheer complexity evolved to try to account for every different idea that players and designers came up with. In the end, it became it's own joke. The idea of a 30 second combat scenario taking over an hour or rolling dice and rules lawyering is a cliche' that persists. The initiative system isn't to blame for this complexity. But holding on to it serves no purpose, if an equally functional system can accomplish the same end faster. The question to me is, does this system offer sufficient mechanical support to account for a nearly infinite set of conditions. At first blush, I think yes. But it puts a greater burden on the relationship of trust between the players and the DM. This system relies heavily on the DM interpreting complex interactions into very simple mechanics. I see a lot of gain to be had here. I also see hurt feelings resulting in not giving it a fair shot in many cases.
I completely agree. The players need to trust the DM and buy in. It relies on the Dm to make wise decisions. I confess I have not always done so. My player Veronica once expressed her displeasure at one of my calls by beaning me in the forehead with a 10-sided die. However, it's all good. That was 20 years ago and she's playing with me next Saturday night! Thanks for the comment!
I would argue that D&D (esp. the 5e) is more reliant in general on a trusted gm. Another Poster on reddit said that pf1e gives rules to grant players something the can do. While 5e takes away the rules to give more freedom. Both approaches are ok as long as everyone talks and improves.
Personally, I think if your players don't trust you as a GM no one on the table is going to have fun regardless. When people aren't receptive to your ideas they tend to become hostile and more often than not try to get in the way of other people on the table to get what they want, because they'll feel that it's a game of taking advantage of people with rules, rather than having fun with a shared story. It's a bit sad to say, but I don't think needing trust should be a problem at all in tabletop games, you've already agreed to waste several hours of your time with your group and you can leave at any time.
@@GreenKnight1294 feel free to go to a game convention or store event and sit at a table of strangers with a GM you have never played with before expecting one set of rules as advertised and then discovering that the GM has switched from D&D to GURPS and expects you to take it without question on trust. For some people this would feel that way. Not everyone games with friends or people they have gamed with for years.
Good video! I'm always looking to ditch away heavy and/or time-consuming rules and mechanics in favor of narrative. This reminds me to the old combat system from World Of Darkness Vampire with the single difference that in that system players would say in inverse order of initiative what their actions would be, that way the more "astute" players would know what less "astute" players would do so they could plan their move but because the actions are declared before anything happens the combat flows rapidly each round, in the new system they ended up using turn by turn like D&D. I personally like to vary combat encounters according to their significance in the story, using the regular system for normal and short encounters (few enemies) and often using the "handling mobs" mechanic from the DM Master Book when there are too many foes.... But also I sometimes use purely narrative combat and/or using a single roll.... Of course it depends mainly on how everyone likes to play but in my group we've been playing for more than a decade and we try to focus much more on the story and role playing that on following strict rules. I red a phrase once in a programming tutorial that I try to apply to many situations: "Always do what feels less awkward" :)
I kind of like the idea from Troika! rpg, the initiative is made by drawing tokens from a bag. There is one token for every combatant and one restart-token, when the restart-token is picked up every token goes back in the bag and a new turn starts. Total chaos, but still very managable because you don't have to keep track of anything. Not for every game or every type of player/DM, but a really smart and fun idea IMO.
I like the idea. Reminds me of this one strat game I saw played where you are in command of a squad, you set what you want them to do and the other team sets what they want to do, then there is an action round where you sit back and see it play out.
I love this video. It makes absolute sense to me. I’ve been doing simultaneous actions forever. I get people to describe their actions, and based on what they do, that determines who goes first. If the archer says, without hesitation, I’ll shoot the nearest goblin - they go first. If a wizard takes a while to decide what spell to cast - they go last (because of hesitation). Between rounds players can strategize a little, but I don’t give them much time for that. The players are supposed to work out their overall strategy outside of combat, like a sports team working out several “plays”; then in combat someone can shout “corbomite maneauver” (or whatever) and the party should know what to do. This is closer to a real battle and it also causes more chaos: I’ve had players actually almost come to blows because one player did the wrong maneuver- I just tell them to keep in character because in the game world the party might be genuinely pissed that one guy put them all at risk. Sometimes it is important to know who hits first, like when someone hits a mage casting a spell. In this case, as you suggested, i use the attack roll to decide who goes first (wizards roll to cast spells - I’ve not used the d&d spell system ever because I hated it from day 1; instead I use a simple mana system. )
Cool in theory, quite a headache in practice. If you're up for heavy homebrewing and changing a bunch of race/class features, monster abilities and spells, definitely go for it. Otherwise, don't even bother trying.
Heck, it'd be a headache just to sort through a bucked of d20 rolls and damage dice all at once. And it's all fine if nobody moves, but what happens to an attack targeting someone who decides to move away from their starting position, out of reach of the attacker? Does the attack or the movement take precedence? Sounds like you'd need some kind of determining factor to decide. How about an initiative roll?
yeah, moving seems like it wouldn't make any sense. it would turn into a big game of arguing who decides what first. You have a fighter saying they are gong to run 30 feet forward to attack the goblin, but then the DM says the goblin is going to run 20 feet backwards. So now knowing they can't reach that goblin, the fighter will say he is actually going to run at the orc instead since this is still in the 1-2 minute window and he said they are free to discuss strategy during that time to make decisions. Since the goblin is no longer going to be threatened, it isn't going to run back after all and just fire an arrow. But now that the goblin isn't going to run backwards, the fighter is going to rush him after all. Oh wait, now that the goblin knows the fighter is going to rush him, he is going to retreat backwards. Now you could say that the players won't have any idea what the enemy characters are going to do but that isn't how it was explained in the first scenario. it was shown who was going to move where and who was going to attack on both sides during the planning phase. Otherwise how would the front line players have known to only move if they didn't know the goblins were going to meet them in the center? What if instead the goblins just split and now the middle player having given the command that they are going to run forward and attack now runs deep into the middle of the goblins getting flanked on all sides. I realize the whole 6 second rounds thing for D&D takes some artistic license, but it at least allows people to make clear choices and even this method is unrealistic because players are still taking 1-2 minutes to orchestrate both their moves while somehow peering into the future to see how the enemy will be moving and collaborate on a plan every 6 seconds.
@@jjbpenguin I think you missed the intended method here. The players say what they are going to do the DM says nothing. Once all of the players actions are locked in then the DM describes what happens as a result. So you would not choose the square that you will engage the enemy but rather if they were already in your range then you declare which one you are going to run up to. If that means you have to run 30 feet then you run 30 feet but if they are moving to you at the same speed then you only move 15 feet and meet them half way. You don't know what the enemy is going to do only what your party is going to do. However I see your other point. It makes it so that the DM knows every action of the players before they decide what the enemy is going to do and could decided to do actions based on that like having them run away from the bigger threats and never engaging the melee characters. Which may be realistic but may not be fun for the players. We like to think every DM is going to be fair and make a fun experience for the players but in a sense they are also a player, and they may "cheat" as a result. About the only things this really addresses is the time it takes to get through a combat encounter (and depending on your group this might only speed things up by a small amount), and it prevents players from changing their action. Such as the druid was going to wild shape and maul one of the goblins but the fighter took a really hard hit on their round so the druid decided to heal the fighter instead. That said though 6 seconds is actually a long time in terms of combat; long enough to make quick changes to what you are going to do.
@@nithia The "DM might cheat" argument isn't an argument at all because the DM is effectively God. Whatever rules you use, they can always overrule/subvert them (as they have complete oversight and control of the situation). Players implicitly put their trust in the DM when playing D&D. If you want to avoid the DM subconsciously acting on what the party are planning then they can leave the room (or wear ear plugs/headphones) and write down what the enemies are doing while the players discuss their turns. I think you can make it work with disciplined players but I suspect they'll usually take longer than the allowed 2mins to agree on their plan of action. Also, this repeats for every successive round of combat, so even if it only takes 2mins extra to resolve things, that's still 4-5mins per round. I think it's a good idea for players to announce in advance what they're doing (to avoid them reacting instead of acting), but if they want their character to change their mind during their turn because they notice something, then you could allow this on a successful perception check.
I like the idea, but not sure it would work that well in 5e, major problems with the DM managing the combat. How would reactions/bonus actions and Monster lair/legendary actions work.
Here's how I'd do it. Bonus actions: An extra declaration on this round. i.e. "I'm going to run in to sneak attack the Goblin then use my bonus action to Disengage back next to the Ranger" Legendary/Lair actions: Still need to be declared but rather than going with everyone else can be triggered at any time in the round.
@@melissamoore7003 I disagree. Since everyone declares what they're doing at the beginning of the round, there's less time spent on one player's turn as they figure out just how they're going to attack the giant. This is in theory, though. I'd be interested to run a "Danger Room" kind of situation with my group to see how it turns out.
There would be extra actions declared...hence Polearm Mastery plus bonus action included would be several attacks declared...anything could be declared as such. Using this, combat needs to evolve
I am currently making up a modernized combat system for an OSR-type home brew (i.e., setting and mechanics) that I will soon run. The academic in me drives me to cite many sources including fantasy literature, historical literature, books about magic and witchcraft, game system books, critiques of fantasy RPGs, and now TH-cam channels. I was just about to define "initiative" as "the order in which players and creatures take turns within a round" when I remembered this video, went back and reviewed it. I love it because one of my goals is to make the flow simple, and I believe that players will be more engaged at the table if they announce what their PCs will do (followed by the DM announcing what the creatures will do) at the beginning of the round. I don't want combat to seem like "doing your taxes" as Hankerin Ferndale/Runequest guy describes it. Thanks again Prof. Dungeon Master! I love your material. The text so far: • Attack (Combat Encounter)-Combat encounters are usually played in “encounter time,” which consists of a sequence of rounds. A “round” is a 10 second time interval during which each PC and monster may choose to do something. (NOTE: Although commonly seen in other fantasy RPGs, there are no “turns” or “initiative” in this game.)19 The typical flow of a combat encounter is as such:... 19 “DungeonCraft #6: No More Initiative,” th-cam.com/video/y_mxYKzEjms/w-d-xo.html, accessed 9 May 2020."
Hi, I'm applying this new system to my D&D 5e desk and the group is enjoying it a lot. The battle becomes more fluid and everyone is more engaged. During the game I had some questions and would like to know how you think they should be resolved. 1st - If a character wants to engage the opponent for a melee attack, but the opponent decides to use his move to distance himself, would the attack happen or would they run after each other? 2nd - Has some class skills that depend on the initiative, for example the Rogue class Assassin archetype has the Assassin ability, in which case his initiative is greater, his attacks are considered critical. Thank you very much in advance.
1) Their initiative rolls determine the order. If the engaging opponent rolls the higher init, he catches the runner and attacks. If the runner rolls higher init, compare movement. If the attacker has higher movement, he'll catch the runner. If the runner has higher movement, they both move their maximum move distance. 2) You're still rolling init, it's just the same roll as the attack. Did he roll higher than his opponent? Critical hit. Did he roll lower? Not critical.
You can tweak the order of resolution a bit by separating movement and attacking, which is more true to a fight. I've never seen someone capable of moving 30' and doing any kind of skillful attack. It's mostly just small repositioning vying for advantage over the opponent. the order would be: Melee (no movement occurs yet) Ranged Movement / utility actions If you're next to an archer trying to shoot you and you are trying to stab them, and you hit them it interrupts their attack. Then ranged attacks that aren't interrupted are resolved. Then you can reposition and engage with a new target etc. This mostly just adds more uniformity and can help clarify some situations.
I find it interesting how the creator of the video is perfectly fine explaining things about the initiative to anyone other than people who bring up bonus actions or reactions. It’s almost as if he didn’t think it through or something and doesn’t have an answer
Also he said that you don't need initiative if you are designing a system from the ground up. But you could make bonus actions a separate phase which comes last like the ranged phase which comes first. Reactions simply fire when they are triggered.
This works amazingly well. For my last three sessions for two different campaigns (1e and 5e), removing initiative has dramatically sped up combat. My players were hesitant at first, but after 6 combat encounters, we won’t roll initiative ever again. Thanks for the video and this channel!
@@bodhixzx because the rolls for how and when should be separated. This is how you determine the details of the fight. Removing it, removes randomness and places the fight in the hands of the DM to figure out how it all went down. Removes player agency and forces DM narrative. Just cause I rolled a higher attack does not mean I hit first. This guy is advocating the DM figures out who goes first based on everyone's chosen actions and puts it together like a puzzle. Where's the player agency. This is seriously, 1 step away from railroading.
@@Blackwind_Legacy Players still chose their targets and how they are attacking. All it changes is the sitting around waiting for your turn. Im not saying this is prefect, but its an interesting idea.
If I recall how we did it 42 years ago, first we sorted out surprise. Range weapons went first. Then combatants engaged simultaneously. Initiative only decided whose attacks would be resolved first (in game time the attacks happened in the same exchange (turn). Most of the time, all players followed what was needed to hit and what bonuses where being added. It was important that we all were SURE we were playing by the same rules. That group process made turn based combat very practical. I don't remember exactly what the 1e rules say about this. I do remember having a few short but detailed discussions about how combat should work. We took the DMs Guide at it's word. The rules were just guidelines... suggestions. We only rolled one initiative for the first combat round. The outcome of races... would be argued based on base movement rates, encumbrances, and other conditions before the initiative roll might be factored in. I repeat, melee combat was simultaneous.
I'm on my 3rd trip through your video archives and I have to say -I really like all of your hacks. I've got a group of inexperienced D&D players who are open to anything. I think I'm going to give this a try next session. I've played a lot of Savage Worlds and FATE, and combat in those systems is less granular, but a lot more exciting. I find I both love and hate D&D combat. as someone who just likes game mechanics as theory, I enjoy how technical it can get. But in practice, any fight that lasts more than 3 rounds quickly becomes tedious. W/the "batting order" initiative of D&D I keep seeing 2 scenarios play out over the 6 combat encounters we have run so far: If the goblins roll high initiative they maul the low-level PCs and some go down before getting to do anything "cool". Or, the goblins roll low and the PCs wipe most of them out in the first round, leaving only one or two left standing, leading to very anti-climactic combats.
That Idea is actually really great. I am a Solo Gamer and this speeds things significantly up. It also builds tension and that's what combat is about. Thank you, Professor for this advice.
Hey, How do you manage movements in your combats ? I mean, if your warrior decides to move toward Enemy 1 and Enemy 1 decides to move toward your Warrior, how do you deal with that ? And how do you deal with a range fighter shooting at a target that decides to move at the same time ? Thanks
Not wanting to be a jerk, yet I think some of your video needs correction. Little Wars is not a good example of war gaming in the 1960's. War gaming during the decade when RPGs and D&D were created used parallel attacks. The idea you are presenting comes from war gaming. Wesely's, Strategos-N used written movement orders thus everyone moved and then anyone in combat range would resolve combat, ranged fire, melee, etc. In Blackmoor, Bob Meyer uses parallel attacks and actions. In OD&D there is no initiative. I've been running OD&D since '77 and I use parallel actions as well. IMHO the use of minis for an RPG is War Gaming, not Traditional Role Playing. I do agree with you, the parallel action style is the best and fastest way to run a game. More people should return to this way of running a game. Griff
WIll cause lots of fighting between players, arguing over whose doing what, etc. Some players will end up being pushed out and/or their contributions being negated.
@@Blackwind_Legacy Kind of agree yet it will also allow for cool combos and will help players form a strategic team instead of a turn based I do what I want and kind of help someone when they are down. It depends on the player's teamwork and team comp, on the ability of the dm to track everything and finally on the type of encounter. Finally I would never try this method without some kind of miniature or token to track every creature. Pd: this system totally and utterly collapses if your players doesn't trust you or if you are starting to ask for their actions and then plan on those actions against them (be a good dm not a douche :D) Also I wouldn't think in removing initiative completely in the sense that after stating their actions some type of dispute of who killed who first is based on Dex and maybe an initiative roll
@@Diego51592 hey, best way to test it out is to try it just remember the other things too, like if you have a 7th level barbarian or Revised Ranger in your group, to supplement those advantage on initiative rolls with something equally powerful and also the reaction, bonus actions, especially things like Polearm Master, they can get either really OP or really useless
@@cyanic3148 I've been thinking about this subject and I believe that maybe a good choice is to give that player a bonus of +2 or more in their initiative bonus. And the bonus now being your proficiency (makes sense) +Dex or Wis(again makes sense)+any bonus from homebrew race or classes like Barb. Now this bonus isn't for any roll and is just for a contest like this scenario: I want to chop an assassin's head before he can kill it's target. So now is a contest of who lands their hit first and I would say the one that didn't moved at all won but what if none moved or both moved. Then the one with the higher initiative bonus wins(or maybe make a roll but combat would become even slower then but leaves room for epic rolling scenarios still I would try with no roll at first).
Dexterity includes your reflexes. But that said like the system used in Cortex. Where the person currently moving gets to pick who goes next. The last person to act gets to pick who moves first in the next round. But I like your system too.
Wow, I absolutely love this. I already used a pretty different system for initiative where the different teams go as a group in one big turn where anyone can use their actions and movement in whatever order they see fit. This works really well in my experience, and it made me realize how little individual initiative actually contributes to the game. I don't think whatever potential benefits it might offer outweigh how much easier and more fun it is to just have everyone go at the same time. It feels more cooperative as well. It's not one person's turn while everyone else sits and waits, it's everyone's turn at once, and you can coordinate to do some cool stuff because of that. It goes way faster too. This takes it a step further. The system I use is already halfway to removing initiative entirely, so I've been of the opinion that that it's not really necessary for a while now. I'd love to actually try this out and see how it goes.
I like the idea of something in between. Such as the system in 'Shadow Of The Demon Lord', or a couple others, which state that PCs always go before the monsters excepting a few cases. Some state that a PC will go after the monsters if he chooses to both Move And Attack, instead of just Attack. Or, perhaps, they're divided into groups with a Ranged->Magic->Melee order of resolution, similar to yours but divided into three sub-rounds/turns. Definitely room for hybrid experimentation.
Initiative and turn based combat may be longer but its a great way to show who's attack goes off first. We can hybrid your approach here and simply go like this. At the start of the encounter everyone rolls initiative. Ok cool what does everyone want to do. Quickly have players decide what they want to do as per your method (60s to 2m depending on group size). ok cool everyone does their rolls and the attacks go off in the order of initiative. do this every round to spice things up. Just because the fighter is skilled at combat scenarios doesn't mean the rogue can't one up him in movement. After all the rogue could be better suited for the environment and noticing hazards and potential ambushes far sooner than the fighter. Letting players roll initiative every round will also make for those nice moments where the ranger might just barely snipe a goblin that almost got to him, rather than "well the ranger hit with his bow so the goblin's roll is irrelevant cause range goes first over melee" You get those tense moments where lets say the ranger rolled a 15 and the goblin rolled a 14. The ranger just barely got the shot off and killed him before tasting the goblin's wicked blade. I dunno, I might try this hybrid approach at my table one time. see how it goes.
Heroquest and Tunnels and Trolls abstract combat to such a degree that there is no need for initiative. My private heartbreaker has a rule to only roll initiative when you need to find out what happened before what. But I like your idea that all hits land by default.
Timely Questions: Dear Profession Dungeon Master, I am running an adventure this Saturday with a bunch of Old Skool friend. That is, we've been playing since 70s/80s, and have also been playing 5e. So, I told them I am going to play this "Getting rid of Initiative" thing. I warned them. Now, I am concerned cause I have a couple questions for you. 1) You mentioned that if a Character-Foo kills Monster-Bar (damaged them to death) then there is no point tracking the damage that Monster-Bar does that turn. Maybe I misunderstood? Do we track the damage Monster-Bar did to the character, and then assume that the Prismatic Spray or whatever killed them right afterward? 2) New scenario, about movement. So, what do you do to handle each character and player and monster essentially tracking and listening to the other people and adjusting? That is, Person-A "I'm moving here". Monster-1 "Okay, I'm moving here too", Person-B "I'm moving here", Monster-2 "I'm now moving away from Person-B". ... both of my questions here are essentially how to deal with synchronicity and simultaneity issues. The artificiality of initiative and taking turns handles this and yes, it is weird. But, how do you handle the cases I mention?
If foo and bar attack each other, they will normally both do damage even if bar dies. The exception is that if foo kills bar with a ranged attack before bar gets close, then foo is undamaged. For your second question, have each combatant express what they're doing in terms of their goal, not in terms of a specific square. So if Monster 1 is charging Person A, that's what happens regardless of whether A moves to the bridge or to the door. If B is chasing monster 2 while monster 2 runs, their relative checks will determine whether B catches up and gets in an attack or not.
Played D&d since 1983. Since then I separated dexterity and agility into two separate attributes. Now I'm doing away with initiative too. Thanks for the help!
I did this. Gnome Chompsky, the Orc scholar. There is no ethical consumption under feudalism, therefore there is no concern to unethically consuming sentient creatures such as gnomes. He was writing his dissertation while adventuring/eating gnomes
I did something similar in my mounted game. Since everyone was mounted the idea that you stop what you are doing to let goblins do their thing was especially bad. Most players got it, but some players were still trying to get some advantage on the idea that everyone stops while it is your turn. I still kept initiative as an organizer of people's actions, but I might do this next time.
There is no initiative system in original Dungeons & Dragons as published in 1974, nor did the Twin Cities gamers use an initiative roll when they played. Folks could of course borrow the d6 roll to see who goes first in the turn based version of the CHAINMAIL rules, but only if they happened to have those rules and only if they happened to think of it. Since the D&D booklets give no guidance on the subject, simultaneous initiative was often assumed by early players. The d6 based initiative system was first introduced to the game by Gygax in a Strategic Review article (D&D FAQ) in 1975.
I've implemented this in my Pathfinder campaign. We've only run two sessions using this system so I don't have a final conclusion. Here are the first few notes / experiences. The players, being players, didn't like the idea at first. The best argument against was from the Dexterity based players (Rogue and Ranger.) They felt they were losing some of their advantage. I was able to appease them by noting that they probably got a free feat (Improved Initiative is no longer useful and I allowed them to switch it.) I also talked about the times they wait five minutes for their turn only to miss and then face another five to ten minute wait. They eventually agreed to try it because they trust me. It's taken some "work" mostly because we've all been gaming for a long time and everyone's used to waiting their turn. What stands out in my mind is that when players decide what they want to do and the clock is still ticking they begin to shake the dice in their hands or dice cups. It adds tension and really makes the other players pick up the pace. I think it will get difficult when everyone starts getting multiple attacks. We'll have to wait and see. All in all, I like it so far. Keep up the great work, Professor
If you run games which don't make use of many of the system's rules that might be fine, but with a party that enjoys using every mechanic aviable (bonus actions and responses in 5E, rapid actions and immediate actions, or readying an action in PF, for example) this falls totally apart. Many already mentioned that your definition of dexterity is very narrow, but what left me quite perplexed is the idea that a skilled fighter should go into tunnel vision; while the effect of adrenaline grants you tunnel vision, a weathered warrior would rely more on their muscle memory and training than on the adrenaline flowing. I don't mean that they would have a 360° perfect perception of the situation, but when you do a lot of teamwork you always keep an eye out for the others... so I don't think your justification is very valid. I agree that the initiative system could use some updates, or better, some measure of redesign, but the current mode (d20+dex+modifiers) gives an order and grants each player or npc the same amount of actions, so it's easier to make everything flow. The order, also, is not completely fixed, since you can remand your action for a later moment in the game, switching your position until you remand it again or another unit does too and in my games this happens quite often. In conclusion, if it works and it is not broken, you should not throw it away.
I do hope you realize this video was only giving a vague outline of the system and was not intended specifically for 5e, so he trimmed most system exclusive terminology and actions in order to make it more inclusive and easier to translate to other RPG systems, honestly figuring out how readied actions and bonus actions would work using this system isn't even that hard, just treat them as they have always been, and let the player use them whenever applicable. Personally I play pathfinder and I can say without a doubt this seamlessly translated into my game and did nothing besides improve it, making combat both more tactical and quicker to go through, though I cannot speak for a player of 5e. Don't knock it till you try it.
@@Yuni-is-Schrodingers-Fox this system removes 90% of the tactical movement and use of time, replacing it with an (quite arbitrary, if I may say) priority order of depletion of actions. This makes many of the finest "fighter-like" feats useless, like step-up, combat patrol, makes martial flexibility a less reactive ability, hindering the brawler for no given reason; many grit/panache features become "meh" and overall dexterity becomes a less relevant ability score. This also makes casters stronger than they really need to be, since they will almost always be able to "step away and cast", which is supposed to be the main way for a combatant to overpower (or try to) a caster. If you are used to BSF Frontline this system this doesn't actually change much to the game, I admit, but BSF is not a fun way to play a martial character in combat.
@@Kladrin I disagree wholeheartedly, I honestly have no idea where you even got half of these ideas from. You can still ready an action, interplice movement with attacks (though that is a house rule I added in, not sure how that works with vanilla) etc. And the priority order, while I disagree with magic being as fast a sword (since magic is typically stronger than a sword so it should be slower as well to make up for it) the listing makes sense, yes, ths Archers would get to go before the Knight, the knife throwing rogue would probably get his attack off before the goblin finishes swinging his spear, so it's not completely arbitrary, though I agree it does have some problems. As for the rest of your arguments, they're so left field with so little explanation behind them I really have no idea how to begin to argue against them. Ultimately all I can say is that it works for my table, maybe it wouldn't work as well for yours for any number of reasons.
This is perfect, it puts a sense of urgency on the players when needed for larger groups. I think with a boss of sorts I'd do initiative style but I will rock this on my next DM and record it hopefully to see how it goes.
What if the rogue used their Dex, the wizard used their Int, and the fighter used their Str for initiative modifiers. Or, if the person stabbing/slashing/crushing used Str, the person shooting/throwing/sneaking used Dex, and the person finger wiggling/praying/singing used their spell-casting stat (Int, Wis, Cha)?
In AD&D 1st ed they used reach to determine the first round and weapon speed in following turns. Spell casting could last over turns depending on the number of segments the spell took to cast. More complex but it made sense. Twilight 2000 had one of the more interesting systems. Actions were effected by a stat called coolness. If there are 10 action phases ever round the character with lowest cool rating gets the option of going first and the cool stat deters how many action phases you to skip so if you had a cool of 2 you could act in 8/10 phases. Actions can take multiple phases. Since it is a modern combat game auto fire allows you to continue firing as long as you not moving just hosing down the targets until you run out of ammo.
I never saw a game session that used segments or weapons speed. I could never figure out how that worked with initiative. Nor why a PC with a weapon speed of 5 or less couldn't make multiple attacks each round (other than rulebook fiat).
Oh my god... this is brilliant, I'm going to try this out at my next session, of course letting my players know before game begins, and then collect their opinions at the end of the game. I need to grab an egg timer before game starts so I can do that
i tried my own variation and the players really enjoyed it. i wish you went into more scenarios because i ended up having to make both sides roll a d20 each round to determine who went first. So each round had a new order for the sole purpose of determining which sides attack effects applied first (example below). I also allowed both sides (if they went second in the order) to know the result of the other sides move before it was applied so that they could choose to use something like dodge, or, just keep their attack What you described in the video sounds like ranged and magic ALWAYS goes first. Sounds to me like thats a static batting order for the entirety of the campaign. Also there were just too many scenarios where it was vital to know who actually gets to “go first”. For example, if a Monk is 1v1 a baddie and the Monk wants to use stunning strike then i need to know if the stunning strike hit before the enemy got his hit off or not. If the monk and baddie both hit their attacks, and the attacks have effects that would negate the others turn, then whose effect goes into play?
Good questions. Both the baddie and Monk's attacks would work. The monk would take damage and the baddie would be stunned the next round. As for ranged spells--yeah, they pretty much go first BUT in my games the wizard has to roll to cast a spell, so it's not automatic.
Dungeon Craft thanks for the reply. I really did enjoy this from a DM perspective. we dont have the spellcasters rolling to hit so i think i will let range, melee, and magic not requiring material components to go first. Then magic with material components to go next (higher damage and more effective spells seems to require material components more often). Is there a reason you let range to always go first? Nocking an arrow seems like it would take longer than swinging sword (theres also air traveling time of missiles) Also, in regards to movement, how would you rule a scenario where both sides are trying to counter the others movements? example: The monk wants to run around and get to the mage in the back-line but the enemies, seeing this, move the fighter to block the Monks path. This scenario requires an order because the Monk player wouldnt have moved his monk that way if the enemy was just gonna block him.
@@joe2125 More great questions. Range weapons go first IF they are loaded. I allow this because I'm an archer and an arrow can move at the same speed as a .22 bullet. If someone with a crossbow has the drop on you, it's faster for them to pull a trigger than you to swing a sword. As for your second question, the monk makes his move, not realizing the fighter is reading his body language and if moving to block. The two meet in the CENTER of the board. I'm actually going to make an entire video about this soon (won't air until 2020 though). BTW: the 100th episode of this channel airs tomorrow at 6pm Eastern time. I'll speak a little about movement there.
Great job! You've rediscovered the old FGU Swordbearer combat system without the greater realism of their damage and armor defense. Next to go is the irrational and overly abstracted (if not wrong) Armor Class notion.
@thereisnochoiceleft i concur with this statement. If not for buffing Wisdom which needs more love, then for nerfing Dexterity which controls your attack bonus for finesse weapons (which, if you're a DEX build, you should be using), ranged weapons, Initiative, AND AC!!! Basically in 5e, if you don't have a decent DEX you're going to be sorely lacking in a number of ways
07:12 for those who want to skip to a description of how his no initiative system works.
thank you dude
Thanks
@@baldrodinson3380 Thanks! upvote!
@@David-we3sb Thank you for the thanks lol
The mvp here
I just tried this today for the first time. I went through an entire dungeon that would normally take me 2-3 hours in just 1:20 or so. It was dynamic, it was exciting. My players were thrilled, afraid, confident, apprehensive! It was a roller coaster of emotions as the situations changed between combat and non-combat rather fast. Most fights lasted 3 rounds, boss fight lasted 4 rounds, the paladin went down once but survived. They loved the challenge level, the speed and how realistic it felt. All players came to me individually to tell me how they loved the feeling of team-work and being engaged 100% of the time instead of waiting for their turn. There were minor mistakes when I didn't process ranged attackes first in one fight, but I caught the mistakes in the act and corrected, and everyone understood since this is a new system for us all.
The "No Initiative" system is great, improved my game 100%. I don't ever wanna go back.
Thanks, Carlos. That's great to hear. It's not for everybody, but I'm glad it worked for you. Some critics ask why I want to rush through my games. I tel them I don't; I want to play MORE game in less TIME. Enjoy!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 As a player AND DM who has watched the phones come out/dice being stacked the INSTANT a player's turn is over, I wholeheartedly agree.
@@benvoliothefirst Thanks. Another way to do it is to have everyone declare their moves, THEN roll for initiative, then make all die rolls simultaneously and sort it all out. I may make another initiative video where I compare systems, and I'll mention it.
dude how did you handle movement, at the start of the round? at the end? is it one or the other either you attack or you move? i have some trouble wrapping my head around the movement, what if a goblin tries to reach an archer and attack, but the archer moves away and attacks...does the goblin swing at the air? does he throw a knife? does he reach the archer first and attacks her before she moves? the logical thing the goblin would try is to sprint to at least reach the archer...but that wasn't what he chose to do at the begging of the round, so is it allowed?
@@Firegodot yeah, dungeon craft left so many questions unanswered that I think only newbie DMs are gonna try it out. If you know a thing or two about DnD mechanics or game design you're gonna find dozen of reasons this won't work. My biggest question is how does he resolve the order in which characters make their move. And who does he wanna fool. Because clearly he had some initiative in the video. Some characters go before the others. When he left that unanswered I laughed out loud
I'd like to see an encounter played the "normal" way and then played again using your method see the time difference and then the players opinions on which they found better and more enjoyable. Having the not so identical twins might convert older players over to this system. That would make for an interesting video in my opinion.
I'll think about it Chris. I do something similar in an upcoming video when I compare D&D combat to Runequest combat. So we'll see. Thanks for watching.
Your right. He should put this to the test.
I like his idea. (The only one of his ideas I like so far.) But does it work?
(Probly not a simple "yes/no.")
Regardless if it changes peoples minds, I would love to see this experiment done. To me this system seems like you can keep around lower cr fights even at higher levels and still have fun, but I do wonder about multi attacks and abilities of that nature.
It's an... interesting concept, but there are too many things potentially going on, and the craziest thing is that it is putting too much dependence on the DM. As well informed as they potentially are, they can't know all the details of what each ability each character has! The responsibility of the skills and abilities should be with the player, and having the -narrator- DM expect to keep all that is unrealistic, at best.
What about area-of-effect, de-buffs(like slow or haste!?), bosses with multi-turn supermoves? I just don't see enough yet to be convinced.
Initiative, merely by nature, exists because it is a game. A game has order and rules, otherwise it's chaos!😅
He limits the time the players have to plan. This method is guaranteed to be faster. It removes one roll and the time it takes the DM to assign each player and npc a slot.
I tried this with my old group and they hated it, they would barely give it a chance. Then I tried it with a group of new players, and they loved it. As the DM I love it too. Way faster, more dynamic, and fun.
That’s the best things about new players-no preconceptions.
How do you handle movement?
Because in the video shows token moved without a specific rule or turn order.
@@MetalloDevasto The way i can think about it is that movement counts as an action like:
You can attack and move at the same time as long as you move half of your speed and your attack has a penalty because you are moving
Or if you want to move more of your half speed you need to commit your full action to the movement
In that regard, you can make the movement as a risk consideration for everyone, including the creatures to defeat like:
A goblin decides to move to get closer but in doing so can create a opportunity attack for the figther to strike him *or whatever everyone thinks is more fair*
I for one, prefer any system that doesn't allow the PCs a chance to think "Roll d20, for initiative" just alerts them to the attack before it starts.. vs this, surprise or "initiative score" which all pretty much throw them into immersive combat
This looks fun. Might have to try this!
Love it. It reminds me of football; both sides plan their "plays", then the "snap" happens and you resolve the results of those competing plans.
So I left a comment earlier voicing my doubts about this system but having run it with my players all of them seem to love it.
They dont have to wait 20 minutes to hit something again and arent stuck on the one player who never remembers his spells and doesnt decide what to do until his turn.
It creates stressful combat scenarios where everyone has to decide quickly and it makes everything so much more entertaining and we were able to make it through 3 encounters in a single session. That's almost unheard of for us.
Glad it worked out. I also like the Index Card RPG system and will be discussing it next week. Cheers!
this is what my group is looking for
+ethandinapoli2643, writes _"[...] and arent stuck on the one player who never remembers his spells and doesnt decide what to do until his turn"_
A simple rule solves that problem, when it's your turn you must immediately state what you're doing (or you do nothing), you've have time while other players are going to figure out what you want to do. The very first person to act in a combat gets a little time.
Due to the subject matter I thought "Gnome Chomsky" and that gave me a giggle.
In Pathfinder 1e, Gnomes have an alternative racial trait called Magical Linguist. lol
Lol
Im not sure if you've heard of the system called Shadow of the Demon Lord, but it has a very unique way to do initiative. At the start of each turn, each player declares either Fast Turn or Slow Turn. Fast turns go first, but they only get 1 action. Slow turns go after fast turns, but they get two actions (only 1 attack tho). Players always go before monsters and the order in which the players go changes every turn based on who chooses fast turn or slow turn. It adds a lot of strategic thought into initiative that I like a lot. You get questions like "Should I take a fast turn and hit the zombie with my sword or take a slow turn to retreat and reload my weapon". And it allows for better coordination between players so that they can set up cool combos with each other. Its a really neat system with an awesome way to choose initiative that I love that I thought i'd share with everyone
Love it.
Modification: The natural result of the attack roll affects the timing of the attack. If the PC rolls a 17 and the moster rolls a 16 and they both hit, the PC's hit lands first. If they happen to kill the monster, the monster's attack will never happen. Except for ranged attacks. Resolve all ranged attacks first to preserve your notion that ranged attacks should happen first (...when at range -- if they are not at range I would reverse this). In fact, you could do this for multiple ranges. You could have a "spear range" whereby if you begin at that range, your attack will go first against a shorter weapon, even with lower initiative... until they close with you.
I think I may have incorrectly assumed this was how it worked in from watching the video, lol. I like it.
I run this type of initiative and use “reach” as a weapon property.
Ranged weapons and spells go first, then polearms go, then great weapons then 1h or versatile weapons etc. Whatever is logically longer goes first.
If they are the same reach whoever’s attack roll is highest hits first.
I also stole the First Strike ability from magic the gathering that I apply as a type of magic weapon to denote mythical weapons of speed or haste without breaking the game.
I also allow crossbows to be used with either strength or dexterity modifiers.
This allows a more realistic tactical application of weapon systems and strategy that my players enjoy.
As an intermediate, you can also use Moldvay's initiative which is that both teams roll one dice for initiative, and everyone on each team goes at the same time. It throws off the "balance" and lets characters get alpha striked and such, but personally I'm pretty damn tired of everything being "balanced" and "fair".
It mostly helps with REALLY speeding the game up
I disagree entirely with your description of dexterity. Regardless of what it means in the real world, in dungeons and dragons dexterity is tied to (quoting from 5e PHB) "any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." It is tied to skills such as acrobatics. Dexterity is far more than being nimbpe with your fingers.
Wonshuan 6 yeah he’s assuming the DEX stat is simply manual dexterity and not combined with overall agility as it is in D&D. Some games have both stats so one can make the distinction but as you point out D&D does not. DEX includes overall agility and coordination too.
I was going to say this. I think the idea is interesting, but also see the reason for initiative rolls.
According to his explanation two gunmen facing each other in a duel, the reflexes to reach for their guns doesn't matter!!
@@rodneip7077 I agree that d&d RAW, assumes higher Dex equals, you are faster in combat. An argument can be made, that a higher Str, can also mean I can attack before you, if my muscles are well toned and yours are not. How about a higher Con. You are healthier than me, which allows you to move faster than I can in a fight. I think arguments can be made for Int and Wis as well. I get to attack first because I'm smarter about it, or have better judgment ( Wis ), than my enemy... And how about a higher Cha? I have a more out going personality and I'm better looking than you. So I should be able to attack first... Ok ok. Maybe not Charisma. 👍
@@DarkerDelve sub classes in D&D 5e do exactly what your describing, on the Top of my head theirs a Wizard sub class you can add your INT and for Rogue the Swash buckler sub class you can add your charisma.
Hey people! Tried it in two different tables. It works and does put more strain on the DM. Combat went much faster, was much more engaging and dangerous. However I felt the need for a small change to accomodate with even better results. Everyone declares their action (or bonus action) and roll a d20. If the action required a roll that number is it (e.g attack), if not it is used only for initiative. All results and damages are calculated before we move to the secondary actions and/or bonus actions and remaining movement (with the proper reactions). This was done to keep balance as the proposed method makes spellcasters significantly more powerful and leads to many DM calls. I believe it makes the combat even more realistic and still quite fast. Battles took only a third of the original time with this method and it is actually simpler. "Everyone rolls a d20" now let's see what happened is faster than "you roll an attack, you roll spell damage and so on.
So how did you parse out movement, bonus actions, free actions and reactions. I'm convinced in my soul PDM's method is THE way to go, but, I can I shine the kvetching if I told players "oh everyone gets one move and one action from now on, all those particular action economy brownies you got when you chose that class don't matter now", so would love to learn how you dealt with them.
@@tubebobwil It has worked in our table as such: Everyone declares either an action, a bonus action and where they are moving to. We roll d20s and follow their sequence (having multiple dice helps a lot). If someone has multiple attacks, they roll right after their attacks resolves, and proceed to roll to hit their next attack. If the new roll is equal or higher their current attack and hits, the hit happen immediately. If it is lower, it is placed in order with the remaining d20s. When everyone has taken either an action or a bonus action, they can declare their next action/bonus action for their turn. After everyone is done, a new turn begins. It sounds complicated but we have finished the curse of Strahd, three one shots, three isolated adventures and are currently in a new campaign and no player wants to go back to the previous system. It honestly takes less half the time. I would say a third as I can normally have two combat encounters (with at least five enemies) per 2h online session and still have at least 45min outside combat. I hope it helps! (PS. there are a few other details that do not come up as much.
@@Piper-o4j one declares either an action or bonus action in each half of the turn and it occurs in the order of the rolls. You can move as much as you can before either action (we started dividing movement in two steps, but it made little to no difference). Reactions are very simple, the character rolls their reaction as a soon as the trigger happens and it is resolved according to the roll - it simply enters the d20 stack as another action. About rolling the d20, sometimes your action require then that result is your actual roll, so if an attack hits rolling an 18 on the dice, it mean it happened before another who rolled a 16. But let's say someone uses a magic missile, then no roll would be required, however we need the d20 to decide the order, so only in these cases the dice represents only initiative
A further adjustment that you might do, to make the d20 result be the initiative and the action result, plus speed things a bit more:
If you have more than one attack, say Extra Attack, off-hand Bonus Action attack, monk's Flurry Of Blows, etc., the one d20 is the result of all that character's attacks for the round. Compare it to each target's AC individually, if applicable, but you can cut out so much rolling this way and no need to worry about which attack roll applies to which target, because you are using the same roll for all of them.
Hitting with all your attacks or missing with all your attacks will balance out over time to how often you'd hit and miss with some attacks, when rolling separately within a round, so mathematically, it doesn't change much. I'd still make a new roll for any triggered Reaction roll, however, because that's a hard limit of once per character per round and it would be too easy to choose when and who to attack with an opportunity attack, if you knew before the trigger allowed the Reaction that you'd rolled well or not.
I took this advice and ran my last session this past sunday with no initiative. Everyone loved it and it worked great. I used a little 2 min sand timer, but ultimately didn't really need it. Thanks!
Yes, yes! This is essentially old-school AD&D combat. It simulates all these actions happening simultaneously. Everyone declares their actions at the beginning of the round before initiative is even rolled. Initiative was only really important in melee if one's blow killed their opponent before the opponent's blow, essentially intercepting the attack. Otherwise, it was a factor in who moves or charges first at the opening of combat. I like the idea of no initiative, because i don't like the style of combat where all combatants are taking turns, which seems more like a turn-based computer game than table top playing. Okay, rant over.
I prefer 2nd edition evolved initiative where everyone's initiative is combined throughout the combat round. A fighter may attack on initiative twice (two weapons) on 9 and again on 12 while the troll attacks 11 with all three attacks. This give the fighter a chance to drop the troll before the troll starts to shred them. Perhaps a mage could retarget their magic missile when they finally finish casting the spell on 10 to drop the troll instead of attacking 2 orcs behind the troll.
The only downside is it can be more complicated until one gets used to it, but it is far more realistic and believable.
honestly, it takes a few seconds for something to "die" like, to actually fall down dead, so if 2 people attack it at once, it really wouldn't matter if someone killed it "first"
This approach became vital to my PBEM game. Can you imagine trying to run a traditional initiative style combat when every turn had to be communicated by email and took 2 days to complete?
Instead, everyone sent in their intentions and I resolved the next round of combat based on those intentions. Still took 2 days but now it was the entire combat round, not just one player's turn.
One interesting thing that evolved from the change was that where players had not discussed combat tactics in advance the intentions submitted often resulted in collisions and conflicts. e.g. two characters trying to attack the same opponent, or in some cases everyone waiting for someone else to do something. This merely increased the tension and fun of the combat encounters. In one encounter the elven wizard was being threatened by a thug and both the human characters decided to be the hero and step forward to save her. One decided to rush the thug and try to attack him, the other decided merely step between the thug and the elf to shield her. They both arrived at the same point at the same time and had to role an agility test to avoid colliding. They failed, they then rolled dexterity to remain on their feet and the charging character failed 'Tripped over their colleague's foot and landed at the feet of the surprised thug dropping their weapon that skittered off between the thug's legs.' That incident got talked about for weeks after the session, but couldn't have happened with an 'I go U Go' system. The player who tripped also became obsessed with their character being clumsy and sank a fortune in boosting its Dexterity.
Must say, this combat system is amazing!
After watching this video, maybe 7-8 times, i finally tried it at my table. We raided a heavy combat dungeon (Graud Haug, Storm Kings Thunder) in 3 hours, with RP encounters. Regular play would have been at least 2 sessions!
Will be using this from now on 👍
Unless the DM collects action on paper, just having people speak their intent is in itself an iniative because people hear everyone's moves and can plan accordingly in that half second of heads up.
Yes but they do that anyway with initiative. It just cuts 12 minutes out of every encounter. It's a massive help.
Stephen Cross 12 minutes??
Three Knock Theater Does everyone declare actions before rolling initiative? And what actually happens with those rolled numbers .. please don't say someone writes them down and people figure out the full batting order each time.
Three Knock Theater Oh gawd, oh lordy no. Those init rolls are 100% ephemeral. At our 2e table it goes like this:
DM: "what do you do?"
Players: "I attack left goblin", "I attack right goblin", "Magic missile x 3 on ogre boi"
DM: "OK, the goblins are advancing with scimitars, the ogre is striding forward, maul in hand"
DM: "Sounds like a plan .. who will prevail .. roll initiative"
Everyone: rolls a d10, but nobody says anything.
DM: "Left goblin got a 2m anyone faster than that? No? OK, mage in middle, you take 3 dmg"
DM: "init 3? 4? 5?"
Mage: me, I got a 5 .. so, my magic missiles will hit on 6 (meaning init count 6) .. 7 dmg
DM: "Ogre got a 6" (players know if the ogre hits, the spell cast is disrupted, the tension mounts), "he swings at you .. and his maul slams with a sickening thud ... into the ground! It's a miss"
DM: right goblin rolled a 9 ..
Player: "yeah, I beat that" "hit, 7 damage "
DM: "With a feeble gurgle, still grasping his spear, right goblin falls"
DM:
DM: "new round, angry lil goblin to the left of ya, dead goblin twitching on the right, ogre in the middle"
DM: "What do you do?"
The key is to remember that with init every round the numbers are entirely ephemeral, and you only need to know who is up next, and you can do that by simply counting up from 1, or if the participants are few even jumping ahead in the count.
Three Knock Theater IIRC, RAW weapon speed only comes into play to resolve init ties. We house-rule that tie-resolving noise away - simultaneous stuff happens, sometimes both die in a grisly embrace of blood and steel.
The most we do is have a -1 init mod for fast weapons (ws .1,2,3), no mod for ws 4,5,6 (many weapons), +1 for 7,8,9 (most polearms), and +2 for ws 10+ (two hand sword, some pole arms). WS is modded by DEX reaction adjustment and by magic pluses .. so both of those numbers only count for 1/3 of an init each, thus not overblowing their impact. Players apply those mods to their d10 init roll.
You left out the best part; it saves time! People aren't spending the first 2-5 minutes of the combat rolling, adding mods, then communicating the info the GM who then needs to record the info on their method of choice. And God forbid somebody wants to "hold their action," now you have to track all of that as well!
Yep. I watched CR the other night. Nearly 2 minutes was spent determining who was to go first.
This is still such a good video,
no matter how often I watch it,
it _never_ gets old 🤘
This looks like it puts a whooole lot more strain on the DM. Keeping track of what everyone is doing while narrating and forming a plan for each enemy as well as incorporating any potential unique conditions/narrative events is already hard as it is, personally i can't really see myself adding having to interpret 15 different rolls all at once on top of that as well as having to do all those things at once. This might just stem from me being a new DM tho, practice makes perfect i suppose.
I also feel like the more chaotic pacing leads to an inability for an individual player to as accurately as possible describe what they want to do and that coupled with humans' tendency for peer pressure might lead to them having a harder time thinking outside the box. Why jump from the balcony onto a chandelier, cut the rope and let it fall down on my enemies when i can just go down the stairs and hit them with my sword like all the other people are doing right now? I can also see this system making it harder to coordinate specific strategies as all the players go at the same time and can't really react to each other on the same round. Not entirely sure how this system would handle held actions either.
The eggtimer idea is neat tho, can't believe i never thought of that before.
Nebbus i actually disagree with the lack of creativity i see where it comes from and i think there are some players who can get pulled along. But ive had players where they come up with this insane combo play but it takes 25 minutes to execute because its turn then wait then turn then person not in the combo then turn. Then its can i talk to that person? Well on your turn. Or even worse. You stab the baddie and he roars! Whats he do?! Youll find out on his turn. Its quite clunky in that way. I think both have pros and cons but i think this rewards significantly more creativity. And with dms being over burdened this isnt for every dm. But those who want to its worth it.
"held actions" wouldn't make any sense, imho. Readied actions would either work the same, or would effectively be a normal action, depending on the specific situation. E.G. a readied action when you try to amush someone from behind a corner would be effectively the same and handled as the surprise round example in the video, and a readied shot "if the guy does something" will either trigger or not trigger, resulting in you possibly losing your turn (which works the same way n the base game).
I feel this would be really tough on the GM as well, although you can always go slower if it starts getting out of hand. And while there may be 15 rolls happening at once, there's only like 4 mini-encounters (meaning actual two (or a couple) people engaging in combat) going on at any given time, so I think you would narrate the fight starting at one end of the battlefield, describing each of these "clusters of fighters" and what's just happened to them, to the other. Definitely more straining, but doable, and with the benefits of increased speed, action, and realism, it might be worth at certain kinds of tables, imho.
However, I have never DM'd before, so take this with a grain of salt.
@@btCharlie_ I designed a game system for my home brew game where we can play using D6s only. It is very different but this system would be perfect for our game. I'm the GM and for me moving pieces would not be to hard, all I have to do really is state an attack, once the round is completed THEN we can fluff it out accurately to what the dice decided and move on. My players prefer a streamlined experience anyway.
Speaking as a DM, this is super easy to adjudicate. People say, I am doing X then roll. I just don't see the problem.
Just remember...tabletop gaming is not about "winning" it's about having fun with friends and telling a story, bottom line. If you're playing to "win" you're playing the game wrong.
As an army veteran I agree--your homebrew is much more realistic. As a DM I think it would be a fun experiment for some fights but initiative helps resolve rules in a more efficient way. And by rules I mean tons of them from spell effects to all different weapons and physical characteristics of monsters, horses, obstacles--there's just too much to compute. I agree that dex is arbitrary for initiative--I just did an experiment with 6 Players and 4 henchman/pets on the PC side: I just assigned 10 different static initiatives for the player side and rolled one ten sided die for all my monsters. The PC "order" was based completely on Dexterity! The Level 5 Fighter and Paladin in the Party put a stop to my experiment after one session--with good reason--why would they go towards the end? Just because their dex scores are each 10? They have all the combat exp in the world compared to the other characters. We since went back to rolling regular initiative every few rounds or so.
As a Marine Veteran, his idea is completely unrealistic. Doesn't account for randomness. His assumptions are flawed. Just cause we're trained to fight doesn't mean we're always better than a civlian with no training. I've plenty a soldier get pounded in a bar fight by a coal miner. Never a Marine though... just kidding. Seriously though, that's what the initiative roll is all about, the randomness in life. He also forgets that no one is actually taking turns in DnD, its all happening at the same time in the same 6 seconds.
@Khyber everyone uses the “The turns represent everyone acting in the same 6 seconds at the same time” but it really doesn’t. what happens when a fighter wants to move 30 feet to attack a goblin, but that goblin wants to move 30 feet away from the fighter to attack the cleric? If the fighter rolls higher initiative, then he moves and attacks the goblin even though the goblin shouldn’t still be in that spot if it was truly simultaneous.
I agree--that's why I say Professor DungeonCraft's idea is slightly more realistic. Your example is a perfect example of how opposing initiatives are unrealistic. But I'm still going to use them for the time being because my Players with dex. scores under 17 demand it. lol.
@@Blackwind_Legacy that randomness is represented in the dice rolls. 100 nights where one Marine fights one Coal Miner in a bar, do you think the Marines will win more often on those successive nights? If so, the attack rolls represent that. It's why I decided while I like the idea of a proficiency die vs. a flat proficiency bonus number, I'm already getting the randomness from the attack roll.
My GM's in house rules for combat was the following:
No innitiative, but turns would be taken by Ranged, Spellcaster and Melee in that order. The "attacking" party goes first, what party attacks gets determined by a perception check with advantages/disadvantages, or whoever has the surprise factor. PCs can arrange between themselves an order and the master does the same for the NPCs.
While you're engaged in combat you do realiza what is going on around you - to a certain degree - at least from round to round. If the enemy's head has been blown off by a magic missile, the warrior is not gonna waste his time attacking a dead enemy, he will take a different action... Attack the nearest live enemy, preparing to block an incoming strike from a charging goblin from behind, etc.
That's pretty close to Moldvay Basic D&D from 1981.
Some things im trying to understand before I go live with this in my game. How do you handle movement? If I target an area with fireball, but then the monster moves out of that area to melee another player...does my fireball just whiff? What is the order of operations if a player says I want to melee attack that goblin, and then my goblins action is running away...How does my player catch up to the goblin....like ever?
What if I want to run up and melee a goblin but that goblin wants to run into a gas cloud....I just blindly run into the gas cloud with him? There seems to be a lot of corner cases that completely hurt the system...or there is something im not getting?
The only possible things I can think of, is running it like: all ranged attacks and spells happen first...Then all movement happens......then all melee actions happen... I dunno but a bit of clarity would be great... Thanks!
@Baby Seal didnt he say that the ranger would kill the goblin before he got a chance to move though? I like the idea but It could be explained a bit better.
@@kincaid549 He was also going on the theory that if it's a race for what goes first, the attack role was representative of the initiative for action general. The door example where the guys was closing it vs the others charging it, the higher roll conquered.
So in combat if the wizard casts a spell and the person runs, whichever one rolls better could go first. He made the point about what would be the point of being a wizard who always had to wait. Wizards prepare spells daily, they use them based on casting times, would make sense that a faster attack could go first.
@@devenhall8785 another great thing is to modify roles you get to use your attack attribute as a bonus. So if a wizard with a 17 int rolls a 12 he actually gets 15 moving him up in the action speed.
@@devenhall8785 what about save spells
Seems like a lot of what he is doing is combining initiative and attack, which has a lot of sense to it. So, you could just roll an initiative die to see when you cast even if that die doesn’t determine the extent to which particular models take damage.
I think what some of you are failing to see is that he's not telling you it's movement then attacks 🙄🙄 if the wizard or whatever other class decides to use a swift action, those swift actions can be used anytime throughout the round. Those free actions? Literally anytime. Don't wait. Use it when you feel like between movement or combat. What he's saying is everything should happen at once instead of one at a time. 1 goblin and 1 fighter are engaged in combat. The goblin moves forward, the fighter uses a swift action to take a 5 foot step then attacks, not giving the goblin the opportunity to strike.
It's about a better story than it is about playing a video game with paper, which is where a huge amount of these comments come from are rules lawyers, min maxers, and individuals that see the game as more of numbers. For example, the majority of the comments here are most likely GMs who would already have a bias against the system since they'd need to take time out of the session to teach the players these new rules.
If we ignore the timer and just have the events happen all at once this method makes significantly more sense.
Well said, Issa.
i think it just needs to be explained better
I think this system would work well for smaller encounters/fights that you don't want to spend forever on. For more crucial battles, using initiative builds tension, more enthralling for story telling. I think it has its applications, just depends on the players too. Some people live for the combat system, could lose interest without it
Thanks for watching, Deven! Whatever works for your group is what you should use.
As one who has done historical martial arts, I can tell you that "turns" are real in a fight...to a point. Both parties are not always in the offensive at the same time. More often then not one is offensive and the other defensive until a gap i the guard of the attacker is seen and taken advantage of. I think this is what the initiative system does; give the simulation of the attack/defend reality of combat.
That's disingenuous. There's exchanges in fighting... sometimes it's both sides being offensive, sometimes it's one being offensive and one being defensive, sometimes it's both sides being defensive (i.e. standoff or evaluating).
It doesn't usually matter who goes a split second before the other (I might rule that a crit lands first, to represent the lucky KO punch seen in hand to hand contests)... if both sides are launching attacks simultaneously, it could leave both sides dead or one dead or neither dead (i.e. determined by the rolls). If one attacks and one defends, what matters is the execution of the maneuver (i.e. determined by the rolls). If neither side is actively doing anything to the other, timing doesn't matter at all.
And that's splitting hairs. The idea of turn based combat is just that; to break down an encounter in a way that allows for a varied and large and complex rule set to be applied in a relatively quick and organized way.
A real battle would indeed be chaotic, messy, and terrifying.
A roleplaying game's combat system shouldn't be.
Six Guns, how many strikes against your opponent can you score within 6 seconds of a HEMA fight? Like a full, slow count to 6? I would imagine, say if your are both fighting say axe and shield, that it would be a lot more than just one (if I'm way off base, I apologize). Wouldn't you have to break down the fight into much smaller increments to achieve what you are suggesting rules-as-written gives you over PDM's proposed alternative?
This is great! I ditched initiative years ago too for the simultaneous nature of combat but have still been doing "turn order" by just going around the table for keeping order at the table, blah blah nuance. I like requiring all action declarations and rolling dice all at once, that sounds like a good way to remove the need for any turn order.
New DM here. I dislike initiative, so after mentioning the idea of removing it and describing the system demonstrated in this video to a much more experienced DM than me, he pointed out the problem of legendary actions. Removing initiative breaks the legendary actions mechanic. Do you have a solution?
@@Flanker-NineZero I think I might! A couple of disclaimers first though: I am not re-watching this initiative video before replying because I just don't have time right now. Also, even though I think 5e is a great system from an observational standpoint, I haven't actually played D&D since 3.5. I am a hobbyist designer though and feel reasonably well informed on the mechanics of 5e.
That being said, I did just read up on the legendary actions mechanic and I think it would continue to work just fine. With no initiative system, you aren't dumping rounds - you just aren't tracking turn order by initiative So, turn order becomes whatever you want, probably the order people are sitting around the table and then all the monsters - or x# of monsters after each player so it's not all at once.
However, everyone still gets the same number of turns per round, the order just isn't that important. Legendary actions give monsters an EXTRA action outside their normal actions that they can take after another creature's turn. So, you're fighting a dragon, the round starts. He takes his actions, everyone else starts taking theirs, he interrupts the order to use a legendary action, then the turn order continues. When everyone's taken a turn, the round resets, the monsters start taking their actions, and the dragon gets his legendary actions back for this round.
I don't think it would break anything, but, like I said, I don't play 5e so I can't be absolutely sure without some playtesting on my part. If you use it and find some issue with it though, I'd love to hear from you again on what happened!
Also, if my answer is nonsense in relation to the video's initiative system, let me know and I'll make some time to actually re-watch it :-D
This may work really well for Pathfinder. The three action economy mixes actions with movement which would make it clear what is going on with when a character is attacking while a monster is moving (for example). Actions that take multiple action points to perform would leave the character stationary for that pass.
This is one aspect I really envy in the One-Roll Engine games. The order by which things are resolved is part of the roll. There are several games based on this system, so there are variances, but I'll try to describe it in general.
1. An appropriate Ability+Skill is used to determine the order of announcing actions. This is similar to the D&D concept of DEX based Initiative, but could also be based on observation or mental skills as the situation demands.
2. Going from slowest to fastest character, every player announces their intended actions. This gives a benefit to having higher "Initiatie" as you have the benefit of "reading" the battlefield, while slower characters get "locked into" their actions.
3. Everyone rolls to determine success and results. ORE uses a set matching mechanic, so success requires finding matching values in the dice you roll. Better abilities give you more dice to roll with higher chances of success. Larger matching sets generally decides more success: faster, stronger, more powerful, etc.
4. Higher success results can preempt lower successes or failures. So a successful attack can be used to stop all opponent's attack. There are a couple other rules around this in various specific games.
It is catching on. I have been in life or death combat and it is scary. You have to fight, intimidate, posture, and even flee. You are definitely not able to think about the long term consequences of your actions, and you act first to BUY time. I love it. Combat is becoming soooo slow and it's also losing the risk factor it once has as you level up. Parasympathetic response is basically earned AFTER combat and maybe before.
I really love the Call of Cthulhu Initiative System. Just note down all your Characters Dexterity and go in order. So you as a keeper know exactly who would go first and between the roleplaying and the action is no pause at all. It's just: "Kevin" what do you do now? And the combat blends in nearly perfectly. The swedish fantasy game "Symbaroum" has more or less the same rules about who goes first. I like how on point and slick this system is.
CoC is great. It makes it easy for Keeper--and who goes first doesn't make much difference anyway. If played correctly, characters should be using their initiative to be the first out the door. You don't need to be able to outrun the Deep Ones--you just need to be able to outrun the character with the lowest Dex....
If I think how much time we lose to play a fight with 5 players "reacting" depending what the player before did... this way is a game changer. Thank you!
1 issue I have with your statement on magic. "why would anyone use magic is a sword is faster", the counter argument to this is "why would anyone pick up a sword if a spell is just as fast"
Not everyone has offensive at-will spells and weapons tend to do more damage than at-will spells. Spell slots are more powerful that weapons, but they are limited per rest. Also, why wouldn't a spell caster...CAST SPELLS.
I have another problem. Namely, that magic is, in the long run, on avg, more powerful than a sword. It isnt just as fast as a sword. It is slower, takes an extra few seconds, but causes explosions, baths of acid, warps reality. Instead of just causing piercing/slashing/bludgeoning. Also, it is dumb to characterize all magic as the same speed. It breaks the balancing element of casting time. I almost think this system would be better if you literally went second by second, each round had six seconds, and you decide what to do in each second, choosing from your action, bonus action, and movement. You could give each of those speeds, ie how many seconds they take, and then use that.
daemonblade1229 GURPS
See Professor DM's magic video for the answer: th-cam.com/video/RV_RwUFETdI/w-d-xo.html
Hint: the answer is MISCASTS, MWA-HA-HA!
“Why would anyone do something okay instead of something really good?” is not at all the same as “why would anyone do something good instead of something just as good?”
I have thought of a declaration based system earlier, but while it really adds realism, I see several problems with it.
A) Whoever declares later clearly has the advantage. This could be solved by having everyone write their declaration down, then show them.
B) It puts a lot more strain on the GM. You not only have to track where everyone is at the start of the round, but also where they are in the middle of it. This is because the creatures (including PCs) are moving at the same time, trying to intercept each other. This also gives the possiblity of creatures accidentaly colliding.
C) In many cases, you still have to determine the order, in which everything happens. And using To Hit rolls for this does not seem correct to me for two reasons:
1: There are actions that do not have To Hit rolls. Many spells do not have them, as well as using items. This means that for such actions, you will have to roll initiative anyway. (Such as the door example. That was an initiative roll of Ranger vs. Goblins)
2: Even if all actions, whose order has to be determined do use To Hit rolls, using how well someone hits as how soon he does it does not make sense. How well you hit is not the same as how fast.
Also, order should be:
First, all stationary attacks go off. Hitting and missing determined for melee ones.
Second, hitting determined for stationary ranged attacks.
Third, order of interceptions determined. This is the hardest step for the GM. He/She has to determine where and in what order any interceptions happen.
Let's say goblin 1 wants to attack a wizard, but a fighter wants to attack goblin 1. Goblin 2 wants to attack the fighter. Both fighter and goblin 1 will die from 1 hit.
Which will happen first: Will goblin 1 reach the wizard? Will the figher reach goblin 1? Or will goblin 2 reach the fighter? At this point the GM has to factor in the distances, directions and speeds of the three moving creatures and determine it.
Fourth, hitting determined for ranged attacks after moving.
In such system, all stationary attacks would have a chance to hit, even if the attacker died while making it. Using items and spells would be in the same step as attacking with the same range. Of course, if two actions, that can not both happen, or the order of them happening is particularly important (Ex.: someone being healed and dying, teleporting away and dying, being teleported to multiple locations at once, ...) are to happen in the same step (other than 3), their order still has to be determined with initiative roll.
Self-target is considered melee, as is using ranged attacks in point-blank range.
Great critique. I don't think he's really thought it through, or even used it in a large scale DnD 5e campaign. Notice how he rushes through the explanation in a few minutes. So many edge cases, gaps, and even more chances for arguments. HOWEVER, I do like the system as a general idea, but maybe trying to stuff DnD 5e into that box wont really work.
7:51 How did the order of movements and engagements happen, it looks like the fighter got to decide where he moved first, how was that decided? Then 2 Goblins got to decide where they moved next? In this example there is batting order to it. How did the fighter decide he would attack a goblin if there was no goblin there, what if no goblin decided to move there? 7:58 now after seeing this formation an archer is "moving into position" did he decide that before anything happened like you said at 7:47, if so how did he decide he would have line of sight to attack goblin there if he didn't know a goblin would be there? How did the formation in 7:51 go to the one in 8:00 while simultaneous players and NPC knowing what, how and where they would be able to attack things? Correct me if wrong, but this "system" seems to have some fatal holes it needs to sort out.
You are correct. Basically, the DM is kind of mollycoddling combat in the players favour by allowing them to really control who goes where and accommodating them.
One of the problems is that this homebrew creation consists of a movement phase, that is what determines where everyone is, and I would guess that the attacks are declared after the movement phase has been resolved. But what just lacks any semblance of realism, beside the 6 goblins just patiently waiting until their next movement phase, is that those six goblins were not even allowed to instantly move up and act since they have been sitting on their hands the entire fight. Instead, they are now waiting like a PC would be and somehow this is seen as realistic or believable?
I call BS on this system because it wreaks of DM mollycoddling, favouring the PCs. But to each their own, though this makes PC accomplishments less credible because the DM is tilting the rules to favour the PCs.
@@craigtucker1290 I could see a movement phase and then the action/bonus action/object interaction/reaction phase helping this be somewhat cohesive. But that's not what he said he does, he said they must decide everything first. Then I guess the GM decides what every NPC will do and either secretly records it or just leaves it up the players to trust them. In this example I could see the players deciding they will the attack same 3 targets multiple times between them, and deciding they will move to form a skirmish line, where I guess they take up two tiles each and the ranged characters will stay in the back. But what happens if those 3 pre-chosen enemies don't move right up to exactly where the three specific melee PCs moved to? They just don't do anything I guess, that has to be really lame and boring for the players. In the end it feels more like random luck if you actually get to hit anything. Or, that the GM isn't actually doing what he decided before hand or is deciding after hearing or seeing what the PCs decide their plan is or is just deciding everything on the fly and cheating the system entirely. In the later cases it would just feel like the GM is just deciding if the PCs do well or TPK or anything in-between. The PCs plans only get work well so long as the GM is cheating for them, being very predictable and providing no counter play or they just get randomly very lucky. A melee PC getting to attack anything with this would be a rare event.
@@SpiderWaffle Except his actual example shows a movement phase and then an attack phase despite what he did say. Not that I agree with his method as it really lacks any believability and certainly doesn't seem realistic.
I look at his system as requiring a certain degree of DM capitulation or mollycoddling to accommodate player choices. But to be honest, most of his DMing style is by DM fiat rather than relying on the numbers or any established system as well as how he "feels" things should work which is the worst type of DMing out there.
I watched his complaints about 2nd edition, alignment, and the murder mysteries he wrote in Dungeon Magazine for that edition and being worried that spells like detect evil or know alignment would reveal the killer, despite that is not how those spells work. He actually stated he never owned a rulebook and so seems unqualified since he really doesn't know how things are supposed to work in game, at all. Even to this day, he doesn't understand alignment by putting out videos that all priest should be lawful because they follow a certain ethos, but that is not what the lawful alignment actually means.
But, yes, I agree with you in that it seems like the GM is cheating or mollycoddling in his example to make it work, giving an advantage to the players that they are not due. Furthermore, it seems unbelievable and very unrealistic that the 6 goblins that were not able to act just have to sit there and don't get to act at all, not even take the place of their fallen comrades until next round.
This style of lack of initiative also eliminates those saved just in time moments that we all enjoy like an ally striking down a troll before it can land a killing blow on your character or the archer who gets a shot off that disrupts an opposing spellcaster. Instead it is one big combat orgy where all the players could end up wasting several attacks on the same creature that would have gone down after the first successful strike, but magically stayed upright to take several attacks instead.
Overall, this system seems to drain most of the strategy out of combat. Watching this video after reading "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" seems like a step backwards. But to each their own.
@@craigtucker1290 yeah honestly all of this guys video about how to improve gameplay feel like they just strip the fun and RP out of D&D.
And the way this guy describes the Wizard vs Fighter. How does it NOT make sense that the wizard casting a spell takes longer then a fighter swinging a sword. Wizards have the KNOWLEDGE of spells but they still have to prepare them. A swordsman (essentially) just has to swing and strike. I could see a sorcerer being much faster at casting a spell because its basically just willpower.
WE JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE WITH MY GROUP BUT NONETHELESS *THANK YOU* FOR BRINGING SOME SANITY TO D&D TH-cam. INIAITIVE IS THE WORST AND MOST BYZANTINE TRADITION I CAN THINK OF IN THE GAME AND WE NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET TO FINALLY THROW IT IN THE TRASH. BRAVO.
Did you see Wyloch's latest video? He's got an even better solution for initiative. Seek it out. Worth your time.
@Dungeon Craft I DID! FELT LIKE A LITTLE MIND MELD ACROSS THE INTERWEBS. I THINK I HAVE ONE IMPROVEMENT WHICH IS WHEN IT'S TIME FOR AN INITIATIVE ORDER THE DM JUST ASKS "WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST?" AND THEN SOMEONE SAYS "ME" AND THEN THEY GO. THAT'S IT. IDK, SOMETIMES U JUST DARE TO DISTURB THE UNIVERSE I GUESS.
@@cyclopean_overlord That's a good system.
I am getting back into D&D after twenty years and I find you stuff great. Thanks.
Thanks for taking the time to post, Britt. Great to have you aboard!
I went through your channel and didn’t see a vital video: you using this with a group as well as standard initiative in a combat situation. I want to see it in action, that will allow me to better determine viability. Thanks
I am absolutely trying this out with my own homebrew-hacked D&D game. After fiddling with Mike Mearls "Greyhawk Initiative" and using alternate die (d10, d12), this really seems the most intuitive and "gritty", which is PERFECT for the vibe I'm trying to capture at my table.
Cool.
I'm getting a game ready for a group of five complete noobs. We have a pretty tight time constraint and I was struggling to design an attractive adventure that fit in roughly two hours. I've been play-testing this system at home, designing the encounters around it and my estimation is that I'm going to be able to cut down combat time by around 60-70%, allowing me to make my adventure much more interesting. For final boss fights I'll stick to traditional initiative but for fights with more than three or four monsters this is by far much better in both time and fun.
Dungeon Craft - I love your approach about doing away w/ initiative. I can see how this makes D&D's abstract combat system far more exciting. It plays less like a tactical war game, and feels more like a real and memorable combat experience. Thanks!
I really REALLY like your initiative system, but my brain is having a hard time processing it. I would really like to implement it in my gaming sessions.
Martin Jutras I would suggest removing attacks of opportunity whenever something is running away it makes it more bombastic and random.
I don't think I'll be shifting to this method anytime soon as my players are too used to the old initiative style, but I do like the way this frantic all fight better resembles the chaos of a melee. If I get a new group at some point I think I will try this but I will let the players narrate their side in the order they choose so they retain agency and a part of telling the story. Imagine a Dice Tower setup like these beautiful towers from Fates End (www.kickstarter.com/projects/kimbolt/fates-end-3d-printable-dice-towers?ref=user_menu) set to roll into a joined dice pool in the center of the players- everyone has their own tower and their own distinct dice, rolled all together in a mess and then the players narrate through how their actions worked out in an order of their choosing, but the catch is if they slow down or stall or pause in their choosing of who goes next, that's when the DM has the monster/ group of monsters act!
Hi,
at first, it is writte in wore english, just on the fly translated, a first draft of an idea ...
I wanted to introduce my concept, basing on many of your ideas.
New Initiative System
You have up to now a pool of initiative points. proficient bonus + DEX + WIS. (The INI feat gives you only 3 points)
This is a pool of points, can be refreshed every short rest.
Basing on the idea, a fight doesn't start with 'roll for initiative' pause, the fight start with a 90seconds
orientation and determination phase. everyone has to build his own action chain****, and before the timer ended,
everyone has to say short, roughly and quick what he want to do and roll his d20 dice(s)**
As higher the result as earlier the chraracter can act. But the dice rolls are not fix.
There are three kinds of actions, that can modify the result (only for counting the turn order)
quick action - making a check and talk, only talk
normal action - make an action (attack, climb, run) and moving afterwards*
slowly action - move first and than make the action
At this point the most complicated point is coming... mark the dice with a quick tokken or a slow tokken. Not only
because of the action type, also because at this point, after rolling, you can invest initiative points, to modify the
result (you see your chance-to speak with real inititive view).
As higher the result as earlier the chraracter can act, each fast or initiaive point give you a +5 bonus to the turn
order result (not to the result of your action)
Those with high INI can spend as many points as they want, so they can act really quickly in this turn (but a natural
20 is still first even if someone pimps its value to over 20)
Spending the INI Points is just a short time window, after that the pimped dice resulta can be evaluated. the highest
result can start his acting sequence, with his triggers, conditions and terms (that was just a rough attempt) but it
can happen that it wouldn't work because of the timing some conditions have changed in that massive way that the plan
doesn't work) than he can follow part conditions or in his worse case he can do nothing.
That is the dynamic of a fight, every second counts and those how are to slow can't act.
Only those how have still initiative points in there pool can use them to change ther action chain, just spend one of
the point and you can change something and act (not a full action just a modified, but better than do nothing.
Oh.. forgotten... if some have the same results, they wil lhandle both actions at the same time
The mechanic with the tokkens makes it a little bit complicate at the beginning, but the benefits are high, dynamic
figths - less waiting time, more stressful figths, more dynamic and more tactical options, or more tactic thoughs
required.
I think if everyone knows about the use of the +5 tokkens and the roll all dices in one area the DM can see ( or one
area and everybody knows his colour ;) ) it will work fast.
The DM rolls also for his creatures an with there initiative tokkens for the turn order ;) if he needs the initiative
tokkens should been game depending, only if he has a plan.... it will hurry up the game if he doesnt use the tokkens.
But he can... and in soem situations he should spend massive tokkens ;)
It is the first concept... with this rules I will make he first test, it is better to have something written down to
have something into hands. Uh.. I need tokkens for the players here hands...
*this is the standart action (if everyone knows that first moving will give the -1 penulty) so it shouldn't modified to
make the game quick. It is still not realistic, but to catch the high dynamic of a fight into simplfied rules is
impossible)
** prof Bonus and weapon etc bonus didn't count for find out the order sequence, it make it to complicate ;)
***magic use needs also a dice, as in one of your other videos... no limit of spellslots, but a dice roll ( 8 + spell
level against your casting value (d20 + prof.b. + attribut) - this is not really planned until the end -
****
action chain examples:
(attack) action + moving action
melee attack against orc 1 + holding position (if orc died before attack is done an no alternate target is near by, he can't act
)
rushing forward + attacking one in reach enemy
range attack against same target as dwarf attacks, find new tactical position (this means he must know the dwarfs target or must wait until the dwarf attacks)
running to point x and fire to orc 2 if i get a good line of sight
wait until an enemy comes to me and hack'n slay
cast fireball to the center of the orcs (in worse case the fireball comes if the orcs are gone or other charaters are in melee with them...)
Thanks for the epic post!
I've just recently started implementing this system with my group, and I have one question. Do you know how to better manage large numbers of enemies and potential allies in combat? I found this system really easy to implement effectively when I only had to concern myself with a few actions, but when the numbers exceeded 10 or so, it became a lot more difficult for me to manage everything. Is this just something you get better at with experience?
Hey, did you find a way to solve this?
I would start grouping opponents together and giving them the same exact stats. Say, like in this example where the PCs are facing 12+ goblins, either chunk the goblins into big groups like three groups of four and roll 3 times, or even consider just rolling one die for all of them and resolving that way. That way, you are creating way less mental overhead for yourself, and also are keeping play smoothly rolling forward.
Additionally, for resolving PC actions, also simplify as much as you can. As I said, give all opponents of the same race/species/class identical stats (same hp, same stat bonuses same attack damage, etc.), unless they're a big bad evil guy or significant to the story and they need different stats.
It might be a slight shift away from core 5e mechanics, but you can try using a suggestion from one of PDM's later dungeon craft videos where he suggests adopting the idea of "targets" from RuneHammer's Index Card RPG rules (I highly recommend, and you can even download a free pdf of the quick start rules, which has a large chunk of the GM mechanics available for free. They are very helpful in getting you to think about how you can simplify running your games). Basically, instead of having to fiddle with individual monster ACs, the dungeon room or encounter has one static DC (let's say DC 11). Every opponent's AC and every PC ability check in that encounter space then has the DC of that target number. Non significant enemies of the same type have the same stats so you aren't micromanaging handfuls of statistics.
If you want a different AC for allies, I would perhaps suggest just setting a different constant for all allies, that way you don't have to keep track of which ally has which armor class.
I simmed this with my friend today. We are stuck on: where do player actions like disengage and help and dodge come in? Do those supercede the ranged/casting/sword hierarchy?
How do you deal with movement outside of charging at each other? If the DM moves in any other ways the player turns fall apart. Couple that with enemies dodging or disengaging and we had strung out not fun encounters following this system.
More information is needed. It's very interesting but not workable without significantly altering existing rules.
Order: loaded ranged weapons, disengage, all melee attacks. However. I have a NEW video coming up I which I decide to back to d6 side initiative.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 hey, thanks for the reply! It seems like disengage makes it difficult to avoid cat and mouse scenarios. What about other player actions, help, dodge, etc?
We liked so much about this and discussed it for hours so I'm really looking forward to this new video you mentioned.
@@CoachCNY I don't play with them all. I am a Moldvay B/X guy. I love disengage, though, because it allows both the players and the villains to get away to fight another day.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Interesting--I only have a general idea of Moldvay B/X (the red box right?) and most of my experience with D&D is 5e.
Our biggest concern beyond 'Other Actions' was movement. Having the players declare their plan and "lock in" seemed to get thrown into the shredder the instant I, as DM, moved in an unexpected way. I'd like to know more about how you determine movement order and maneuvering. My players in particular are very strategic!
I am looking forward to your new video! The initial playtesting was fun, but not cohesive enough to adopt--yet. So, I still have questions, but am grateful you took the time to explain a bit to me, and hope I can learn from the new vid. Thanks again!
I was going to recommend Dungeon World, so I’m glad you took note of it at the end of the video. The problem I have with your method as described here is that the game described here, 5e, and my weekly home game, Pathfinder, is that these systems are made with initiative in mind. I saw one of your comments that said you don’t play with bonus actions, but that’s nearly half of what a character can do in their turn. Bonus actions in 5e practically define what makes your character unique from any other wizard or fighter. In Pathfinder, I’ve often thought about nixing certain mechanics to make things run faster or more smooth, but then there’s a character with a class ability that has exceptions to the standard rule, giving them that edge. I could give numerous examples of this, and in the case of a feat, the players could just not take that feat, but what happens when it’s a class ability? Should I give them a free feat to replace their basically non-functioning move? Traits and a lot of other things come to mind with Pathfinder, too. I, personally, prefer the rules of Dungeon World, but my friends’ don’t care for it as much. I like that, in that game, all players are kept interested in any combat and even in social events because if they don’t, they need to have things explained all over again. I’m not against taking out initiative at all, but you really should play a game that is built around that concept rather than try to change how another is. I do like the idea of having a skirmish like this happening once in a while, but I wouldn’t take action economy away from the players.
The good news is that there's no reason not to include Bonus Actions with simultaneous combat. Rogue wants to Dash? Fine. Wizard moves his Flaming Sphere? Great! Ranger uses an "off-hand" attack? No problem! Monk does a backflip, breaks the necks of two guards, and saves the day? Rote!
I am definitely going to try and adapt the system for my table. One of my biggest frustrations as a DM, and it always results in the players being way more powerful than they should be, is that combat takes so long in standard 5E that I only ever plan one or two combat encounters per adventuring day. if I do anything more than that, the game ends up feeling like it’s 90% combat and 10%, exploration and role-play. This system looks like it could knock a two hour combat encounter down to half an hour at most. That is something that I would absolutely love to put in my game.
I've been coming back to this video for years, absolutely obsessing over this idea. I really love the concept but here's the problem I can't seem to work out in my head--how do the players themselves declare actions vs their opponents declaring actions? What if the players have competing interests? I get that you can make everybody roll off simultaneously, but that's just sorting out the results. Making a declaration of your action is important information that can affect what others do, so how do you get everyone to declare simultaneously without having them write it down every turn? Isn't the order of declaration a type of de facto initiative?
Hi Aaron. So here's the thing--I don't do initiative this way anymore. I have a new video coming (it's on Patreon now--I run about 10 weeks ahead) where I champion the idea of d6 initiative. Re=reading the Basic rules, I think a d6 is the best way. THAT said--I still declare the opponents FIRST. I say, "This dude is charging. This orc is shooting a bow. This shaman is waving his arms like he's casting a spell. Then the players react to that. This forces the players to think about how they deploy themselves. Are they going to double-up on an orc and risk overkilling him, or split up and risk being more vulnerable. If your players over-strategize, use a sand timer. THEN initiative is determined. The NO initiative thing works best when you have 3 players. I've got SEVEN coming over tomorrow. Hope that helps. May all your rolls be 2020s!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Well I'll finally have to sign up for your Patreon then to check it out. I'm working on an RPG system/setting that could almost be called Things I Learned Watching Dungeon Craft, and having a no-initiative system is integral to it. Trying to work out the kinks after a playtest by returning to these videos for inspiration. (It uses cards and centers around dueling if you're curious.)
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Would you perhaps consider editing the video description to indicate that you no longer use this system? Would save future DMs who are earnestly looking for the best methods who could learn from your experience instead of spending time trying it on our own.
I love the chaos and uncertainty that happens. There is a real fog of war and sometimes fear. Oh man does it speed up the game.
OD&D has no initiative system. It’s not in the booklets. It defaults to the CHAINMAIL rules.
Dave Arneson did simultaneous resolution. I think that’s the way it works in ept too.
Depends on which version (there are 4 over the years that I know of) of EPT. Only one of those used D&D like mechanics....
Gygax only included "initiative" (and he disliked that term,) to determine who goes first because everyone at the table declaring actions at the same time was chaos. Per the original rules, everything happened simultaneously, weapons had speeds and spells had casting times to determine when things happened in the round. In current editions of D&D, actions, spells, and movement happens simultaneously and instantaneously in your turn, so to speak, so some sort of initiative order is required to make it work. If you are slow, you pretty much get no chance in combat, or are forced to bat cleanup if there's anything left. Your system brings back the spirit of the original rules.
I've heard that. I probably will ask Luke Gygax about that when I meet him.
Hmmm, interesting but rather difficult to apply. The initiative system does add order to an otherwise chaotic table. Then again, I DM for a group of 8. But I'd like to take some of that idea
I love this, it's simple, makes sense and fast. The variables I would add if need is movement and complexity add penalties to the roll. Only if needed however. Greater detail means a slower game. A d20 is measurements of 5% change.
A fighter moving 2 inches gets a -2 to their engagement check against the target who's standing there. A spell gets a penalty vs complexity, (Vocal, Semantic, material) To cast a spell. Actions that aren't opposed such as a ranged attack are basically free since the attempt isn't challenged in any way. This can all be added up to action costs. Every movement and action effects the roll.
Goblins vs the ranger to the door. The goblins are 2 inches away, the ranger is 3, both roll, goblins at a -3 (Reach the door and pass through or get a door to the face) the ranger at a -5 (3 to get to the door, 1 to grab the door and close it, another to lock it). This gives us an idea of what happens as well.
The what if breakdown
A tie. Goblins reach the door right as the ranger locks the door.
Goblins win +1. Goblins reach the door but it's slammed on them. Failing a reflex means they are knocked down and the Ranger locks the door.
Goblins win by +2. The lead goblin reaches the door and fights to keep it open, failing a knock down means the ranger slams the door against the goblins but it may not close all the way. One of the goblins may make it through or is crushed against the door and the frame, possibly crushing it. Next round it's goblins vs the ranger to contest the door.
Goblins win by +3. The goblins rush past the door and swarm the defenseless ranger who has a hand on the door, the other on their bow. RIP Ranger.
I'm not worried about Players, I'm worried about amount of work I'd have to put in combat as DM. With initiative I have some time to get ideas, to focus on description of each action. This seems to be barely manageable (but with experience it could get better) and really exhausting (and DMing is exhausting experience even without this kind of improvisation).
With this, I would be happy as a player, but as a DM I'd avoid every combat I could because it won't be fun for me. It'd be just work.
I personally avoid combat anyway. :)
That is a personal choice. And it's okay to avoid combat because you don't like it. But if I'd avoid comat because it's exhausting and back-braking, I'd better be playing a different game where I actually can enjoy combat if I want to. And some of my players like combat too - I shouldn't avoid (which I would do if the combat system was repulsive for me).
Agreed. And if you play in a "theatre of the mind" type game like my group does then an anurism will occur.
I really don't care about whether it's realistic. We're talking about a game where skinny guys in robes terrify big burly guys with great swords by wiggling their fingers... Reality went out the window in the first sentence.
However, it is a game, and a game has to make a certain amount of sense in order to hold the players' interest. I think this system can accomplish both goals, and in principle I think it moves the game forward in the direction that 5e is already moving... Simplifying for the purpose of giving more game experience within a shorter real life time period.
Older versions of D&D each eventually bogged down in rules stacked on rules, and variations stacked on variations. The sheer complexity evolved to try to account for every different idea that players and designers came up with. In the end, it became it's own joke. The idea of a 30 second combat scenario taking over an hour or rolling dice and rules lawyering is a cliche' that persists. The initiative system isn't to blame for this complexity. But holding on to it serves no purpose, if an equally functional system can accomplish the same end faster.
The question to me is, does this system offer sufficient mechanical support to account for a nearly infinite set of conditions. At first blush, I think yes. But it puts a greater burden on the relationship of trust between the players and the DM. This system relies heavily on the DM interpreting complex interactions into very simple mechanics.
I see a lot of gain to be had here.
I also see hurt feelings resulting in not giving it a fair shot in many cases.
I completely agree. The players need to trust the DM and buy in. It relies on the Dm to make wise decisions. I confess I have not always done so. My player Veronica once expressed her displeasure at one of my calls by beaning me in the forehead with a 10-sided die. However, it's all good. That was 20 years ago and she's playing with me next Saturday night! Thanks for the comment!
Personally, I care a lot that it is realistic; the ludic elements are far less interesting than the simulation.
I would argue that D&D (esp. the 5e) is more reliant in general on a trusted gm. Another Poster on reddit said that pf1e gives rules to grant players something the can do. While 5e takes away the rules to give more freedom.
Both approaches are ok as long as everyone talks and improves.
Personally, I think if your players don't trust you as a GM no one on the table is going to have fun regardless. When people aren't receptive to your ideas they tend to become hostile and more often than not try to get in the way of other people on the table to get what they want, because they'll feel that it's a game of taking advantage of people with rules, rather than having fun with a shared story. It's a bit sad to say, but I don't think needing trust should be a problem at all in tabletop games, you've already agreed to waste several hours of your time with your group and you can leave at any time.
@@GreenKnight1294 feel free to go to a game convention or store event and sit at a table of strangers with a GM you have never played with before expecting one set of rules as advertised and then discovering that the GM has switched from D&D to GURPS and expects you to take it without question on trust.
For some people this would feel that way. Not everyone games with friends or people they have gamed with for years.
As a DM, taught by one of the best DM ever, we always ran combat that way.
Good video! I'm always looking to ditch away heavy and/or time-consuming rules and mechanics in favor of narrative.
This reminds me to the old combat system from World Of Darkness Vampire with the single difference that in that system players would say in inverse order of initiative what their actions would be, that way the more "astute" players would know what less "astute" players would do so they could plan their move but because the actions are declared before anything happens the combat flows rapidly each round, in the new system they ended up using turn by turn like D&D.
I personally like to vary combat encounters according to their significance in the story, using the regular system for normal and short encounters (few enemies) and often using the "handling mobs" mechanic from the DM Master Book when there are too many foes.... But also I sometimes use purely narrative combat and/or using a single roll.... Of course it depends mainly on how everyone likes to play but in my group we've been playing for more than a decade and we try to focus much more on the story and role playing that on following strict rules.
I red a phrase once in a programming tutorial that I try to apply to many situations: "Always do what feels less awkward" :)
I kind of like the idea from Troika! rpg, the initiative is made by drawing tokens from a bag. There is one token for every combatant and one restart-token, when the restart-token is picked up every token goes back in the bag and a new turn starts. Total chaos, but still very managable because you don't have to keep track of anything.
Not for every game or every type of player/DM, but a really smart and fun idea IMO.
its funny but also not really fast either.
Love this.
Always thought standing around while two enemies strike me once or twice while I wait my turn is absolutely stupid.
I like the idea. Reminds me of this one strat game I saw played where you are in command of a squad, you set what you want them to do and the other team sets what they want to do, then there is an action round where you sit back and see it play out.
Diplomacy uses the same method. Thanks for the post!
I love this video. It makes absolute sense to me. I’ve been doing simultaneous actions forever. I get people to describe their actions, and based on what they do, that determines who goes first. If the archer says, without hesitation, I’ll shoot the nearest goblin - they go first. If a wizard takes a while to decide what spell to cast - they go last (because of hesitation). Between rounds players can strategize a little, but I don’t give them much time for that. The players are supposed to work out their overall strategy outside of combat, like a sports team working out several “plays”; then in combat someone can shout “corbomite maneauver” (or whatever) and the party should know what to do. This is closer to a real battle and it also causes more chaos: I’ve had players actually almost come to blows because one player did the wrong maneuver- I just tell them to keep in character because in the game world the party might be genuinely pissed that one guy put them all at risk.
Sometimes it is important to know who hits first, like when someone hits a mage casting a spell. In this case, as you suggested, i use the attack roll to decide who goes first (wizards roll to cast spells - I’ve not used the d&d spell system ever because I hated it from day 1; instead I use a simple mana system. )
Cool in theory, quite a headache in practice. If you're up for heavy homebrewing and changing a bunch of race/class features, monster abilities and spells, definitely go for it. Otherwise, don't even bother trying.
It could be. Depends on your group. I also like group initiative.
Heck, it'd be a headache just to sort through a bucked of d20 rolls and damage dice all at once.
And it's all fine if nobody moves, but what happens to an attack targeting someone who decides to move away from their starting position, out of reach of the attacker? Does the attack or the movement take precedence? Sounds like you'd need some kind of determining factor to decide. How about an initiative roll?
yeah, moving seems like it wouldn't make any sense. it would turn into a big game of arguing who decides what first. You have a fighter saying they are gong to run 30 feet forward to attack the goblin, but then the DM says the goblin is going to run 20 feet backwards. So now knowing they can't reach that goblin, the fighter will say he is actually going to run at the orc instead since this is still in the 1-2 minute window and he said they are free to discuss strategy during that time to make decisions. Since the goblin is no longer going to be threatened, it isn't going to run back after all and just fire an arrow. But now that the goblin isn't going to run backwards, the fighter is going to rush him after all. Oh wait, now that the goblin knows the fighter is going to rush him, he is going to retreat backwards. Now you could say that the players won't have any idea what the enemy characters are going to do but that isn't how it was explained in the first scenario. it was shown who was going to move where and who was going to attack on both sides during the planning phase. Otherwise how would the front line players have known to only move if they didn't know the goblins were going to meet them in the center? What if instead the goblins just split and now the middle player having given the command that they are going to run forward and attack now runs deep into the middle of the goblins getting flanked on all sides.
I realize the whole 6 second rounds thing for D&D takes some artistic license, but it at least allows people to make clear choices and even this method is unrealistic because players are still taking 1-2 minutes to orchestrate both their moves while somehow peering into the future to see how the enemy will be moving and collaborate on a plan every 6 seconds.
@@jjbpenguin I think you missed the intended method here. The players say what they are going to do the DM says nothing. Once all of the players actions are locked in then the DM describes what happens as a result. So you would not choose the square that you will engage the enemy but rather if they were already in your range then you declare which one you are going to run up to. If that means you have to run 30 feet then you run 30 feet but if they are moving to you at the same speed then you only move 15 feet and meet them half way. You don't know what the enemy is going to do only what your party is going to do.
However I see your other point. It makes it so that the DM knows every action of the players before they decide what the enemy is going to do and could decided to do actions based on that like having them run away from the bigger threats and never engaging the melee characters. Which may be realistic but may not be fun for the players. We like to think every DM is going to be fair and make a fun experience for the players but in a sense they are also a player, and they may "cheat" as a result.
About the only things this really addresses is the time it takes to get through a combat encounter (and depending on your group this might only speed things up by a small amount), and it prevents players from changing their action. Such as the druid was going to wild shape and maul one of the goblins but the fighter took a really hard hit on their round so the druid decided to heal the fighter instead. That said though 6 seconds is actually a long time in terms of combat; long enough to make quick changes to what you are going to do.
@@nithia The "DM might cheat" argument isn't an argument at all because the DM is effectively God. Whatever rules you use, they can always overrule/subvert them (as they have complete oversight and control of the situation). Players implicitly put their trust in the DM when playing D&D.
If you want to avoid the DM subconsciously acting on what the party are planning then they can leave the room (or wear ear plugs/headphones) and write down what the enemies are doing while the players discuss their turns. I think you can make it work with disciplined players but I suspect they'll usually take longer than the allowed 2mins to agree on their plan of action. Also, this repeats for every successive round of combat, so even if it only takes 2mins extra to resolve things, that's still 4-5mins per round.
I think it's a good idea for players to announce in advance what they're doing (to avoid them reacting instead of acting), but if they want their character to change their mind during their turn because they notice something, then you could allow this on a successful perception check.
I really love this idea because of how time efficient it is in addition to bring about a sense of realism
I like the idea, but not sure it would work that well in 5e, major problems with the DM managing the combat. How would reactions/bonus actions and Monster lair/legendary actions work.
Plus combat would take so much longer! Especially against something big thats going to take a lot of rounds to whittle down its healtg
Here's how I'd do it. Bonus actions: An extra declaration on this round. i.e. "I'm going to run in to sneak attack the Goblin then use my bonus action to Disengage back next to the Ranger" Legendary/Lair actions: Still need to be declared but rather than going with everyone else can be triggered at any time in the round.
@@melissamoore7003 I disagree. Since everyone declares what they're doing at the beginning of the round, there's less time spent on one player's turn as they figure out just how they're going to attack the giant. This is in theory, though. I'd be interested to run a "Danger Room" kind of situation with my group to see how it turns out.
He craps on 4E, but it honestly would work better there than on 5E.
There would be extra actions declared...hence Polearm Mastery plus bonus action included would be several attacks declared...anything could be declared as such. Using this, combat needs to evolve
I am currently making up a modernized combat system for an OSR-type home brew (i.e., setting and mechanics) that I will soon run. The academic in me drives me to cite many sources including fantasy literature, historical literature, books about magic and witchcraft, game system books, critiques of fantasy RPGs, and now TH-cam channels. I was just about to define "initiative" as "the order in which players and creatures take turns within a round" when I remembered this video, went back and reviewed it. I love it because one of my goals is to make the flow simple, and I believe that players will be more engaged at the table if they announce what their PCs will do (followed by the DM announcing what the creatures will do) at the beginning of the round. I don't want combat to seem like "doing your taxes" as Hankerin Ferndale/Runequest guy describes it. Thanks again Prof. Dungeon Master! I love your material.
The text so far: • Attack (Combat Encounter)-Combat encounters are usually played in “encounter time,” which consists of a sequence of rounds. A “round” is a 10 second time interval during which each PC and monster may choose to do something. (NOTE: Although commonly seen in other fantasy RPGs, there are no “turns” or “initiative” in this game.)19 The typical flow of a combat encounter is as such:...
19 “DungeonCraft #6: No More Initiative,” th-cam.com/video/y_mxYKzEjms/w-d-xo.html, accessed 9 May 2020."
Hi, I'm applying this new system to my D&D 5e desk and the group is enjoying it a lot. The battle becomes more fluid and everyone is more engaged.
During the game I had some questions and would like to know how you think they should be resolved.
1st - If a character wants to engage the opponent for a melee attack, but the opponent decides to use his move to distance himself, would the attack happen or would they run after each other?
2nd - Has some class skills that depend on the initiative, for example the Rogue class Assassin archetype has the Assassin ability, in which case his initiative is greater, his attacks are considered critical.
Thank you very much in advance.
1) Their initiative rolls determine the order. If the engaging opponent rolls the higher init, he catches the runner and attacks. If the runner rolls higher init, compare movement. If the attacker has higher movement, he'll catch the runner. If the runner has higher movement, they both move their maximum move distance.
2) You're still rolling init, it's just the same roll as the attack. Did he roll higher than his opponent? Critical hit. Did he roll lower? Not critical.
You can tweak the order of resolution a bit by separating movement and attacking, which is more true to a fight. I've never seen someone capable of moving 30' and doing any kind of skillful attack. It's mostly just small repositioning vying for advantage over the opponent.
the order would be:
Melee (no movement occurs yet)
Ranged
Movement / utility actions
If you're next to an archer trying to shoot you and you are trying to stab them, and you hit them it interrupts their attack. Then ranged attacks that aren't interrupted are resolved. Then you can reposition and engage with a new target etc. This mostly just adds more uniformity and can help clarify some situations.
I find it interesting how the creator of the video is perfectly fine explaining things about the initiative to anyone other than people who bring up bonus actions or reactions. It’s almost as if he didn’t think it through or something and doesn’t have an answer
He doesn’t use bonus actions or reactions in his games. He plays with his own Rules, not 5e or pathfinder
Also he said that you don't need initiative if you are designing a system from the ground up.
But you could make bonus actions a separate phase which comes last like the ranged phase which comes first. Reactions simply fire when they are triggered.
This works amazingly well. For my last three sessions for two different campaigns (1e and 5e), removing initiative has dramatically sped up combat. My players were hesitant at first, but after 6 combat encounters, we won’t roll initiative ever again. Thanks for the video and this channel!
Isn't the thief closing the door before the goblins just initiative?
Chris G But he’s saying it’s situational
You basically roll for each unique situation
Chris G yeah that’s his point he is saying we are already rolling dice against each other so why roll another set for initiative.
@@bodhixzx because the rolls for how and when should be separated. This is how you determine the details of the fight. Removing it, removes randomness and places the fight in the hands of the DM to figure out how it all went down. Removes player agency and forces DM narrative. Just cause I rolled a higher attack does not mean I hit first. This guy is advocating the DM figures out who goes first based on everyone's chosen actions and puts it together like a puzzle. Where's the player agency. This is seriously, 1 step away from railroading.
@@Blackwind_Legacy Players still chose their targets and how they are attacking. All it changes is the sitting around waiting for your turn. Im not saying this is prefect, but its an interesting idea.
If I recall how we did it 42 years ago, first we sorted out surprise. Range weapons went first. Then combatants engaged simultaneously.
Initiative only decided whose attacks would be resolved first (in game time the attacks happened in the same exchange (turn). Most of the time, all players followed what was needed to hit and what bonuses where being added. It was important that we all were SURE we were playing by the same rules. That group process made turn based combat very practical.
I don't remember exactly what the 1e rules say about this. I do remember having a few short but detailed discussions about how combat should work. We took the DMs Guide at it's word. The rules were just guidelines... suggestions. We only rolled one initiative for the first combat round. The outcome of races... would be argued based on base movement rates, encumbrances, and other conditions before the initiative roll might be factored in. I repeat, melee combat was simultaneous.
I'm on my 3rd trip through your video archives and I have to say -I really like all of your hacks. I've got a group of inexperienced D&D players who are open to anything. I think I'm going to give this a try next session. I've played a lot of Savage Worlds and FATE, and combat in those systems is less granular, but a lot more exciting. I find I both love and hate D&D combat. as someone who just likes game mechanics as theory, I enjoy how technical it can get. But in practice, any fight that lasts more than 3 rounds quickly becomes tedious.
W/the "batting order" initiative of D&D I keep seeing 2 scenarios play out over the 6 combat encounters we have run so far: If the goblins roll high initiative they maul the low-level PCs and some go down before getting to do anything "cool". Or, the goblins roll low and the PCs wipe most of them out in the first round, leaving only one or two left standing, leading to very anti-climactic combats.
The best thing about new players is they're cool with new stuff. They're not stuck on rules systems. Enjoy playing with them!
That Idea is actually really great. I am a Solo Gamer and this speeds things significantly up. It also builds tension and that's what combat is about. Thank you, Professor for this advice.
If you like solo games, check out Black Sword Hack. It's the only game I've read in years with solo play rules.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 i do have the PDF and it is nice, especially the world building.
Hey, How do you manage movements in your combats ? I mean, if your warrior decides to move toward Enemy 1 and Enemy 1 decides to move toward your Warrior, how do you deal with that ? And how do you deal with a range fighter shooting at a target that decides to move at the same time ? Thanks
@@elradswordman like this: th-cam.com/video/7_hq7JE55CQ/w-d-xo.html
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Many thanks, professor 🙂
Not wanting to be a jerk, yet I think some of your video needs correction. Little Wars is not a good example of war gaming in the 1960's. War gaming during the decade when RPGs and D&D were created used parallel attacks. The idea you are presenting comes from war gaming. Wesely's, Strategos-N used written movement orders thus everyone moved and then anyone in combat range would resolve combat, ranged fire, melee, etc. In Blackmoor, Bob Meyer uses parallel attacks and actions. In OD&D there is no initiative. I've been running OD&D since '77 and I use parallel actions as well. IMHO the use of minis for an RPG is War Gaming, not Traditional Role Playing. I do agree with you, the parallel action style is the best and fastest way to run a game. More people should return to this way of running a game. Griff
Running a oneshot this weekend. Gonna try this out. Thanks Professor!
Let me know how it goes!
It went great. Players were a little apprehensive but after the first encounter they were all on board. Thanks Professor! Never going back.
This system looks like cluster fcuk of chaos and madness
I LOVE IIIIT!!!
WIll cause lots of fighting between players, arguing over whose doing what, etc. Some players will end up being pushed out and/or their contributions being negated.
@@Blackwind_Legacy Kind of agree yet it will also allow for cool combos and will help players form a strategic team instead of a turn based I do what I want and kind of help someone when they are down. It depends on the player's teamwork and team comp, on the ability of the dm to track everything and finally on the type of encounter. Finally I would never try this method without some kind of miniature or token to track every creature.
Pd: this system totally and utterly collapses if your players doesn't trust you or if you are starting to ask for their actions and then plan on those actions against them (be a good dm not a douche :D)
Also I wouldn't think in removing initiative completely in the sense that after stating their actions some type of dispute of who killed who first is based on Dex and maybe an initiative roll
@@Diego51592 hey, best way to test it out is to try it
just remember the other things too, like if you have a 7th level barbarian or Revised Ranger in your group, to supplement those advantage on initiative rolls with something equally powerful
and also the reaction, bonus actions, especially things like Polearm Master, they can get either really OP or really useless
@@cyanic3148 I've been thinking about this subject and I believe that maybe a good choice is to give that player a bonus of +2 or more in their initiative bonus. And the bonus now being your proficiency (makes sense) +Dex or Wis(again makes sense)+any bonus from homebrew race or classes like Barb.
Now this bonus isn't for any roll and is just for a contest like this scenario:
I want to chop an assassin's head before he can kill it's target. So now is a contest of who lands their hit first and I would say the one that didn't moved at all won but what if none moved or both moved. Then the one with the higher initiative bonus wins(or maybe make a roll but combat would become even slower then but leaves room for epic rolling scenarios still I would try with no roll at first).
Dexterity includes your reflexes. But that said like the system used in Cortex. Where the person currently moving gets to pick who goes next. The last person to act gets to pick who moves first in the next round.
But I like your system too.
Umm what about buff spells such as bless, do they always ‘go first’??
Seems like they go off when a spell/ranged attack normally would.
they would go off first with ranged attacks, thus giving your allies the benefit for melee. So faerie fire might give your melee allies advantage.
Wow, I absolutely love this. I already used a pretty different system for initiative where the different teams go as a group in one big turn where anyone can use their actions and movement in whatever order they see fit. This works really well in my experience, and it made me realize how little individual initiative actually contributes to the game. I don't think whatever potential benefits it might offer outweigh how much easier and more fun it is to just have everyone go at the same time. It feels more cooperative as well. It's not one person's turn while everyone else sits and waits, it's everyone's turn at once, and you can coordinate to do some cool stuff because of that. It goes way faster too. This takes it a step further. The system I use is already halfway to removing initiative entirely, so I've been of the opinion that that it's not really necessary for a while now. I'd love to actually try this out and see how it goes.
I like the idea of something in between. Such as the system in 'Shadow Of The Demon Lord', or a couple others, which state that PCs always go before the monsters excepting a few cases. Some state that a PC will go after the monsters if he chooses to both Move And Attack, instead of just Attack. Or, perhaps, they're divided into groups with a Ranged->Magic->Melee order of resolution, similar to yours but divided into three sub-rounds/turns. Definitely room for hybrid experimentation.
Most definitely!
Initiative and turn based combat may be longer but its a great way to show who's attack goes off first. We can hybrid your approach here and simply go like this. At the start of the encounter everyone rolls initiative. Ok cool what does everyone want to do. Quickly have players decide what they want to do as per your method (60s to 2m depending on group size). ok cool everyone does their rolls and the attacks go off in the order of initiative. do this every round to spice things up. Just because the fighter is skilled at combat scenarios doesn't mean the rogue can't one up him in movement. After all the rogue could be better suited for the environment and noticing hazards and potential ambushes far sooner than the fighter.
Letting players roll initiative every round will also make for those nice moments where the ranger might just barely snipe a goblin that almost got to him, rather than "well the ranger hit with his bow so the goblin's roll is irrelevant cause range goes first over melee" You get those tense moments where lets say the ranger rolled a 15 and the goblin rolled a 14. The ranger just barely got the shot off and killed him before tasting the goblin's wicked blade.
I dunno, I might try this hybrid approach at my table one time. see how it goes.
"No more initiative!"
** gets pelted with a bunch of d20s **
Heroquest and Tunnels and Trolls abstract combat to such a degree that there is no need for initiative. My private heartbreaker has a rule to only roll initiative when you need to find out what happened before what. But I like your idea that all hits land by default.
Timely Questions: Dear Profession Dungeon Master, I am running an adventure this Saturday with a bunch of Old Skool friend. That is, we've been playing since 70s/80s, and have also been playing 5e. So, I told them I am going to play this "Getting rid of Initiative" thing. I warned them. Now, I am concerned cause I have a couple questions for you. 1) You mentioned that if a Character-Foo kills Monster-Bar (damaged them to death) then there is no point tracking the damage that Monster-Bar does that turn. Maybe I misunderstood? Do we track the damage Monster-Bar did to the character, and then assume that the Prismatic Spray or whatever killed them right afterward? 2) New scenario, about movement. So, what do you do to handle each character and player and monster essentially tracking and listening to the other people and adjusting? That is, Person-A "I'm moving here". Monster-1 "Okay, I'm moving here too", Person-B "I'm moving here", Monster-2 "I'm now moving away from Person-B". ... both of my questions here are essentially how to deal with synchronicity and simultaneity issues. The artificiality of initiative and taking turns handles this and yes, it is weird. But, how do you handle the cases I mention?
If foo and bar attack each other, they will normally both do damage even if bar dies. The exception is that if foo kills bar with a ranged attack before bar gets close, then foo is undamaged.
For your second question, have each combatant express what they're doing in terms of their goal, not in terms of a specific square. So if Monster 1 is charging Person A, that's what happens regardless of whether A moves to the bridge or to the door. If B is chasing monster 2 while monster 2 runs, their relative checks will determine whether B catches up and gets in an attack or not.
Played D&d since 1983. Since then I separated dexterity and agility into two separate attributes. Now I'm doing away with initiative too. Thanks for the help!
the Noam Chomsky of games XD haha.....Noam...Gnome Chomsky...i just came up with a new NPC
I did this. Gnome Chompsky, the Orc scholar.
There is no ethical consumption under feudalism, therefore there is no concern to unethically consuming sentient creatures such as gnomes.
He was writing his dissertation while adventuring/eating gnomes
I did something similar in my mounted game. Since everyone was mounted the idea that you stop what you are doing to let goblins do their thing was especially bad. Most players got it, but some players were still trying to get some advantage on the idea that everyone stops while it is your turn.
I still kept initiative as an organizer of people's actions, but I might do this next time.
Try it. If you don't like it, you can always change back.
There is no initiative system in original Dungeons & Dragons as published in 1974, nor did the Twin Cities gamers use an initiative roll when they played. Folks could of course borrow the d6 roll to see who goes first in the turn based version of the CHAINMAIL rules, but only if they happened to have those rules and only if they happened to think of it. Since the D&D booklets give no guidance on the subject, simultaneous initiative was often assumed by early players. The d6 based initiative system was first introduced to the game by Gygax in a Strategic Review article (D&D FAQ) in 1975.
I did not know that. If I had, I would have mentioned it. Thanks for commenting and welcome aboard, Bao!
I've implemented this in my Pathfinder campaign. We've only run two sessions using this system so I don't have a final conclusion. Here are the first few notes / experiences.
The players, being players, didn't like the idea at first. The best argument against was from the Dexterity based players (Rogue and Ranger.) They felt they were losing some of their advantage. I was able to appease them by noting that they probably got a free feat (Improved Initiative is no longer useful and I allowed them to switch it.) I also talked about the times they wait five minutes for their turn only to miss and then face another five to ten minute wait. They eventually agreed to try it because they trust me.
It's taken some "work" mostly because we've all been gaming for a long time and everyone's used to waiting their turn. What stands out in my mind is that when players decide what they want to do and the clock is still ticking they begin to shake the dice in their hands or dice cups. It adds tension and really makes the other players pick up the pace.
I think it will get difficult when everyone starts getting multiple attacks. We'll have to wait and see. All in all, I like it so far.
Keep up the great work, Professor
Nice to hear and thanks.
If you run games which don't make use of many of the system's rules that might be fine, but with a party that enjoys using every mechanic aviable (bonus actions and responses in 5E, rapid actions and immediate actions, or readying an action in PF, for example) this falls totally apart.
Many already mentioned that your definition of dexterity is very narrow, but what left me quite perplexed is the idea that a skilled fighter should go into tunnel vision; while the effect of adrenaline grants you tunnel vision, a weathered warrior would rely more on their muscle memory and training than on the adrenaline flowing. I don't mean that they would have a 360° perfect perception of the situation, but when you do a lot of teamwork you always keep an eye out for the others... so I don't think your justification is very valid.
I agree that the initiative system could use some updates, or better, some measure of redesign, but the current mode (d20+dex+modifiers) gives an order and grants each player or npc the same amount of actions, so it's easier to make everything flow. The order, also, is not completely fixed, since you can remand your action for a later moment in the game, switching your position until you remand it again or another unit does too and in my games this happens quite often.
In conclusion, if it works and it is not broken, you should not throw it away.
I do hope you realize this video was only giving a vague outline of the system and was not intended specifically for 5e, so he trimmed most system exclusive terminology and actions in order to make it more inclusive and easier to translate to other RPG systems, honestly figuring out how readied actions and bonus actions would work using this system isn't even that hard, just treat them as they have always been, and let the player use them whenever applicable. Personally I play pathfinder and I can say without a doubt this seamlessly translated into my game and did nothing besides improve it, making combat both more tactical and quicker to go through, though I cannot speak for a player of 5e. Don't knock it till you try it.
@@Yuni-is-Schrodingers-Fox this system removes 90% of the tactical movement and use of time, replacing it with an (quite arbitrary, if I may say) priority order of depletion of actions. This makes many of the finest "fighter-like" feats useless, like step-up, combat patrol, makes martial flexibility a less reactive ability, hindering the brawler for no given reason; many grit/panache features become "meh" and overall dexterity becomes a less relevant ability score. This also makes casters stronger than they really need to be, since they will almost always be able to "step away and cast", which is supposed to be the main way for a combatant to overpower (or try to) a caster. If you are used to BSF Frontline this system this doesn't actually change much to the game, I admit, but BSF is not a fun way to play a martial character in combat.
@@Kladrin I disagree wholeheartedly, I honestly have no idea where you even got half of these ideas from. You can still ready an action, interplice movement with attacks (though that is a house rule I added in, not sure how that works with vanilla) etc. And the priority order, while I disagree with magic being as fast a sword (since magic is typically stronger than a sword so it should be slower as well to make up for it) the listing makes sense, yes, ths Archers would get to go before the Knight, the knife throwing rogue would probably get his attack off before the goblin finishes swinging his spear, so it's not completely arbitrary, though I agree it does have some problems. As for the rest of your arguments, they're so left field with so little explanation behind them I really have no idea how to begin to argue against them. Ultimately all I can say is that it works for my table, maybe it wouldn't work as well for yours for any number of reasons.
This is perfect, it puts a sense of urgency on the players when needed for larger groups. I think with a boss of sorts I'd do initiative style but I will rock this on my next DM and record it hopefully to see how it goes.
this might be a tad more cinematic but it really hardcore nerfs DEX classes and the whole notion of reactions and the ready action
Point 2 in its favor
Dex needs to be nerfed
What if the rogue used their Dex, the wizard used their Int, and the fighter used their Str for initiative modifiers. Or, if the person stabbing/slashing/crushing used Str, the person shooting/throwing/sneaking used Dex, and the person finger wiggling/praying/singing used their spell-casting stat (Int, Wis, Cha)?
In AD&D 1st ed they used reach to determine the first round and weapon speed in following turns. Spell casting could last over turns depending on the number of segments the spell took to cast. More complex but it made sense. Twilight 2000 had one of the more interesting systems. Actions were effected by a stat called coolness. If there are 10 action phases ever round the character with lowest cool rating gets the option of going first and the cool stat deters how many action phases you to skip so if you had a cool of 2 you could act in 8/10 phases. Actions can take multiple phases. Since it is a modern combat game auto fire allows you to continue firing as long as you not moving just hosing down the targets until you run out of ammo.
I never saw a game session that used segments or weapons speed. I could never figure out how that worked with initiative. Nor why a PC with a weapon speed of 5 or less couldn't make multiple attacks each round (other than rulebook fiat).
Ok, now that battle demonstration was epic!
Oh my god... this is brilliant, I'm going to try this out at my next session, of course letting my players know before game begins, and then collect their opinions at the end of the game. I need to grab an egg timer before game starts so I can do that
i tried my own variation and the players really enjoyed it. i wish you went into more scenarios because i ended up having to make both sides roll a d20 each round to determine who went first. So each round had a new order for the sole purpose of determining which sides attack effects applied first (example below). I also allowed both sides (if they went second in the order) to know the result of the other sides move before it was applied so that they could choose to use something like dodge, or, just keep their attack
What you described in the video sounds like ranged and magic ALWAYS goes first. Sounds to me like thats a static batting order for the entirety of the campaign.
Also there were just too many scenarios where it was vital to know who actually gets to “go first”. For example, if a Monk is 1v1 a baddie and the Monk wants to use stunning strike then i need to know if the stunning strike hit before the enemy got his hit off or not. If the monk and baddie both hit their attacks, and the attacks have effects that would negate the others turn, then whose effect goes into play?
Good questions. Both the baddie and Monk's attacks would work. The monk would take damage and the baddie would be stunned the next round. As for ranged spells--yeah, they pretty much go first BUT in my games the wizard has to roll to cast a spell, so it's not automatic.
Dungeon Craft thanks for the reply. I really did enjoy this from a DM perspective.
we dont have the spellcasters rolling to hit so i think i will let range, melee, and magic not requiring material components to go first. Then magic with material components to go next (higher damage and more effective spells seems to require material components more often).
Is there a reason you let range to always go first? Nocking an arrow seems like it would take longer than swinging sword (theres also air traveling time of missiles)
Also, in regards to movement, how would you rule a scenario where both sides are trying to counter the others movements?
example: The monk wants to run around and get to the mage in the back-line but the enemies, seeing this, move the fighter to block the Monks path. This scenario requires an order because the Monk player wouldnt have moved his monk that way if the enemy was just gonna block him.
@@joe2125 More great questions. Range weapons go first IF they are loaded. I allow this because I'm an archer and an arrow can move at the same speed as a .22 bullet. If someone with a crossbow has the drop on you, it's faster for them to pull a trigger than you to swing a sword. As for your second question, the monk makes his move, not realizing the fighter is reading his body language and if moving to block. The two meet in the CENTER of the board. I'm actually going to make an entire video about this soon (won't air until 2020 though). BTW: the 100th episode of this channel airs tomorrow at 6pm Eastern time. I'll speak a little about movement there.
Great job! You've rediscovered the old FGU Swordbearer combat system without the greater realism of their damage and armor defense. Next to go is the irrational and overly abstracted (if not wrong) Armor Class notion.
Don't remember that game but it sounds cool. I'm writing the Armor Class episode now--but it may surprise you. Look for it in late August-October.
@Cliven Longsight Interesting idea. Have you tried it and if so, how many people are in your group?
Dexterity isnt just the English definition, it also includes your agility to an extent
@thereisnochoiceleft i concur with this statement. If not for buffing Wisdom which needs more love, then for nerfing Dexterity which controls your attack bonus for finesse weapons (which, if you're a DEX build, you should be using), ranged weapons, Initiative, AND AC!!! Basically in 5e, if you don't have a decent DEX you're going to be sorely lacking in a number of ways
While quite different than how I run combat, I give this a thumbs up for also eliminating the traditional initiative roll.