BEST Initiative System for DC20 and D&D 5e

[@Scrut89]

Sounds exactly like how in Pathfinder 2E when the PCs have an Exploration activity the DM can have the PCs roll for initiative using whatever ability they were using during the Exploration phase instead of the normal ability score. For instance in PF2E if you're using the "Avoid Notice" activity you use your Stealth for initiative instead of the normal stat Perception.

[@someusername9591]

He probably took inspiration from that and modified and added to it until he liked

[@Kheldul]

Came here to say this. The ability check for initiative is what PF2e does. Except when you’re not doing a skill your default is PERCEPTION, a wisdom skill - compared to D&D’s agility. I’m not in favor of alternating; it feels complex when it’s not even and going first is an advantage some characters really want and can use. For expediency, I’d be fine with enemies having a fixed value that shapes their order. Roll one d20 for all of them and each just add their modifiers.

[@thecompletejake]

What I don't like about the "what you were doing" becoming your initiative is if what I was doing was grapple or attack or whatever, then my character doesn't do that because that became an init role instead. Then when my turn comes up, what if I don't want to do that grapple or attack anymore, based on what else has happened in that encounter? Just feels a little clunky. It should just be a prime check so that my initiative is determined by what my character is most apt to lean on. Did my high mental stat help me perceive what was happening and react quickly? Did my high agility help me physically react quickly? Did my high might mean that I was already tense and ready to pounce? That's way cooler.

[@nathanaelthomas9243]

I reaeaally like the 2nd half of the initiative system for structuring turn order and that’s how I’ve been doing it for the past several sessions. I’ve tried about 4 other initiative system fixes and so far, this has been my favorite. I don’t so much mind the other system for determining what skill to use, but I think making a Nature check for how quickly you act in combat feels a little silly and in the grand scheme of things, you can probably find a skill that makes sense to use for most combats that is the same as your prime modifier anyways so I’m not sure in the end there’s much distinction. I feel that if I implemented this part into my game that half of my players would just try to take advantage of it and find a way to use their best skill everytime and the other half of my players would be totally lost and overwhelmed with the choices and unable to make a quick decision as they weren’t thinking about what their character was doing. I think I’d have to come up with what skill everyone should use each time and then there might be arguing. What I’ve seen in other systems that might work for yours is to give multiple options for skills that can be used for initiative so you can pick your best one or surprise combats use the awareness skill and combats you saw coming use the cool skill. You could do something like that or just keep it to the prime modifier and I think I’d like it even more.

[@Jermud]

I enjoy the initiative system, but it has been quite difficult to implement in the FoundryVTT system I've been developing. I'd really like to have it automated but I'm a little stumped on how to solve it. I don't want to have to change a fun DC20 rule to account for VTT development difficulties, haha

[@LeFlamel]

You got a public repo? Could pitch in

[@JKevinCarrier]

As a DM, I'm generally against anything that requires me to do more work, and this seems like a LOT of extra work. Instead of a cut-and-dried process that everyone can do without having to think too much, now the DM has to make a bunch of judgement calls: Setting a DC (based on what?), determine (or adjudicate, if the player suggests something) which roll each character will use, and then decide what order the enemies will go in. Have pity on my tiny, already-over-burdened DM brain.

[@Xorgrim]

Agreed, the DM now has to decide the order in which his team goes. Than can be narratively rewarding on occasion but is a lot of extra decision making required from the DM, unless they go for a random (roll-based) order anyway. And if they do the latter, then what's the point of setting the alternating order for each team?

[@jasonp9508]

Surprised how many positive comments this idea got. I agree this system sounds convoluted and cumbersome, with negligible upside. Sorry DC, it’s a miss IMO.

[@bryan__m]

@@jasonp9508 he's got lots of fans

[@Elkay_J]

I love the direction here. One downside ive seen, and we saw it in your youtuber stream, is the whole concept of rolling with the action you want to do in combat, like the example of rolling with a grapple. It leads to this really weird moment of "why do i need to reroll this grapple check that I just rolled for initiative? Was I graplling them or not?" And that is almost exactly what happened during the stream.

[@MrNicster]

I think what is meant is you roll a grapple/atheltics check to see how fast your attempt will be, to show how fast you can move in, get positioning and THEN make the attempted grapple. As he said, it's not a free gapple attempt. This also means that once shit hits the fan, you can adjust and maybe not grapple anyway once it's your turn, because the room has played out differently than you hope.

[@dfrost303]

I agree. Keeping grapple as an example, as soon as it's either the player or their target's turn, the enemy should roll an opposed check to see if the grapple was successful, and that's where their turn starts. But do you charge them an action point for it?

[@dfrost303]

​@@MrNicsterthis makes sense, yeah

[@EdsonR13]

I agree rolling the same check twice just feels weird and unnecessarily clunky. And if you commit to the action that your initiative is based on, it could also alleviate some of the issue of trying to always roll the optimal initiative number.

[@bryan__m]

@@MrNicster he _says_ it's not a free grapple attempt, but in the liveplay example the two players who rolled attacks as initiative got free surprise round attacks. (The player who was casting a spell didn't get a free surprise round spell, but I guess the player who was being a tree got free surprise round being a tree).

[@Blobby3822]

That looks extremely complicated.

[@thecompletejake]

Maybe the initiative DC should just be a stat on the enemy stat block so the GM doesn't have to create a situational initiative DC on the fly.

[@smippycis6285]

Could use Passive Initiative via 5e style (10 + DEX + Relative Mods). I'd add or remove 5 if ambush or surprised just like passive checks rules too.

[@caurd]

Too predictable and boring

[@freelancerthe2561]

@@caurd it depends. Some chonky creatures should be lowered on the turn order by virtue of their slow nature. there needs a hybrid approach where the roll size is smaller, and the base DC and modifiers push up the average. This would demand more system wide focus, but I'd be more inclined with there being more obvious advantages for manipulating turn order. That way the choice of skills to get you at specific spots in the turn order, and be able to shift your spot in the turn order by reverse lapping. The trouble though is that actions would need more commitment, and forward thinking.... where as action economy with most TTRPGs are all reactive.

[@caurd]

@@freelancerthe2561 If the creature is slow, you make it have a small or even negative bonus to the initiative roll and that's it.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

Ah, the classic vibe of “fix D&D5E by making it either closer to 4E or PF2E”. I absolutely prefer using enemy “readiness/initiative” DCs and clump like enemies together. So smooth and fast.

[@quincykunz3481]

I like setting an initiative dc for the enemies, then anyone who rolls higher goes first, then enemy, then low rollers, then minions and reinforcements if one side massively outnumbers the other.

[@filkearney]

very simple system, and works with PF2 ability check system for initiative as well. This one is pure gold.

[@ivangreengaming2395]

I really like the transition this system promotes. The only thing I didn't really like, based on the one-shot with the youtubers (awesome btw), was when players had to repeat their checks for whatever they were doing and then for initiative, it made things slower and confusing in case the rolls were very different. Ex: If I passed the grapple but then I'm last in initiative did I really grapple? if I fail the grapple but then I'm first in order I'd just try again probably, so in the end it can all boil down to adv/disadv which is basically 1 AP and wouldn't really affect the battle too much if you "double dip" on the roll. In most cases, unless the party is full of min-maxers, the rolls would be things like stealth checks, social stuff or a flashy entrance which, at most, would make the DM give adv/disadv to some players so every way I see it things balance out naturally.

[@BigBrain05]

As someone who has not play tested this systems. I like the idea of this initiative system not having the GM roll for initiative but setting a DC seems a lot smoother than my experience with rolling initiative in DnD as a DM. I like the idea of making a ability check for initiative, but it might feel bad rolling a low bonus check for initiative. I love the team based initiative. It can be a idea to have a floating order in the teams.

[@LeFlamel]

You call it double dipping, i call it transitional elegance. If you roll low on a grapple initiative check and the enemy moves away before your turn, it's a failed grapple (but notably you don't lose the action point for the attempt). If you succeeded you pay AP for the grapple as per usual. I wouldn't let players change their mind to not pay the cost because that'll encourage more min maxing behavior, so you're commiting yourself to your first turn's action but not being punished if it fails.

[@rickeydeyoung9096]

I like this solution a lot

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Honestly going to be switching to this being the default. A lot of good points have been made, yours being one of the stronger points 👍🏼 well said!

[@LeFlamel]

@@TheDungeonCoach glad I could help!

[@CaptnJack]

A grapple should be simple. Its an attack (I would then call this a grapple DC), if you succeed, you can inflict X damage if you want to the target (which you could if you just hit them normally). The grappled can use skill or attribute to break free vs the original attack rolled made (Grapple DC). If successful they are free but used their action. Added effect, the grappler can, if successful, not inflict damage to the target but could raise the Grapple DC some (+1 or perhaps +Prof Bonus) by focusing on holding the target. This is simple, and clear for both sides and easy to resolve I think. I also think there should be defined grapples. Meaning the attacker needs to state the effect of their grapple. 1. Restrain limbs/Movement (arms or Legs) 2. Crushing (for damage) or Silencing (to prevent speaking or breathing) *too often I have seen someone try and grapple a target and then have to decide how they are grappled and the GM has to decide how or what is affected.

[@rickeydeyoung9096]

The biggest thing that i dont love about it, is that it doesnt make a lot of practical sense. Why would Stought Trunk pretending to be a tree allow him to have a better initiative? Why would a different character investigateing a book get a big bonus to going first? It just doesnt make a ton of sense. That said, i do like how it fleshes out what each player is doing before combat.

[@bryan__m]

I just think this is adding a mechanical system to mechanically enforce a roleplaying ideal. There's nothing stopping you from rolling initiative as written, and asking each player what they are doing leading into combat. With most groups, I suspect the "thing they are doing before combat" will always magically be the "thing that has the highest bonus", so the novelty will wear off pretty quickly.

[@ShawnLearn]

I love this idea, I would likely suggest having a fall back initiative of agility though. That way if when you ask what the player character was doing and the player says “I don’t know” you can quickly just tell them what to roll and keep the game moving. Also it allows using agility if the action the player was doing doesn’t make narrative sense as to why it would matter for initiative.

[@WolforNuva]

PF2e does this exact thing, but their default is Perception, the idea being you'll jump into action easier the more you're aware of the coming threats. I kind of like that better than dexterity, but even if I was houseruling these skill check initiatives into D&D I would keep the default as dexterity. PF keeps Perception as its own thing that scales up with your class levels, not a skill check since it already is super valuable and would only become more of a must have skill tax if it became the default for initiative.

[@khavens293]

I wonder if Alertness (Prime modifier) may be more RP & character building friendly than Agility as the default. "What check will you roll for initiative?" "I was just being Alert for any possible combat"

[@ShawnLearn]

@@khavens293 , ya since I posted this I have changed my mind. Since reactions are so easy in DC20 and initiative can be so boring and kill momentum (even if you ask people what they were doing) I think initiative should be replaced with one player (selected by the dm based on the narrative) rolling to see if players or the monsters go first then alternate (player, monster, player, etc). Players can still work together with combos based on their reactions.

[@w4iph]

I think there should be some sort of abilities that just add a bonus to whatever initiative check you do. Kind of like the alertness in D&D that gives you a plus. 5, having pizza abilities or possibly an agility bonus that lets you increase your initiative. If you want to specialize in it, that applies to whatever initiative check you do

[@ivansmashem]

Michelangelo would always have the best initiative. All his abilities are pizza abilities.

[@OnlineSarcasmFails]

What a delicious initiative.@@ivansmashem

[@donbutto]

most of the time when a group is moving around, the DM asks for a marching order. So the DM knows who is in front and who is in the back of of the group, especially in a narrow path situation. I just have the leader of the groups marching order the guy in front, roll initiative. Then the DM rolls for initiative. The PCs initiative order IS the marching order, that they didnt have to roll for at all. Then just back and forth alternate the PC and Enemy as needed. Much less pausing/rolling and more control to the PCs.

[@davidlindsay5905]

This is a good variant. And I think providing multiple variations for initiative rules helps the game reach a wider audience, because initiative mechanics are very divisive. Upvoted!

[@R2-DPOO]

I don’t love the idea but appreciate the creativity. My main concern is people using their pest skill all the time for initiative. Even in the clip you show the guy who is a tree get to have a good initiative because he is a tree? - just doesn’t work for me personally.

[@louis1372]

I would restrict the checks to ability check and not allow to make an attack check. A dexterity-based attack initiating an Attack would be an acrobatic check. This change would reward players picking those check proficiencies. Not sure how this would work for spell caster.

[@FilCieplak]

Why not use Awareness as the standard Initiative roll? It already uses the Prime stat, so it's not inherently better for some characters over others (like Dex). Maybe other types of Checks could be used in more fringe cases, like Stealth for an ambush, etc.

[@benjaminkeller9391]

I agree with this 100%. It also makes thematic sense in most cases, and gives players who want to have good initiative checks a way to boost them.

[@rickeydeyoung9096]

This would be a simple way to do it, but you do lose a bit of flavor.

[@Dabedidabe]

I like many things about DC20, but this system is honestly awful. It feels like you're changing the system for the sake of changing it. In the one-shot it didn't work very well either. The guy doing the drop-kick should've initiated combat, but now everyone else had to have a thing. It looked to me like others were taking the spotlight away and the guy was jogging to the armor for the drop-kick for a loooong time. In 5e people often describe combat as the game screeching to a halt. This makes that problem worse. Sorry if I'm being harsh, but please know that I love a lot of things about the system so far as well.

[@tambarlas5248]

I need to remind myself that things like "initiative" is only to organize combat (which actually takes place simultaneously) to make it turn-based for ease of organization. With that said: - I don't like needing to make the same roll twice - first for initiative and then for the action roll (ex: "drop kick"). This also freezes each player's first round actions. If the last player in the round sees everyone's actions (party and enemy) before them, do they still have to do what they declared at the beginning? What if that no longer makes sense? If they want to change their mind, does that re-arrange the initiative order? - I like the idea of an encounter "Initiative DC" to determine who goes first and how the party and enemy swap turns. I think the DC20 manual needs a bit more to help account for non-matching numbers of players vs enemy. - The DC20 manual describes the "Initiative Help Action". If the initial roll is to beat an encounter initiative DC, why would the party not always do this? - As you (briefly) mentioned, DEX is OP. There is a difference between quickness of mind/thought, mental reaction, hand-eye coordination, physical reaction and steadiness of aim - yet that is all lumped up in DEX. Perhaps the skills should not be determine solely from one attribute - ex: Medicine is some kind of a combination of Intelligence and Agility. PS: you mis-spelled "NOT like" for "NOTE like" in two of your survey questions

[@eloisepasteur]

No, it doesn’t fix their actions, it’s what they were doing just before combat started. In the video clip the reason the barbarian and wizard completed their drop-kick and whip attacks is that they were each carrying their pre-combat action into a surprise action. Essentially that happened before combat and initiative kicked in. As they went into normal combat, the treant didn’t stand there being a tree for its first action, it moved from that into reacting to the fight. However, what worked really in that example was everyone was really clear what the treant was doing - standing there like a tree - nothing more, until it spent an AP.

[@davidlindsay5905]

I like your last point. My groups have often homebrewed intelligence for initiative, because 1) mental quickness is a factor in deciding what to do under duress, and 2) taking something from DEX and adding it to INT actually does a lot to balance out D&D 5E's issues.

[@CaptnJack]

Thats why I like FifthWorld system, beside using cards each round for initiative, you can choose to spend your action points (another FifthWorld system) to inprove that draw.

[@boldnotbald3705]

Yeah PF2E uses a dynamic check for initiative like this. I really like that. I also like the other parts to this system.

[@treasend4126]

If you did a good "stab attack" roll for initiative and and then need to reroll the "stab attack" but get a bad roll now it feels like rolling to hit and getting a high roll then rolling damage and getting a 1 in DnD 5e

[@PuppetSquid]

I love the DM picking the npc order and will probably use that in my own games. It also strips a lot of power out of one player having a massive +5 init buff. I'm not sure I like the ability checks though. If a player is using an investigation or w/e while reading a book I wouldn't expect them to be massively prepared for an attack, but they're bringing a huge modifier with them? The flavour is great, though, and I do think just using agility is sucky. As a counter offer, how about something like; When you start combat you roll a d20 and gain a point of advantage; you can use that point at any time during the combat, including on the initiative roll. You can also give yourself disadvantage on the initiative roll to gain an extra point of combat advantage. You must state your intention before you roll. This lets the players choose if they want to act fast and recklessly or slow and methodically. As a DM you can use this to guage when the enemies move better; they're all hanging back to horde advantage? Fine, all the badguys move first.

[@minimoose7890]

I like the second half of the system: with setting order, the DC, the back and forth, and no roll by GM. The first half with the PC rolling for what they are doing seems confusing and awkward, as well as potentially slow, rather than smooth and streamlined. A lot of things in DC20 seem designed to be smooth and streamlined, but that "what were you doing? roll X for that thing. But that's actually not for doing X, it's just your initiative and you still need a separate other roll for X after/before this initiative roll," seems rough. I'll still playtest it myself, but I am very skeptical about that portion of it. My gut tells me to just have the players roll with their prime-modifier instead for initiative using similar justification as other instances of Prime usage.

[@holy_knight]

*Rolling for initiative* DM: ...and that settles the cleric, alright. Rogue, what are y- Rogue: Stealth. DM: Of course... And you're first. Impressive.

[@bryan__m]

Every. Single. Time.

[@cooperton4949]

Definitely an overly complicated way to handle initiative

[@CeliriaRose]

The only thing I don’t like is that they roll a check which gets used as their initiative but then are forced to roll the check again. On one hand it feels like a redundant and needless extra roll when they already rolled but are now being forced to do the same roll again. It feels like the initiative moment is invalidating the moment. On top of this it would feel really bad if on the new roll they fail when the first one would have succeeded. I feel it would be better to carry out the action and have the roll count for the action and initiative as the result plays. This means less excess rolling as well as givinga smoother transition into combat where now the result of that initial action occurs and then they get to build off of that rather than bringing things to a halt to back up and redo the previous action.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

This is changing in 0.9 👍🏼💜

[@hermittmog8697]

So your initiative attack roll would hit and you go first and then the ACTUAL attack misses. Probably feel pretty lame.

[@ryanbeckett2313]

I think this is a little confusing with the system. It should count as your first action becomes that’s what you are rolling for. If the target moves before then however then you should get the chance to reconsider based on the current state of the battle

[@jeremybooth933]

I have mixed feelings about this. I really like the flavor and narrative possibilities for a full contextual check, and as a GM not having to roll for all of the monsters sounds really nice (The Initiative DC and no more "BOSS" monsters rolling a nat 1 is an AMAZING idea for those key cinematic combats), but I have a few concerns 1st narratively, by not having the randomness of the monsters responses, you loose out on the easy opportunities, for that "one crazy monster" that reacts Way faster than expected putting pressure on the players because of it's nat 20 initiative (For instance your rogue was silent as death itself as it crept into the camp, successfully slipped behind the watch and silenced him almost instantly but the scent of blood however faint, triggered the sleeping gnoll, who lept up and released a snarl blindly swinging towards the source ). Or the hilarity when your fighting the Imposing ogre mage who is ready to weave a frightful curse upon the brave adventures but (rolled a nat 1) bit his tongue in his over eagerness leaving the party an opening to turn the tide in their favor. 2nd strategically, being able to make sure that my crowd control spell caster (lich, orc shaman, ogre mage, evil wizard, enraged druid, priest of the dark order, etc.) gets to go at least 2nd, would be devastating. Being able to always choose the best turn order, round 1, as the GM leads to much more lethal combats. Players prioritize their initiative stats so that they can go earlier and make powerful 1st round decisions to give them an edge, and monsters (at least in 5e), especially casters are often balanced with their initiative modifier, making some of the more powerful monsters at each level (CR) most likely go later in the round. 3rd mechanically: Having what you are doing lead into a contextual check for combat is great, I find it really frustrating that in most systems the initial reaction round 1 (which often could be seen as an agility check) dictates the pacing for every round of combat even if you are ambushing targets. When you set an ambush, your agility is usually not what determines if you act first. So I support different checks for initiative definitely, but my concern is having TOO MUCH context options. To use the examples given in the video, a treant trying to be as tree like as possible, in my opinion, should not give an advantage to acting faster in combat, in fact it should make them slower to react because they would be so focused on being a tree and not on the statues all of the sudden becoming hostile, they simply weren't alert. Having different checks based on reaction speed or how well someone was able to maintain their focus so they can act a precise time, or not be overwhelmed by surrounding influences makes a lot more sense to me, while giving bonuses or penalty's to the role based on what each player was doing when combat triggered, would likely allow the narrative moments to flow as you decide which check to use and if you are distracted or alert, but trying to figure out what check you should use because you are stuck under a rock seems excessive. In general I really like what you are going for, I did the survey and the lowest I ranked anything was a 3, because I don't really dislike any of these ideas or objectives, but I think a bit more tuning needs to happen, and to be fair I think that a great GM could handle all of my concerns effectively, with the system as it is now, and spicing up each combat with randomness that they aren't forced to have with a D20 roll, but just because they can see that it would make the encounter better, but I know that I am not that good at GM'ing, and I also know that most of the GM's that I have actually played with aren't that good either. Even something as simple as a random table to stick on the GM screen to have something to spice up the start of combat in an unforeseen way (when you are open to something unforeseen) could reduce the GM's roll burden to 1 roll, instead of 1 for every monster group and still give a bit of extra flair, and still accomplish the goal of streamlining the back end. (I recognize that I could also make such a table myself and there are probably better fixes, but it is still a suggestion)

[@gpeschke]

Best initiative is hackmasters- everyone rolls, gm counts, players interrupt. Inherently gives you the 'ticking clock' people need to focus their attention and eliminates the paperwork.

[@dungeondr]

Great system! I like the flavour of actions defining initiative but I think in practice I worry about it slowing progress to the first action. But that's conjecture, playtest will determine this! Otherwise all the measures described sound like big improvements.

[@CaptnJack]

I found I like using a Deck of cards for initiative. round count goes from 10 to 1 (ace). Suits have precidence, where Spades goes before hears, goes before diamonds, goes before clubs. Each suit gives a minor modifier for that round. (Clubs are +1 Damage, Hearts are recover +1 HP, etc. ) Face cards have preset initiative numbers (Kings 7, Queens 9, Jacks 5) and each face card has an enhanced suit modifier(still minor). Everyone draws a card, the Count begins from 10, and thats it. End of the round, the cards are put in discard pile and every draws another card. The players are wild over it, because initiative changes each round which keeps them focused and the minor modifiers are also nice. -Side not, I leave in Jokers, when drawn allows a player to go whenever they want, even interrupting another's action.

[@LeakysTV]

I think this is can be clumsy, as a DM I preroll the fight in my dnd and then I just need to add the player when they roll and everyone know the initiative order so they can plan. And also what if doing nothing? If im just walking and get ambush? I like it but im not sure, i gonna need to try it out.

[@UchihaKat]

I don't mind using non-agility checks for the initiative, but what confuses me is the alternating thing. How does that work if you have an uneven number of players and enemies, or as enemies get cut down throughout the fight?

[@srmillard]

I don’t see how using what you were doing for an initiative role really adds much to the game. what if you’re not doing anything in particular? I figured you’d find some way to incorporate the use of.a PCs prime ability to initiative, since that is the ability a PC uses to attack, which is what is done after initiative.

[@smippycis6285]

The Issue with this "whatever check as initiative" is implementation in VTTs. I love d20 + DEX + MODs since it's so consistent I have a button that instantly rolls everyone's Initiative and orders it. It also is easier on the players since their initiative is consistent. For the grapple example, if done out of the blue (talking and suddenly grapple) I give them a initiative normal but starts on the player who started the initiative with their grapple action allowing seemless transition into combat.

[@shadowmancer99]

Ya, no....just hell no. The creatures have an init score for a reason and they should .....because if all the players are able to roll high and get the drop on the enemy team, good for them. And just "choosing" which enemy goes next just smacks of cheating by the DM.

[@jacobthompson4444]

I feel like using attack checks and grapple checks as initiative and then re-rolling them to actually do those actions is unintuitive and confusing. Choosing a skill check to replace a standard AGI roll is easy to understand, but saying to a player "make a grapple check. Cool you go first, now make a grapple check." Their first thought is going to be "didn't I already do that?"

[@Xorgrim]

I am only 9 minutes into the video, but so far I have a few questions/concerns regarding the alternating order of team members in initiative: 1. What if there are more than two teams? Allies or neutrals? or what if the players stumble into a conflict of two NPC factions battling each other? 2. What if one side heavily outnumbers the other? Example: 3 PCs 6 enemies... I would probably let two enemies go have their turn between PCs. 3. What if reinforcements arrive on let's say turn 3 of the battle? When do they go? Do you split up their turns as well or will they share the same initiative?

[@Paradox-es3bl]

The problem with this is what if the player who initiated "combat" / the "initiative roll/check" with the grapple gets a really low Initiative roll? The person they would've in theory surprised with the grapple, may go first and move away? Despite Initiative being started BY them being grabbed? Bare minimum, you have to go against what you said about not ruling that as a surprise. It doesn't need to be an auto-success, but it needs to START the Initiative. The player can still get a different Initiative Roll and have their turn differently, but the action that starts the check needs to happen before you resolve Initiative.

[@Yellowninja7]

I do like this but the issues is the people at my table have different opinions on what initiative should be. One guy insists that an initiative check means how quickly you can switch to combat mode which means it has to be dex/reaction speed. I do like the idea of using skill checks for initiative, but I don't think this will be the best option all the time. For our group, combat itself takes so long that initiative as it is now isn't too bad. Having to do the skill check thing would make it take longer. I do like not rolling for monsters personally. But I am afraid of initiative being too samey. With it always being player than monster, it could feel too much like a video game. Then you get into the issue where if multiple players roll very high, not all of them can go before the monsters and that might feel bad.

[@justinromero8859]

For player initiative, how about simply adding Combat Mastery to the d20 roll? I like the rest of this new initiative system, especially concerning NPCs. Im just not sure if it wont be too confusing for players to both roll the thing theyre doing for their initiative roll, and then also have to roll for that thing theyre doing to see if they actually succeed in doing that thing.

[@Snags5050]

I like the prime stat check. Takes initiative out of Agility, which is the actual main problem with 5e initiative anyway.

[@pjenner79]

I don’t like the slow down.. everyone trying to finagle out a way to get their best number for the check.. might as well use your prime stat instead.. but the thing I don’t like about either is the spread.. a d20 makes it so wide, and if you build to be a speedster, you don’t necessarily get to be a speedster.. one system and I don’t reserve used a d4 and that really makes feats like alert feel like it’s doing what it’s meant to.. also.. I don’t understand why the person who does the thing that starts the initiative can go first.. but I do like the hey let’s pick the order and go back and forth and if you have feats that might let your side (or the other) go back to back.. I’m looking at you tag team

[@MrOwen817]

This gives the Gamemaster freedom to design the experience for the players. Some DM‘s get a kick out of the randomness and rolling with those punches. I would rather design my experience. players can be random enough.

[@20Gadget20]

I like the idea of using whatever you were doing, BUT I think keeping the *skill* element is confusing - dropping the skill and just using the stat would be cleaner.

[@TheSkafei]

I don't really see why the initiative roll can't be kept for attacks or checks. You call it clunky, but wouldn’t it make one less roll to make ? Other than that, I really like the way it works

[@dbenciveni]

I really like the alternating teams, just not as much as I hate the "who's next" moments. And those would happen a lot without grouping enemies. I hope there is a fix for that.

[@mrshrekles]

I think there is a buncha different ways to do it and it depends on your group and if you play in person or not. Playing on roll20 i can click a button and roll everyone's init and get into the combat in a second.

[@hermittmog8697]

I find it more interesting when enemies are mixed in with the PCs. The alternative feels more clunky.

[@scottgreenough]

Seems complicated and slow. My players will HATE this initiative system.

[@DorsonKieffer]

INITIATIVE D6: 1-3 Enemies begin 4-6 Player Characters begin -- Mork Borg

[@marcos2492]

After playing a game without initiative, I realize you don't need initiative at all. Whoever wants to go first, goes first, no need to "transition" into combat because it just flows the same way you were flowing anyways

[@steelmongoose4956]

I’m working on something where combat happens simultaneously, where “initiative” relates more to mental stats. I’m hoping it works out like I’m picturing, because I’d love to design around the traditional slow, turn-based sequential system.

[@jtjames79]

Novel idea. Players can trade initiative order. This represents them being a competent adventuring team. I also give my players a copy of the monster manual because I always figured it would probably be more common than the dictionary in any game world. So YMMV.

[@Scrut89]

Pathfinder 2E's initiative lets players "Delay" by taking themselves outside of the initiative order and then inserting themselves into the initiative order directly after any NPC or PC takes their turn. So if PC A rolls a 25 for initiative but wants to take their turns after PC B who is right in the middle of initiative. PC A can "Delay" and then after PC B takes their turn PC A jumps back in and for the rest of the fight is now after PC B.

[@jtjames79]

@@Scrut89 I've tried that, back when I had a stronger preference for simulationism. Now I'm old and lazy. Been playing cooperative board games lately. Goonies in particular, is the best D&D game I've ever played. It was a one player go, monsters go, system. But each turn the players got to pick their own order. It worked really really good. And even though we each had separate characters, we all worked together to try to optimize each other's turns as a team. Less paperwork, less keeping track of things, and no time to get out your cell phone because everyone's turn is also your turn. But I have a very very very very very chill group of only three middle aged adults. So it might not work for everyone.

[@Scrut89]

@@jtjames79 I run a PF2E game via a VTT because we have people out of state. So it makes tracking all this stuff easy. The initiative part is different but the system itself promotes the party working together to optimize each others turns as well. Whether that is using actions to demoralize or trip NPCs to give the other PCs advantages. Its very tactical. We are also a group 5 people 30-40ish.

[@JJV7243]

In my experience having all the players (or enemies) go in 1-large block makes combats EVEN more swingy. You'll get scenarios where monsters (or players) are burst down in one round without having much say. I'd rather the winning team elects a player to go first, then it AUTOMATICALLY rotates to the losing side who selects an enemy to move (and then a player) etc. This would stagger the combat between sides.

[@pantheraleo2]

Your proposition is indeed what the dc20 rules do 😅

[@R2-DPOO]

I enjoy your ideas but the delivery stresses me out so much.

[@luiscabral9194]

Sounds like a great system that incorporates some role-playing to initiative. I especially like the back and forth between characters and enemies. That has always been a flaw when you have a group of optimized initiative bonouses on the player's side (as my group always do).

[@sesimie]

gonnah share this with all my RPG folks Coach...let's say I'm taking initiative ;) Excellent stuff as usual!! Facilitates combos and synergies!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

I see what you did there lol!

[@Drudenfusz]

Thanks, I hate it. I get what you tried to accomplish there, and I think some aspects of from where you are coming are indeed reasonable. but overall it does not improve on the bad D&D initiative system. But you have not to cater to me, I moved on to more narrative systems anyway and as such DC20 is not really for me. The design should be for the people who actually want that kind of game.

[@Drudenfusz]

After looking into the survey,maybe having an option to not roll at all and directly go for a popcorn initiative would be neat.

[@PumaFist]

I don't get the d20 for initiative. It's way too swingy. A fast character may have a +5 dex mod and improved initiative giving a +4 bonus. That's a nine before rolling. But another character may have a -2 to dex and roll better than the fast character. It makes no sense. Our group uses a d10 instead of a 20. This makes for more pratical and realistic outcomes. Just change the die.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Changin the die is an interesting idea for sure. I personally LOVE the d20 "swingyness" since that is part of the core of the game itself, so it just makes sense to use it. There are DEFINIELY some big changes to initiative coming so let me know what you think of the new one (once it comes out)!

[@Slit518]

What about a scenario that is let's say 4 vs 13. 4 PCs and 13 combatants. And let's say the 13 can realistically be divided into 6 groups. What then? The back-and-forth sounds interesting. I was thinking a bit about it myself the other day. But it left me with questions, both as a player and a game designer.

[@eloisepasteur]

If you’re the DM and you know you have a party of 4, why divide up your 13 monsters into 6 groups to make this awkward decision for yourself? If push comes to shove you can always divide them up into mobs ahead, behind, to left and to the right; four logical groups. They might be mixed monster types, but it’s still four groups of monsters that clearly make sense to everyone. You could divide them by main stat or lots of other things. But you don’t need to make your life hard.

[@bitspersecond2006]

Taking20 posted a vid awhile back about how the ping pong initiative method, exactly how Coach described it, fixed all of his problems with the Challenge Rating system and making encounters much closer to what they were supposed to be (easy, hard, deadly, etc).

[@WilliamMolnar3]

I thought that Awareness check would be what initiative should be based off of. How aware of the situation is your character regardless of what is going on. In the military we called it situational awareness.

[@veldryn01]

I totally agree with you on that. I like most of the systems that coach is putting on the table. But not that one. In his exemple, it doesn't make sense that the tree could go first by doing a tree pose and rolling a nature check. That guy isn't prepare to fight at all. That said if he rolls an awareness roll and gets a high score while doing his action, that could justify a good roll that makes him act first. Like feeling the energy that begins to animate the armor before it could act.

[@Vigilluminatus]

That would make Awareness the absolute essential god skill that EVERY character always will have maxed or be punished in combat for not having it maxed. Not a fan.

[@GrandOldDwarf]

One other alternative that I am likely to try in my next test session is to use a deck of playing cards. If you have the same card as someone else, those players can go together. If the tie is between player and GM, use the suit to break the tie (spades -> hearts -> diamonds -> clubs). The downside to this method is that it doesn't use the narrative transition.

[@stevenphilpott4294]

New subscriber to the channel, but it's all been great so far

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Welcome 💜 and thank you!

[@LuckDragonLair]

I don't know that I'd say it's really "Out there" I really like the idea! :)

[@TheDungeonCoach]

I thought poeple might freak out when I said the DM didnt roll for initaitive lol

[@Tysto]

Here's what I did in 90s, and it still works. If one character in particular initiates combat, that character has seized the initiative; no rolls needed. Otherwise, each side rolls 1d10, higher roll wins; some bonus might apply for greater numbers, higher level, or better prepared (NOT dexterity). The winning side decides who among them goes first, then that character's opponent goes. Go back and forth; the DM decides when extra characters and non-combatants go, whenever it makes sense.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Ooooo thanks for sharing! love that

[@shadowmancer99]

Again, hate this back and forth automatically thing....takes out a lot of dynamics and chance from the game. One side should have the chance to completely dominate the initiative and that is what keeps players on their toes....and makes them consider being smarter...or at least it SHOULD.

[@chrisg8989]

I have been using Side Initiative, but it is very swingy. I like this alot. I think I'm gunna try out this style of Initiative.

[@CaptnJack]

Not a fan of side initiative at all, seems to just fake the flow of interactive combat.

[@chrisg8989]

@CaptnJack its not bad. It's way faster than standard initiative. As long as you build the encounter properly its alot of fun. And it allows the players to pull off some really cool combos. I think this system is the best of both. You get into combat way faster and still maintain the proper flow by having the enemies go in between each player. Rolling initiative for each monster is such a time sink/ waste of time, IMO.

[@emperortime4380]

My rule of thumb for DMing combat has always been monsters go last, unless there’s a surprise round. This method intrigues me because I was sort of already doing team initiative.

[@GlenFinney]

The ice Dracolich!

[@kamchatmonk]

Can't say I like taking turns with the enemy team in the initiative order. It worked that way in Divinity: Original Sin games, and it kind of made it feel unfair, because even if you have a band of lightning-fast ambushers attacking two turtles, your initiative and swiftness is rendered absolutely meaningless because the two slow turtles make their turns right after your superfast speedsters no matter what. It just feels bad when the order is like: - Monk, initiative roll of 25 - Lethargic zombie, initiative roll of 2 - Rogue, initiative roll of 24

[@OnlineSarcasmFails]

Hmm this is a good point, but how often do such extreme matchups actually happen in play? With the regular d20 it's the same as you rolling 1-3s and the turtles rolling 17-20 If you can explain away one you can explain away the other as well. Distraction, complication, etc.

[@ryanbeckett2313]

This to me is the only major flaw with the initiative system. I love the concept of DC20 for the most part but I would definitely homebrew initiative order to work like 5e but use the DC20 initiative check system. I like the variability of not having a set order of back and forward to the game.

[@bryan__m]

I've been doing a similar system and it hasn't been a problem. The difference is I still roll initiative for everyone, so the slower monsters still go at the end, even if they get to go ahead of someone else who is slow. I'm sure it's going to vary a lot based on the group, but I think having every other really smooths out combat.

[@ryanbeckett2313]

@@bryan__m I am just still really struggling to see the benefit of every other in combat. I love the new initiative rolls based on what is happening, that is perfect and fixes a lot of my problem with “Roll of initiative” from 5e. However I love being both in Campaigns and running campaigns with a wide variety of monsters and also want to reward my players for rolling well or if a monster rolls poorly. It adds a lot of flavor context to the game if a monster is distracted before battle for example for example. Because everyone (PC’s and Monsters) all get a turn still it makes the combate still fair and I don’t see alternating doing anything to help speed up, or not altering to slow down, an overall turn. Plus at the end of the day it rewards high rolls from players something the WHOLE rest of this system does amazing job at with the (5),(10), or each (5) system. Overall I just think it truly needs to be homebrewed or give us an option to be back to a total rolled order (pc’s and monsters included). Like don’t get me wrong though, this is my only complaint with the whole rule set and have backed the Kickstarter and are very excited for DC20.

[@bryan__m]

@@ryanbeckett2313 I first got the idea from taking20 (he calls it zipper initiative) and he's got a video going over it in a lot of detail. The benefit to me is you no longer have players not get to participate in combat because the monsters all got lucky and beat down the front line guy before he got to act, or on the flip side, you no longer have the entire team go nova on the big bad before he ever gets to act. Combats are easier to design because you don't have to add in all these contingencies to account for wonky initiative rolls, your bosses stay around long enough to get at least one cool ability or two, but it's also less likely to result in an accidental TPK. One benefit it has specifically when combined with the skill-check initiative (that, see below, I don't like anyway) is that it doesn't completely screw a player over who was being honest that whatever they were doing before combat was a skill they were bad at. If you JUST use the skill-initiative part, even the best player is going to have a hard time deciding to roll a flat or negative bonus check against a horde of undead. At least with the zipper system they know they'll only go 7th or 8th in initiative, and can't go 15th. I don't think that zipper necessarily makes combat _faster_ (nor is it a goal, since even DC says it takes more time to use the new system than the "slow, clunky moment" of rolling initiative), but I _do_ think smooths it out. Knowing that, at least until monsters start going down, I take my turn after each player means that I get the reigns on a regular interval to take control of the narrative flow of combat. Each player gets one monster's worth of turn to think about what they are doing, and change their plan if the player before them messed up their initial idea for what to do. It's a lot more rare now that we get to a player's turn and they sputter a bit because the player before them killed the bad guy they spent time figuring out exactly how to attack. Plus, it keeps the "monster side" turns shorter -- maybe it's just me, but it always feels clunky when I have a bunch of monsters go in a row and the players are just watching me make attacks (especially for mooks or cannon fodder). For my players, at least, watching each other holds their interest a lot better than watching me. As for a "reward", in my experience initiative is too swingy for a players to really feel a meaningful impact from rolling well. My rogue player often has advantage on initiative, has the highest Dex mod, and sometimes still rolls lowest. Once you get past the first round of combat the round order doesn't mean much anyway, since the last person to go still gets to go before everyone else gets to go again. As for rolls based on what's happening, that might work fine for some groups, though I don't think you need to add any mechanics to it to still have that narrative conceit. For my group, you can guarantee that every combat the rogue is going to be sneaking, the monk is going to be readying an attack (_especially_ if that gives him the chance to get a free surprise round every time like they get in the example!!), and the cleric is going to be persuading the enemy to do whatever his newest plan is. So they've all got about the same bonus going into it and it's no different than rolling a flat d20 at that point, so why bother with all the extra friction? Maybe it interacts better in DC20 -- I've not been enough of a fan of the system to really dig into the details, but for D&D I just don't see it adding anything that you can't already do using base initiative with a little roleplay added on.

[@andrewlustfield6079]

This is the best initiative system I've ever run--there is no initiative: Replacing initiative experiment: New Combat Order of attacks. No initiative dice are rolled. Once combat is joined, combat goes in this order. Combatants with similar weapons or attacks go at the same time. 1. Initial missile attacks: bows and crossbows, then thrown weapons such as spears, hand axes, daggers, etc. 2. Magic: Wands, staves, rods, rings and other items with stored spells go first, then cast spells, and finally spells read off scrolls are declared. 3. Melee & middle missile attacks: Weapons with the longest reach will go first-This order will repeat for character with multiple attacks unless circumstances dictate otherwise-for instance the party is in a very tight press and long weapons are too unwieldy. • Pole weapons that are 8+ ft. (pikes excluded for obvious reasons) • Long weapons: Two handed swords, great axes (Dane axes), pole axes, 6’ spears, quarter staff, etc. • Medium weapons: Bastard swords, long swords, maces, any one-handed weapon between three and four feet long. • Short weapons: Short swords, clubs, daggers, iron spikes, • rocks, fists, claws, bites, etc. 4. Cast magic: Cast spells and spells cast from scrolls take effect. (Roll spell craft and religion checks are made now.) 5. End of round missile fire: bows and crossbows, then thrown weapons such as spears, hand axes, daggers, etc. It is so fast, and monsters and characters are all going at the same time, just like the real cluster-snuff a real combat would be. You start each round by calling out initial missiles, and go from there. If you have 10 orcs with bows or crossbows? They all go at once. There are real reasons to have spears and pole arms. Secondary and other back up weapons matter. It helps created a gritty, easy to run, smooth combat

[@thedorkydoodlesden]

Love the Action points in combat, love the attributes being limited to 4 scores, love the mana/stamina points, love the emphasis on classes being focused on fulfilling fantasies/archetypes. I'm coming around on the idea of a Primary attribute! Not sure about an initiative system that seems to ADD complexity though... intuitive rules has been mentioned more than once in the doctrine of DC20, and I think that should be paramount. Love seeing your thought-process!

[@Frostrazor]

So i am on watch, while my 3 companions snore away in their sleeping bags. Suddenly a small band of brigands are accosting us for an easy kill. I make an "investigative/perception" check cuz that's what I've been doing. That gives my Initiative check But what do my companions roll for their initiative? What game action were they considered to be doing to apply appropriate modifier? I love the DC idea for the GM side. I love the go back and forth narrative. I like the idea of what were you doing....but there's too many gaps for things PCs might be doing that wasn't keyed specifically to a game mechanic action. I suppose like in PF2E you can default to perception - I mean you could say how long does it take them to wake up? I would say in this scenario your "initiative is a Perception check at Disadvantage" (if that's a thing in this game). Meaning - it'll be harder for a sleeper to go first or before the attacking enemy (beating its initiative DC).

[@michaelmurphy748]

(only 4:10 into video) So the PC grabbing the guard says "I attempt to grab the guard" and everyone roll Initiative. So now, the person who started the combat has a chance to go last making the objective that started the combat meaningless. I have always hated this type of system. The person who started the combat should have some type of penalty for starting it but automatically go 1st and STAY at that position. I have seen a wizard say "I cast fireball" while all the enemies are grouped. It was because the wizard saying "I cast fireball" that initiative started but then he goes last and all the PC's and enemies are scattered and in the same zone. Also, this ruins setting up good ambushes. For the most part, the + to initiative is meaningless at low levels and the D20 is the massively influencing factor. I know this comment is made after the kickstarted ends and I hope Initiative is changed.

[@shadowmancer99]

This initiative rules set seems completely overblown, convoluted, punishing, and makes no sense. The fact that some one who built for going first cant, or likely wont is silly. And the take turns between opposing sides is also silly. Takes out a lot of the risk on both sides and the tactical advantage to be gained by being smart or even just lucky. I dislike the lower HP, not rolling for damage, the mounds of extra "resources" that are unnecessary, but really this initiative rule and the AP penalties are two of the worst parts of this system. I think there ARE some good ideas in the game, like condensing the 1-20 features to 1-10 as that does allow players to get to those high end abilities. But multi-classing seems weak. And this Prime mod just makes everyone bland. I think a lot of the worst parts of both 5e and pathfinder were used and then made even worst.... At least for my tastes. I just cant see how this initiative system isnt cumbersome, and just unfun. I have never had a problem with roll for init and get to the encounter whatever that might be...

[@justnojustn3036]

"How combat should feel" Who says that? What if the situation is one where obviously the team would move first against the slow and ancient giants. Or in a bar fight where nothing is orderly and everything is pure chaos. What if their is mutiple teams? Like assuming all combat till the end of time should be a straight back and forth is really weird.

[@cray989]

You know, so far I have liked everything I've seen of DC20. I've been looking for a good system with a similar crunch level and this seems to be it. I've even backed the Kickstarter. But this initiative system is not a shining point of the game (assuming it is still the current initiative system being used - I know this video is a few month old and a couple iterations have come out since this was published). First, it feels far more cumbersome for the GM than just straight up rolling the 5E way. Add to that, I really hate systems that are 'we' go the 'they' go. It breaks immersion in a big way for me. That is just not how fights work out. I do like using various stats, depending upon what he character's may be doing, though I do believe that there should be a primary initiative skill used, with other skills coming into play when appropriate. And, frankly, some actions a character may be performing would actually be problematic when it comes to reacting to a sudden violent situation. For example, if a rogue were in the middle of trying to disarm a trap or pick a lock, or even just searching for a trap, they would almost certainly be at a disadvantage at reacting to a sudden attack. But the fighter, who may be watching the group's back, would likely earn an advantage of some sort in detecting an unexpected attack. If this initiative system is still the one in the system, I will almost certainly modify the crap out it. Beyond this, however, as I said, I really like what I'm seeing and plan running a few playtest sessions with my group when the beta is available after the KS finishes. Good work on this overall.

[@dylanmcgregor6496]

I'm running an 8 hour Pathfinder 1e this weekend with 7 players, we'll use your system. I already like the fact that it allows the GM's side more opportunities to actually get a turn. I'm guessing I should run hoards in "batches".

[@zixserro1]

The one thing I'd do different from what you did in the clip you showed is, rather than say "Now we're rolling for initiative," you instead just have them each make the roll for what they're doing, and before announcing the outcome of each roll, tell them that was the initiative roll, and then resolve each roll on their turn in initiative order before they make their actions for the turn. That makes it flow into combat a little bit more fluidly. I also would've counted the two attack checks that were made for initiative as their attack rolls for their surprise round, since they made the checks based on what they were doing, and if it was revealed that initiative was being rolled after each person rolled their check, they would've expected to hit. Imagine if they'd rolled, like, a 22 attack roll for their initiative, then rolled a second attack check for their surprise attack and got a 4 or something. It would waste a high attack roll for the purposes of damage for the sake of giving them good initiative, when the roll could serve both purposes.

[@dfrost303]

The big change I'd make is to also let the players choose whatever order they go in. Once you've established whether PCs or Enemies go first, just have player or NPC slots. Each round, any player can take any player slot. This way, the combat is even more dynamic and allows the players to be tactical with their action points beyond just reactions.

[@Fjuron]

Making enemies take their turn as a narrative reaction to being attacked is cool. However, I have a balancing question: If there is one monster that does way more damage than the other monsters, is the DM allowed to let it go first? Or does it have to go in the middle of the round to keep things balanced? Are there any rules or guidelines for this? Also, this initiative system favors groups with fewer members, doesn't it? The side with more combatants will have a portion of them take their turn at the end of the round when there is no enemy left to take turns in between them.

[@davidlindsay5905]

I think that having only ONE RULE for initiative is limiting your customer base. Initiative is a very divisive thing that people either love or hate. Maybe include your new narrative-initiative ideas as optional rules, and have at least two or three initiative variants for groups to decide what works best for them. I've run intiative in the "players roll --> then alternate" (ally-enemy-ally-etc.) for years as my default in some games. But in others I use group initiative, and in other games I use a deck of cards (one tarot or face card for each player and numbered cards for enemies, I choose whichever enemy makes sense when it's drawn, shuffle at the end of each turn). These all work well and are compatible with your system. Group Initiative really encourages more synergy and tactics between players, resulting in much less thinking about "what I am going to do" and more "what are we going to do." I can't recommend this enough. I think most people here will have seen how many initiative optional rules are offered in Milton's Knave 2 for example. The space taken up in print is minimal compared to the benefit for your game. Please consider.

[@alexc007]

I haven't yet actually played 0.4 yet, although I have read through the rulebook. Maybe it works out a lot better in practice (as seen in the examples), but I can't help but feel a bit iffy about it. My biggest criticism with the initiative system is that I feel like one of the big design goals with DC20 was to to simplify/streamline certain parts of the game to keep the pacing going. For example, rolling just once instead of rolling to hit and then rolling for damage. I like that change. I also like the DC check for initiative and the back-and-forth. On the other hand, I feel like the "what you were doing before" may slow down the game a bit excessively (although I admit I myself have not tried it yet; this is all just my impressions). Also, some players may just try to always say they are doing whatever they have the highest number in to get that little bit of an edge. I voted for adding Prime to the initiative, but I don't really love that either since then everyone is more or less the same and that's a bit boring. Could a formula for initiative work? Maybe Awareness + (1/2) Agility (rounded up of course, minimum 0)? This gives players the chance to build that high initiative character, but not feel like a huge negative for players not invested in agility since Awareness is tied to a minimum of their Prime. This means that at worst at level one a player may have +3 imitative or potentially +6 (if they invested in awareness and have a 3 in agility). But then that may just further the important of Awareness and potentially be imbalanced. I think it's important that it's quick to get into, which you definitely accomplish with the DC check. Either way, I look forward to seeing how this system and DC20 develops!

[@stevenphilpott4294]

Quite like this. It can be annoying where prior to combat a character is about to do something that will take a microsecond, someone else is trying something complex or a spell with VS and M components. Yet the person who is doing the complex thing rolls a 20 on their initiative, while the person who was doing the quick thing that they are expert at, rolls low and goes last due to their Dex being low

[@modellking]

That's similar to how i homebrewed Initiative! Awesome! I would not reroll the attack checks for the surpriseround tho Maybe even use past checks for initiative e.g. the naturecheck could have happened minuites ago

[@Jakkesama]

I love it. Great with a dynamic check. But more smoothly? No way. This will take much more time. So don't talk down D&D that way. But otherwise, yes this is much more fun and cooler than D&D.

[@tomasguisasola]

I usually don't matter about initiative. Many times the order is natural so we just keep going. I almost allways group the monsters together based on a single roll and let the players roll to decide their order and so it is. Ok, I do not have nothing against this new initiative system but it is "much ado about nothing". I won't spend time teaching this new rule. It is not worth it. We just roll something or keep playing...

[@alderaancrumbs6260]

Has anyone thought about the PCs slotting turns like the GM does? GeneSys does this, setting initiative slots based on “PC” or “NPC”, then the players and GM choose who goes when on those slots each turn. It creates epic moments.

[@luketabois2620]

at first I wasn't sure how i felt about unique initiative however when you combine it with a DC for who goes first (player or DM) it may affect the outcome as some may not be good at talking so they would potentially roll poorly which would potentailly impact whether they pass the DC or not which could be interesting

[@lidular]

I just dont roll for initiative... Battle basically always starts with someone attacking ie. taking initiative. That person then goes first and the one they attacked goes second, then it is usually quite obvious at that point who will go next and the order just kinda comes up naturally.

[@evanbasnaw]

I do like the back & forth because I hate having to roll 12 different d20s and adding DEX for all of the various enemies on my side. I have too many things to keep track of already as DM. I might roll for the boss, but I switched a while ago in my games to the back & forth method and it's more streamlined. Instead of a total combat initiative determined ahead of time, sometimes I do just roll a number of d20 and add my highest DEX from the enemies to determine when the first one goes because sometimes you can get 3 PCs to start the first round of combat before the back & forth starts if it's going well for them.

[@Krwzprtt]

I'm worried about the "What you were doing" rule check for initiative because I feel like in a LOT of situation, what the PCs were doing was "advancing through the dungeon". Or ONE of them was doing something related to what triggered the combat, and the others were waiting out. I'm not sure there would be that much diversity in pre-combat actions.

[@Rechanmole]

And of course where the character is doing nothing. In a "Characters arguing with the guard", someone's going to be just standing there watching the argument. Wondering how ambushes work. I detest 5e's surprise round.

[@quickanddirtyroleplaying]

This initiative system is very similar to that of Fabula Ultima, with the following differences: 1) In FU, the initiative check is a group check. One PC leads the charge, while the others aid them. I find this to be clunky. 2) Armor worn imposes an initiative penalty: the heavier the armor, the worse the penalty to the roll. 3) The PC group is trying to beat the highest initiative score of the enemy group so that their side can get the first turn in combat. 4) Regardless of whichever group wins, anyone can take their turn in any order, although each PC only gets one turn per combat round. For the enemies, if they're elites or champions, they have more than one turn per combat round. Other than that, turns alternate between the PCs and enemies. With this turn alternating style, players are incentivized to pay attention to what's going on so that they can strategize on which PC should go on which turn, and failure to pay attention and apply an adaptive strategy can really hurt their chances of victory. I find it to be more satisfying gameplay than going in initiative roll order every round.

[@c.d.dailey8013]

Oh wow. I think the intitive system in DND is fine. If I do my own game, I would let either the player character go first or the first character to attack to go first. This video has a great new spin on intuitive. How interesting. I suggest tying this to ability score. DND has different kind of attacks boosted by ability scores. It depends heavily on class. A way to elaborate on this is to have a variety of attributes contribute to defense. 5E has this with each ability have its own kind of saving throw. 4E goes further into having different kinds of defenses. This video talks about how one can transition into combat more smoothly. I think the DM should make it clear how hostile or friendly cebrtain NPCs are. Then the players should have a chance to prepare for a potential battle. I like the idea that the things characters are doing determines initiative. However I think this should be an ability score check instead of a skill check. A player rolls a d20 and adds the ability score that fits the activity. If a character was sneaking around, they get the regular dexterity bonus to thier initiative roll. However is a character grabs a foe, they get a strength bonus thier initiative roll instead. If a character was casting a spell, they get an intellegence bonus. If a character is arguing or intimidating with a foe, they get a charisma bonus. The wisdom bonus is interesting. Wisdom is good at perception and it is effectivly at odds with the stealth of dexterity. So a character can keep close guard on thier party, especially near potentially hostile NPCs. When such a character watches like this, they get a wisdom bonus to thier initiative roll. Ha! It goes both ways. This video does make a good point. Dexterity is overpowered. It is the only one in RAW DND that improves initiative. It increases damage for light weapons and ranged weapons. It even provides defenses due to dodging. This helps with both AC and saving throws. My solution is to nerf dexterity so it doesn't affect AC. However there is an alternative solution. Dexterity can still work more or less like before. However the other ability scores become just as powerful. So that brings balence while also making ability scores more vibrant than before. That would be cool. Constitution could get underpowered. It is good for increasing hit points and providing defenses against poisons and diseases. It is hard to come up with other things for it. I couldn't think of ways for contitution to boost initiative or offense. Mayebe there is other ways. Maybe constitution could increase healing done by using rests and potions. Maybe the consitution of a magic user boosts healing spells. That would be great for clerics and paladins. Constitution ought to improve certain skills in the field. It may help for medicine and survival skills. It may even help with nature and animal handling skills. I think it is fair for all ability scores to get equal amounts of skills. Strength doesn't have many skills either. Maybe it ought to be breaken down to different kinds of athletic feets. There can be a pushing skill, a climbing skill, a swimming skill etc.

[@guamae]

I primarily use the 5e initiative system, but I've taken to "unsticking" the d20 rolls from the villains. If there are 4 villains, I roll 4 dice, and give the highest roll to the villain that I want to go first, and so on. I think it makes opening combats more cinematic, and let's me tune the difficulty (I often have the Big Bad go last, as they are surveying the combat from the far side of the room). The more I think about it, the more I like the DC value and taking turns... Removing my extra Paperwork at the start of an encounter also sounds enticing 😝

[@dmonicplays8374]

I think this makes it a bit too complicated. I'm just gonna stick to standard initiative rolls like dnd and just use the awareness skill for it (kinda makes sense for it to be awareness, imo)