DungeonCraft #6: No More Initiative! 

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

thank you dude

Thanks

@@baldrodinson3380 Thanks! upvote!

@@David-we3sb Thank you for the thanks lol

The mvp here

In Pathfinder 1e, Gnomes have an alternative racial trait called Magical Linguist. lol

Lol

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!

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.

It mostly helps with REALLY speeding the game up

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.

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.

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.

@@piper2323 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.

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.

@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.

Thanks for taking the time to post, Britt. Great to have you aboard!

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"

That's pretty close to Moldvay Basic D&D from 1981.

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.

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.

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?

@@Terrr05 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

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.

Well said, Issa.

i think it just needs to be explained better

Thanks for watching, Deven! Whatever works for your group is what you should use.

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.

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.

Martin Jutras I would suggest removing attacks of opportunity whenever something is running away it makes it more bombastic and random.

I don't use those spells. Wizards make their own, original spells. That's a topic on an upcoming episode. Thanks for watching!

blink is easy enough if my target blinks i auto miss alert if dm tries attack from the shadows it turn into a normal attack most games alert is bad anyways stunning streak work as describe the next rd the enemy is stunned

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RV_RwUFETdI.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?”

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?

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.

Welcome aboard!

Professor Dungeon Master doesn't use attacks of opportunity, bonus actions or feats at his table. I think to accomplish that he can't just let players go to D&D Beyond and make whatever they want for PCs.

We are going to try this on our Saturday night game, cant wait

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.

Cool.

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

He doesn't play with AoO or Bonus Actions at his table.

Presumably with attack roll resolution, you can apply any after the roll mods like luck or bardic inspiration after the dice are cast. Anything that must be declared before the die role has to be declared up front. If there is a reaction, such as a attack of opportunity or shield, they occur as the triggering action occurs. These things are not complicated nor different from what the rules say. The major difference is just concurrent timing and initiative goes out the window.

It's in the credits. "Volatile Reaction" by Kevin Macleod. I'll be using it for my game today!

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.

Diplomacy uses the same method. Thanks for the post!

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....

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!

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.

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.

They are from the "Wizkidz Pathfinder" line. Just google them and you can find where you can buy them in your corner of the world!

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).

Make two attacks or 2 movements

Probably just roll for your extra action and it's the same from there, which ever die has a high roll can occur sooner, whichever doesn't tends to occur later.

He says elsewhere he doesn't. No bonus actions, no multi-attacks, no opportunity attacks or acting out of turn. Personally I don't like that, I think it strips too much away from fighter and rogue-types; but if you use your imagination I think you can reincorporate them into this initiative system. Everything happens within the 6 seconds of combat so the fighter would just roll 2 d20s for his multi-attack, and the Rogue could disengage after the attacks are made. PDM says he uses such a hodgepodge of different D&D and non-D&D systems that you can't even really pinpoint it is as a single system + homebrew, more his own system, made up of the best ideas from many books.

He wouldn't. He said only new players like this system. Only the ones that don't know about bonus actions existence

I'm curious about this myself. This no initiative setup sounds like it could be fantastic if handled well, but compared to 5e D&D which is what I (and many TTRPG players) mostly play it feels like you would have to build the system around this new way of doing initiative from the ground up. I think bonus actions can fit around this quite easily; it would be fairly simple to just state what bonus actions are planned and whether they happen before, during, or after the main action at the start of the turn. But in 5e this becomes crazy complicated once you start factoring in things like Reactions, Actions Surges, Legendary Actions, spells or features which allow you to control someone else's actions etc. Does any attacks/movement which goes unused by the players in the initial flurry of action just not get used at all? Could there perhaps be a 'remaining actions' phase as part of the same turn? Also you'd have to sort out some alternative features for characters who get bonuses to initiative. Perhaps on the first round of any combat they could get a small bonus which they can choose to add to an attack roll, ability check, or damage roll of their choice on the first round of combat. If somebody figures it out I'd be interested to know, but my head is starting to hurt trying to wrap my head around how many mechanics would have to change to use this system 😂

@@robertwinslade3104 The problem with this set up is that its very clearly catered to the type of people that have been paying for over a year, or have sat down and studied their characters like its their SAT's. For the normal person that doesnt play DnD like its their life, and in general those that actually like to enjoy it and describe fun things, and not be put under a time pressure, this system will not work for you. This is a system where youre expected to know your character inside and out, and treat your game as a "I will hit it with my sword. I do X damage. Next", and thats fucking BORING.

Legendary actions, lair actions...

@@cyanide7270 Agreed! This system is WAY TOO FAST and doesn't allow reactivity which is where all the fun parts of the game come into play, for me, especially during combat. Being able to see during a big fight that a stone golem is walking up to your backline supports and being able to adjust your plans on the fly and go leap on his back to start hacking at the golem is not possible here, everything immediately happens. Plus it would probably end up taking the same amount of time out of the DM to 1. aggregate who exactly did what and how their enemies responded and 2. describe what happened with enough detail.

Great question. This happened just last night. The answer is the creature is not blind until the NEXT round and goblins get caught in the fireball.

@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 You stated earlier that spells in this system should be just as fast as melee attacks "Because if swords are faster than spells why would you ever be a wizard", but this answer implies that for some spells you have to try to plan a turn in advance. For all the Cleric in this scenario knows the "creature" (Say, an Orc) will be dead before the Blindness can take effect, not mentioning the fact that casting blindness at all is now pointless because the Orc is going to get those melee attacks off anyway. This is where Mike Merles' new system, or Dawnforged Casts' system, or even just basic initiative can allow for some actual tactics rather than, coincidentally enough, BLINDLY casting spells or making attacks that might not even hit! If two players declare they're going to attack the same creature, one player's hit lands first and kills the creature, does the second player's attack just vanish, wasting a round of combat for them? Your system sounds great for accomplishing (Mostly) what you stated in the video; making fights more of a fast skirmish. Where lucky strikes that happen to be faster might just win you the fight last-second, but it leaves out too many variables that might make some character builds slow or tactically inept other than just shooting a spell and hoping the creature doesn't move away or get an attack off before the spell takes effect. (Also, as stated in a different comment under a username I can't remember: If spells are as fast as swords who would ever be a fighter when you can fire an array of far more devastating or versatile spells in just as much time?)

I think I would ask those who want to do a spell/range attack to attack (and do their damage) and see if anyone (rogue) wanted to use a bonus action to do something (like move/hide...). Then I'd have people move - including monsters (any reactions like polearm reach?). Then do attack rolls(maybe even rolling damage dice at the same time) and resolve/narrate. Finally, again, check for bonus actions before repeating the round. May try next Saturday...

@@codasinger5298 If 2 people are attacking an ogre, does one hit, then the other waits to see if he dies, before striking ? Then when sure hes dead goes off and finds another to hit ? No they both hit together, and the ogre crumples. Neither knows who made the killing blow. 6 second turn

@@pd7263 = Six seconds is a long time, actually. A sword swing takes 1-2 seconds maybe. So the chances of both swings being simultaneous are slim.

Great question. Han (the player) and Greedo (the DM) toss their 20s at the same time. Han rolls 15 and scores 12hp on Greedo, exceeding his 8hp. Greedo rolls 5, a miss. I interpret this to mean Hand shot first and killed Greedo, who never actually got to pull the trigger. Han "won" the initiative, we just combined "to hit" WITH Initiative.

@@DUNGEONCRAFT1Damn RIGHT Han shot first! - Sorry, got a little edgy there.

@@MonkeyJedi99 Right on. And he should have shot his kid in TFA--not died like a whiney punk-ass.

Yes, it's "Gnome" and I am thrilled you are working your way through our catalogue!

There must be something in the air. I haven't played D&D since the mid-80s either and any RPG since the very early 90s, but this year I am being drawn back in. Started painting figures again and have been watch videos like this. I /had/ to start work on a campaign setting to justify the figure painting. I can't see myself playing again, but you never know.

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.

Its not more realistic. He has obviously never been in a real fight in his life. Too many assumptions which aren't true. He doesn't account for the randomness of life. Just cause you train to fight, doesn't mean you're always better than someone who doesn't.

It's a lot simpler. Check out my "Manifesto" video to air in March. Check out Tracy Hickman's XDM: Extreme Dungeon Mastery.

I'm a second degree black belt and have engaged in physical conflicts on a number of occasions. The "randomness of life" is where the dice come in. My combat may or may not be more realistic, but it's a LOT faster and more deadly for the PCs.

@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Until you add in the human element, with normal players who don't always get along, with DM's who play favorites.The cross table arguing alone will slow down combat. "No you can't do that, I'm doing this." The meta gaming will be even worse.

@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Sorry, I simply can't take that statement seriously. Dating all the way back to high school, I have seen so called black belts get plummel by your average bully. You say the dice come in, but you specifically took the rolls dealing with this out. Attack rolls do not equal the when, just the how.

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....

@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