I make no claim to an OSR style game, but I've been playing D&D (and it's descendants) since the original boxed set.  We use initiative rolled every round.  If you're going last in the round and you know all your companions go before the bad guy, you don't have the same concerns about ending the fight, or saving a dying companion.  

When initiative is rolled new every round, you may find the bad guy going first, or the person who is in danger of bleeding out beating you in initiative.  Not knowing what the next rounds initiative is helps maintain a certain amount of suspense - and suspense in general is critical for combat to be entertaining.  It's not the only way, but we find it helps alot.

Since we track a variable initiative, we used to magnets on a white board with every character's name.  Reordering it was a breeze.  Now we are spread around the country so we play via video conference; we enter initiative into a shared spreadsheet and sort every round.  Each player adds their own initiative every round.  Outside of play-by-post, it's the best version of initiative I've ever used.

I can't remember where I saw this houserule, but the idea is that you roll for side-based initiative, and then the difference between the rolls determines when you roll for initiative again.
So, if your side rolls a 2 and the other side rolls a 4, then you roll for initiative again after 2 rounds.

So, there's more variance than rolling initiative only once, and less variance than rolling initiative every round.

I gave phased combat a try in 5e with my friends and it kicked ass. It took what would've been a three hour combat into like 30 minutes. And everyone was paying attention the whole time because everyone had their turn always happening. It has some rough spots but it can be ironed out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128987I gave phased combat a try in 5e with my friends and it kicked ass. It took what would've been a three hour combat into like 30 minutes. And everyone was paying attention the whole time because everyone had their turn always happening. It has some rough spots but it can be ironed out.

Would you mind listing out the approach you landed on that you like? I think I see it kind of listed across a couple posts, but I'd like to run my combats better/faster.

I decided to keep it basic and do it OD&D style (as I understand it), or close to it. I ran a few mock combats with friends and we got to see how it works, along with a few problems that I need to decide a solution to.

Here's what we did:

4 phases.

1. Ranged attack rolls. (This includes all ranged attacks, including ranged spell attacks.)
2. Movement, object interactions. (So, moving around, pulling out a weapon, opening a door, etc.)
3. Melee attack rolls, generic actions. (This includes all melee attacks, including melee spell attacks. Generic actions is anything not covered here, like Lay on Hands.)
4. Spells! (These are all non-attack spells, so stuff that either just works or uses a save. These spells are held at concentration until they are fired in phase 4.)

You can use any action or bonus action you have in a phase that fits it. For instance, if you had a bonus action attack and an action attack, you could use both in phase 3.

I kept to the phases very rigidly, ie., you had to get all your movement done in phase 2. If you found yourself short to attack in phase 3, then you couldn't attack.

I ran it team initiative style -- at the start, the highest initiative member of each team faces off, the winner gets to go first. Then every member of the team declares what they want to do this turn. Once they're done declaring, we resolve each step one at a time. After that, the enemy team goes. I considered a variant where both teams go at once, but resolve in order of initiative. (So if it was like that, you'd have Team A do their ranged attacks, then Team B, then Team A moves, then Team B moves, etc.) But currently it's all one side and then the other side.

It went very fast, and it kept everyone engaged the whole way through. This was a big deal since we play online, and online makes it easy for people to zone out and do other stuff while it's not their turn. But here, it's always their turn. So it's the anti-AFK system.

Two big drawbacks:
1) It seems like almost all the action has to be handled out of character, so you can't play it immersively if you're used to that, at least not without slowing it down again.
2) There are a number of edge cases where the pre-existing character abilities don't line up smoothly with the new system that have to be figured out. For instance, in normal 5e, you can move and act in any order you want, so it's easy to move up to someone, grapple them, then keep moving. In this, you have to do ALL  your movement beforehand, and then only get a chance to grapple in phase 3 -- by which point it's too late to move anymore. The same with any high mobility option or character like the Rogue's Cunning Action or the Monk or the Mobile feat. I fudged this in some cases, like letting someone taking Dash in phase 3 as a generic action to use extra movement on that phase even though it's the melee attack phase... maybe there's a way to fix it? Maybe add a second movement phase? I don't want to add a billion phases though. Or stuff like, if a spell is held until concentration in phase 4, what does that mean if you were already maintaining a spell with concentration before this? In normal 5e, the previous spell ends. In this case, I let that concentration not count against the concentration total.

It ended up going pretty well.

I think the parts where certain classes didn't get to work as they normally would, is a pain point for the players though. But as far as speeding things up, it was great.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128987I gave phased combat a try in 5e with my friends and it kicked ass. It took what would've been a three hour combat into like 30 minutes. And everyone was paying attention the whole time because everyone had their turn always happening. It has some rough spots but it can be ironed out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129027I decided to keep it basic and do it OD&D style (as I understand it), or close to it. I ran a few mock combats with friends and we got to see how it works, along with a few problems that I need to decide a solution to.

Here's what we did:

4 phases.

1. Ranged attack rolls. (This includes all ranged attacks, including ranged spell attacks.)
2. Movement, object interactions. (So, moving around, pulling out a weapon, opening a door, etc.)
3. Melee attack rolls, generic actions. (This includes all melee attacks, including melee spell attacks. Generic actions is anything not covered here, like Lay on Hands.)
4. Spells! (These are all non-attack spells, so stuff that either just works or uses a save. These spells are held at concentration until they are fired in phase 4.)

You can use any action or bonus action you have in a phase that fits it. For instance, if you had a bonus action attack and an action attack, you could use both in phase 3.

I kept to the phases very rigidly, ie., you had to get all your movement done in phase 2. If you found yourself short to attack in phase 3, then you couldn't attack.

I ran it team initiative style -- at the start, the highest initiative member of each team faces off, the winner gets to go first. Then every member of the team declares what they want to do this turn. Once they're done declaring, we resolve each step one at a time. After that, the enemy team goes. I considered a variant where both teams go at once, but resolve in order of initiative. (So if it was like that, you'd have Team A do their ranged attacks, then Team B, then Team A moves, then Team B moves, etc.) But currently it's all one side and then the other side.

It went very fast, and it kept everyone engaged the whole way through. This was a big deal since we play online, and online makes it easy for people to zone out and do other stuff while it's not their turn. But here, it's always their turn. So it's the anti-AFK system.

This is pretty awesome. I'm glad that it worked out. Sounds like this style of initiative and combat management could really speed things up in online play.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129027Two big drawbacks:
1) It seems like almost all the action has to be handled out of character, so you can't play it immersively if you're used to that, at least not without slowing it down again.

I wonder if this is partly as a result of you still settling in to this style of combat. Though, it is true that everyone acting at roughly the same time can sometimes interfere with your ability to elaborate on what you're doing. since everyone is trying to pitch in at the same and the faster pace of combat can take over.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11290272) There are a number of edge cases where the pre-existing character abilities don't line up smoothly with the new system that have to be figured out. For instance, in normal 5e, you can move and act in any order you want, so it's easy to move up to someone, grapple them, then keep moving. In this, you have to do ALL  your movement beforehand, and then only get a chance to grapple in phase 3 -- by which point it's too late to move anymore. The same with any high mobility option or character like the Rogue's Cunning Action or the Monk or the Mobile feat. I fudged this in some cases, like letting someone taking Dash in phase 3 as a generic action to use extra movement on that phase even though it's the melee attack phase... maybe there's a way to fix it? Maybe add a second movement phase? I don't want to add a billion phases though. Or stuff like, if a spell is held until concentration in phase 4, what does that mean if you were already maintaining a spell with concentration before this? In normal 5e, the previous spell ends. In this case, I let that concentration not count against the concentration total.

It ended up going pretty well.

I think the parts where certain classes didn't get to work as they normally would, is a pain point for the players though. But as far as speeding things up, it was great.

This is part of the reason why I don't handle movement as its own phase, and just integrate it as part of your overall action. It can constrain things a bit unnecessarily, and force you to take some decisions out of turn with what you're attempting, or limit what you can do. Though, I am bit skeptical of the feasibility of moving, grappling, then moving again in quick succession in real life. Grappling is one of those things that requires the level of engagement that would prevent you from moving once you start (unless you're dragging them with you, which should reduce your movement and probably require extra rolls). Striking someone with a melee weapon as you run pass them is more plausible, though, specially in mounted combat.

Some of the issues with feats or class abilities are to be expected, though, since some of these abilities are built with D&D's current initiative system in mind. Though, it might also be an issue of handling movement as its own phase in some cases. Abilities that grant initiative bonuses would also be an issue. Not sure how I would handle those, other than not allow them or refund them if already bought. Class abilities that grant initiative bonuses could be turned into a bonus feat perhaps.

I talked with my players, and while they liked it, they said they preferred "normal combat but with everyone paying attention." Which is a dream all its own...

Other issues raised:

1) If you cast spells, you end up being able to do nothing if the conditions for your spell are gone -- ie, you want to fireball but now all the bad guys are dead and your party is all that's left in the fireball zone. Your fireball is wasted. Someone suggested allowing you to pick a different spell instead to handle this.
2) Someone came at it the other way and suggested it makes the players act like a military unit (everyone coordinating) instead of playing their characters, who might be sloppy adventurers, which is easier to do when its your turn and you're just reacting to what's happening instead of planning with the group.

Folding movement into every phase could work...

A lot of sentiment revolved around that this is all a huge change to make when you could speed up combat by cutting turns off after a few seconds if they weren't going fast enough. But to me this sounds very idealistic, since in reality this doesn't happen much, and the benefit of phases is everyone's turned "on" throughout the entire thing.

Maybe I'll just be more of a hardass during combat though. No more taking 10 minutes to decide what spell to cast.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129040I talked with my players, and while they liked it, they said they preferred "normal combat but with everyone paying attention." Which is a dream all its own...

Other issues raised:

1) If you cast spells, you end up being able to do nothing if the conditions for your spell are gone -- ie, you want to fireball but now all the bad guys are dead and your party is all that's left in the fireball zone. Your fireball is wasted. Someone suggested allowing you to pick a different spell instead to handle this.

IDK, that's kinda the way it's always been regardless; if all enemies are dead you wouldn't be able to fry them anyway. And sometimes situations change tactically and you can't always get what you want, even with individual initiative. Also, didn't you mention you were handling all ranged attacks, including spells, at the first phase? It seems unlikely that anyone would be able to kill all enemies before you let a fireball loose, unless it happened last round.

Fireball has always been a tricky spell regardless because the huge area radius means you have to time it to avoid hitting allies. I suppose that if all else fails, allowing them to substitute for another spell could be a good compromise. That's usually what I do when situations change and someone's previously planned action becomes obsolete. If an enemy you were gonna hit in melee dies first I might allow an attack against another enemy within reach or to use up your action to start moving (half move) towards a more distant enemy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11290402) Someone came at it the other way and suggested it makes the players act like a military unit (everyone coordinating) instead of playing their characters, who might be sloppy adventurers, which is easier to do when its your turn and you're just reacting to what's happening instead of planning with the group.

This to me is a plus, TBH. Acting in synchronicity can open up a lot of interesting tactical opportunities--such as letting the mage lineup that fireball first, rather than attack in disunity and foil his/her attempts. You could also have fun with it and do stuff like coordinated takedowns between multiple characters then have someone jump in at the end and strike down a pinned enemy prone on the ground--maybe even work in a little RP in it as PCs direct their moves.

Reacting to what's happening based on your turn is also sort of an illusion, created by individual initiative, since everyone's supposed to be acting roughly at the same time (at least in theory), and initiative is supposed to just be a way to help manage combat. You're not supposed to be frozen in time waiting for your "turn", although that's what initiative does in practice, which is one of the reasons I don't like it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129040A lot of sentiment revolved around that this is all a huge change to make when you could speed up combat by cutting turns off after a few seconds if they weren't going fast enough. But to me this sounds very idealistic, since in reality this doesn't happen much, and the benefit of phases is everyone's turned "on" throughout the entire thing.

Maybe I'll just be more of a hardass during combat though. No more taking 10 minutes to decide what spell to cast.

That's just gonna lead to resentment cuz you're skipping people in combat. I'm getting the impression that some of this criticism is more about fear of change and people "liking what they know" more than really knowing what they like or want. Sometimes people don't feel comfortable doing things differently than they're used to. Some of this stuff isn't even realistic in practical terms--people are just gonna phase out if they have to wait their turn. They might force themselves to do it initially but as the battle drags on they will begin to do something else, specially if they're home alone doing all of this through a computer with a bunch of distractions, including the computer itself (internet/social media).

It's also possible some might miss some of the RP that might have been going on when playing out their characters actions in individual turns.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129040I talked with my players, and while they liked it, they said they preferred "normal combat but with everyone paying attention." Which is a dream all its own...

Other issues raised:

1) If you cast spells, you end up being able to do nothing if the conditions for your spell are gone -- ie, you want to fireball but now all the bad guys are dead and your party is all that's left in the fireball zone. Your fireball is wasted.

I see this as a feature, not a bug. And I definitely wouldn't let a PC switch spells. The whole point of having a caster phase and putting it late in the round makes it that there is a risk, if the Caster is interrupted or the conditions for the spell don't turn out, then the caster has wasted a turn. This balances out some of the power-level of higher level casters. It's also good emulation, since spells are based on verbal and somatic actions, and this should take longer than a simple attack.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1130132I see this as a feature, not a bug. And I definitely wouldn't let a PC switch spells. The whole point of having a caster phase and putting it late in the round makes it that there is a risk, if the Caster is interrupted or the conditions for the spell don't turn out, then the caster has wasted a turn. This balances out some of the power-level of higher level casters. It's also good emulation, since spells are based on verbal and somatic actions, and this should take longer than a simple attack.

Exactly.  Furthermore, the setup is rather generous compared to some ways you can do things.   If you want to be real strict, the "slot" is spent as soon as the spell is started.  Now it doesn't matter whether interrupted or self interrupted to not fireball his friends, committing to a spell is really commitment.  In contrast, you lost a round--in which the wizard probably wasn't going to do anything effective anyway--isn't even much of a price.  Besides, the same thing happens when several melee or ranged characters target the same creature with weapons.  Finally, the end of fights is the last time to be dragging things out!  Part of the great pacing effects of side by side initiative is that the pace starts reasonably fast and picks up as you go.  That may produce anti-climatic results for a few individuals most battles, but it makes the whole fight pacing work much better.

Besides, I don't see that particular complaint as all that relevant--it is more confirmation bias.  The same wizard could be at a spot in cyclic initiative where the exact same thing happened.

As an aside, one of the things I strongly considered doing in 3E right before I couldn't stand to run it anymore was to ban the "Improved Initiative" feat. I noticed that the people who took it were the ones that loved the idea of "going first", but were also the most susceptible to analysis paralysis. Worse, sometimes the thing they wanted to do "going first" was stop the whole game and plan out what everyone was going to do, so that they could not only go first but have the lead off hit.  Given the way buffs work in higher level 3E, from a strictly metagame efficiency aspect, it's not even a bad plan--just boring and annoying as hell to every other consideration at the table.  It's also a direct result of a negative feedback loop:  The rounds take a long time to get through, a few actions get all the results and glory, so that the only way to even feel like one is contributing is to go early.  Now, the cyclic initiative is hardly the only reason higher level 3E combat has issues, but what it does is magnify the issues that are already pervasive in that system.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130166Besides, I don't see that particular complaint as all that relevant--it is more confirmation bias.  The same wizard could be at a spot in cyclic initiative where the exact same thing happened.

Hm, I agree that this would be a problem with cyclic initiative as well, but it's greatly mitigated (and potentially eliminated) by freeform group initiative, wherein players can decide when each character takes their turn relative to the other characters. As Pundit points out, freeform group initiative is thus a boon to casters -- and so probably works best in a low magic game where there's no need to balance the awesome power of some spells.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130166Exactly.  Furthermore, the setup is rather generous compared to some ways you can do things.   If you want to be real strict, the "slot" is spent as soon as the spell is started.  Now it doesn't matter whether interrupted or self interrupted to not fireball his friends, committing to a spell is really commitment.  In contrast, you lost a round--in which the wizard probably wasn't going to do anything effective anyway--isn't even much of a price.  Besides, the same thing happens when several melee or ranged characters target the same creature with weapons.

I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me. IMO, it's at least partly (if not almost entirely) an artifice of round based action resolution and not entirely a reflection of reality--where people must declare their actions at the start of the "round" (which is purely a game construct that doesn't exist in the real world) then follow through like mindless automatons till the end of the "round", even if circumstances change. Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

Granted, there are circumstances where it sort of makes sense, like the aforementioned verbal and somatic preparation of spells, which could arguably compromise your actions. But there's simply no way that you couldn't adapt your melee attacks and positioning to swing at an adjacent opponent if the one you were facing gets their head chopped off by someone else. It's not like melee combat involves making one single swing and that's it, but rather it's a series of thrust and parries, pivoting from side to side, trying to look for an opening, and all of that gets abstracted to an attack roll for rules purposes.

A secondary reason why I prefer to let characters switch actions is that it helps quicken the end of combat, which is a plus for me because I don't like battles dragging out. So even if I'd have to fudge it a little (like in the case of spellcasting) I'd rather let characters do something else than prolong combat when it already tends to take too long (particularly with higher level characters and enemies in D&D and their ridiculous amount of HP).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130166Besides, I don't see that particular complaint as all that relevant--it is more confirmation bias.  The same wizard could be at a spot in cyclic initiative where the exact same thing happened.

This was pretty much my impression, as I tried to explain in my reply. Though, looking back on it I think I came off very arrogant in my post, by not contemplating the possibility that maybe mAcular Chaotic's players really like individual cyclical initiative and framing my whole reply from the point of view that they were simply missing the point. So I apologize for that.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me. IMO, it's at least partly (if not almost entirely) an artifice of round based action resolution and not entirely a reflection of reality--where people must declare their actions at the start of the "round" (which is purely a game construct that doesn't exist in the real world) then follow through like mindless automatons till the end of the "round", even if circumstances change. Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

Granted, there are circumstances where it sort of makes sense, like the aforementioned verbal and somatic preparation of spells, which could arguably compromise your actions. But there's simply no way that you couldn't adapt your melee attacks and positioning to swing at an adjacent opponent if the one you were facing gets their head chopped off by someone else. It's not like melee combat involves making one single swing and that's it, but rather it's a series of thrust and parries, pivoting from side to side, trying to look for an opening, and all of that gets abstracted to an attack roll for rules purposes.

I think it works best in conjunction with the pre-3e (pre-2e?) D&D rule that in multiple foe melees, your target is randomly determined. So you're not declaring "I attack Orc #3", you're declaring "I attack", then the GM rolls to determine your target.

Can't say I ever used this rule, but like many aspects of old D&D, I'm starting to see the wisdom!

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187I prefer to let characters switch actions ...

I agree with all your reasoning for this, but why "switch"? I mean, if a player can switch actions freely, then what's the point of declaring them in the first place? It sounds like maybe you'd be fine with only certain actions being declared.