Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1127933as a 5e player im interested in phased combat

what happens if you need to move to get in range to fire a missile? youre just sol? same with melee attacks

I break it down into Fast, Standard and Delayed Actions.

Fast Actions are anything that can immediately be attempted at the start of the round, such as melee already engaged in melee or ranged weapons already drawn and loaded.

Standard Actions are anything that takes a minor degree of preparation before you can act, such as drawing weapons or moving into position. Ranged combatants who must move to get into range would act here.

Delayed Actions are anything else that takes more preparation but can be attempted in the round, including loading a crossbow, full round actions, complex skill checks (pick locks, disarm traps) or casting a spell with lengthy incantations.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1127702When running OSR games, what's your preferred initiative system?

Monsters roll d6 by side or type. Player characters roll individually, using their hit die as their init die.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1127933as a 5e player im interested in phased combat

what happens if you need to move to get in range to fire a missile? youre just sol? same with melee attacks

I don't bother with exact positioning, and visualize combat as anyone in melee being "engaged", and everyone else not in melee being on the periphery. Anyone can elect to attack anyone else, unless there is some obvious obstacle in the way. (i.e. if fighting in a tight corridor, then you can't obviously charge a spellcaster at the back)

The order in which actions are resolved account for the time it might take for a character to get into place, which is why melee attacks for those already engaged go first, then missile attacks, then melee (not yet engaged attacks). Spells always go last because there should be a chance to interrupt the casting.

There's still some amount of tactical play, because the place where the engaged combat takes place can limit the amount of creatures that can engage. So say, you funnel 20 orcs into a tight corridor, only 4 can engage in melee at a time. (1st and 2nd rank)

Not doing this in my D&D games (at least not yet), but elsewhere I'm experimenting with handling the phased/movement part of initiative by dealing with major movements as its own thing.   Roughly something like this:

1. Declare general intent.
2. Major moves.
3. Actions (repeat 3 times)
3.a. Resolve initiative
3.b. Actions mixed with minor moves.

The idea is that if A and B charge each other, then most or all of the closing to initiative happens as part of the major move.  Depending on distance, there may or may not be then enough time for ranged attackers to do something before they are engaged.  If B is instead taking a shot with a bow, and the major move by A won't engage him, then B can probably get his shot off.  The exceptions are edge cases where the major move puts someone within minor move distance but not engaged yet with the opponent.  Those happen to be the ones where I most care about initiative, anyway.  Plus, the repeat of the init/action/minor move sequence 3 times discourages the archer from wanting to hang around within that kind of distance.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127936I break it down into Fast, Standard and Delayed Actions.

Fast Actions are anything that can immediately be attempted at the start of the round, such as melee already engaged in melee or ranged weapons already drawn and loaded.

Standard Actions are anything that takes a minor degree of preparation before you can act, such as drawing weapons or moving into position. Ranged combatants who must move to get into range would act here.

Delayed Actions are anything else that takes more preparation but can be attempted in the round, including loading a crossbow, full round actions, complex skill checks (pick locks, disarm traps) or casting a spell with lengthy incantations.

So, I'm liking this a lot. A 3 phase turn that allows for tactical interruption.

Once you more or less classify what actions are what, it is simply a matter of having a declaration phase, In order of; NPC's then PC's, delayed to fast.

Then going around the table with your players resolving each action.

"Initiative" would only matter if it made a difference in otherwise simultaneous actions that could effect each other - and a GM could simply go by the Dex scores - or have a roll-off.

How would you adjudicate something like mounted/moving combat situations; If a character wants to use his movement of 30' a turn to run up to an enemy 15' away, hit them, then continue running past for 15' more ?

Quote from: Jaeger;1128173So, I'm liking this a lot. A 3 phase turn that allows for tactical interruption.

Once you more or less classify what actions are what, it is simply a matter of having a declaration phase, In order of; NPC's then PC's, delayed to fast.

Then going around the table with your players resolving each action.

"Initiative" would only matter if it made a difference in otherwise simultaneous actions that could effect each other - and a GM could simply go by the Dex scores - or have a roll-off.

How would you adjudicate something like mounted/moving combat situations; If a character wants to use his movement of 30' a turn to run up to an enemy 15' away, hit them, then continue running past for 15' more ?

Yeah, I forgot to mention that there should be an Action Declaration phase as well, so technically there would be four phases in total, but only three dealing with actual actions. No actual actions take place during Action Declaration--only a general indication of what PCs can observe NPCs/enemies trying to do and players declare what they do in response. Then the GM determines at which phase everyone acts depending on what they're doing.

I would probably handle mounted movement just like any other type of movement--if you have to move to reach your target you act in the Standard Action phase. Though, that particular type of scenario you mention is an interesting case. But for purposes of this type of phased combat I would still ultimately treat it as a type of Move & Attack (Standard Action), but also require additional measures--treating it as an Overrun action perhaps, where the character might provoke an attack of opportunity for invading an enemy's space, and/or possibly require a Riding or Athletics check or something of the sort in order to complete the action.

The specifics may vary by system or edition, but it would basically be Standard Action phase, plus added complications.

I've always loved the idea of a declaration phase, but never once enjoyed it in play. It takes the immediacy out of all the player's actions. By separating the declaration and resolution it introduces a full-stop right in the middle of any potentially player-driven exciting sequence. I've heard lots of theories on how to "make it work", but none have ever played out at all satisfactorily at the table for me.

Anyone got a video example I can watch? Of real play that's awesome, using a declaration phase during initiative?

My general declaration seems to be working fine so far as a compromise.  The problems I've had with declarations in the past is that some players get analysis paralysis, some try to game it, etc.  So it just drags everything out.  I've got some of both kinds of players in my testing group.  When the declaration is something like, "I'll hang back and start a spell," or "I'll charge the group of orcs by the doorway," people seem to avoid all of the negative stuff.  Since all I wanted out of a declaration was the general idea, that works for me.

Quote from: Zalman;1128240I've always loved the idea of a declaration phase, but never once enjoyed it in play. It takes the immediacy out of all the player's actions. By separating the declaration and resolution it introduces a full-stop right in the middle of any potentially player-driven exciting sequence. I've heard lots of theories on how to "make it work", but none have ever played out at all satisfactorily at the table for me.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128258My general declaration seems to be working fine so far as a compromise.  The problems I've had with declarations in the past is that some players get analysis paralysis, some try to game it, etc.  So it just drags everything out.  I've got some of both kinds of players in my testing group.  When the declaration is something like, "I'll hang back and start a spell," or "I'll charge the group of orcs by the doorway," people seem to avoid all of the negative stuff.  Since all I wanted out of a declaration was the general idea, that works for me.

I've had more or less the same problem dealing with Random Initiative, except it gets spread out and repeated over and over again throughout the combat round. Players get distracted and lose focus playing with their dice or looking at their phone as they sit idly waiting for their "turn" to finally come. Then they get lost and I have to explain all over again what's going on and wait for them to make up their minds, trying to come up with the most advantageous course of action before they finally say "I attack X", and end up making a simple attack against the nearest enemy.

Some aspects of action declaration are inevitable because you have to lay out what's going on in the battlefield and players have to make a choice regardless of how you handle initiative. In my experience there's usually no immediacy to player actions in random initiative because the whole combat gets bogged down on waiting for your turn rather than immediately taking action based on player and/or character readiness after I initially laid out the situation at the start of the round. Instead, the player that was attentive and ready to fire a preloaded and ready arrow at a charging orc at the start of the round forgets WTF they wanted to do 15+ minutes later when their turn finally comes up cuz they rolled a 2 on a d20, so they had to wait for every indecisive player whose character needed to move to engage their target anyway to take action first cuz "initiative" trumps common sense.

This issue gets compounded if you roll initiative every round, cuz then you have to add this additional layer of rolls and preparation at the start of each round to determine when everyone is allowed to act (and roll again), rather just make attack rolls immediately as players start declaring their actions following the GM's explanation of the current situation, and the GM immediately rolling back the attacks of each enemy they are engaging.

Quote from: Zalman;1128240Anyone got a video example I can watch? Of real play that's awesome, using a declaration phase during initiative?

Nope. I don't really watch much game play content (only game reviews, tips and related discussions), so I'm not familiar with any channel where people play this way specifically.

I just use standard individual initiative for the Players, individual initiative for boss monsters and group initiative for groups of monsters.

Vision Storm, I think the problems you are describing are more a symptom of cyclic initiative rather than random initiative.  I used random initiative but group the players, in a variation of sides.  That moves very quick, in part because roughly half the players  can do something right now, and the other half are on deck.

I use the simple LotFP version. Group (players-monster type) Ini every round. Instead of a d6 I use a d20. Re-rolling the d6 feels pretty stupid. I didn't have the situation where this overwhelmed the party at the start of combat yet.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128288Vision Storm, I think the problems you are describing are more a symptom of cyclic initiative rather than random initiative.  I used random initiative but group the players, in a variation of sides.  That moves very quick, in part because roughly half the players  can do something right now, and the other half are on deck.

I've never tried group initiative (if I understand what you're describing correctly), so I didn't consider this might be more an issue of individual initiative (rather than cyclical initiative per se) when writing that last post. But now that you mention it I think that might be part of the problem.

In group initiative everyone in the same group can act roughly at the same time, or at least declare who goes next by group consensus (and likely tactical effectiveness), then the other group gets to act. So combat should run faster, with greater player engagement, than individual initiative (either 1-time cyclical initiative or rolled each round), where everyone must roll individually then sit around getting distracted while they wait their turn to finally do something. But with group initiative (I'm guessing) even if you're currently doing nothing you still have to pay attention while your party members resolve their actions cuz yours might be next, and it might play off something someone else did.

I wonder how/why you divide PCs into multiple groups, though--assuming I understand correctly that you're using some variant of group initiative with split party actions.

Hmm, I'm seeing lots of ways to handle phase initiative. Was there no default way for older D&D?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1128300I
I wonder how/why you divide PCs into multiple groups, though--assuming I understand correctly that you're using some variant of group initiative with split party actions.

The outcome that I want is to have there be 3 to 5 initiative groups (or maybe 2 to 7 in extreme cases).  But also for players to not know from one round to the next exactly when they go relative to everyone else. And I want both things without a lot of wasted handling time.  I run games that can often have 7-10 players, and frequently more than that.  So speed is important.

One way to get that is the early D&D stand by that others have described, where you handle ranged, then melee, then magic.  Another way is to have "side by side" initiative but have more than sides (perhaps arbitrarily chosen by the GM).  Another way a broad, phased approach similar to what you've described using in your own system.  

However, on top of my primary two motives, I also want if I can get it, minimal changes to the character sheets.  Since I was playing 3E, then 4E, and now 5E, each character has individual adjustments to initiative. So it is convenient for me to let every player roll while I put the monsters into 1 to 3  groups at a set initiative DC, and put the players into 2 to 4 groups going before, after, or between the monster groups.  If the first group of monsters is DC 13, anyone rolling better than that goes before them. And so forth. For most fights, I use one monster group, which means every round players go before or after the monsters.  Very simple, very fast, easy to teach new players as a house rule.  The reroll each round is now a group nexus of excitement instead of a slog.

For my own system,  I'm experimenting with variations on the same idea, but not so beholden to an existing system.  I do currently still have an individual character roll same as my 5E game, but will see how it goes.  The initiative modifier in that is a smaller range, and the bigger changes to initiative are from actions taken.

A strict side A / side B initiative is just a little too pat for my tastes, but I do very much appreciate the virtues of such a system.  You can think of my variant as a modest complication of the same.