Lacking initiative

 In a recent post about things I like and don't like about B/X D&D, I mentioned in passing that I don't see initiative as a strictly necessary rule in D&D combat. Another blogger has suggested I expand on that thought, and so in this post, I articulate my case for why initiative is not a necessary component of a functional D&D combat sequence.

Initiative, as I see it, can be a useful tool to impart some order and structure to combat. Insofar as it models any aspect of real combat in the game, though, it doesn't do it particularly well. Maybe not particularly badly either, but it's a simplistic and formalized rule for a very chaotic and unpredictable situation. Depending on particular circumstances and how one rationalizes it, it can either make sense or defy sense. It implies that whoever has initiative, if his attack roll succeeds, does all his damage before his opponent can attack in return, so the opponent might be killed before he can even attempt his own attack. This is absolutely a possible outcome of a round of combat, but certainly not the only one. In a real fight, striking first is important, sometimes decisive, but a ten-second round implies a lot of back-and-forth during that time, not a simple "I swing, then you swing" sequence. A single attack roll subsumes a lot of action, possibly even multiple strikes, which is all summarized in a single damage roll, representing the entire round's worth of damage, not just what might have been done before the opponent could react. It would be perfectly plausible, for instance, for Fighter A to draw first blood against his opponent, but not kill him, then the opponent does a few points of damage to Fighter A, and Fighter A finishes him with a couple more points of damage at the end of the same round. Fighter A "had the initiative" and did enough damage over the course of the round to slay his opponent, but the opponent still got a few licks in before being slain. 

I hasten to point out that this is NOT, in itself, a good argument against initiative. No RPG combat system is going to perfectly model a real fight, and from a pure gaming perspective, all you really need is something that's halfway plausible and easily playable. What I think my argument does demonstrate, though, is that initiative cannot be justified or rejected solely on the basis of verisimilitude. It is not "more realistic" than a system in which combat happens simultaneously, and two opposing combatants could die of wounds inflicted by each other in a combat round. That, then, brings us to the question of whether we can achieve an acceptable level of order and structure without using initiative procedures. I believe we can.

The Simple Way

The most obvious way is to consider everything to happen more or less simultaneously. You just go around the table, and each character and monster takes an action. Hit points are subtracted for successful attacks, saving throws are rolled, but nobody is considered dead or afflicted until everyone has acted. At the end of the round, the actual effects of the round's damage and failed saves are applied, and anyone at zero hp drops dead. (One other knock-on effect is that the rule for spoiling spells is pretty dependent on initiative. I personally never used it in my games, but if it's a cherished part of yours, this super-simple initiativeless procedure may not satisfy. Read on, though...)

The Detailed Way

If a bit more structure is desired in a combat round, the initiativeless procedure can be expanded. A combat round can be broken down into phases based around movement. Specifically, we can divide it into actions taken before movement, and actions taken after movement. Or, to put it more simply, combatants who don't need to move before their primary actions can take those actions before those who do need to move. An archer firing from a stationary position can shoot his arrow before a warrior starting from 30' away can reach and attack him in melee. Two characters already in melee attack each other before two who have to close to engage first. Easy-peasy.

From there, we can break each major phase (Before Movement and After Movement), into sub-phases for missiles, melee, and magic. Missiles go first. Missile attacks are much more likely to represent a single discrete shot than melee attacks, which means if you're hit by an archer or slinger, the full damage probably really does come all at once, not split up over the course of the round. If you take enough damage from a missile attack to kill you, you're probably dead right then and there. Melee goes next. Magic comes last, allowing for the possibility of spellcasting to be disrupted by missile or melee attacks. Within each of these phases, actions are essentially simultaneous. You don't apply the effects of the attacks until the end of the phase, so if a combatant was going to make an attack during that phase, he gets to make it, regardless of whether he fails a save or takes enough damage himself to kill him. Only after everyone who chose to act in that phase has acted does the phase end, and if anyone is at zero hp, he drops dead then; if he failed a save, he suffers the effect then. 

To recap, we divide the round into seven steps: Pre-move missile attacks, pre-move melee, pre-move magic, movement, post-move missile attacks, post-move melee, and post-move magic. The phases take place sequentially, but within each phase, all action happens essentially simultaneously. In practice, most rounds will only include a few of these phases; the important thing is that they happen in the proper order, which is, I think fairly intuitive. 

Takeaways

An intiativeless combat sequence is not inherently superior or inferior, nor more or less "realistic" than a traditional initiave-based sequence, but it does have some interesting implications. Most prominently, removing the random determination of who goes first in a round will reduce the effects of randomness on combat, making each round somewhat more predictable. A timely high roll on the initiative die can't turn the tide of battle in the party's favor, but neither will a 1 at a critical juncture turn it against them. Predictability is not necessarily a bad thing; removing elements of randomness can amplify opportunities for and effects of player skill on outcomes. Some players and DMs may relish this, while others may prefer the unpredictable ebb and flow that random initiative provides.

In any case, it's worth noting that many combat rounds, particularly at mid and high levels, are not appreciably affected at all by initiative. Until hit point totals are whittled down to within shouting distance of death, everyone is going to make all their attacks each round anyway, regardless of who rolls first. Initiative can potentially affect things such as whether a spell can be disrupted or when a special effect takes place, but that's still likely to be a minority of combat rounds, except at low levels. Whether the potential for spells to be spoiled and combatants to be taken out before they can make their round's attacks is desirable in itself, as well as worth the (admittedly quite minor) step of rolling a lot of superfluous initiative dice in between the impactful ones, is a matter of opinion and personal taste, but D&D combat can function perfectly well either with or without initiative.