A couple questions about RAW 3.5 Initiative

[loky1109]

I can understand why that rule was removed. It was just a way for the game to force an action where in real life none would be forced. I mean, you are allowed to just stand around not doing anything as long as you want.

It wasn't. If you don't want to action - you still could skip your turn. Point of this rule is you couldn't gain an advantage over somebody with better initiative modifier (if you want to act after foe, you probably want it because you think it'll give you advantage). There are not many ways to gain advantage via acting after in D&D 3.5, but I'm sure there are some cases.

[Ozreth]

That is interesting. The SRD lacks the section that immediately follows character initiative titled "Monster initiative". Maybe that is why most people don't realize it is a rule?

It is at the bottom of page 136 in the 3.5 PHB. If you don't have the book, you should be able to find a free .pdf online to check for yourself.

It reads "Typically the DM makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents. That way, each player gets one turn each round, and the DM also gets one turn. At the DM's option, however, he can make separate initiative checks for different groups of monsters or even individual creatures. For example, the DM might make one initiative check for an evil cleric of Nerull and a separate initiative check for all seven of her zombie guards."



Why is it not as good though?

I've owned the 3.5 PHB for 20 years and today I was flipping through and noticed this rule for the first time and was a little shocked. This essentially makes it side initiative or group initiative or whatever you want to call it. I had to google the wording to see if it had been discussed before and only found two hits of people quoting it. Very surprising.

With that being the case, does player initiative order matter beyond who gets to go first? Even in a scenario where monsters are grouped, why not have the groups of players that go in between the monsters act freely rather than in turn order?

This reading also makes it seem like the "delay" action is simply there to codify the idea of deciding to go after one of your party members when you're all discussing what to do. It ends up the same.

[Crake]

2: Is there anything stopping all of the players who go after the monster's turn from delaying their initiative count to an arbitrarily high initiative count in the second turn? Does this then effectively allow said players to go in any order they like for the rest of the combat?

For example, Bob has an initiative of 7, Alice an initiative of 3. They both delay, and then Bob acts on count 9999999999 in the second round and Alice on Initiative count 99999999998 in the second round. Then on the third round Alice wants to go first, so Bob delays to 99999999997, and so on.


Thanks!

3.5 did away with initiative counts and even the concept of discreet rounds starts and ends.

If you want to have initiative counts and discreet start and ends to rounds, look at 3.0. There, delay can only reduce your initiative count and had a limit of -10-init score (so highest init mod gets to go last if they want), and if you want to come in at the top of the next round, you need to do a refocus action, which sets your initiative to 20+init score, so someone who rolled higher than that will still go before you.

3.5 just threw all that out in favour of cycles. Any time something is being measured in rounds, you just put in an initiative slot for it where it started, but otherwise there is no real distinct “round 1” “round 2” etc.

All that is to say, yes, the players can most certainly shift their initiative around in the first round so they all act together on whoever’s initiative was last, however they cant act interchangeably. You cant move, then wait for your buddy, then act (this can be achieved to a degree with readied actions, but its not as perfect as free acting, since ready is a standard action, you could not act, and then wait, and then move), each character still needs to act out their whole turn before the next character goes.

That said, acting together really isnt that big of an advantage compared to acting first. I think youll find most players just act when their turn comes around

[Ozreth]

That said, acting together really isnt that big of an advantage compared to acting first. I think youll find most players just act when their turn comes around

Other than perhaps they will be more likely to discuss their plan for the "round" rather than acting as individuals. If that's your thing (and your groups thing).