# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  If Death/Disablement only took effect at end of round, how would things change?

## PhoenixPhyre

Assume you had a house-rule roughly like the following:




> If damage reduces a character to 0 hit points before the start of their turn on a particular round, they can still act as normal on their turn that round but are incapacitated/dead/whatever at the highest initiative count of the next round. If an effect would impose a condition on a character before their turn in a particular round, it takes effect at the highest initiative count of the next round. If the effect requires concentration and concentration is broken before the condition takes effect, the condition is not applied at all. If the effect allows a saving throw to end the condition, the first such saving throw occurs only on the following round (once the condition has applied for at least one full turn).


That is, everyone gets to go at least once. No more "alpha strike them down before they have a chance to go at all". And you could break concentration after the spell is cast but before it takes effect.

*Pros I can see*--it resolves a lot of the oddities around simultaneity (or at least reduces them). Now you can truly do the "mutual kill" scenario. It also reduces the chances of the boss falling over before everyone had a chance to do something and conversely reduces the chance of getting one-round KO'd before you have a chance to go at all. It seems to also improve the status of healing/potions--if you know you're going to fall over at the start of the next round, you can spend your action to heal (including using a healing potion) to avoid it. It also allows counter-play vs disablement spells/abilities. As a side note, it also allows effects to unambiguously define when they end--since it starts at the top of initiative, it also ends at the end of the bottom of initiative on the appropriate round.

*Cons*--nerfs control casters. Nerfs alpha strikes somewhat. Reduces the value of initiative stacking (maybe a pro?). Others?

Note--this is not something I've implemented or even am strongly planning to implement. This is hypothetical.

----------


## Rukelnikov

I like the idea of represnting simultaneity, and the possibility of the mutual kill scenario.

However, knowing beforehand that someone is gonna fall, can mean free HP:

"im at 2 hp, I was gonna disengage, but whatever, I'll just provoke, finish my movement and heal myself, now I moved my 30 ft, and have 2d8+4 hp instead of 2!"




> It seems to also improve the status of healing/potions--if you know you're going to fall over at the start of the next round, you can spend your action to heal (including using a healing potion) to avoid it. It also allows counter-play vs disablement spells/abilities.


I don't see this as bonus, it promotes gamefication of combat.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That is, everyone gets to go at least once. No more "alpha strike them down before they have a chance to go at all". And you could break concentration after the spell is cast but before it takes effect.


 The first dungeon I played in, OD&D, did this. I have no idea if that was 'right' or not, but with seven players, the DM had us go in table order (from left to right) and then figured out what the result was.  granted, in that version of the game, the initiative tended to be side initiative, so it made a lot of sense to do this. 

With individual initiative, I think this would need a bunch of play testing before I could answer your question for this edition. We need to run three or four combats with this scheme for me to see a few of the quirks. Tier 2/Tier 3 so lots of abilities would be in play to see what comes of it.

----------


## Tanarii

Have it happen at the end of the turn, after acting.

If you're surprised, it happens immediately.

If you fail 3 death saves, you die immediately.  So the enemy can still burn you down with 2 melee strikes or 3 ranged.

Possibly: you can't take reactions on your turn.  (Since they normally refresh at the start of your turn.)

----------


## animorte

The first Con you listed was also my first thought. I have another one though (or more of concern)

How is it intended to be handled if, say, the very first attack is like that of the one-hit nova Sorcadin thread? Say a creature is at 0 HP and that creature still has a turn, but maybe after 1-2 other party members and before 1-2. Do they keep hitting the already 0 HP bad guy or are they informed of its current lacking health total? Do they know the health total and intend to just dodge or otherwise remain elusive (to conserve resources) until the end of the round when they know it will be over anyway?

What if a caster fireballs a horde of minions? They're all at 0 HP and still potentially endangering _somebody_.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> The first Con you listed was also my first thought. I have another one though (or more of concern)
> 
> How is it intended to be handled if, say, the very first attack is like that of the one-hit nova Sorcadin thread? Say a creature is at 0 HP and that creature still has a turn, but maybe after 1-2 other party members and before 1-2. Do they keep hitting the already 0 HP bad guy or are they informed of its current lacking health total? Do they know the health total and intend to just dodge or otherwise remain elusive (to conserve resources) until the end of the round when they know it will be over anyway?
> 
> What if a caster fireballs a horde of minions? They're all at 0 HP and still potentially endangering _somebody_.


I'd say that there's no extra knowledge given. It's as if health pools are updated at top of initiative only. So unless someone knows the enemy's max hp in advance, you don't know if you got the killing blow.

And that later scenario? I'd say that's working as intended. Allows them to be more meaningful imo.

----------


## JNAProductions

Would _Power Word Kill_ or similar abilities bypass it?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Would _Power Word Kill_ or similar abilities bypass it?


I'd have to consider it. I could go either way right now.

----------


## animorte

> I'd say that there's no extra knowledge given. It's as if health pools are updated at top of initiative only. So unless someone knows the enemy's max hp in advance, you don't know if you got the killing blow.
> 
> And that later scenario? I'd say that's working as intended. Allows them to be more meaningful imo.


Your get that common cinematic feel of slicing through a guy and he still does something for a couple seconds, but then the top half of his body falls off. I can visualize the burning minions lunging forward for one last stand before they succumb to the wizard oven.

I play a bit reserved with my resources often anyway. This would probably make me more paranoid. I do like the concept thought. There is the potential of wasting resources, but that completely evens out in terms what you gain back by not falling yourself (depending on initiative of course).

Speaking of which, I don't think initiative will be a priority with this concept active in play. The whole point is to get an upper hand, but if many various effects and 0 HP always start at top initiative anyway, it's then more beneficial to be in a position of responding In order to _save the round_ accordingly.

----------


## Witty Username

I would add a Con, pop-up healing is even more effective since healing cannot even be stopped by knocking out the caster.

Healing potions for all, if you get knocked out, just drink a potion.

Melee characters take a nerf as this also effects shoves and grapples. Knocking an opponent prone to grant your allies advantage doesn't really work at all with this setup.

----------


## sithlordnergal

Sooo, the basic idea is that Conditions, including Death, would take effect on the next round, or the end of the current round. I see two big issues with it:

1) Pop-up healing is no more, but now you have an even worse monster taking its place. Because death takes effect at the start of the next round, or the end of the current round, you can give players 3 Death Save Fails, their turn comes around, they drink a Healing Potion, they're fine. If they have any sort of healer that goes after they've been killed, they're fine. 

2) Insane nerf to all forms of Control. Not just to control casters, but martial classes that use control tactics. In fact, this unintentionally nerfs martial classes even worse than it would casters. Martial classes have a pretty limited number of Conditions they can impose without magic. Grappling no longer works with this houserule, because a grapple automatically ends if the creature being grappled is moved away from whatever is grappling them. Unless the person doing the grappling goes after their target, and the target doesn't have a way to move outside of their turn, they can't grapple. Because all the target has to do is move away from them. Same with Prone and Stun.

----------


## Chronos

And what about barriers?  That might be something like a wall spell, or it might be something as mundane as closing a door.  Do those not take effect until the next round, too?  It really matters if you close the door before or after someone moves.

----------


## Yakk

In "declare and roll first, then evaluate", going *later* is stronger than going sooner.  Because you get to respond to what everyone else does and compensate, possibly nullifying.

I've seen systems like this.  Often you roll initiative every round (ik), and then the lowest initiative goes first (says what they'll do).

As others have noted, it becomes impossible to grapple someone if they haven't gone yet, because they can just move out of range.

----------


## MrStabby

I am not so sure about your Cons.

Yes it nerfs controll casters.  It nerfs them hard... however the game is full of things like legenary resistance and magic resistance and fear and charm immunities that also nerf control casters hard.  If I were playing a controll caser I woul be pretty peeved if a M added this rule and kept al the others.  In the other hand if the DM added this rule but no longer had enemies with magic resistance or legendary resistance then I might consider it a valid tradeoff.  Certainly some spells get a lot worse than others and I might disagree with the concentration element (you are only concentrating whilst the effect is happening).  I think that the more problematic spells like wall of force just get realtively more problematic though.  Not sure its a con at all.  I does make some spells like fear, where you need to get close to enemies very dubious.

On the nerfing of the alpha strike - surely this is a massive, massive plus?  Yeah, the benefits are all wrapped up in other things listed, but just giving a little more incentive to not just do max damage builds is good.

I guess my yardstick is whether it opens up more "viable" builds than it shus down.  Where by "viable" I mean close enough to optimal.  Of course close enough is subjective so I would expect some disagreement.

----------


## sithlordnergal

Thinking about this further...I don't actually think it would nerf control casters that much at all, outside of a few spells. Looking at how the rule you made is worded, spells that create barriers, such as Wall of Force or Wall of Stone, and spells that create difficult terrain, such as Spike Growth and Sleet Storm, work normally. Unless you want to rule that barriers and difficult terrain only take effect one turn after they're set up, which makes things like shutting a door act a bit weird.

That said, it does make spells like Web, Entangle, and Grease act a bit oddly. If a creature fails their save against being Restrained by Web, but moves out of Web's area before their next turn, are they still going to be restrained? They failed the save after all. If not, then all of those spells are rendered nearly useless because creatures can just move out of the area of effect before the next turn comes around. 

Meanwhile the rest of the control spells work just fine. sure, you need to be within range in order to first cast a spell on a creature, but you don't have to remain within range to Concentrate on the spell. So you can cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and as long as you keep Concentrating on it the creature that failed their Wisdom Save is still gonna fall prone the next round, even if they move away from you.

The only control group this is a hard nerf for are martial controllers. As I mentioned before, Grapple is no longer a thing, because a target can simply move out of reach before the start of the next turn to automatically end the grapple. And if the target wants to be cheeky, they can move out of the grappler's reach, then move back next to the grappler without any issues cause the effect is broken by their movement.

Additionally, Monks have a much harder time stunning creatures. Since Stunning Strike's effect ends at the end of the Monk's next turn, if the Monk goes before their target then Stunning Strike won't do anything at all. Because they'll Stun a creature, it won't do anything on the turn its applied, then it ends before it gets around to the creature's next turn. the Monk would need to go after anything they plan to Stun, which is tricky since most Monks have a high Dex.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

We ditched initiative for a while and had all actions happen simultaneously, which basically had the same effect you are going for; all combatants had a chance to act in a round before they perished. 
Given that the party are going to win almost all combats it definitely strengthened the monsters.  Roughly 1/2 of the monsters are going to get one more action, probably more than 1/2 because many characters have boosted initiative.  The other thing we noticed was that Surprise became stronger, particularly on the monster side.  If the baddies got Surprise they were all guaranteed to get at least 2 rounds off, which could turn deadly for the characters really fast.

----------


## Rynjin

You're gonna end up with a lot more dead player characters this way, just a fair warning. That is not necessarily a drawback if you want a higher lethality game, but it's worth noting.

----------


## Sigreid

Once upon a time the official rules were that everyone declared their actions then all actions were resolved.  I never saw anyone actually play that way.

----------


## Tanarii

> Once upon a time the official rules were that everyone declared their actions then all actions were resolved.  I never saw anyone actually play that way.


IIRC were two versions.  

Basic, it still resolved each initiative side, in order ranged, Magic, move, melee.

AD&D initiative only mattered when there was a question of who acted first.  Otherwise the DM just resolved in appropriate order.

----------


## Reynaert

> In "declare and roll first, then evaluate", going *later* is stronger than going sooner.  Because you get to respond to what everyone else does and compensate, possibly nullifying.
> 
> I've seen systems like this.  Often you roll initiative every round (ik), and then the lowest initiative goes first (says what they'll do).
> 
> As others have noted, it becomes impossible to grapple someone if they haven't gone yet, because they can just move out of range.


I think you should also roll damage at evaluation time.  To tone down the deadliness you could have characters that go below 0 hp start the next round rolling their first death save.  And to tone it up again, you could calculate all the damage and see if the whole bunch adds up to an insta-kill amount.  Not sure what to do with concentration checks or how the maths on that works out.

For grappling (or any melee attack, really) you could introduce a rule where you can use your movement to stay next to a designated target when they move (up to your move speed).

That obviously does require you to be next to the target at the beginning of your turn, but thinking about it, that's actually a benefit because it negates the whole "The enemy runs up to you and grapples you" "I run away when I see them coming" "Sorry you can't, it's not your turn" "So I just have to stand there when they run up to me?" weirdness.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I think that grappling, prone, and movement restrictions generally would have to be handled with specific exceptions to make it workable.

My initial thought was _action denial_ effects, rather than _all_ effects...but worded that badly/forgot what I had in mind half-way through.

As for monks and stunning strike, part of this would be that "start/end of next turn" effects would all last until after initiative count MIN_VALUE on that turn (effectively making them 1 round effects).

----------


## Yakk

So, a more coherent version is:

1. Roll initiative each round.
2. *Lowest* initiative roll declares actions, up to highest.
3. *Highest* initiative roll is evaluated.  You cast a spell, etc.
4. The effects of bonus action spells occur after they are cast.
5. The effects of non-bonus action spells occur after everyone has acted.  If it is an aoe, anyone crossing that aoe on the turn has to make a save.
6. Damage is evaluated after spells.

This has a "plan then do" thing.  It ends up with a pretty huge queue of crap to evaluate.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> So, a more coherent version is:
> 
> 1. Roll initiative each round.
> 2. *Lowest* initiative roll declares actions, up to highest.
> 3. *Highest* initiative roll is evaluated.  You cast a spell, etc.


This is how WoD used to work in some editions, tbh, it was kind of a pain to run.

EDIT: It did reward better initiative more, and made simultaneous turns better, but it was a pain to run.

----------


## Witty Username

> I think that grappling, prone, and movement restrictions generally would have to be handled with specific exceptions to make it workable.
> 
> My initial thought was _action denial_ effects, rather than _all_ effects...but worded that badly/forgot what I had in mind half-way through.
> 
> As for monks and stunning strike, part of this would be that "start/end of next turn" effects would all last until after initiative count MIN_VALUE on that turn (effectively making them 1 round effects).


So spells like Grease and Thunderwave would be mostly unaffected?
--
Control martials like battlemaster probably lose some tools effectiveness too (stuff like menacing attack), and would this apply to affects like Slow and Sentinel (debilitating effects that are not conditions)?

I feel Martials lose out in general as a big reason to keep them around is that they are very good at taking out single creatures, blasting looks much more effective as reducing multiple creatures per round to 0 normally comes with the trade off of reduced single target damage, I feel like AoE blast parties become dominating, simply because they are the only ones that will end large encounters fast enough.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Assume you had a house-rule roughly like the following:
> 
> 
> 
> That is, everyone gets to go at least once. No more "alpha strike them down before they have a chance to go at all". And you could break concentration after the spell is cast but before it takes effect.
> 
> *Pros I can see*--it resolves a lot of the oddities around simultaneity (or at least reduces them). Now you can truly do the "mutual kill" scenario. It also reduces the chances of the boss falling over before everyone had a chance to do something and conversely reduces the chance of getting one-round KO'd before you have a chance to go at all. It seems to also improve the status of healing/potions--if you know you're going to fall over at the start of the next round, you can spend your action to heal (including using a healing potion) to avoid it. It also allows counter-play vs disablement spells/abilities. As a side note, it also allows effects to unambiguously define when they end--since it starts at the top of initiative, it also ends at the end of the bottom of initiative on the appropriate round.
> 
> *Cons*--nerfs control casters. Nerfs alpha strikes somewhat. Reduces the value of initiative stacking (maybe a pro?). Others?
> ...


Classic Mech warrior each turn you rolled for initiative, moved in reverse initiative order (as tactics added to initiative it gave someone with tactics an advantage) handled all targeting and weapons, and the final phase damage and heat. It could be clunky. 

D6 star Wars Icused a variation after a way of dealing with a starship battle, roll for 1 initiative, 2. Move in reverse order, 3. Actions taken with damag occurring on the spot (adjusting movement) it worked in that setting since most combat was ranged. If you try it, that variant might work a bit better, it givesit the cinematic element, but the problem would be spells that limit movement mid round.

----------


## kazaryu

> Additionally, Monks have a much harder time stunning creatures. Since Stunning Strike's effect ends at the end of the Monk's next turn, if the Monk goes before their target then Stunning Strike won't do anything at all. Because they'll Stun a creature, it won't do anything on the turn its applied, then it ends before it gets around to the creature's next turn. the Monk would need to go after anything they plan to Stun, which is tricky since most Monks have a high Dex.


stunning strike wouldn't do 'nothing' it'd still the monk advantage on their attacks. but you're right that stunning strikes verbiage would need to be adjusted to account for the change in rules.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> stunning strike wouldn't do 'nothing' it'd still the monk advantage on their attacks. but you're right that stunning strikes verbiage would need to be adjusted to account for the change in rules.


Mmmm, how would it grant advantage? Stunning Strike doesn't grant advantage on Attacks, all it does is potentially apply the Stunned Condition. Now, the Stunned Condition grants advantage on attacks, but Stunning Strike on its own does not. This houserule delays all Conditions by one turn, meaning creatures won't suffer the affects of a Condition they're given until the start of the next turn. 

Luckily it seems Phoenix is extending Stunning Strike to last the entirety of the next turn, so its not a thing to worry about anymore. but without that change, Stunning Strike does nothing if used on a creature that goes after the Monk.

----------


## kazaryu

> Mmmm, how would it grant advantage? Stunning Strike doesn't grant advantage on Attacks, all it does is potentially apply the Stunned Condition. Now, the Stunned Condition grants advantage on attacks, but Stunning Strike on its own does not. This houserule delays all Conditions by one turn, meaning creatures won't suffer the affects of a Condition they're given until the start of the next turn.


Sorry if i was unclear. I was talking about the follow up turn. 

Monk stuns target->target takes turn normally->top of initiative, stun takes effect->monks turn, has advantage due to stunned target.->monks turn ends, stun wears off

----------


## Yakk

> This is how WoD used to work in some editions, tbh, it was kind of a pain to run.
> 
> EDIT: It did reward better initiative more, and made simultaneous turns better, but it was a pain to run.


Oh yes, it is a pain to run!

I've seen games optimized around this kind of loop however.

Like, "being in melee is a peril".  And you evaluate melee peril at the same time for everyone.  And actions you do aren't "swing a sword", because you are assumed to do that, but things that change the tactical situation (disengage, overrun, etc).

It isn't an easy problem, and it isn't easy to patch on top of an existing game.

----------

