I’m sold. No more having players make an initiative roll to determine turn order in a combat encounter. After spending a few months running sessions without this mechanic, I’ve come to realize that such rolls are usually unnecessary. Instead, I’ve simply been adjudicating combat sequences based on a few established guidelines (taken primarily from Chainmail) while simultaneously accounting for encounter context and declared intentions. For my players, this alternative approach has supported an increased level of tactical consideration. Anecdotally, combat encounters have also been more exciting.

Of course, there is nothing new when it comes to playing D&D without initiative rolls. Hell, the original game did not even have such a mechanic (at least explicitly outlined in the 3LBBs), although this quickly changed when Gygax answered frequently asked questions regarding D&D combat in The Strategic Review (Vol.1, No.2, 1975). Regardless, people have been playing with and without an initiative roll for decades. My new found appreciation of the latter is neither original nor profound.

The way I am now handling a D&D combat sequence draws heavily from Chainmail’s Man-to-Man Combat sequence (despite being “Man-to-Man,” I have successfully used it for combat between groups, including monsters). All of what follows assumes no surprise. The heart of it states:

The order of striking depends upon several factors. The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent.

1st Round:
First blow is struck by —
a) the attacker, unless
b) the defender has a weapon which is two classes higher, or
c) the defender is fighting from above (castle wall, rampart, etc.).


2nd Round and thereafter:
First blow is struck by —
a) the side which struck first blow previously, unless
b) the opponent has a weapon which is two classes lower, or
c) the opponent is fighting from above.

Men attacked from the rear do not return a blow on the 1st round of melee and automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 2nd round of melee. Men attacked from the left flank automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 1st round of melee.

Chainmail includes some additional guidelines, such as those involving a person on a mount, but the above gives you the gist.

My primary alterations to the above are as follows:

  1. “a weapon which is two classes higher [or lower]. . .” I’m not using this kind of detailed weapon classification system; I consider this kind of detail unnecessary bloat. Instead, I simply take into consideration general historical understandings and later combat reenactments involving medieval weaponry to adjudicate accordingly. This is mostly concerned with weapon length, or the use of a readied missile weapon like a bow. For instance, an attacker wielding a dagger who is rushing into an aware and readied individual armed with a spear or halberd will strike second. I don’t need to know exactly how many actual classes higher a halberd is above a dagger. I know it is significantly longer and has the reach advantage. Good enough. I don’t need to be an expert, and I’m ok with sometimes overlooking some nuanced historical understanding of actual combat.
  2. Assuming the individual is not surprised, is aware of an opponent, and is not currently in melee combat, individuals with armed and readied missile attacks strike first, even if not the initial “attacker.”
  3. Similarly, readied (i.e., “memorized”) attack-oriented spells follow the above guidelines for missile weapons and strike first, even if not the initial “attacker.” Note: This could very well be different depending on the campaign setting since the nature of spells and spellcasting could be very different (e.g., ritualistic magic requiring a lot of time and preparation).
  4. “fighting from above (castle wall, rampart, etc.). . .” I expand this guideline to capture multiple advantageous circumstances, not just significant height from a fortified position. I might deem, for example, that an individual has acquired some kind of tactical advantage related to other terrain factors that trump being the initial attacker and/or weapon considerations.
  5. For circumstances in which the above guidelines still seem to suggest some kind of tie or lack of a clear advantage, I usually rule in favor of the players or simply resolve attacks simultaneously. Alternatively, this could be a situation where it might be easier to simply dice off for initiative. In my experience, this has been rare. In fact, it has never come up. Each situation in my games has always suggested some kind of edge, however slight. With that said, in the rare opening situation in which both opponents are attackers, both wield identical weaponry, both are outfitted in similar fashion, and neither has any other tactical advantage, then I would simply let the player (as opposed to some NPC) resolve his/her/their attack first. Again, this is rare because there are so many other factors that could be considered by a Referee to resolve this apparent tie. For example,
    • Encumbered?
    • Morale considerations, is the direction of the battle in favor of one side?
    • Outnumbered?
    • Significantly over-powered?
    • Poor lighting? If so, does one have any vision advantage?
    • Also remember, if this is a continuing melee exchange, then don’t forget to consider who struck the last blow.

Anyway, that’s about it. My original intention was to conclude this post by providing concrete examples in play involving multiple individuals and some with monsters, but Sunday afternoon is quickly approaching. I’m ready for a signature cocktail! Maybe I’ll do a follow-up post.

Peace