D&D 5E Gandalf Initiative...more Mearls Initiative Fallout

[Sadras]

I am a bit skeptic about the practicalities of this (as well as of Mearl's version), I'd have to see it work at the table in order to judge...

Look its fairly obvious, the only time we will ever get some clarity on which initiative system is best, is if @lowkey gets off his lazy ss and creates a surivor thread for the various initiative systems proposed (Grognard, 5e, Mearl's Greyhawk, @Miladoon's Gandalf, @GX.Sigma's Bilbo and @Ilbranteloth versions along with your compulsory comedic option involving lemon curry).

 

[R. Brent Clements]

Mainly my skepticism is pretty much about having to choose whether to move or not.

This is actually what I like about it the most. The player always has the option of rolling an action die and a move die. Choosing not to roll one of them is a chance the player takes in order to get the initiative advantage (not advantage in the 5e meaning of advantage of course....)

Instead being locked into non-moving is IMHO potentially a much worse situation for melee characters, while it is almost always irrelevant for ranged characters and spellcasters.

My response to this is that 1) It makes perfect sense from a realism point of view. It should be easier (though not guaranteed) for someone rapidly shooting arrows to stand and shoot before someone else can run across the room and hit with a weapon.

and 2) Also, given that the ranged character consciously forgoes the move die, and thus the chance to move in that round, if an enemy were to shaddowstep, teleport, dash, sneak, become visible, or whatever, within melee range of them unexpectedly, they are now stuck standing there that round, and possibly through the enemies attack in the next round should they lose initiative to a creature that does now have incentive to forgo the move die since they have a vulnerable enemy in melee range. How devastating would it be for a character that specifically avoids melee combat to face a killing machine toe-to-toe for 2 rounds? That would be incentive for them to keep their options open and roll the move die just in case.

Also, a lot of the complaints I see are phrased such that melee fighters will "always act last", which is not true. Not only will chance still play a roll, but there are plenty of times where it is tactically reasonable for a fighter to forgo movement. If they are guarding a door or corridor, the resolve to stay in that spot provides a tactical advantage against anyone trying to get past them.

I think people who treat combat with the minimum commitment (simple TotM with minimal description of tactically useful elements of the battlefield, simple one roll per side initiative) are not the kind of players who will see any value in an initiative system like this. And that is of course a valid option for their game if that is enough for them. If you care about a more realistic representation of the chaos and unpredictability of combat, gaming groups may want to consider a system like this.

 

[Wiseblood]

This is actually what I like about it the most. The player always has the option of rolling an action die and a move die. Choosing not to roll one of them is a chance the player takes in order to get the initiative advantage (not advantage in the 5e meaning of advantage of course....)



My response to this is that 1) It makes perfect sense from a realism point of view. It should be easier (though not guaranteed) for someone rapidly shooting arrows to stand and shoot before someone else can run across the room and hit with a weapon.

This is false. 1)Watch a tennis player. They do not move then strike the ball, it is one action. There are some that can make quick shots with bows I have not seen it done with a longbow.

2) The archer in your example has to lead the target unless they are closing with one another in a straight line. Thusly the archer is shooting at a square that is empty hoping that the arrow intercepts the target. Also arrows, while quicker than a sprinter, are having to cross the distance as well.

 

[Miladoon]

I am a bit skeptic about the practicalities of this (as well as of Mearl's version), I'd have to see it work at the table in order to judge...

I agree. I would also take a moment to reevaluate how the current system runs and make a comparison. You might be surprised how the current system is already favoring certain characters. It really boils down to table composition and round dynamics. (Who your players are, and rolling initiative every round over rolling once at the beginning of the encounter)

.... If you care about a more realistic representation of the chaos and unpredictability of combat, gaming groups may want to consider a system like this.

I just want to point out that gaming groups that keep to the current system are not entirely without those qualities when they play.

I also wanted to say that I liked your input on the Greyhawk Initiative thread with @Greenstone.Walker. I am actually thinking of the Jon Snow Initiative based on your posts. I like the idea of naming the modes:

Skirmish - Unrestricted move, action, bonus action - roll 1d6+DEX bonus
Stand Fast - No movement, but you take an action and/or bonus action - roll 1d12+DEX
Double Quick - Movement only plus Dash, Dodge, Disengage - roll 1d20+DEX

EDIT: Pointing out that highest roll goes first.

This is false. 1)Watch a tennis player. They do not move then strike the ball, it is one action. There are some that can make quick shots with bows I have not seen it done with a longbow.

2) The archer in your example has to lead the target unless they are closing with one another in a straight line. Thusly the archer is shooting at a square that is empty hoping that the arrow intercepts the target. Also arrows, while quicker than a sprinter, are having to cross the distance as well.

The realism debates will rage on and that is ok. Ultimately, groups may try alternate initiative systems and compare it to the current system. I am assuming the factors will then be: Speed of play, Option Paralysis, Dynamic versus Static, Feel and Tension, etc.

 

[R. Brent Clements]

This is false. 1)Watch a tennis player. They do not move then strike the ball, it is one action. There are some that can make quick shots with bows I have not seen it done with a longbow.

I don't see this as a good analogy for initiative. You have cited a case that is the extreme case of "one side acts, then the other". There is no player on the court who has a chance to hit the ball before the player swinging at it. Of course there is almost simultaneous movement and swinging, but you can break it down into moving toward the ball, hitting the ball, and returning to the neutral position before your next "turn", i.e. when the ball is hit back to you. If you are too slow you may still return the ball, but will be at a disadvantage if you are still far to one side of the court on your next return. Another sport analogy would be that a baseball that flies into left field is most likely to be caught by the fielder that is already in left field, but the guy in centre or right field could theoretically get there, if they were lucky--directly analogous to rolling well on 2 dice vs rolling bad on 1.

2) The archer in your example has to lead the target unless they are closing with one another in a straight line. Thusly the archer is shooting at a square that is empty hoping that the arrow intercepts the target. Also arrows, while quicker than a sprinter, are having to cross the distance as well.

I get that a moving target is harder to track. That should probably be handled in the attack roll. Perhaps if the target forgoes the movement die, there should be a small penalty to AC as they are easier to hit, or an improvement of AC for moving characters. There is an argument to be made for a penalty to the initiative, but there is of course a limit to how realistic of a model you can get and still have a "reasonable" number of dice rolls. It is also then easy to argue how much slower an archer would be aiming for the same accuracy if they were the party moving, instead of the target.

 

[Wiseblood]

Perhaps a direct translation is better. Check this out. Assuming each side rolls the best that they can. Character one fires an arrow at cult goon one. On initiative count 1. Goon one rushes and attacks Character one on initiative count 2. The unseen assumption here is that Character one has nocked an arrow already or can nock an arrow at the speed of thought.

 

[R. Brent Clements]

Perhaps a direct translation is better. Check this out. Assuming each side rolls the best that they can. Character one fires an arrow at cult goon one. On initiative count 1. Goon one rushes and attacks Character one on initiative count 2. The unseen assumption here is that Character one has nocked an arrow already or can nock an arrow at the speed of thought.

I am in agreement that firing arrows takes longer than the proposed d4 for initiative suggested. In a situation where combat is anticipated and it is reasonable to assume the arrow has been readied in the bow then yes, as well as throwing something that is already in your hand. However readying a bow and then firing it would definitely take longer. No argument there.

There are of course lots of things that require large mathematical models to get accurate that could not be completed with dice in the average human lifetime, which computers can process in fractions of a second. It will always be a balance between complexity and realism.

One thing that has been in my mind since joining this conversation that I have left out is that I REALLY like the idea of making the initiative roll from dice that are determined by what you actually did in the last round. Thus if you did nothing but stand and poke something with your dagger, you have a much better chance of going first in the next round than the character that ran across the room, climbed the wall, swung from the chandelier, then dropped behind the enemy and cast a spell.

 

[Wiseblood]

I am in agreement that firing arrows takes longer than the proposed d4 for initiative suggested. In a situation where combat is anticipated and it is reasonable to assume the arrow has been readied in the bow then yes, as well as throwing something that is already in your hand. However readying a bow and then firing it would definitely take longer. No argument there.

There are of course lots of things that require large mathematical models to get accurate that could not be completed with dice in the average human lifetime, which computers can process in fractions of a second. It will always be a balance between complexity and realism.

One thing that has been in my mind since joining this conversation that I have left out is that I REALLY like the idea of making the initiative roll from dice that are determined by what you actually did in the last round. Thus if you did nothing but stand and poke something with your dagger, you have a much better chance of going first in the next round than the character that ran across the room, climbed the wall, swung from the chandelier, then dropped behind the enemy and cast a spell.

I like the idea too. In spite of my arguments against it.

 

[Miladoon]

Here is a colorful alternative to the alternative based off of comments in this thread.

White Gandalf Initiative. (WIP)

Players roll 3 colored dice. One die is Blue (Action), one die is Green (Movement), the last die is Red (Bonus Action)

DM announces "go on any 6s." (The count moves down. Go on any 1s if you want, and the count moves up) Ties go to higher DEX.

Blue 6s resolve any actions
Green 6s resolve any movements
Red 6s resolve any bonus actions

Players may have rolled lower and must wait until the count signals for them to proceed.

A player can pass and reserve any dice result for the next round if they so desire. Potentially giving those that don't take an action, movement, or bonus action an advantage die for the following round.

Once the round is over, roll the dice for the next round. Trade any results with any reserved dice from the last round if you rolled lower this round.

 

[Wiseblood]

Here is a colorful alternative to the alternative based off of comments in this thread.

White Gandalf Initiative. (WIP)

Players roll 3 colored dice. One die is Blue (Action), one die is Green (Movement), the last die is Red (Bonus Action)

DM announces "go on any 6s." (The count moves down. Go on any 1s if you want, and the count moves up) Ties go to higher DEX.

Blue 6s resolve any actions
Green 6s resolve any movements
Red 6s resolve any bonus actions

Players may have rolled lower and must wait until the count signals for them to proceed.

A player can pass and reserve any dice result for the next round if they so desire. Potentially giving those that don't take an action, movement, or bonus action an advantage die for the following round.

Once the round is over, roll the dice for the next round. Trade any results with any reserved dice from the last round if you rolled lower this round.

I don't know how well it would work but it is interesting.