Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[Aldarc]

One of my biggest gripes with most diced knit system has tended to be what rolls init? Mostly if it were me, it would be a combo of perception and quick thinking or tactics - more situational awareness - but also discipline could play a tole etc etc etc...

I believe that Pathfinder 2 shifts Initiative to Perception as a default, but empowers the DM to have Initiative key off other skills depending upon the situation: e.g., using Stealth, Survival, etc.

 

[5ekyu]

What did you think of Merals' variant initiative system that he put out - was it last year? earlier this year? There was a big thread in here about it.

If it's the one I remember the hubbub over, it was more cumbersome than we liked, but I may be mistaking it for others.

We have used tons of different systems over the years so we have seen in play declare then resolve, actions all having speed delays, various levels from complex to simpler... so seen impacts of each.

So far our choice driven one has done the trick for our needs.

 

[5ekyu]

I believe that Pathfinder 2 shifts Initiative to Perception as a default, but empowers the DM to have Initiative key off other skills depending upon the situation: e.g., using Stealth, Survival, etc.

Some of the initial stuff there looked good.

I recall a few systems years ago that had a flare phase then the specific actions determined init order for resolutions.

Some used it divorced from character, as a thematic element- talking before running before tech before fighting for DrWho. Physicals before spells for Buffy.

Others had you go ahead and make the task check. The amount you beat the DC by set the order...

There have been tons of systems doing init tons of ways thru the decades. My basic view of PF2 is overly complex and derivative but it will certainly find a market - because its following a repeated business model - find a very popular "light" ish game and produce a higher crunch clone that intends to draw away some of that audience by scratching itches the other didnt.

 

[5ekyu]

What did you think of Merals' variant initiative system that he put out - was it last year? earlier this year? There was a big thread in here about it.

Follow-up - did a quick google and the Mearls was what i remember. there were systems like this as far back in the 80s being done with AD&D and others. Some went so far as to work multi-attack into initiative steps down etc but what mearls put forward is notable for being different from 5e but it was nothing new.

We didn't find it particularly helpful then except to scratch the "mo' crunch" itches and make it "feel more gritty" when one interprets gritty as crunch.

Adding that much complexity *and* adding in more and more dice is not a direction we would go towards these days. Also moving every "end of effect" to the "round end" instead of character-based end is spotlighting even more the "end of round" break which i was glad to see was effectively mostly done away with in 5e. Part of why we like cyclical is that by the time your init comes around its "as if" you are the first in the init order with really no arbitrary breaks coming into play after that, no matter who you are.

Anyway - did a quick look to giver a more complete answer.

later.

 

[Aldarc]

There have been tons of systems doing init tons of ways thru the decades. My basic view of PF2 is overly complex and derivative but it will certainly find a market - because its following a repeated business model - find a very popular "light" ish game and produce a higher crunch clone that intends to draw away some of that audience by scratching itches the other didnt.

Regardless of whether one intends to play PF2, its basic framing of Initiative as a contextually-determined skill/ability check is fairly easy to port into D&D, though not without its potential problem points (e.g., Expertise).

In one of my Fate games, I abandoned initiative all together, which worked remarkably well. Just follow the fiction. Everyone acted once per round, but combat order was basically rooted in the circumstances of the fiction and how prepared the players themselves were to declare the actions for their PC. If a player takes forever to decide, then they naturally move themselves down the ladder.

This is also why I found the intent of Mike Mearls's "Greyhawk Intiative" to be unnecessary for those seeking the "chaos of battle." Spellcaster PCs typically take longer to decide, as they have more complex options to consider, so they usually act slower than martial character players who may know their action in advance: shoot, stab, slash, etc.

 

[Hriston]

Nah. A strict reading shows that only one person can go at a time. "The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest." That necessitates having to break ties somehow, and without the non-rule rule, it falls to the DM to decide just like with the non-rule rule.

You left off an instructive part of that quote. I repeat it here in full:

The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest. This is the order (called the initiative order) in which they act during each round.​

This tells us that the order determines when they act. Combine that with the order being determined solely by the initiative roll result, and you can conclude that each participants turn happens on their initiative count, and if their initiative count is the same, their turns happen at the same time.

And your reading missed this:

The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.​

This tells us that identical creatures have their turns at the same time explicitly because they all have the same initiative roll result. This certainly doesn't necessitate having to break a tie.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Has anyone tried a real time initiative\combat system? Bet that could work!