Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: "Greyhawk" Initiative

The latest Unearthed Arcana by WotCs Mearls is up. "Mike Mearls introduces an alternative initiative system, inspired by AD&D and the journey to Lake Geneva, Wisconsin—the birthplace of D&D—for Gary Con 2017. While the initiative rules in fifth edition D&D are great for keeping the action moving and being easy to use at the table, the Greyhawk initiative variant takes a different approach. These rules add complexity, but with the goal of introducing more drama to combat."

He's calling it "Greyhawk Initiative". It'll be interesting to compare this to how we interpreted his earlier version of alternative initiative.

Mearls also talks about it in this video.

[video=youtube;hfSo4wVkwUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSo4wVkwUw[/video]


​

 

[The Human Target]

Why would you want to make ranged attacks even more powerful in 5e?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I honestly didn't mind a lot of it....but then I got to the "Delay an Action" section, and I had a flashback to the 3e/Pathfinder Days and my players' usage of delaying which I haaaaated. I punched out after that and wept for a bit.

 

[werecorpse]

It seems to another of those things that is going to need a lot of GM interpretation "rulings not rules" blah blah.

As I said my reaction is that I don't want to use it for the reasons I stated above but I'm open to being wrong.

Is there a YouTube game up where they use this?

Matt Colville says he likes it and will be using it in his next game (which will be streamed I believe) so I can check it out there.

 

[Athinar]

I like that Dex had an impact to initiative due to the lightning reflexes; the quick and dead in gunslinger’s games;

AD&D: Dexterity affects all characters with regard to initiative in attack
Dex Attacking adjustment is used for those using missiles. it adjust the initiative of the individual only

 

[Henry]

I don't like it, myself. While I applaud the 1st and 2nd Edition feel (hello, Rath, Rupert, and Delsonora!) it has a few flaws as-is:

- The delay action defangs half the reason to use a random init system - in combat, things are chaotic - there can be friendly fire, a creature hustles a lot faster than you planned, etc. There was a situation in an AD&D game I rna at a con where the part thief ran directly into a wizard's cone of cold - it was a defining moment for them of how they weren't in 3rd edition any more.

- there's no allowance for faster weapons or spells - and I'm not just talking daggers versus greatclubs, there are instances of weapons (such as spears) that are technically faster than people give them credit for - a man with a spear will definitely nail a man with a dagger before he gets in close enough to hit. Not to mention heavy crossbows and daggers both use a d4!

- I really can't see this benefiting our table in any way. But it would be a cool optional system with a little extra refinement. As long as you're adding that much complexit, go all the way !

 

[SkidAce]

Not violently opposed, but will not implement.

 

[Mistwell]

Why would you want to make ranged attacks even more powerful in 5e?

Calculate the average turn order a ranged attack would have gone at under the old system, which included the full dex bonus. Now compare it to this new system, which does not include their dex bonus. I think you will find they're going roughly the same point in combat that they always were, relative to the str-melee combatant. I don't think they're really made more powerful - they're just about the same amount of powerful from this system I suspect.

So just as a guesstimate, a two-handed fighter would typically wear heavy armor and dump Dex, as it's only purpose would be for Initiative, and dex saves. Initiative isn't enough, on it's own, to incentivize that player to increase their dex over Con or the all important Wisdom save, and Dex saves tend to be the least impactful for that fighter (because they impact hit points, which they tend to have more of anyway). So, let's assume the Fighter has an 8 or 10 in Dex (-1 or 0), which I think is fair.

The Ranged Attacker, however, will max dex. Their AC depends on it, their attack bonus does, and their damage does. So they will likely have a 16 to 18 dex (+3 or +4), and eventually a 20 (+5).

Old system: Ranged attacker rolls a d20+3 or 4, so an average of 13.5 or 14.5. Melee attacker rolls a d20-1 or +0, so an average roll of 9.5 or 10.5. It's roughly a 4 point bonus the ranged attacker gets, and eventually a 5 point advantage once the ranged attacker gets a 20 in dex.

New system: Ranged attack rolls a d4, so average roll of 2.5. Melee attacker rolls a d8, so average of 4.5. So the Ranged attacker has a +2 bonus on the Melee attacker.

I am not sure of the percentages on that second one, but to me it seems roughly pretty darn similar. Seems like the Ranged attacker has roughly a 20-25% advantage on initiatives in both systems.

 

[Mortellan]

Greyhawk! He uttered the magic word that summons me!

Okay Mearls, you've broke the ice, let's keep it moving in that direction now. Greyhawk THAC0 maybe? Or hey the seventh stat, Greyhawk Comeliness! *snark*

 

[ninjayeti]

Rule #1 of being a good DM is making the game fun for your players. So I think the most relevant question is will using this system make the game more fun from a player perspective? A couple of big points jump out:

-Losing actions: this is a big fat Less Fun. I seems like 5E really tried to minimize the lost player turns with rules like giving most "save or suck" spells a recurring save, eliminating negative HP, etc. Even Mearls obviously recognizes that it annoys players when they lose their actions by making a joke of it in his example. So if players hate it, why do it?

-Penalties for using class abilities: again, significantly Less Fun. Lots of class abilities are bonus actions - these should be things players want to use, not boat anchors that tie them to the back of the initiative order. This is especially true of "fast" classes like rogues and monk - cunning action and the bonus unarmed strike now mean these classes must either forgo using cool class abilities or forget about acting anywhere near the top of the initiative order.
-Tinkering with class (and build) balance: Not every player is an optimizer, but I think most savvy players are going to start avoiding some character builds like the plague and favoring ranged attackers. Having fewer attractive character options or having to choose between playing the character you like and the one you feel is superior is definitely Less Fun.

I am sure there are some things that are more fun for players in the system, but frankly I don't see them coming close to balancing these negatives. However interesting this may be on paper for the DMs, I think it is going to be a downer for players, which takes it off the table for me.

 

[cbwjm]

In regard to lost turns, players might be put out by missing a turn, but they will probably also cheer when the ogre misses their action due to PCs moving out of range.