[UPDATED] Here's Mike Mearls' New D&D 5E Initiative System

In his AMA yesterday, WotC's Mike Mearls frequently referenced his dislike for D&D's initiative system, and mentioned that he was using a new initiative system in his own games. He later briefly explained what that was: "Roll each round. D4 = ranged, d8 = melee, d12 = spell, d6 = anything else, +d8 to swap gear, +d8 for bonus action, low goes 1st. Oh, and +d6 to move and do something ... adds tension, speeds up resolution. So far in play has been faster and makes fights more intense." That's the short version; there's likely more to it. Mearls mentioned briefly that he might trial it in Unearthed Arcana at some point to see what sort of reaction it gets.

In his AMA, Mearls indicated it was cyclic initiative he didn't like ("Cyclical initiative - too predictable"), which the above doesn't address at all (it merely changes the die rolls). Presumably there's more to the system than that quick couple of sentences up there, and it sounds like initiative is rolled every round. So if your initiative is based on your action, presumably you declare your action before rolling initiative (as opposed to declaring your action when your initiative comes around).

_____

UPDATE: I asked Mearls a couple of quick questions. He commented that it "lets ranged guys shoot before melee closes, spellcasters need to be shielded". He also mentioned that he "tinkered with using your weapon's damage die as your roll, but too inflexible, not sure it's worth it".

How is this implemented in-game? "Roll each round, count starts again at 1. Requires end of turn stuff to swap to end of round, since it's not static. In play I've called out numbers - Any 1s, 2s, etc, then just letting every PC go once monsters are done". You announce your action at the beginning of the round; you only need to "commit to the action type - you're not picking specific targets or a specific spell, for instance."

Dexterity does NOT adjust INITIATIVE. Mearls comments that "Dex is already so good, i don't miss it".

So what's the main benefit of the system? "Big benefit is that it encourages group to make a plan, then implement it. Group sees issue of the round and acts around it. I also think it adds a nice flow to combat - each round is a sequence. Plan, resolve, act, encourages group cohesion. Resolution is also faster - each player knows what to do; you don't need to pick spells ahead of acting, but groups so far have planned them."

Picture from ThinkGeek
SaveSave
SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave​

 

[CapnZapp]

Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver, and it's easy to forget the bad old days when you needed scrap paper when initiative changed every round.

The eureka moment comes when you realize that in D&D you don't need fancy initiative. Unlike a modern game where the first one to hit wins, there are so many attacks in a regular D&D fight, it matters much less who does their third attack the fastest.

Obviously there are still elements where initiative matters (assassin ambushes, save or suck spells), but still: much less pronounced need.

So when we played 4e we had our brains and hands full of all sorts of crap, and there an individual action mattered even less, so we began using "sofa initiative". Imagine yourself to be the DM, sitting in a armchair. The players sit either in the couch to your right, or in the couch to your left.

The players rolled once at the start of the fight. The one with the highest initiative got to start, then initiative always went clockwise. As the DM I had two "slots". One at my spot, one at the opposite side - the gap between sofas. My "fast" monsters went the first time either of my slots came up, my "slow" monsters the next slot.

No notetaking needed.

 

[Lanefan]

You know, I think I'm good leaving movement as-is and just saying it's part of the class. I don't want to penalize faster movers like eagle totem barbarian, for instance.

Also I don't know that weapon swapping matters too terribly and I generally don't charge the bonus action or interact with an object item all that often in play. But if you did want to, +2 or +3 would probably cover that reasonably well. Probably +2 since everyone remembers that +2 rule from 3rd ed.

Sounds fine.

Now wands, potions, and rings - that's interesting. Because, do you go with the spell level as a modifier? A flat modifier? Or change the die? So what about this: roll your initiative die twice and take the better result (if that's all you're doing this turn). Or roll twice and take the worse result (if you're using the wand, potion, ring in place of your bonus action or in addition to your normal action or whatever)? How's that?

Can't really use spell level as not all devices directly replicate spells.

I'd be tempted to just give devices their own set die (say, d8) which you roll instead of your normal die if your intended action is to use a device. If you then change your mind you add 4 to your roll to do something else (this to prevent slow classes from "cheating" by using the device die in bad faith)

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver, and it's easy to forget the bad old days when you needed scrap paper when initiative changed every round.

We just leave the initiative dice in front of us once they've been rolled, then roll 'em again next round.

 

[OB1]

Even though the rules are incomplete I'd really like to try this out during a combat or two in my next session, but would love to get some advice from the forum on a few things I'm not sure about.

1. Plan to roll initiative to decide declaration order, but will use just a straight d20 + Alert if anyone has. Low declares first.
2. Alert or Advantage - Roll 2 take lowest
3. Change of plans - When it's your initiative, declare new action(s), roll and add to original number.
4. Bonus Action - Declare after your action, roll and bonus action happens at new count
5. Move after Action - If you have movement left after you take your action or bonus action, declare move, roll and move at appropriate spot.

So potentially, a single player's turn might be broken up into 3 or 4 parts during a single round.

One thing I really like here is the added complexity (and maybe small nerf) to ranged attacks that require trade offs in your tactics. If you want to ensure that you attack early, you wouldn't want to add a movement die, and therefore you will remain exposed through the round. Add the movement and attack later, and your opponent may take cover before you can act and therefore end up with nothing to shoot at.

 

[Lanefan]

Even though the rules are incomplete I'd really like to try this out during a combat or two in my next session, but would love to get some advice from the forum on a few things I'm not sure about.

1. Plan to roll initiative to decide declaration order, but will use just a straight d20 + Alert if anyone has. Low declares first.
2. Alert or Advantage - Roll 2 take lowest
3. Change of plans - When it's your initiative, declare new action(s), roll and add to original number.
4. Bonus Action - Declare after your action, roll and bonus action happens at new count
5. Move after Action - If you have movement left after you take your action or bonus action, declare move, roll and move at appropriate spot.

So potentially, a single player's turn might be broken up into 3 or 4 parts during a single round.

One thing I really like here is the added complexity (and maybe small nerf) to ranged attacks that require trade offs in your tactics. If you want to ensure that you attack early, you wouldn't want to add a movement die, and therefore you will remain exposed through the round. Add the movement and attack later, and your opponent may take cover before you can act and therefore end up with nothing to shoot at.

Suggestion: instead of d20 use a smaller die...d8? d6? Allow simultaneous.

Change of actions - your idea is I think a bit too punitive. You might almost have to rule on it case by case, as some action changes will realistically be much quicker than others. For example, changing from an attack action to a move action (because your intended foe is already dead before you attack, say) shouldn't take any extra time at all; while changing from a spellcasting action to a melee action (e.g. while you're preparing to cast a previously-unseen foe gets in your grille) certainly would take some time. Here I'd say just add flat numbers to the roll as you-as-DM see fit e.g. +5 for the cast-to-melee change and +0 for the melee-to-move change.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

So don't pixelate 'em at all. Use real circles.

You use a grid, so make yourself some see-through cutout discs that represent 5' radius, 10' radius, 20' radius, and any other size(s) you might need, based on your grid.

Then [big rule change alert!] during play instead of having your caster spend ages trying to exactly position the spell, ask roughly where it's to be centered and then make him roll to aim it - a really good aim roll gets the best possible result, a reasonable roll gets a reasonable result, and so on. A very poor roll might miss everything, depending on circumstances. In any case, you position the effect based on the aiming roll.

Then, you simply hold your see-through disc just above the character pieces and look down - it'll be pretty easy to see who gets hit.

Lan-"it's never made sense to me why things thrown or shot have to be aimed but spells do not"-efan

It's not a bad solution but it is finicky. I have to deal with attacks for every spell cast and then futz about with templates.

Or I can just make all spell effects square, get the same results and greatly speed things up.

Yes, I get that the results are less "accurate ". Fair enough. But then again we've already dropped 1-2-1 counting for movement since it's too much of a PITA. I'd just apply the same thing to spells.

 

[KarinsDad]

Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver, and it's easy to forget the bad old days when you needed scrap paper when initiative changed every round.

The eureka moment comes when you realize that in D&D you don't need fancy initiative. Unlike a modern game where the first one to hit wins, there are so many attacks in a regular D&D fight, it matters much less who does their third attack the fastest.

Obviously there are still elements where initiative matters (assassin ambushes, save or suck spells), but still: much less pronounced need.

So when we played 4e we had our brains and hands full of all sorts of crap, and there an individual action mattered even less, so we began using "sofa initiative". Imagine yourself to be the DM, sitting in a armchair. The players sit either in the couch to your right, or in the couch to your left.

The players rolled once at the start of the fight. The one with the highest initiative got to start, then initiative always went clockwise. As the DM I had two "slots". One at my spot, one at the opposite side - the gap between sofas. My "fast" monsters went the first time either of my slots came up, my "slow" monsters the next slot.

No notetaking needed.

Awesome.

Since I just handed the reins of DM over to someone else, I will suggest sofa initiative. And, I will suggest a roll (or possibly winner of init gets) to determine clockwise vs. counterclockwise.

Personally, I think Mike's initiative seems like a big "time suck" and as a player, I would hate to be locked into a type of action before I find out what is actually going on (nope, you cannot change your action to run away since you declared you were going to cast a spell). I get the realism of it, but meh.

Old style D&D and Rolemaster and such had init systems like this, and circular initiative was designed to get rid of that waste of time.

 

[machineelf]

This initiative system won't suit every group, but there's at least one clear audience for it: those who, when the DM says "A dragon is charging towards you.", respond with "I shoot it!", "I run up and smash it!", "I cast a protection spell!", "I cast Magic M... ok, guess we should all roll for initiative and decide what to do when our turn comes round." For players like that, removing the somewhat artificial delay between the start of combat and choosing actions will help with immersion no end.

You could always have your players roll for initiative at the start of the session and at the end of battles to set up for the next one. That way the initiative is already set when that dragon attacks there is no delay.

Rolling for initiative every round is not for me, and I am not convinced it would speed up game play.

 

[Olive]

I always like realism and dynamism in combat systems and so this has an appeal although I'm sure my players would hate it. But I don't think ti would speed things up - in fact I think it would make it worse. My players are old hands and they know from round to round what they want to do (more or less) and as long as initiative doesn't get shouted out all at once it only takes a few seconds to get the list down. I suspect that asking them to say at the start of the round what they want to do would actually make them much m more circumspect about their plans and make things take forever...

 

[Craig Fox]

You could always have your players roll for initiative at the start of the session and at the end of battles to set up for the next one. That way the initiative is already set when that dragon attacks there is no delay.

Rolling for initiative every round is not for me, and I am not convinced it would speed up game play.

That's a pragmatic solution, but not necessarily an immersive one. Player dice rolls are always (with a few exceptions like the diviner) resolved immediately, and I think initiative dice need to be as well. It'd be a bit weird for party members to discuss how they'll be going at 9,15,18 etc in the next fight.

Rolling for initiative each round is clearly not for everyone, but I think a point's been missed in the focus on whether game play speeds up. I don't think that reducing a combat's overall elapsed time is the system's actual goal. Instead, I think it's aiming at a sense of immediacy and encouraging players to be involved for the whole combat, rather than just switching on when their turn comes round.