[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​

 

[Lanefan]

Ties do come up fairly often and for last session I used Dex to break them.

Question: why break the ties at all? Why not just let the actions happen simultaneously?

 

[ad_hoc]

Question: why break the ties at all? Why not just let the actions happen simultaneously?

I'm not against that, it's just what we decided last session.

Ultimately there needs to be an order of resolution at the table. The simple thing to do might just to be to go in clockwise order around the table.

The only really difficult thing will be monsters vs PCs. Who goes first? If they have opposing movement it can be tricky.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not against that, it's just what we decided last session.

Ultimately there needs to be an order of resolution at the table. The simple thing to do might just to be to go in clockwise order around the table.

That's how I do it, with the understanding that it's all happening at the same time in the fiction.

The only really difficult thing will be monsters vs PCs. Who goes first? If they have opposing movement it can be tricky.

Not as often as you might think. Movement rates are helpful here, but simple use of logic and judgement is usually all you need (for example, if a monster and a PC are simultaneously charging each other they meet halfway).

Trickier is when spells are involved. Sometimes here you do need tiebreaks e.g. did the Hold Person resolve before or after the target got its attack in or its spell away. Here we just roll what we call sub-initiatives, and it's surprising how infrequently this happens given the number of ties our initiative system produces.

Lanefan

 

[schnee]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I wanted to get my opinion out there.

First, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way this is faster. I have played RPGs for over 30 years and have used a wide variety of initiative systems, including ones similar to what Mearls is suggesting, and it is not faster.

You know, there's a saying in the product development / design field:

"One test is worth 50 opinions."

Someone already posted 'I tried it and it actually works'. All due respect (from a fellow graybeard with about as much gaming time) but I think I give their words more weight.

--

Each initiative style rewards certain behaviors and punishes others - and makes some things more efficient and others less.

And, my bet is, that for *most* groups, saying 'you have a few simple choices of what you can do, declare now before anyone else can do anything, we are all waiting' probably forces people who normally get stuck in analysis paralysis just choose NOW. Because they're just not delaying the next player...they're delaying EVERYONE. At the same time. Don't underestimate social pressure.

When making that choice, they can't analyze the entire map, studiously examining positions of figures and hazards, calculating odds - because it will be significantly different when they do finally act. So you're taking away their ability to metagame.

And, when they do get their chance to act, they are forced into a much smaller set of choices: I said hit something, so now I hit something. Or else they forfeit their ability to act now.

If they do change their mind, they roll again, act later, and risk being punished for it by having even more people go before they do. Odds are, when that turn arrives, their new choice isn't better enough to make it worth the wait. So, the more they meta-game and change their mind, the worse off they are. They are incentivized to make their original choice work, even if it's sub-optimal.

TLDR:
This initiative system is quite interesting to me because it:
a) Causes 'information blindness' that prevents analysis paralysis
b) Structures the communication to peer pressure players into declaring actions quickly
c) Inflicts negative mechanical consequences to people who can't make up their mind

This initiative system is made to change how people behave. I totally see why it could be faster.

I'm going to give it a shot once it's a bit more polished.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

First, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way this is faster. I have played RPGs for over 30 years and have used a wide variety of initiative systems, including ones similar to what Mearls is suggesting, and it is not faster.

Current system: Figure out the order. Use that order every turn.
Mearls system: Figure out the order. Use that order for one turn. Figure out the order again.

I quite concur. And, when you get down to it, that's the system they ditched from 4e. The 5e system is the one they had in 3e, and before that, it was roll every round going back to OD&D, when there wasn't much guidance as to how to do it. The specific variant Mearls is proposing reminds me of DCC, where they whole system is intentionally fiddly and complex. And it isn't fast.

I don't get why folks are so fiddly with initiative, and I'm a hard-core simulationist. Having cyclical initiative keeps the game from getting confusing, and really, there's no benefit to going first after the first round. Things like ongoing spell effects are much easier to handle with cyclical initiative.

And please, no more editions for awhile.

 

[Lord Twig]

You know, there's a saying in the product development / design field:

"One test is worth 50 opinions."

Someone already posted 'I tried it and it actually works'. All due respect (from a fellow graybeard with about as much gaming time) but I think I give their words more weight.

And I said that I have tried similar systems and they work. Just that they work slower. But somehow my play experience is not valid?

The proposed system: Everyone decide on actions. Figure out what dice you need to roll based on your action and roll them. Figure out initiative scores. Start counting at 1 "Anyone go on 1? 2? 3?".

What I played: Everyone decide on actions. Figure out what number you add to a base number (figured from Dex) based on your action. Figure out initiative scores. Start counting at 1 "Anyone go on 1? 2? 3?".

The only difference is that the system I played added two numbers (each less than 5) and the Mearls system rolls dice (because he really loves dice). Other than that they are exactly the same. And it is slower than just figuring out the order once and then going: Dave, your turn! Mike, your up! Sue, your turn!

And I didn't even go into how someone always misses their number and asks you to go back, or forget what their number is this turn because it is different than last turn or is left doing nothing because their action has been invalidated by a previous players turn.

So if you like all that, or the thought of rolling 5 times as many initiative checks really turns you on, go for it! The rest of us just want to get on with our actions.

 

[Warbringer]

I like ..

But then I liked for initiative

spellcaster d4 + segment
hitty person d10 + weapon speed (+5 per incremental attack)
+ 1 per 5' moved

count out round segment. move mini, do action

roll every round

Was never an issue

 

[Arnwolf666]

I liked the clash in early editions that when there was a tie for initiative both sided could possibly kill each other. Great mechanic. Loved it.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

And this is exactly the heart of the problem as I see it. Combat's chaotic nature should completely prevent knowing "who goes next".

As at the table this is somewhat impractical unless everyone hides their dice, we can only look for partial solutions.

Considering the length of this thread, I apologize if someone has already mentioned this. If you truly want no one to be able to predict the upcoming turn order, I suggest ditching the dice. Make up a deck of cards with one card for each combatant. After a combatant has finished a turn, the DM draws a new card and the combatant associated with that card takes their turn. When all cards have been drawn start a new round and shuffle the deck.

 

[Lanefan]

Considering the length of this thread, I apologize if someone has already mentioned this. If you truly want no one to be able to predict the upcoming turn order, I suggest ditching the dice. Make up a deck of cards with one card for each combatant. After a combatant has finished a turn, the DM draws a new card and the combatant associated with that card takes their turn. When all cards have been drawn start a new round and shuffle the deck.

That's fine...except it doesn't allow for ties (it's impossible to replicate the cinematic trope where two combatants simultaneously kill each other without ties) and still has everyone in stop-start mode.

Still, better than some ideas I've seen.

Lanefan