[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​

 

[Staccat0]

Logically ranged having an advantage makes sense. Game balance melee should go as they made ranged so good.

Ah sure. Makes sense. Yeah, I think I was erring on the game balance side and letting melee attacks bounce further forward on the scale just because I don't want to DM a bunch of fire fights.

 

[Herb L. Farmer]

Im going to try Mike Mearls' system with my players tomorrow. I'll create an easy encounter at first just to see how it goes. I'll add an ability check for situations when a player wants to change their move, such as when their target moves or dies before their turn. I like big encounters and the 5e initiatve system gets to be too repetitive. Last game we tried "Seize the initiative" and everybody liked it. I think this will be a success as well.

 

[Pauln6]

Tried it twice now. Most players like the added tactical options. Only the cleric player dislikes it as he prefers to stand back and flame strike, firestorm, or cantrip. I'm fine with that. He could still use his sling if he wanted to so it's his tactical choice either way.

 

[JeffB]

We tried it.

I liked it far better than cyclical initiative, but I like nearly everything better than cyclical initiative ( EW, and 1E being exceptions)

Players did not like it as much as I did. They don't like cyclical either.

 

[Charles Braden]

I don't like it. Rolling every round for Initiative will slow combat down immensely IMHO. In the game I'm starting soon I will be trying the following home-brewed system:

Everyone announces their action. Initiative then works by adding the relative Stat modifier of your action to your Proficiency Bonus. Physical actions will use Dex or Str, Cleric and Druid casting will use Wisdom, Wizards will use Int and Cha-based casters will use Cha. I add the Proficiency Bonus because starting characters will be easier to get the drop on while more experienced characters will tend to go sooner which simulates their years of experience in their chosen fields. So a high-Dex character using a Finesse weapon will have an Initiative Score (or IS for short) or 4 or 5 + their Prof Bonus while a Wizard casting a spell might have the SAME number. This eliminates Dex as the primary Initiative stat.

However, the order in which actions take place is also modified by the action taken. Attacking with bare hands or weapons doing 1D4 conveys a -1 modifier to the IS. 1D6 is a -2, 1D8 -3, 1D10-4 and 1D12 a -5. Moving equates to =1 per 5' moved. Spells have a -1 per spell component so a spell with only a Verbal component is -1 while a grand spell with ALL of the spell components = -3 to the IS. The Alertness Feat conveys the same +5 to the IP that it does now. The following are a few examples of how a combat would work:

Combat begins with all players declaring their actions as well as their intended targets. Lets say a Fighter, a Ranger and a Wizard are encountering 5 Orcs. The Fighter rushes in to attack with his Longsword, the Ranger fires with his Shortbow and the Wizard casts a spell with Verbal and Somatic components. The Fighter adds his Str Modifier to his Prof Bonus for his IP and gets 4+3 = 7. The Ranger Adds his Dex Modifier to his Prof Bonus and gets 3+4=7 (lower Dex but higher level than the Fighter). The Wizard adds his Int Modifier to his Prof Bonus and gets 5+3=8. The DM sees that the Orcs are all wielding Shortswords with +2 modifiers for their stats so their IS is 2+2 (for their approximate Prof Bonus based on their CR) or 4. Now the DM begins applying the modifiers for the actions taken.

The Fighter and the Ranger are moving at the same time except that the Fighter has to move 20' to reach the Orcs while the Ranger can shoot from where he is. The Orcs are also moving to engage so both sides move forward 10' and meet in the middle. The Fighter will swing on his IS of 7 - 3 (for his 1D8 Longsword) -2 (for moving 10') or 1. The Ranger will fire on his IS of 7-3 (1D8 Longbow) or 4. The Wizard's spell goes off on 8-2 (for spell components) -1 (he chose to move 5' as he saw the two sides closing to get a better angle) or 5. The Orcs will attack on 4 -2 (moving 10') -2 (for their 1D6 Shortswords) or 0. So, in order, the following things happen: The Wizard's spell goes off. The Ranger fires his shot. The Fighter attacks with his sword. Surviving Orcs get to act.

I prefer this system because the Fighter who has to race across 30' of open ground to swing his Great Ax is at a disadvantage. However, this also applies to the enemy who wants to do the same thing. The Mage with the phenomenal IQ who wants to stand still and utter a word won't be filled with arrows before having a chance to go. Higher-level characters, who (IMHO) would be harder to startle and catch unprepared act sooner because they've already survived a hundred battles or more. I would also impose negative modifiers to the IS for creature Size with Medium being 0, larger than that being -1 to -3 and smaller being +1.