[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​

 

[Sacrosanct]

Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee. I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword. However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon. Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.

I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed. I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike. Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc. Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack). But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.

So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee. I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword. However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon. Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.

I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed. I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike. Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc. Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack). But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.

So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?

I think a lot of players forget about the abstraction layer in the game

 

[Dartavian]

You may be the first person I put on ignore.

All you do is whinge and whine about the game. On an Internet forum dedicated to discussion of the game. It's like every time your posts come up I know what they going to say before I even read them... and then foolishly I read them and they just anger me.

Out of the hundreds of role-playing games available why do you play this one?

I mean you seem to hate it so much that you log onto the Internet and spent several hours of each day whining about how bad it is. On a forum for people that like the game no less. Sounds like you've wasted months of your life complaining about a game that you waste months of your life playing that you don't even like.

It's just really super weird.

Like I hated fourth edition. I loathed it. But I didn't waste any time or my life whingeing about it histrionically on the Internet on a daily basis; I just went off and found a different game to play.

Why do you play a game you so clearly hate? Why do you spend your leisure time so?

On the topic of the initiative variant, I hate it. I'm more than happy with a d20 and cycling initiative.

Even though we may disagree on the initiative variant, everything else is spot on! I too get tired of seeing the same old winey song and dance in every discussion in the forums.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You may be the first person I put on ignore.

All you do is whinge and whine about the game. On an Internet forum dedicated to discussion of the game. It's like every time your posts come up I know what they going to say before I even read them... and then foolishly I read them and they just anger me.

Out of the hundreds of role-playing games available why do you play this one?

I mean you seem to hate it so much that you log onto the Internet and spent several hours of each day whining about how bad it is. On a forum for people that like the game no less. Sounds like you've wasted months of your life complaining about a game that you waste months of your life playing that you don't even like.

It's just really super weird.

Like I hated fourth edition. I loathed it. But I didn't waste any time or my life whingeing about it histrionically on the Internet on a daily basis; I just went off and found a different game to play.

Why do you play a game you so clearly hate? Why do you spend your leisure time so?

.

Reading this post was kinda surreal because I've made it myself pretty much exactly word for word in the past. I think it's because some people think if they keep complaining and don't stop, the designers will eventually "listen" and change the game to how they want it. When has that ever worked in the history of ever for anyone?

Finally, I just started using my ignore button. I was always against it, but not anymore. I mean, this is a forum about games, not a discussion on life or death. So ignoring people like that makes the environment much more pleasant.

 

[guachi]

I like the idea of only declaring an Action before rolling initiative.

I playtested a different initiative system that was more freewheeling where initiative rolls were only made when timing mattered. It worked well for the one battle I used it for.

What I'm really looking for is an initiative system to replace cyclical initiative with. Whether that's using cards or only declaring an action and then rolling, I want something else. I'd also prefer a system where players declare before knowing the initiative order.

Uncertainty is fun!

 

[LapBandit]

Reading this post was kinda surreal because I've made it myself pretty much exactly word for word in the past. I think it's because some people think if they keep complaining and don't stop, the designers will eventually "listen" and change the game to how they want it. When has that ever worked in the history of ever for anyone?

Finally, I just started using my ignore button. I was always against it, but not anymore. I mean, this is a forum about games, not a discussion on life or death. So ignoring people like that makes the environment much more pleasant.

Perhaps you're ignoring a divergent voice because it doesn't confirm your bias? I also find it funny when people complain about complaining and then try to hold the moral high-ground.

Tell me again why his voice shouldn't count when the designers weigh what their audience wants?

 

[Blue]

Interesting system, but one odd side effect (as presented) is that you need to know your actions before you roll initiative for that round. You need to know if you are gong to take a bonus action, or swap gear, etc.

You bring up a great point, but one that's made more confusing by things like conditional actions.

"Oh look, I got a crit, now I can take a bonus action attack thanks to Great Weapon Master."

Do I decide at that point to take the bonus action and delay all the rest of my action until a later point? Just the bonus action attack happens later? Can I split up my move for the round so so is happening before action and some after the bonus action even if they are now on different initiatives?

or maybe a bonsu action that happens sometimes doesn't add. That avoids those issues but skews the "realism" this is trying for because a reliable bonus action attack slows everything down but a unreliable one doesn't?

 

[shamurai7]

This seems awful. I do understand the thought process but what little 'makes sense' you gain from it is not worth the tradeoff of bogging down a perfectly good single die roll that is in place.

This system goes against the spirit of the ruleset anyway. Less is more.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Perhaps you're ignoring a divergent voice because it doesn't confirm your bias?

No, pretty sure that's not it, but the reason is exactly like Flamestrike described. Perhaps you should read his post that I quoted and agreed with and you could have saved yourself a lot of time.

Tell me again why his voice shouldn't count when the designers weigh what their audience wants?

Totally NOT what we were saying.

 

[robus]

I much prefer my own homebrew version, which actually DOES speed the game up a lot. Everyone rolls as normal. Then as the DM, I look at where my monsters go. Let's say they go on 14. I will call out, "Anyone above 14 may go." Then I go, and then I call out "Everyone else can go."

The first thing you may be thinking is how that screws up things because in 5e some actions either start or end at your turn. But after years now of using it, I'm telling you that's not an issue, and really hasn't been. It saves a lot of time from having to go down the initiative order, and allows the players to feel like they have more control over their actions. It also implements a "hold action" way better IMO than the game handles it now. I.e., I still use the hold action for that official declaration from the player as written, but it allows a "minor hold" action because if you rolled higher than your buddy, you can still wait until after he or she goes as long as both of you went faster (or slower) than the monsters without affecting what you want to do.

This is actually very similar to the FFG Star Wars initiative system. Initiative rolls allocate slots in the initiative order :

* PC
* PC
* NPC
* PC
* NPC
* PC

It's up to the PCs who goes in which slot and up the GM who goes in the NPC slots. So not quite as structured as your system. but it can make for a more flexible cycle if that's what people want.