Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: "Greyhawk" Initiative

Mistwell said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. Considering just two possibilities chosen to bolster your point doesn't seem like a very thorough analysis.
2. If you want Dex to affect initiative order, then just do that. Saying that the suggested system sort of mimics it by buffing ranged attacks just is not a very good argument.

The Human Target said:

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

Click to expand...

Who made them 'powerful' in the first place?

By the same token, I'm amazed spells take a d10.

Here's my version inspired by Mike's:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xPT-45PCBvaAJ3FaKI2Tkz2UmMGzoFcCzG0i7BfOss/edit?usp=sharing

I separated movement entirely from your turn, and eliminated rounds altogether. Instead, once you've completed your action, you roll for your next Turn.

I also have a lot fewer die rolls.

It sounds far more complicated when you read it than it is in practice.

Things I don't like about it (Mearls' proposal):

1. Advantages ranged weapons
2. Penalizes doing multiple things on your turn
3. Disadvantages casters

If I were going to switch to a different turn-ordering system that was going to take some getting used to, I would much sooner try everything-happens-in-parallel, something like @Hemlock suggested.

hawkeyefan said:

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.

Click to expand...

You and me too! Although my system does have the option to delay your turn as well but unfortunately it just made sense.

However, the main difference is since I don't use rounds, it's often effectively the same as skipping a round entirely.

A few thoughts:

1. Instead of having movement be just a die roll (which still leaves "mini-teleport" movement), why not just have it take 1 segment to get started and then be 1 more segment per x-distance moved? I say x-distance rather than a set number of feet because in an open field situation one will be able to move much farther in a given time than in a tight crowded passage. This also tells the DM where you're going to be when while you are moving on a seg.-by-seg. basis in case you run into something like a spell's area, or draw an AoO, or whatever.

2. Multiple attacks really should get separate initiatives. A simple way to do this would be to just roll as normal (so, d8 for melee) twice, and have the attacks happen then - one on a 2, say, and one on a 6. Maybe add in that the rolls cannot be the same; reroll one if they are.

3. To tone down the Ranged stuff a bit - sure they can be fast on the initiative but there need to be much more severe penalties for shooting into melee, and even more severe penalties for shooting while in melee.

4. I'd tweak the caster roll to be d6 + spell level; and have it interruptable (and the caster lose all Dex bonus to AC) between the original initiative roll and resolution. Example: caster wants to chuck a fireball, 3rd-level spell. She rolls 2 on her initiative, so that's when she starts casting; to resolve on a 5. If she's attacked on a 1 she gets her full defenses. On 2-4 she doesn't, as she's concentrating on her spell and the handwaving required. On 5 she resolves, after which she's back to normal again till next round. And if she's interrupted - well, that's where the wild magic table comes in handy.

5. For simplicity's sake I'd put in a blanket rule that spells always resolve at the [start/end, pick one] of the segment, to avoid headaches around - for example - whether the fireballed goblins acting on a 5 got their shots away or not.

6. To avoid or at least mitigate Delay abuses, put a randomizer - say, d3 - into how quickly a delayed action can happen after its trigger occurs. And if you delay until after the last action taken* in a round (because your triggering action didn't happen) you've delayed right off the round's end and can roll afresh for next round.
* - unless that last action is what you specified at declaration as your triggering action, in which case you go next.

Lan-"there's simpler ways to do this, but Mearls is certainly on the right track"-efan

ninjayeti said:

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.

Click to expand...

Check out my variation then, you'll probably like it better: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xPT-45PCBvaAJ3FaKI2Tkz2UmMGzoFcCzG0i7BfOss/edit?usp=sharing

Mistwell said:

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.

Click to expand...

Don't ruin my knee jerk opinion with your maths!

Athinar said:

"concentration camp" is our term for the "Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage."

and the camp we are talking about is a camp like boot camp, football camp, etc, for training

Click to expand...

Alright, sure. I was thinking more of the historical meaning.

Harzel said:

1. Considering just two possibilities chosen to bolster your point doesn't seem like a very thorough analysis.

Click to expand...

1. 
   
   I didn't say it was a "very thorough analysis" and I think the language I used made that fairly apparent. However, I do think it's reasonably typical. If you dispute that, maybe give reasons why rather than just being dismissive without doing any work to back up your contention?
   
   

   [*]If you want Dex to affect initiative order

   Click to expand...

   
   I do not and that misses the entire point of my post. I am saying ranged attackers gain something and lose something to make them roughly equal out to be fairly close to what they were before, in direct response to people claiming they had a new advantage from this new system. If you think it's not a good argument, give reasons beyond simply stating that.