D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

Staffan

Legend
So what's your solution? Remove TWF from the Bonus Action mechanic and put it...where?

Make the second weapon a free action? Too generous, as then the bonus action can be used for something else and the TWF person gets a free extra strike every round at cost of only a shield's worth of AC.
I'd put it with the Attack action. "If you're wielding two weapons, you can make an extra attack with the off-hand weapon, but you do not get to add your ability modifier to damage."

There are very few times where that's going to be more effective than just using a two-handed weapon. At low levels, and without involving feats and stuff, a dual-wielder under that system would be able to attack once for d6+stat and a second time for just d6. At the same time, a dude with a greatsword attacks once for 2d6+stat. Seems fine to me. And once you hit level 5 and get an extra attack, the dual-wielder gets two attacks at d6+stat and one at d6 (so 3d6+2*stat if all hit), while greatsword-dude attacks twice for 2d6+stat (total 4d6+2*stat).

Now, if you have stuff that adds extra damage on all attacks (like hunter's mark, or multiple magic weapons), dual-wielding becomes more attractive - but at that point it becomes one of several different and more-or-less-equal paths.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Chaosmancer

Legend
The players don't have to co-ordinate; but they often choose to. That said, realism dictates that not every plan or co-ordinated move is going to come off right, and yes - sometimes the front line are gonna get fireballed if they rush in too soon.

As for the DM controlling the whole team - most of the time my dumber monsters don't co-ordinate much at all; more intelligent opponents sometimes co-ordinate and sometimes don't, depending on a host of factors. About the only times I use party-level co-ordination or better is if a) the opponents have any sort of hive mind (e.g. are all psionically linked or are all operating as puppets run by a single controller) or b) the opponents are in fact another adventuring party.

I agree not every set of moves is going to go right or in the right order, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean by coordination on the monster side.

I think part of it is that the majority of my thoughts of what constitutes some failed coordination involve the death of the target, and generally monsters rush in and get killed while players are still standing. But, to look at fireball, do you often have the orc shaman fireballing the majority of his squad?

They are rare situations that I can think of that qualify for the type of thing I’m talking about. I’m not talking tactics, or even things like focus fire. It’s more how often do you frustrate yourself by doing something that prevents you from doing what you wanted to do?

And just writing that sentence makes so very little sense, but for players it is “How often does someone else do something to frustrate you by preventing you from doing what you wanted to do?” Those types of scenarios happen more often when you need to lock in your actions beforehand and I’ve never found that to be a fun experience.

Wizard says she's casting fireball. Fighter says she's running in. Wizard doesn't target until resolution, and as spells by RAW always go right where they're targeted to go then if the Fighter gets hit that's on the Wizard.

That was kind of my point, but I may have not made it clear what issue I was thinking about.

Whenever I hear people say “We will all declare our actions at the beginning and not coordinate” the idea seems to be that they will all yell out their chosen course of action simultaneously. However, that’s dumb because then no one can understand each other and the DM is going to have to have them repeat what they said one by one anyways.

So you pick a person and go around the table, which means you have an order things will go in. Now, this is not a scenario that plays out in the Greyhawk Initiative, because Mearls specifically chooses to let players decide their exact course of action on their turn, they simply roll for the types of actions, this more applies to further variants people are talking about.

So, the Fighter declares they will rush the Orc Shaman. It is a solid tactical choice, let’s say to break it’s concentration. Then down the line the wizard declares they are fireballing the Orc Shaman.

Well, now the Fighter wants to change their actions to not get blasted, but they are locked in and can’t change but because of the order of actions this isn’t “Melee rushed in to soon and got hit, that’s something that could happen in a real fight” instead what it looks like to me and the fighter is “The wizard chose to blast me after they already knew I was in the area”

This can happen with cyclic initiative but a) the Fighter doesn’t feel like they are running into a blast zone on their turn, b) the situation might change enough the wizard chooses a different course of actions and the biggie for me c) it is a lot more blatant if the wizard is trying to cause problems at the table.


There is this idea when we say “everyone will declare their actions” that somehow everyone will choose what they are going to do, tell the DM, and somehow the other players aren’t going to become aware of it. That isn’t going to happen, because someone will declare and they will be followed by someone else, and they are going to take those actions into consideration when they choose their own actions for the round. So maybe the fighter rushes in after the wizard calls out fireball or maybe the wizard chooses to unleash it after the fighter declares their charge, but unless you have everyone write down their declared actions in secret and pass them in you will never have a situation where those two declare their actions at the exact same time and ignorant of the other person’s choice.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Shuffling and deealing cards each round can't possibly be any less fiddly than rolling dice. :)

Also, at first glance this seems to give a significant advantage to the PCs, as they are always reacting to the opponents rather than proacting. Ideally in any random-order system nobody knows who will act next, but here when the DM lays a card down and says "the ogre acts on this count" the PCs who would otherwise act before it have information (the ogre acts before any of the orcs) that they should not, which will influence their decision-making. The opponents don't get the benefit of this same advance knowledge.

At least with true cyclic initiative everybody has the same knowledge, that being the turn order. Randomizing initiatives is intended to remove this.

Lanefan

I guess it isn't really necessary to declare which monster acts, that's just me being me -and balances out the DM choosing which monster goes on each count-. Now I don't see anything wrong with players being reactive. That forces them to pay attention and stay on their toes.
 

MagicSN

First Post
Finally one that has me screaming and pulling my hair out. His insistence that Bonus Actions are bad because of Two Weapon Fighting. ARGH! How many times have we brought up here that the problem is not with Bonus Actions! It is with requiring a Bonus Action for Two Weapon Fighting. Give me at least ONE example where Bonus Actions are a problem that DON'T mention Two Weapon Fighting! Then we can have a conversation about the pluses and minuses of Bonus Actions. :mad:

Not only two-weapon-fighting. How without Bonus Action should the Cleric function and be competitive, for example? More or less he is "Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon Bonus Action + Melee Attack". Or if there is too high damage on people "Cure Wounds + Spiritual Weapon Bonus Attack + Spirit Guardians" (or alternatively "Bonus Action Heal + Melee Attack + Spirit Guardians". That's how the class works.

Or booming blade rogues. Hit the enemy with booming blade + get away with Mobile Feat and move action + Bonus Action Hide.

Or Monk with Flurry of Blows. There is an endless list of character types who require the Bonus Action.

Or Sorcerer with Quickened full Spell (Bonus Action) + Cantrip.

To make a D&D without Bonus Action you basically would have to start from scratch. Basically making D&D 6e.
 

Lord Twig

Adventurer
So what's your solution? Remove TWF from the Bonus Action mechanic and put it...where?

Make the second weapon a free action? Too generous, as then the bonus action can be used for something else and the TWF person gets a free extra strike every round at cost of only a shield's worth of AC.

Ban two-weapon fighting entirely? Yeah, like that'll ever fly. (not that I'd mind, personally - nerfing the Drizz't wannabees would be a strong feature)

So what's the answer?

Lan-"my dislike of economics is slowly spreading to include action economics"-efan

The TWF person gets a free extra strike that brings him to the same damage as a great sword. So yes, it should be free. But then that exposes another problem. Since they designed TWF so that it uses a bonus action they had to make it worthwhile, so the fighting style adds ability mod to damage and the feat allows one-handed weapons and give a +1 AC. Now it is too good. But again, that is not because Bonus Actions are bad, it is because TWF should not have been a Bonus Action to begin with.

So TWF should be a free extra attack with an attack action and TWF style and feat need to be nerfed.

Where Mike Mearls' idea of combining actions can be used is the Monk's Martial Arts. It should not take a bonus action, but should be it's own action. This way it is not an attack action and you can't use TWF with it.

I'm not saying that fixing TWF is easy, but it can be done. And the idea that you can just take every possible combination of Action and Bonus Action and make a single Action that does both is ridiculous. You would literally end up with dozens, if not hundreds, of unique actions that can be simulated right now by just picking one thing from column one (Actions) and one thing from column two (Bonus Actions) and combining them.
 


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, so some of this has surely been mentioned, but...

1) Does a Monk's die size increase as their martial arts damage goes up? (EDIT: if using optional rule based on a weapon's damage dice.)

2) Just to clarify, do a main Action and Bonus Action happen simultaneously on the same count, or separately? For example, if I am attacking with two daggers, and I roll a 3 on the first one and a 2 for the second one, do I attack on 3 and 5, or do I attack twice on 5? (I hope it's the former...)

3) Should spellcasters use their casting stat to resolve ties, instead of dexterity?

4) In general I'm not sure how to react to the general removal of Dexterity. On the positive side it helps alleviate the "god stat" phenomenon. On the negative side is...habit? I think overall I'm ok with the change.

5) Some of it seems complex at first, but I'm sure you get used to it fairly quickly.

6) What's the analysis on changes to "until beginning of next turn" and the like. Does it all average out to being essentially identical to current rules?

7) I love how it makes things like Shove less predictable. It used to be that if your target's initiative came immediately after yours then knocking him prone was going to be essentially worthless for the entire fight, and vice versa. Under this system it's far more fluid.

8) Do spellcasters have to declare which spell they are casting, or can they change their minds when it's their turn? The example in Round 4 suggests that you get to choose on your turn.

9) Should cantrips have a lower die size? (I think so.)

10) I really like the optional rule that melee weapons use their damage dice.

11) There should be a penalty to ranged attacks if within 5' of an enemy. (Really it should just provoke AoO's, in my opinion)

Overall I like this and plan to try it out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lightblade

Explorer
11) There should be a penalty to ranged attacks if within 5' of an enemy. (Really it should just provoke AoO's, in my opinion)

Were you referring to some penalty to initiative in this system, or in general? In 5E, ranged attacks within 5' are made with disadvantage, so there's already a penalty.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
So I talked it over with my players and we are going to give it a shot on the next TftYP chapter that we run (Probably Dead in Thay) with the following adjustments.

1. Taking the dodge action goes on initiative count 0 and dash can be taken as part of a single movement die roll
2. Do not need to roll extra dice for bonus actions (but need to meet whatever the prereq is for the bonus action)
3. Use melee weapon damage die variant; require additional d6 roll for ranged weapons with the loading property
4. Can ready as well as delay action
5. When you act, you can trade down actions for ones that use the same or lesser die. IE, a caster who rolled a d10 could trade down to use a wand instead, or a fighter who was going to attack with his greatsword d12, and found no one to attack could move or dash instead.
6. Conditions like a monk's stunning strike will last until the end of the effected creature's next turn, whether that is the current round or the next round.

At the end of the session, we will also re-run a single combat using Mearls rules without adjustment, just to see the difference.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Finally one that has me screaming and pulling my hair out. His insistence that Bonus Actions are bad because of Two Weapon Fighting. ARGH! How many times have we brought up here that the problem is not with Bonus Actions! It is with requiring a Bonus Action for Two Weapon Fighting. Give me at least ONE example where Bonus Actions are a problem that DON'T mention Two Weapon Fighting! Then we can have a conversation about the pluses and minuses of Bonus Actions. :mad:

Why are you getting all bent out of shape over this? He doesn't like Bonus actions. So what? Why do you care? Mike has already said that 5E isn't changing and getting rid of them, Bonus actions are a part of the game and will continue to be a part of the game. But him as a designer just sees why they weren't the best design choice in his opinion and that he'd design them differently now that he's worked with them.

Why is that an issue? What, are your feelings getting hurt that the D&D manager doesn't like the same things you like?

To make a D&D without Bonus Action you basically would have to start from scratch. Basically making D&D 6e.

And that's precisely why Mike has said they aren't removing bonus actions from 5E. He knows that ship has sailed and he's okay with it. But if he had to do it AGAIN, knowing now what he didn't know then, he'd design it differently.

Why that BOTHERS people that a designer keeps designing in his head is kind of silly if you ask me.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top