D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[Chaosmancer]

I think perhaps the problem here is taking an example that is simply intended to give you an idea of the sort of mechanic he's talking about and then extrapolating it out of context. Yes, that would be an obvious issue. So, yes, the full implementation would be designed in such a way that this wouldn't actually be a problem. He's not suggesting you could just drop 'Eldritch Tactics' into the current 5e ruleset.

I think the entire problem with trying to discuss this is that the change is substantial enough that it would require a full reworking of the whole system. It can't be done as a quick patch or a quick UA as an alternate set of rules. It's why Mearls said that it's the kind of thing they would only do in the context of a new edition. Which he has said is very far away.

In other words, there's no point in trying to extrapolate his 'Eldritch Tactics' across levels or to the system as a whole. Because Eldritch Tactics would only work in context of a new ruleset. Which we don't have. And hasn't been designed. He's just giving an example of the type of thing you might see in that hypothetical ruleset. I suspect he's thought about it comprehensively enough that-- in a one on one conversation-- you'd be able to ask how he'd handle such things. But you won't get that in an interview where he's limited to giving a fairly quick response. That's a full dinner conversation (which would bore the heck out of most of the audience I suspect)/

See, I agree it was just a quick-fire suggestion that isn't meant to be put within 5e.

However, I've seen enough responses to the questions and confusion about how his system is actually better that essentially boil down to "He's a professional, you aren't, he's clearly got more planned and you don't know game design like he does so stop asking"


Like I said, we've been having this discussion for a while now, and the counter-arguments against the style of "special actions" he talked about in the video is really compelling, I'd love to have someone show me a better system, but I hate it when the response is "Are you a professional game designer?" because that isn't a very compelling argument.

Sorry [Not sorry]!





He doesn't have a full "solution". Not yet anyway. Not for every bonus action across the board.

Why? Because there's no reason to make one. Because again... the game isn't changing and removing Bonus actions. So he has no reason to actually fully work the rules out! Instead, he just TALKS about it.

But, he now knows that HAD they the opportunity to remove Bonus actions from the game, how he would go about it. What would be involved. Would it involve a whole crap-ton of playtesting? Of course. But as that all would have been done during the three years of D&D Next playtesting, I'm fairly certain they would have come up with a system as effective and useful as what they currently have involving bonus actions.

But again... since they aren't changing anything, why do you CARE? Is your gaming identity so tied up into the 5E rules that the mere mention of a rule being perhaps better in a different form a slap in your face? Well, I got news for you... there are PLENTY of rules in 5E that could be made better. By you. By me. By other folks here on EN World. And yes, by Mike Mearls himself.

And seeing as how it was the vision of Mike Mearls and the rest of the design staff who GAVE US the 5E rules that you seem to love in the first place... to suggest that he is NOW incapable of coming up with something better is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. And quite frankly, I'd trust him with his concepts for new 5E rules much more often than just a random player like the folks on this board. But hey, that's just me.

You've got the completely wrong idea about what is annoying me about your response.


Why do I care about bonus actions possibly being removed? Because it is an interesting concept and a discussion worth having. Seriously, I play this game for fun and discussion about how things could work, if they could be improved, what that may look like, is it worth doing at the table, I find all of it interesting and fascinating to discuss.


And then people come along and "counter" my arguments about how the system we have is actually better by telling me I'm not a game designer or by telling me it isn't changing now so why should I care.

Well, we haven't built sentient robots yet either but that doesn't mean I can't be interested in discussing robot rights or how their society might evolve. (Just read a sci-fi story where robots had people build them children, who then got older bodies built for them over time, which was kind of a fascinating idea)


My problem with the design is that no one has been able to present an option that doesn't look worse than the system we currently have and it's been discussed fairly thoroughly.

My problem with the debate is that I keep getting told

a) You aren't a designer, so you can't understand it

or

b) The rules aren't actually changing so it doesn't matter WHY ARE YOU GETTING SO ANGRY!


Neither one is a very satisfactory answer to run into, and option A annoys me to no end.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd be happy with the removal of bonus actions. I don't mind them, but I have had to explain bonus actions a couple of times to players. Personally, I think that TWF could have just been "When you use the attack action, you can make an additional attack with your offhand weapon" which is what it was in previous editions. Things like the rogue's cunning action could be "once on your turn, you may use one of the following without using an action".

I'm pretty sure that it would be fairly easy to remove bonus actions from most instances where they are used. I'm not sure how I would word the spells which use bonus actions but I'm pretty sure that I could come up with something if I took the time to think about it. As is, though, I'm not planning on making any house rules that make sweeping changes to the game by removing bonus actions.

 

[lkj]

See, I agree it was just a quick-fire suggestion that isn't meant to be put within 5e.

However, I've seen enough responses to the questions and confusion about how his system is actually better that essentially boil down to "He's a professional, you aren't, he's clearly got more planned and you don't know game design like he does so stop asking"


Like I said, we've been having this discussion for a while now, and the counter-arguments against the style of "special actions" he talked about in the video is really compelling, I'd love to have someone show me a better system, but I hate it when the response is "Are you a professional game designer?" because that isn't a very compelling argument.


. . .

My problem with the design is that no one has been able to present an option that doesn't look worse than the system we currently have and it's been discussed fairly thoroughly.

Just in case there's some confusion-- I haven't said anything about whether anyone is a professional game designer and whether or not that is important. I try to keep out of such arguments and will happily continue to do so.

But I will say, as I concluded in my last post-- No one has actually presented a full implementation of this idea (as you note). And I think that's because it would be a lot of work to do so. You have to make some fairly substantial changes to the system. It's more work than anyone is willing to do (hence it being the subject of some hypothetical new edition). That's why you have a few quick examples that give you a general idea of the approach (as cbwjm does). But when you try to get into the details, those examples won't stand up to scrutiny if your point of reference is the current ruleset. The next obvious step is to do a more full design of this new ruleset to show how it works.

And that's way too much work just for a discussion (at least for me). I'm of the opinion that it could be made to work and work better. But I also know that without a full run at it and playtesting, I could be wrong. So it goes.

AD

 

[Shasarak]

Why? WHY NOT?!?

Are you honestly asking why a game designer would design new game rules? Really? Does that REALLY confound you? Especially considering they are new rules to be TESTED... seeing as how they were published in D&D's playtest column?

Boy. A game designer designing new game rules, and people questioning WHY he's doing it. Gotta admit, I've never seen that one before.

I have to admit that out of all the possible new game rules that a Game Designer could be designing Initiative would not be the first to go, so to speak.

 

[ninjayeti]

Reading through the doc a second time it really struck me that the cart is driving the horse here. This variant makes three distinct changes from the base rules:
1) require players to declare actions at the start of each round;
2) re-roll initiative at the start of each round; and
3) replace d20+dex initiative roll with dice specific to the actions to be taken.

The thing is that you can implement parts #1 and/or #2 “a la carte” without needing part #3. This is significant because #3 is the biggest change from the base rules, and the piece that seems to have drawn the most complaints in this thread – so the key question is what does #3 add to the system above and beyond what you would get with just #1 and #2?

Mearls says the point of this variant is to reduce the predictability of combat and create drama. But these goals are really advanced by #1 and #2 alone – #3 doesn’t play into this at all (if anything it makes combat MORE predictable – as the UA notes: “Missile fire usually occurs first, melee attacks next, and spellcasting last”). While it is intended to make simpler actions faster than complex ones, as posters above have noted, it leads to absurd results too often to justify it as “simulationist.”

At first glance #3 is the centerpiece of the system and #1 and #2 are just the bits needed to make it work (you obviously need to declare actions to determine what initiative dice to roll, and need to re-roll initiative every round because actions likely change from round to round.) But when you take a closer look #1 and #2 are the important bits and #3 is just a clunky part that creates problems without serving the stated purpose of the system.

For the groups that are interested in this I would suggest a variant of these variant rules (call it “Blackmoor Initiative”). Declare actions and roll new initiative at the start of each turn but FFS use d20+dex like the PHB intended. This should give you all of the additional “chaos” and “drama” Mearls’ system promises, while being much simpler and avoiding the unfortunate consequences of the quirky initiative die system.

 

[ad_hoc]

For the groups that are interested in this I would suggest a variant of these variant rules (call it “Blackmoor Initiative”). Declare actions and roll new initiative at the start of each turn but FFS use d20+dex like the PHB intended. This should give you all of the additional “chaos” and “drama” Mearls’ system promises, while being much simpler and avoiding the unfortunate consequences of the quirky initiative die system.

Why are you married to keeping Dex in initiative?

Even if I were to go back to the normal way I would leave Dex out. It's just not needed.

Mearls states that the point of different dice types is to help you remember what you declared. I think he has a point. I am not convinced that we need to roll for action, bonus action, and movement but I'm going to give it a try next session. Currently we are just rolling for action and it is working quite well.

 

[Lanefan]

For the groups that are interested in this I would suggest a variant of these variant rules (call it “Blackmoor Initiative”). Declare actions and roll new initiative at the start of each turn but FFS use d20+dex like the PHB intended. This should give you all of the additional “chaos” and “drama” Mearls’ system promises, while being much simpler and avoiding the unfortunate consequences of the quirky initiative die system.

So, allow me to provide "Mystara Initiative":

- declare actions and roll new initiatives at the start of each round
- initiative rolls are d6, not modified by dex and rarely modified by anything else
- ties resolve one at a time at the table (just go around the table) but simultaneously in the game world
- multi-attacks each get their own separate initiative but no movement allowed between them
- DM avoids batching monster init's into groups and instead rolls them separately wherever possible, until-unless she runs out of d6's
- an action declaration that makes no sense when its init comes up (e.g. your target has died or fled in the meantime) may be reasonably changed but may also be lost, situation-dependent

That's the bare bones of what I've been using for well over 30 years.

Lan-"and I learned it in a Known-World-based game, hence Mystara Initiative"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Do they work as a team, or not?

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?

Yeah, it happens. Then again, I force aiming rolls for spells in my game particularly in the heat of battle.

It happens more often to the PCs mostly because they use fireballs at every opportunity but most of their opponents aren't even capable of casting it.

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?

Honestly, not that often...but for a different reason than you might think. I'd have the opponents - particularly the dumber ones - get in each others' way more often if they'd only flippin' live long enough to do so!

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.

OK so far...and declaration happens before rolling, so the Fighter's player is now thinking "I hope the Wizard is faster than me!"

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”

A bunch of things can happen here:

- The dice might dictate the Wizard goes first thus solving the problem, or
- Fighter might be aware (or get a roll for such) that Wizard is casting, and choose to hold or delay until after the spell resolves, and-or
- Wizard might be aware (or get a roll for such) that Fighter has run into the blast zone, and change target just as he resolves, or
- Fighter gets blasted, or
- Wizard's aim is so bad he misses everything

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.

I-as-character have run with wizards like that...hence my spending a great deal of g.p. on a wizardslayer sword...but I digress.

The bigger problem is for invisible sneaks who go behind the lines but don't announce their presence as it would blow their cover. Friendly fire is their greatest risk!

Lan-"after which come the in-game lawsuits and court cases"-efan

 

[mflayermonk]

I played with this tonight and had fun. I played the old initiative system for almost 3 years, so I'm willing to try this new one out for the next year.

 

[JeffB]

I've run some playtest combats using it. Nothing mindblowing. I liked it. A twist on older Moldvay initiative (declare, roll, then different phases for each type of action).

I still prefer simple ol' d6 per side, re-roll each round. Yeah, sometimes one side or another gets screwed. It still adds tension and keeps players far more engaged than snoozefest cyclical initiative (which IMO is the absolute worst combat mechanic of the 3 past editions and drives way too many other rule related things)

Mearls' variant helps a bit if that is bothersome to players, because the initiative is individual.