D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Yeah, well... if you get annoyed to no end that some of us just won't take your word for it that bonus actions are brilliant design and that Mike is apparently stupid for even considering thinking about how they could have designed the game differently... then I guess you just have to be annoyed. So be it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I agree. Which is why I look forward to Xanathar's Guide to Everything to see all the other rules Mike worked on first before happening onto Initiative.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Could we get back to the actual topic of this thread, and those of you want to bicker about tangential philosophy can, as they say, get a room?

Earlier I asked the question of whether the main action is also delayed by the use of the bonus action, or whether they happen on two different initiative counts. I couldn't tell from the text, and there were no bonus actions in the example. I'd much prefer it to happen on two different counts, even though that would add a bit of complexity. It's possible, for example, that you would make your main attack, then your opponent would move, and when your bonus action came up your target would be out of range. Problematic, but actually kind of cool and cinematic, in my opinion. It means you might want to intentionally delay your main action until your bonus action comes up.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't really like this, for many reasons. It's fiddly, wastes time, warps balance, wastes actions and overall it feels like a pet project that will only waste design time with important opportunity costs for the worse of the game.

If you don't like cyclic initiative, there is a simpler way to keep stuff running. Get a deck of cards running from 1 to 50. Whenever it's time for combat shuffle and give each player two cards + Dex bonus (minimum 1) then the DM draws one card for each monster + the best Dex bonus in the group (+1 for any legendary actions). DM puts her lowest card and declares which monster acts in that slot. Players with a lower card can show it and get their action or movement before that monster. Monster gets their turn, DM shows another card and players with a lower card can get an action or movement before that monster. And so on until all monsters get a turn, then any residual players get their turn. Shuffle and repeat. As long as players have actions or movement they can keep intervening with their initiative cards. Once they are out of them they discard all of their cards.
This way players have to keep attention as they don't know when they get to intervene, and they aren't pressured to use their bonus action as it could still be useful later.

Did you try it?

 

[Mistwell]

I finally watched the video and it doesn't make me like the system any more. Actually the opposite. It occurs to me that someone needs to correct Mike on a few things.

First what I agree with. I understand the need of a designer to go back and revisit what he has created and question, "Was that really the right thing to do?" That is totally understandable, and I appreciate what he did with the work on the initiative system. Heck, I got caught up and did a little work on it myself a couple pages back. But while I appreciate the work, I don't agree with the results.

One thing that sticks out is how he kept saying it "increased drama". Really? I think we have different ideas on what drama is. His example of the wizard that was near death and they needed to roll low so they could beat the undead jester over there and save the wizard. Except they had no chance. There was no drama. Maybe some tension as they rolled to see if anyone could roll lower? But the bad guy only had to roll one die. Everyone else needed to roll a die to move and another for their action. There was virtually no chance they were going to save the wizard.

Of course there was a chance. The odds were against it but it wasn't a million to one odds or anything like that. Rolling a 2 and a 3 (with a higher dex) vs a single 5-6 isn't that impossible, particularly when it's 2-3 people doing the rolling of the two dice versus just one foe rolling the one die. Someone here I am sure can calculate the odds but it was definitely doable.

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.

Name a bonus action that doesn't have the same issues as two weapon fighting? Polearm Master where you can attack with the other end of your polearm? Casting a cantrip and attacking? I don't think two weapon fighting is the exception to bonus action issues, it's fairly representative.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Or two handed weapon. Or casting a spell. Or holding a torch. Or using a ranged weapon. I don't have a problem with making it free - most players will still not opt for two weapon fighting even if it's free.

 

[maceochaid]

Can anyone think of a somewhat balanced way we could make a standardized monster initiative? In the interest of speeding up the game, and helping out a DM who would be possibly handling multiple monsters?

Possibility 1:
Making some categories of monster such as:

Very Fast: (Example: Quickling, Swarm of Insects)
Fast: (Example: Panther, Drow)
Normal: (Example Orc, Manticore)
Slow: (Example: Dragon, Purple Worm)
Lumbering: (Example: Zombie, Ogre)

Possibility 2:
Or maybe something really quickly to calculate:

Go up the Die Chain for each of the following:
Large or Larger
Multiattack
Lair Attacks
Legendary Actions
Bonus Action
Two-Handed Weapon

On one hand the DM would have an advantage because they can make choices on their turn that the players can't, but on the other hand they can't benefit from NOT moving, or bonus actioning . . . what kind of numbers would people suggest I plug in to balance a fixed initiative dice for a monster?

But hopefully everyone would win for having a slightly smoother running game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Can anyone think of a somewhat balanced way we could make a standardized monster initiative? In the interest of speeding up the game, and helping out a DM who would be possibly handling multiple monsters?

Possibility 1:
Making some categories of monster such as:

Very Fast: (Example: Quickling, Swarm of Insects)
Fast: (Example: Panther, Drow)
Normal: (Example Orc, Manticore)
Slow: (Example: Dragon, Purple Worm)
Lumbering: (Example: Zombie, Ogre)

Possibility 2:
Or maybe something really quickly to calculate:

Go up the Die Chain for each of the following:
Large or Larger
Multiattack
Lair Attacks
Legendary Actions
Bonus Action
Two-Handed Weapon

On one hand the DM would have an advantage because they can make choices on their turn that the players can't, but on the other hand they can't benefit from NOT moving, or bonus actioning . . . what kind of numbers would people suggest I plug in to balance a fixed initiative dice for a monster?

But hopefully everyone would win for having a slightly smoother running game.

Could you just use the optional rule of rolling damage dice (when it's a melee attack?)

And here's another (related) optional rule: the die for movement is proportional to size:
Tiny: 1d4
Small or Medium: 1d6
Large: 1d8
Huge: 1d12
Gargantuan: 1d20

So a Gargantuan creature doing 4d20 damage would roll 5d20 to move and attack.

Seems about right to me.

 

[Lord Twig]

Of course there was a chance. The odds were against it but it wasn't a million to one odds or anything like that. Rolling a 2 and a 3 (with a higher dex) vs a single 5-6 isn't that impossible, particularly when it's 2-3 people doing the rolling of the two dice versus just one foe rolling the one die. Someone here I am sure can calculate the odds but it was definitely doable.

I think you will find the chance being lower than you think. But anyway, the point is that I disagree that in increases "drama".

Although now that I think about it, it is a matter of opinion and personal preference anyway. So I guess it is fair to say it increases drama for him and others that think like him, but it does not increase it for me. So to each his own?

Name a bonus action that doesn't have the same issues as two weapon fighting? Polearm Master where you can attack with the other end of your polearm? Casting a cantrip and attacking? I don't think two weapon fighting is the exception to bonus action issues, it's fairly representative.

Those aren't issues. That is Bonus Actions working as designed. The whole point of Bonus Actions is so that you don't start stacking dozens of "free" actions on top of each other.

Bonus Actions mean that you can't get a Standard Action attack, then get an attack from your polearm feat, an attack from your cleave feat, cast a Bonus Action Spell, and Dash with Cunning Action. That is why Bonus Actions were made in the first place and limited to one per round.

The only "problem" with them, and the one that Mearls brought up (the only one that anyone ever brings up), is that it isn't broken to allow a character to get two attacks with two weapon fighting and then use a Bonus Action to do anything else. But instead of just saying, "Well, we should allow two weapon fighting without a Bonus Action then," people, including Mearls, say "Oh, I guess Bonus Actions are bad design."

What? How does that follow? Just because there is one thing that was listed as a Bonus Action (okay, probably more than one) that shouldn't have been, doesn't make the whole Bonus Action system bad.

Now I'm not saying it is impossible to replace Bonus Actions with something better, but I am saying that replacing them with hundreds of unique actions is definitely worse.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So still no specific example then?

Two different examples of clunk:

1.) Cunning action vs shadow step. Logically rogue training should only increase your ability to confuse your opponent as to your whereabouts after teleporting; but because they were written in the bonus action paradigm they wind up being incompatible instead.

A more tailored design which allowed some combinations of compatible actions (like recent UAs for e.g. bard college with blade dancing, or whatever it's called) would be able to accommodate logical combinations like shadow stepping QUIETLY.

2.) Also, Bardic Inspiration vs. Healing Word. For some reason, even though you can inspire allies while mocking enemies with Vicious Mockery, and you can heal allies from a distance while mocking enemies with Vicious Mockery, you cannot inspire allies while healing allies from a distance. There's no good reason from a fictional perspective why you shouldn't be able to do two quick things (bonus actions) instead of one quick thing and one slow thing (regular action), and yet you cannot.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app