D&D 5E Gandalf Initiative...more Mearls Initiative Fallout

[Ilbranteloth]

So, to be clear, when you say "declare an action", you don't actually mean "declare what action you will take". When a player is deciding what to do that turn, they don't declare "I will move to this spot and do this specific thing" - they say "I'll be moving and taking an action this round", and then on whatever initiative count they roll, they get to choose the specifics?

That's a little easier for me to get to grips with.

Yeah, I consider these variants to be determining when your action resolves, as opposed to when you take your action. Thus, if you are making a melee attack, you are attacking, feinting, parrying, etc. and when your turn occurs you finally connect.

 

[Miladoon]

So, to be clear, when you say "declare an action", you don't actually mean "declare what action you will take". When a player is deciding what to do that turn, they don't declare "I will move to this spot and do this specific thing" - they say "I'll be moving and taking an action this round", and then on whatever initiative count they roll, they get to choose the specifics?

That's a little easier for me to get to grips with.

Correct.

Worry there is it'll lead to (with certain players, anyway) having to go through two sets of analysis and decision-making every round instead of one - the first when they declare (action or move or combo or whatever), and the second when the initiative comes up and they have to decide exactly what they're doing.

Lanefan

This, I believe is what creates the tension. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Wait. Does this mean I am not supposed to be beating noobs with a rolled up newspaper?? Are you accusing me of badwrongfun?

Yeah, the media gets real feisty when you mess up their newspapers.

 

[Lanefan]

Worry there is it'll lead to (with certain players, anyway) having to go through two sets of analysis and decision-making every round instead of one - the first when they declare (action or move or combo or whatever), and the second when the initiative comes up and they have to decide exactly what they're doing.

This, I believe is what creates the tension. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Many people's mileage would be zero, as they'd end up bogged down in analysis paralysis - except it'd be twice a round instead of once. And that's the wrong sort of tension.

I want them to do, not think.

Lanefan

 

[Miladoon]

Many people like Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry.

"Fly, you Fools!"

Referring to the showdown with Gandalf and the Balrog. Regardless of Aragorn and Boromir's doing, there was still a lot of tension in that scene from those that seemed to be paralyzed.

If you listen to Mearls video clip, you pick up on game designers challenging the evolving paradigms. Rethinking and considering that some parts were correct and should not of been changed over the years. Having used different initiative systems in the past, I can grok his vibe. I don't know how he will get past things like removing bonus actions, that is why I put them in another slice of the round.

Doing and not thinking is ok, too.

 

[Springheel]

Anyone have a link to this system being demonstrated in actual play?

 

[Satyrn]

Gandalf Initiative:
Declare Action, Movement, and Follow-up, then throw dice
-Roll 1d6 if only Action
-Roll 1d6 if only Movement
-Roll 1d6 if character (PC and NPC) might want a Follow-up

Other Possible dice
-Roll 2d6 if Action AND Movement
-Roll 2d6 if Action AND Follow-up
-Roll 2d6 if Movement AND Follow-up
-Roll 3d6 if Action, Movement, AND Follow-up

Starting with the lowest roll, resolve All Action and Movements (All PCs and NPCs) noting any Actions and Movements that activate Bonus Actions.

Then resolve Follow-up (only PCs and NPCs that threw a Follow-up 1d6)
-Conduct any Bonus Action that is triggered by Action/Movement. (low initiative goes first)

Goto Next Round


Note: One Attack of Opportunity and Reaction per round as granted by RAW.

It seems a little odd to me that the followup die would be rolled with the action/movement dice when the followup happens in what is essentially a whole other phase.

 

[schnee]

Many people's mileage would be zero, as they'd end up bogged down in analysis paralysis - except it'd be twice a round instead of once. And that's the wrong sort of tension.

I want them to do, not think.

Lanefan

Good thing that most of the people I've seen posting about actually *trying it* have said it makes combat faster.

Theorycrafting vs. reality.

This is a total 'Dad' thing to day, but don't knock it until you've tried it. I've seen it time and time again.
"I'll hate gong to the water park."
"I won't enjoy the water park."
"You'll regret taking me to the water park."
goes to the water park
"That was awesome! Why didn't we go to the water park sooner!"

Or, in design circles, we say 'One test is worth 50 opinions'.

Do a good faith test. Do three, so you get the 'best 2/3 rashombo' fairness.

THEN complain.

 

[Ed Laprade]

I would never use one of these systems. They ignore the 'high is good, low is bad' rolling convention that is one of 5E's fortes.

 

[Miladoon]

Anyone have a link to this system being demonstrated in actual play?

I have yet to see a link providing an example.

It seems a little odd to me that the followup die would be rolled with the action/movement dice when the followup happens in what is essentially a whole other phase.

I decided to try it this way because I wanted to keep all the rolling in the front and to signal the beginning of a new round. Odd? Somewhat. I view it as high risk and high pay off.

I would never use one of these systems. They ignore the 'high is good, low is bad' rolling convention that is one of 5E's fortes.

Sort of. Unless you absolutely have to be first in the round, high/low initiative does not really signal good and bad. It just tells you when you go. That is why there are provisions to delay your action if you think you will need to do something later on in the round.

 

[Li Shenron]

Gandalf Initiative:
Declare Action, Movement, and Follow-up, then throw dice
-Roll 1d6 if only Action
-Roll 1d6 if only Movement
-Roll 1d6 if character (PC and NPC) might want a Follow-up

Other Possible dice
-Roll 2d6 if Action AND Movement
-Roll 2d6 if Action AND Follow-up
-Roll 2d6 if Movement AND Follow-up
-Roll 3d6 if Action, Movement, AND Follow-up

Starting with the lowest roll, resolve All Action and Movements (All PCs and NPCs) noting any Actions and Movements that activate Bonus Actions.

Then resolve Follow-up (only PCs and NPCs that threw a Follow-up 1d6)
-Conduct any Bonus Action that is triggered by Action/Movement. (low initiative goes first)

Goto Next Round


Note: One Attack of Opportunity and Reaction per round as granted by RAW.

I am a bit skeptic about the practicalities of this (as well as of Mearl's version), I'd have to see it work at the table in order to judge...

Mainly my skepticism is pretty much about having to choose whether to move or not. Because that is even more dependent on what happens before your turn than your action type. When you have to choose between "attack" and "spell", it's not much of a problem to change your original specific plan and switch the target of your attack or the weapon or the spell, to adapt to the situation (for instance if your target is dead already or has moved out of range). Instead being locked into non-moving is IMHO potentially a much worse situation for melee characters, while it is almost always irrelevant for ranged characters and spellcasters. So what I am afraid of, is that it can end up with frustrated melee players who often go last in initiative order because they have to declare a move to avoid the risk of wasting their turn, and happy archers and spellcasters who can stay in a fixed position most of the time.