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

[Lanefan]

This is half-brilliant, and half...well...

Here is a colorful alternative to the alternative based off of comments in this thread.

White Gandalf Initiative. (WIP)

Players roll 3 colored dice. One die is Blue (Action), one die is Green (Movement), the last die is Red (Bonus Action)

DM announces "go on any 6s." (The count moves down....

Excellent so far, but then comes...

Ties go to higher DEX.

No. Ties resolve simultaneously.

Blue 6s resolve any actions
Green 6s resolve any movements
Red 6s resolve any bonus actions

Players may have rolled lower and must wait until the count signals for them to proceed.

Excellent, though for realism I might allow re-ordering of the rolled dice in some situations. For example, if a melee type starts the round 25' from her intended target and rolls a blue 6 (action - in this case attack) and a green 3 (movement) I'd allow them to be switched.

I'm also wondering if the red die's size should be based on the blue one's roll such that a bonus action always comes with or after a primary action?

A player can pass and reserve any dice result for the next round if they so desire. Potentially giving those that don't take an action, movement, or bonus action an advantage die for the following round.

Not so great. I'd just have it that anything you don't use in a round is lost, if only to avoid a headache in the 5th round when these reverse rolls have had a chance to build up (for PCs and foes alike) having three dozen things all trying to happen on a '6'.

The only other change I'd make is that that if the blue and green roll the same one must be rerolled until they are different as realistically you can't usually move and act at the same time.

Question: how does spellcasting fit in, in terms of casting times, interruptability and so forth?

Lanefan

 

[Miladoon]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] Have some XP.

Ties can be resolved by the book. No worries.

Considering re-ordering, a new system springs to mind. Colorless 3d6, rolling then freely ordering the dice results into an Action, Movement, and Bonus. The players will have to keep track of what they did, so they don't take two Actions or Moves or whatnot.

Regarding your example, with the color system, I like the idea of letting players take the Ready Action if they roll a high Blue die and a low Green die. So a Melee character can Ready her attack before her move and then attack when an enemy is in range. With the color system, a mook could approach her before her movement, triggering her attack or she could move past the mook and reach the Boss then let the attack trigger. The excitement builds for the player because they can get to the boss but may take an AoO from the mook, or cinematically confront the mook before reaching the bossbaddy.

Carrying a die result over to the next round does not build up. It is a way to take the higher roll if you roll low for the next round. Maybe think of it like, roll 3d6 drop lowest, then replace it with the reserved die. The reason I added this was to give players, that do not use all their actions in a round, an advantage in the next round, per the thread ideas posted above. Also, it was pointed out that bonus actions are not always associated with a primary action, so I kept the Bonus Dice separated. (ex, Bardic Inspiration)

Finally, this proposal is in effort to keep to the heart of 5E but drastically changing the over simplified, IMHO, initiative system. So, things like different dice for range, melee, spell casting, and interruptibility are lovingly left out.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=29398]Considering re-ordering, a new system springs to mind. Colorless 3d6, rolling then freely ordering the dice results into an Action, Movement, and Bonus. The players will have to keep track of what they did, so they don't take two Actions or Moves or whatnot.

Depending on your players, that sounds like a headache finding a place to happen (I know some of my lot would constantly forget which die was which). The different colours are a good idea.

Regarding your example, with the color system, I like the idea of letting players take the Ready Action if they roll a high Blue die and a low Green die. So a Melee character can Ready her attack before her move and then attack when an enemy is in range. With the color system, a mook could approach her before her movement, triggering her attack or she could move past the mook and reach the Boss then let the attack trigger. The excitement builds for the player because they can get to the boss but may take an AoO from the mook, or cinematically confront the mook before reaching the bossbaddy.

OK, that works.

Carrying a die result over to the next round does not build up. It is a way to take the higher roll if you roll low for the next round. Maybe think of it like, roll 3d6 drop lowest, then replace it with the reserved die.

Well, it kind of does, in that all the reserved rolls are eventually going to trend toward 5 or 6 as each round you're getting another shot at improving it.

Take for example a static melee combat in a passage. Nobody moves much for several rounds, so by the time movement becomes an option everyone (including the monsters!) has had all those rounds of retries to get their movement die up as high as they can - many will have rolled a 6 at some point. Ditto for bonus actions. Then suddenly if the passage opens up there's an explosion of things all trying to happen on 6 of the next round. Messy.

Finally, this proposal is in effort to keep to the heart of 5E but drastically changing the over simplified, IMHO, initiative system. So, things like different dice for range, melee, spell casting, and interruptibility are lovingly left out.

Interruptability is vital to keep casters in check.

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

I can't bring myself to enjoy action-resolution systems that require characters to decide their actions based upon information that will be out of date by the time they actually perform them.

What happens when prior actions make the character's proposed action invalid or detrimental? What does it cost to amend your intentions?

I agree, though I do so often wish that players would get into the habit of knowing what possible choices they have available to them at the start of combat. Not everyone's gameplay may be as simple as "Hit the guy with a stick." But generally speaking there are 5 or less possible choices to resolve any given combat (Blast it! Stun it! Run Away! Hold your ground! Help an ally!) and it would be nice if players decided in advance which one they were going to do. Because one you pick one, your next option is usually pretty clear.

You're a fighter? You wanna blast it? Hit it with your stick. Can't reach it? Hold your ground and take the Dodge action. NEXT!

You're a wizard? Wanna blast it? Not in LOS? Can you reach it? No? Hold your ground: dodge, make a wall of some sort, summon an ally creature. NEXT!

You're a rogue? You wanna blast it? It's gonna kill you if you try? Run away!

It'd be nice if players understood that some decisions need to be made before you take them, and some need to be made after. It might be worthwhile in a system like this to "refund" players "initiative points" on the next turn.

 

[Miladoon]

...

Well, it kind of does, in that all the reserved rolls are eventually going to trend toward 5 or 6 as each round you're getting another shot at improving it...

Interruptability is vital to keep casters in check.

My minds eye might be altered after I play test it a few times. You might be right. Any thoughts on an alternative?

Concerning interrupts, what if a hit and damage on a spell caster automatically turns their Action die to a 1? (Concentration Save)

 

[MarkB]

I agree, though I do so often wish that players would get into the habit of knowing what possible choices they have available to them at the start of combat. Not everyone's gameplay may be as simple as "Hit the guy with a stick." But generally speaking there are 5 or less possible choices to resolve any given combat (Blast it! Stun it! Run Away! Hold your ground! Help an ally!) and it would be nice if players decided in advance which one they were going to do. Because one you pick one, your next option is usually pretty clear.

Absolutely, though some of the worst decision-paralysis I've seen from players is when they do make that perfect action plan in advance, and then something happens a turn or two before theirs that completely negates it. Even if it's a good something, like killing the bad guy they just spent the last round preparing to take on.

 

[Lanefan]

My minds eye might be altered after I play test it a few times. You might be right. Any thoughts on an alternative?

Concerning interrupts, what if a hit and damage on a spell caster automatically turns their Action die to a 1? (Concentration Save)

Personally, I prefer that if a spell's interrupted it (and the action that was used to try casting it) is lost outright. This forces casters to think twice before trying to cast spells while in danger. The whole notion of 'combat casting' that I first saw in 3e is what let casters get out of hand, IMO.

Lan-"even better is when you haveit that an interrupted spell has a chance of causing a wild magic surge with random and unpredictable effects"-efan

 

[Sunseeker]

Absolutely, though some of the worst decision-paralysis I've seen from players is when they do make that perfect action plan in advance, and then something happens a turn or two before theirs that completely negates it. Even if it's a good something, like killing the bad guy they just spent the last round preparing to take on.

Right, I think deciding your whole plan of action beforehand is a bad move, which is exactly what I think the Mearls initiative will lead to: bad moves. But deciding on a general plan of action "Do I want to attack, or hold my ground?" before is a good way to narrow the options of what you're going to attack or how you'll hold your ground. It's the difference between picking the right spell from your whole spell list, and picking the right spell that will support your action.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Which is why I separated movement from your action altogether in my version. I can't stand the way the way movement works in the core rules (or prior rules that tied movement to your turn/action). And best I can tell, based on testing it ourselves, is that it doesn't need to be.

I've put together two different versions (round-based and not round-based) and find that it works better in the not round-based version. That also eliminates all of the concerns with delaying an action, since your delay can now effectively bump you into the next round (which was the other issue I have with the standard system).