Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[Lanefan]

The fact that they don't go at the same time IS an initiative order. It's just not called out as that.



Which is the same as the order they happen in. The various actions at various times occur in a precise order determined by initiative. If that wasn't the case, you could not stop someone from performing the action they declared, even by killing the PC. There would be no way to tell that the action of the now dead PC didn't happen at a "various time" prior to being killed.

If your action declaration to kill the PC is resolved at a higher initiative count than the PC’s action declaration to do whatever it was the PC was trying to do, then you can be sure that the PC’s action was left incomplete and didn’t have the effect the PC was trying to accomplish. Narrate the outcome however you wish.

Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.

If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?

 

[5ekyu]

For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. These durations would be tracked by the player of the character that caused them, so here the Monk's player would, on init. 6 in the second round, advise the DM that the stun had worn off (unless of course it was renewed in the meantime, but you get the drift).

To cover Max's point about variable duration being more realistic (which it is), instead of having the duration be a locked-in 1 round (or 20 "segments") have the player roll a d20+10 to give how many segments the stun lasts. Stunned on 6 this round means you could snap out of it anytime between 15 next round and 16 the round after. (and don't bother telling me 5e doesn't have segments; for this, it would now)

There's some places where one can very easily bring a bit of realism back in, and re-rolling initiative to simulate the unpredictability and fog of war is one.

Also, there's nothing saying that every round has to be exactly 6 seconds other than a "rule" (in other words, guideline) in the book. Most of the time it might be, but I know in my own game (modified 1e where rounds are nominally 30 seconds) I've had "rounds" last anywhere from just a few seconds{a} to several minutes{b} each.

a - an example is purely psionic combat, where each "action" happens at the speed of thought - the whole thing can be over in 10 seconds or less.

b - ship-vs.-ship naval combat, where it can take minutes for the ships to maneuver into firing position.

"For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. "

This could literally result in zero effect.

Hit someone with an incapacitate effect on one round after they have already acted, then if they tell low init next turn the spell ends before it fever costs them an action even through failed save?

If that's the impact of init ths group wants - fine. But I for sure might be seeking yo play that system with ability check adjusting effects to be sure.

 

[5ekyu]

Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.

If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?

What you describe seems non-simultaneous in the strictest sense because the archer's shot lands **before** the wizard finishes his spell. So there does seem to be a sequence of completion off tasks.

This seems to indicate a set of staged resolution steps with spells after bows.

Have seen that in systems before and nothing wrong with it especially when you dial those resolution stages to set the tone.

Buffy put spells evrn quick spells iirc after most other attacks or sctions.

Dr Who put talking first, run away second, then gadgety scifi stuff then last if all else was over attacking.

The key is tho you have still established an action order that matters a great deal. It's just not at the declaration stage.

Frequently in those, initiative determines who announces/chooses action first - low first, high last - giving high init ths advantage of seeing what others are doing before deciding their moves.

 

[Lanefan]

"For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. "

This could literally result in zero effect.

Hit someone with an incapacitate effect on one round after they have already acted, then if they tell low init next turn the spell ends before it fever costs them an action even through failed save?

Doesn't cost them an action but it does otherwise hinder them during that time; no reactions, no AoO's, etc. in the specific case of stun.

And don't forget: for each time (more or less, there might be a minor mathematical discrepancy) it does nothing this will, by law of averages, another time cost the target two actions. Stun it on a 6, it loses its initiative this round that would have been 3, then rolls 14 for next round and loses that one too.

Conversely, as you say, it could just as easily go this round 14: target action, 6: target stunned, next round 6: stun wears off, 3: target action. Dice are fun that way.

I don't know the odds of losing 0 vs 1 vs 2 actions - my gut tells me it's about 25-50-25% but I've no math to back that up.

 

[Lanefan]

What you describe seems non-simultaneous in the strictest sense because the archer's shot lands **before** the wizard finishes his spell.

In a system without casting times the only chance to interrupt a spell is on the caster's initiative. Therefore the arrow shot, the killing strike, and the spell are all on the same init. in that example.

So there does seem to be a sequence of completion off tasks.

This seems to indicate a set of staged resolution steps with spells after bows.

Not necessarily. It just happens to work out that way in the example I dreamed up.

It could just as easily be the wizard's spell kills the Elf who is simultaneously throwing a dagger that'll finish off the Orc who is in process of fatally stabbing the wizard in the back. Result: all three die at once.

Doesn't happen often, but there's no sane reason for it never to be able to happen at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.

If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it. A true tie is much rarer in the real world than in the game, since time is broken down much finer here. That might be why they don't have it in game, though I doubt it. It's probably to avoid potential timing issues with abilities.

 

[epithet]

The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects. For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn. So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends. Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.

Turn order is an abstraction. It's not meant to be realistic. Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well. Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.

We primarily use the Fantasy Grounds virtual tabletop, which has an amazing combat tracker built into it. Actually, you could say the entire program is built around the combat tracker. One of the 5e ruleset options you can toggle is "reroll initiative every round," and we recently decided to give that a try. We talked about it beforehand, and there was some concern regarding effects lasting "until your next turn" and whatnot, and we were prepared to put a little effort into figuring out when status effects should expire and so forth. It turned out to be effortless.

Those concerns really never materialized, to be honest. The fact that sometimes a character or creature gets to go twice in rapid succession while other times getting dogpiled has turned out to be much more of a feature than a flaw, and keeping up with effects is intuitive. Rerolling initiative every turn has become standard practice in my group based on our experience with that option.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Whatever Mike Mearl's goals were for 5E, I doubt inspiring a 130 page thread over the exact wording of ability checks was among them.

 

[Hriston]

Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.

I think they provide methods for breaking ties in initiative for ease of play, so there's no ambiguity about the order of resolution. On the other hand, they put the responsibility of deciding the order resulting from a tie in the hands of the DM, so, as was mentioned up-thread, it's within the DM's purview to have ties result in simultaneous resolution.

If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?

Nothing, AFAIC. I'm inclined to let initiative-tied turns be resolved simultaneously, and also wouldn't be averse to treating each round as a "roughly simultaneous", six-second ball of activity, although the system may need some tweaking to accommodate that.

 

[Lanefan]

Whatever Mike Mearl's goals were for 5E, I doubt inspiring a 130 page thread over the exact wording of ability checks was among them.

What was that again, the part about the best-laid plans...?