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.

 

[Maxperson]

As @pemerton has already pointed out, initiative doesn’t have to work the way it does in 5E. You could have all the action in a round resolve simultaneously, or use side initiative. Another suggestion I’ve seen made on these boards is to forego rolling initiative at the beginning of combat, waiting until conflicts in timing arise in the course of events and resolving each of those conflicts with an opposed DEX check. Clearly, turn-based initiative is a deliberate design choice in 5E, not a necessary one.

Also, the way the game has chosen to keep each character’s turn separate is to call into question the certainty of when each character’s turn will happen. It resolves that uncertainty with a DEX check, which measures a character’s ability to move and act quickly and is compared with the other results to establish a ranking. None of this is necessary for turn-based initiative. Each player could make an unmodified roll or draw straws if the goal is only to establish a turn order. The choice of a DEX check implies that the participants are attempting to move and act quickly and that they may fail to do so. Saying that it's a special case or that it's necessary doesn't explain that away.

Regardless, it's not a contest as defined by 5e and as we are informed by Sage Advice. At best, you can argue that it's an indirectly opposed roll, though even that fails when you examine initiative further. The PCs are not opposing each other or engaging in any sort of contest with one another, yet they also roll initiative. The same with any neutral parties or allies who might be in the fight. These parties are all just moving when they can, not contesting or opposing one another.

The DM could decide both turns resolve simultaneously, but the rule is clearly designed to avoid that situation.

The DM can still decide that, both with and without the rule. The rule doesn't state that the order has to be sequential. He can fully, within the rule as written(or if never written) opt to choose simultaneous as the order.

 

[Maxperson]

A persons body often react before the person does.

If you keep in mind that a whole round happens in the window of 6 seconds and everyone is acting all at once, then the difference between initiative 1 is as small as taking a breath, or blinking before you act, while initiative 20 just acts.

Why they attached DEX to Initiative is a whole other issue. Lots of people have made threads about making it INT, or Wis, and they make good, valid points for why. I've also seen people say that it shouldn't be attached to any stat or mod and just make it a straight D20 roll to better represent the random chaos of combat, and that sounds fine with me too.

I think WotC in part did it because of the Rogue Assassin. The Rogue is DEX SAD, and the Assassins main feature is coupled to Initiative.

And I think they wanted to take advantage of the Initiative Roll as an opportunity to add the illusion of speed in combat

I doubt that it's due to the assassin. Dex being tied to initiative has been around since 1e, and pehaps BASIC(can't remember). It's more of a sacred cow than an assassin thing.

 

[billd91]

Drawing your attention to my post above, I'm sure you can see there are more than 25 unique outcomes, counting draws.

1. A, B, C, D, E
2. A, C, D, E, B
3. A, D, E, B, C
...
26. A=B, C, D, E

Even not counting draws, it's 25 outcomes. Counting draws I am not sure, but quite a lot more. The essence of the problem is that A might beat B, but lose to C, who B then beats... plus draws...

Yes, I should have said 10 unique binary contests.

 

[ad_hoc]

A persons body often react before the person does.

If you keep in mind that a whole round happens in the window of 6 seconds and everyone is acting all at once, then the difference between initiative 1 is as small as taking a breath, or blinking before you act, while initiative 20 just acts.

Why they attached DEX to Initiative is a whole other issue. Lots of people have made threads about making it INT, or Wis, and they make good, valid points for why. I've also seen people say that it shouldn't be attached to any stat or mod and just make it a straight D20 roll to better represent the random chaos of combat, and that sounds fine with me too.

I think WotC in part did it because of the Rogue Assassin. The Rogue is DEX SAD, and the Assassins main feature is coupled to Initiative.

And I think they wanted to take advantage of the Initiative Roll as an opportunity to add the illusion of speed in combat

The initiative system definitely came before the Assassin.

I think it was more of a legacy thing than anything else. It is the way it was done and there wasn't a big enough reason to change it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Are you sure this contest thing belongs into this thread?

 

[pemerton]

This is a feature of bounded accuracy that some players have picked up on: it produces a modifier range that paints characters as capable of heroic feats - such as out arm-wrestling a Storm Giant.

I'm pretty sure that 3E, which is pretty similar to 5e in relation both to ability/skill checks vs DCs and opposed checks, states that arm wrestling is not an opposed check but a straight comparison of STR scores.

The fact that in 5e I have to choose whether to use the same approach - which is how the game handles carrying capacity, and jumping - or use an ability check, with no real guidance on which mechanic applies when (see eg the recent thread about how to adjudicate jump attempts beyond STR in feet) is - for me - more evidence of the non-lightness of 5e.

 

[pemerton]

It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins...

Say this is what happens

A beats B
A beats C
A loses to D
A loses to E

Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but...

D loses to C
E loses to B

No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...

I think the assumption that [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] has made is probably the same as the one that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about.

The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

 

[Parmandur]

I'm pretty sure that 3E, which is pretty similar to 5e in relation both to ability/skill checks vs DCs and opposed checks, states that arm wrestling is not an opposed check but a straight comparison of STR scores.

The fact that in 5e I have to choose whether to use the same approach - which is how the game handles carrying capacity, and jumping - or use an ability check, with no real guidance on which mechanic applies when (see eg the recent thread about how to adjudicate jump attempts beyond STR in feet) is - for me - more evidence of the non-lightness of 5e.

When in doubt, set a DC and roll some dice. Literally can't be wrong.

 

[Hussar]

When in doubt, set a DC and roll some dice. Literally can't be wrong.

But, in the ring case, it's not a simple DC. After all, what happens when all three succeed? Do you then compare the checks? In that case, why have a DC in the first place?

In any case, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has the right of it. There is no difference between a contest and rolling initiative, other than a specific ruling regarding ties.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], obviously I agree with you: it makes zero sense to me that the resolution of a foot race changes in any fundamental way because in one race the aim is to the first to cross the line and in the other the aim is to be the one to pick up the widget sitting on the finish line. (And does being the one who breaks the ribbon count as "direct opposition" in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s terms or not?)