D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[Tony Vargas]

I like this variant better than standard D&D init - more random, more dangerous - which 5e sorely needs

It might seem that way, at first, but once players learn it, and make liberal use of delay (and eschew melee)... not so sure, melee monsters could be really hosed.

Spells are already pretty weak in 5e however, also lumping them with d10 init and interrupted by damage is too much. Would've worked fine with earlier edition spells however.

Disadvantages casters

Maybe the AD&D reference set up some unrealistic expectations on my part, but ...

Caster privilege looks pretty safe under this variant, even if you do use the extra-optional interruption inconvenience sidebar.

When casters are, adding slot & spell level to initiative, provoking and losing both action & slot when hit, you might have a point.

 

[Horwath]

Last thing D&D needs is more rolls.

5 to 15 extra rolls per round(I.E. 5 players) plus extra rolls for monsters.

Great. 5 round fight=5 hrs real time.

D&D is table top game. I cannot have any "speed" factors except whole numbers per round: 1 attack per round, 3 attacks per round, one spell per round, 2 spells per round,...etc.

Other simply don't work.


How fun would be casting a one minute spell in fight:?
I start a one minute cast spell,
I go get something to eat, take a dump an watch an episode of Game of thrones.
"Is 10th round already?"
"No, it's only at 6th a.t.m."
Hell, lets watch another GoT episode.

 

[ad_hoc]

I remember how horrible it was trying to look up tables for speed factors, spell levels and various initiative modifiers every round back in 2e. Rounds, happened, very, slowly... I disapprove of this system.

If they didn't want predictable turn orders, why don't you just take the initiative system that already exists 5e and just roll every round?

I've used both systems (this and roll every round).

They are very different.

While roll every round added chaos to combat it slowed down play.

This involves deciding what you are going to do at the start of every round. For my group it greatly speeds up combat. It also results in a more cinematic combat as actions are resolved in quick succession.

 

[Mistwell]

Your math is close, but your example is limited.

A 5-point advantage in initiative translates into about a 75% chance of going first, yes. Calculation: If the faster fighter rolls a 1 on initiative, the slower needs to roll a 7+ to go faster (breaking ties in favor of higher bonus). That's 14 out of 20. Extending that across the entire range, the slower fighter has a (1+2+...+14)/400 chance of going faster, or 105/400 = ~25%.

And just comparing the ranged d4 to the melee d8, the melee fighter (let's call her Brienne) has a 3/16 chance of going faster (ties break in favor of higher Dex, meaning the ranged guy - let's call him Lolegolas). That's about 17%. So the GH initiative gives Lolegolas a higher chance for winning initiative over Brienne than the core rules, but not overly so.

But that's not the whole story. Lolegolas will almost certainly be able to make his attacks, because (a) he likely goes first, and (b) even if people move around, he's likely to be able to attack someone. So he makes like a turret: standing still and shooting. But Brienne is not so lucky, as shown by Rath's frustration in the examples given. If Lolegolas drops her opponent, or if her opponent runs away, she can waste her turn, and nobody likes that. So she always wants to combine her melee with a move, and now she has to beat Lolegolas's d4 with her own d6+d8. The chance of her doing that is 3/(4*6*8), or 1/64. That's close enough to zero that you might as well just say "ranged go first, then people move, then they fight, and then they cast spells."

You're also assuming that every melee person is a heavily armored character who eschews Dexterity. That's not really true. There are plenty of melee warriors who do not fit that description: rogues, monks, Dex-based fighters, many valor bards, barbarians, dual-wielding rangers. Under the regular rules, a monk (let's call her Ember, for old times' sake) is likely to have as high a Dex as the archer, so their initiatives should be roughly 50/50. But under GH initiative, the monk is heavily penalized - the monk will likely both move, attack, and then attack again as a bonus action - that's an initiative of d6+d8+d8. In order to win initiative, Ember will either have to straight-up roll lower than Lolegolas (1/1536), or roll a tie (4/1536) which is resolved in her favor 50% of the time (so 2/1536, for a total of 3/1536 = 1/512). Going from 50% chance of winning initiative to ~0.2% sounds like a harsh penalty to me.

I agree the melee attacker will want to move more often. I also think in this system the ranged attacker will be caught with no opponent (and the player cussing) more often because of that. This system changes some of the dynamics of the game. Now, foes moving behind a pillar or just out of the sight of the ranged attackers in a corridor at the end of their turns is an effective tactic sometimes. Before, everyone would just adjust their position to be able to hit them. Now, there is a bit of a game about guessing where people will be, and the ranged attacker does have some vulnerability there.

As for the monk, it's a fair example and not one I'd considered. I've never had the opportunity to play with a monk in 5e, so far. Seems like they should have some class-based power that makes them faster, and I suspect had this initiative system existed on day 1 they would have had some power about that.

My general point was it's not really much of an advantage for the ranged attacker as it seems from the type of dice rolled. And I think we agree on that premise. There may be a minor difference (you appear to be arguing 7-8% advantage for the example I gave, and then the movement issue), but it's not nearly as much as the dice sides alone imply when people first read this.

 

[jaycrockett]

"Greyhawk Initiative", or in other words, "No we're never doing anything with your favorite campaign setting."

 

[OB1]

Okay, am I the only person who sees this as a complete nerf to ranged attackers? I mean, sure, you have a good chance to go first in combat, but what good does that do you if everyone is under total cover? And without being able to ready an action, I can now rush said ranged attacker from cover on my turn without concern that she will have a ready action to shoot me. And in order to go first, the ranged attacker must continue to just stand in place, exposed to attacks from the opposing side, instead of moving in and out of cover.

What I really like about this system is that it's built to give game time to players choosing more complex action to figure out exactly what those actions are while the simpler actions, ie. I shoot that one with my bow, tend to go first.

I'm looking forward to trying this out in a game session. I'm sure there may be tweaks needed, but the concept seems solid and fun. Off the bat, I think that spell casters should have to add the level of the spell they intend to cast to their initiative (though they can choose one of lower level when their turn arrives). I also wouldn't change the concept of the surprise round. Finally, I'll strongly consider adding back in the ability to ready an action as well as delay.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay, am I the only person who sees this as a complete nerf to ranged attackers? I mean, sure, you have a good chance to go first in combat, but what good does that do you if everyone is under total cover? And without being able to ready an action, I can now rush said ranged attacker from cover on my turn without concern that she will have a ready action to shoot me. And in order to go first, the ranged attacker must continue to just stand in place, exposed to attacks from the opposing side, instead of moving in and out of cover.

What I really like about this system is that it's built to give game time to players choosing more complex action to figure out exactly what those actions are while the simpler actions, ie. I shoot that one with my bow, tend to go first.

I'm looking forward to trying this out in a game session. I'm sure there may be tweaks needed, but the concept seems solid and fun. Off the bat, I think that spell casters should have to add the level of the spell they intend to cast to their initiative (though they can choose one of lower level when their turn arrives). I also wouldn't change the concept of the surprise round. Finally, I'll strongly consider adding back in the ability to ready an action as well as delay.

All good points I hadn't considered. I still don't think it's a nerf to ranged attackers, I just don't think it's a benefit either. It seems to be a wash, and a different dynamic.

 

[OB1]

All good points I hadn't considered. I still don't think it's a nerf to ranged attackers, I just don't think it's a benefit either. It seems to be a wash, and a different dynamic.

May have been a bit of hyperbole on my end to counteract the prevailing sentiment that this makes ranged all powerful , in general I agree it's a wash.

What I don't like about losing the ready action still stands. It seems strange to me that an archer could delay until just before someone else's turn, but couldn't wait for her to actually step out from behind cover to fire. I'd even allow the ready action to hold until your initiative in your next turn.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

To figure out spellcasting speeds, you could make it based on how complicated casting the spell is with verbal, somatic, and material components. A spell with only one of those could be d6, two of them d8, and all three d10 (of course, you'd also have to have an implement or a material component in-hand at the time).

Hmmm... thinking of a few things. I don't like most of this, but some of it is interesting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know if I'd ever want to use a system like this, but it sure lends itself to fiddly/fun simulationist/gamist ideas!

To figure out spellcasting speeds, you could make it based on how complicated casting the spell is with verbal, somatic, and material components. A spell with only one of those could be d6, two of them d8, and all three d10 (of course, you'd also have to have an implement or a material component in-hand at the time).

That makes sense.

I was also thinking that casting could be a die based on the slot level, plus the spell level.

Slot Level
no slot (cantrip) d6
1-2 d8
3-5 d10
6+ d12

So, use a high-level slot to cast Magic Missile would be d10+1, casting a basic fireball would be d8+3, etc. Throw in a minor variation on the soft-ball interruption in the article, and you could break down casting into 'gathering power' (the die roll) and actual casting (the modifier). Get interrupted while gathering power, you can only cast a cantrip that round. Once you're done gathering power you can decide which spell to cast, if it's interrupted, you lose the action & the slot, maybe the DM could throw in a wild surge to represent the power being released uncontrolled or something.