D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[Croesus]

It's not too hard to imagine all the ways this new, innovative system would be considered "broken". I think the outpouring of h8 would be even greater and more vociferous.

But I'll acknowledge your intent, and agree that changing the rules changes the incentives. But I have to wonder if the game is so well balanced in that regard that we shouldn't mess with it, or do we simply accept current imbalances as "the way the game is"? I believe the latter, and my point was that if we had been using Greyhawk initiative all this time we would have simply accepted a different set of imbalances as the default state.

And, sure, you can pick any one imbalance...such as the additional penalty to TWF...and say "see how terrible this idea is", but that's an implementation detail that can be addressed.

In fact, one thing this new system offers is a way of addressing current imbalances. Is there already too much incentive to use ranged instead of melee? Great, increase the die to d6. TWF unfairly penalized? Roll once for each attack and take the lower. (Yes, that raises additional questions...instead of whinging about it think up solutions!)

Maybe this gets too complicated, but I for one think it's worth examining the options and looking for design solutions rather than just pointing out the flaws and dismissing the whole idea. The current initiative system has so many flaws of its own that it's worth considering.

I interpreted your first comment as dismissive of the criticism being posted, as if it's just people knee-jerk hating on something new. If I misinterpreted, my apologies.

I think my own point and your second comment are pretty much aligned - it's okay to suggest new things, but always keep in mind that changes will benefit some classes/playstyles/whatever over others. It's fair game to point out those impacts, and it's fair for some (such as myself) to say "I don't see enough gain from this new system to change what I'm currently doing."

If someone else sees this as an improvement, go for it. No one's going to knock down your door to stop you.

 

[schnee]

A few people keep talking about ranged weapons being overpowered.

We're not seeing that at all. Evoker spellcasters dish out decent damage, and if you have a good Controller then you can certainly keep someone away and 'plink' them to death, but our Battlemaster, Barbrarian, Rogue and Paladin are a LOT more effective up-close.

Do we just have a melee-built table?

 

[Lanefan]

Since you can run, climb, Mount a horse and even swim in plate i do not give any speed penalties

Swim in plate??? I've a hard time seeing that work, unless the armour is made of modern lightweight materials (and even then it's a stretch) as opposed to steel and iron.

And didn't knights in armour need assistance from a squire and-or stairs or a stepladder to mount a horse?

Lanefan

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If a PC casts the shield spell, when does it expire - the end of this round or the end of the next round? Does it depend on whether the PC has had a turn yet, or not?

 

[Guest 6801328]

A few people keep talking about ranged weapons being overpowered.

If you mean me, I asked it as a hypothetical. However, I should specify that although I don't think ranged is OP in general, one thing I very much dislike about 5e is that rogues have such a strong incentive to go ranged. (Partially dependent on the DM's interpretation of stealth rules, however.) I would love to see some rule tweaks that shifted the balance in favor of good old-fashioned backstabbing. EDIT: ...with daggers. One thing I like about G.I., with the optional weapon damage rule, is that daggers would have really low initiative. However, I would want to see bonus actions be on their own count. So with dual daggers you'd roll 1d4 for your first attack, and then to that result you'd add another d4 for the offhand attack.

Grognard out.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I interpreted your first comment as dismissive of the criticism being posted, as if it's just people knee-jerk hating on something new. If I misinterpreted, my apologies.

I think my own point and your second comment are pretty much aligned - it's okay to suggest new things, but always keep in mind that changes will benefit some classes/playstyles/whatever over others. It's fair game to point out those impacts, and it's fair for some (such as myself) to say "I don't see enough gain from this new system to change what I'm currently doing."

If someone else sees this as an improvement, go for it. No one's going to knock down your door to stop you.

Yes, my point (with my post that started this back and forth) was that the two initiative systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that if the order had been reversed we might very well see the limitations of the new one as "normal" and the limitations of the current one as "broken". My personal opinion is that the opposition would be even more vocal, as the current one (again in my opinion) is dull and is "unrealistic" in worse ways than the new one is unrealistic.

 

[schnee]

If you mean me, I asked it as a hypothetical. However, I should specify that although I don't think ranged is OP in general, one thing I very much dislike about 5e is that rogues have such a strong incentive to go ranged.

I wasn't singling out just you, I've seen it mentioned in this thread and others.

But, yeah - I can see Rogue sniper as a significant case.

 

[guachi]

If you mean me, I asked it as a hypothetical. However, I should specify that although I don't think ranged is OP in general, one thing I very much dislike about 5e is that rogues have such a strong incentive to go ranged.

I wonder if the thought process of the Rogue class designers went something like this:

TWF allows two die rolls to land sneak attack. Bonus action hiding can allow two die rolls to land sneak attack. Balance! (of sorts).

Melee rogues are in more danger but can potentially do more damage as their two die rolls can both do damage while a ranged rogue is safer but can't do damage with both of their die rolls and may not get both of them anyway. But the loss of the bonus action for TWF is often seen as too much of a loss. Maybe if they had given rogues or a rogue archetype an Improved Two Weapon Fighting ability that would allow an extra attack with another weapon as long as you took the Attack action.

 

[SkidAce]

Wow...I'm imagining how horrendously boring D&D would be if combat adhered to realism.

Actually my military cop friends love using tactics.

Overwatch, bounding.


I did draw the line when they tried to introduce grazing fire.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, my point (with my post that started this back and forth) was that the two initiative systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that if the order had been reversed we might very well see the limitations of the new one as "normal" and the limitations of the current one as "broken". My personal opinion is that the opposition would be even more vocal, as the current one (again in my opinion) is dull and is "unrealistic" in worse ways than the new one is unrealistic.

Doesn't this presume that the goal of initiative should be realistic simulationism? The dullness of current inititiative to me is greatly offset by its elegant simplicity. After running Mearls's new initiative system, the utiliarian benefit of the added "fun factor" was negligible, if not a net negative, for the group.

I don't particularly understand why this conversation has seemingly isolated D&D into its own bubble, as if our options were simply standard D&D initiative or a modification of the Mearls's system. It's not as if somehow D&D is the only roleplaying system that has been confronted with the issue of combat turn order, and I'm skeptical of the idea that other system have not devised other alternative ways to resolve this issue apart from the ways that D&D has devised.