Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: "Greyhawk" Initiative

The latest Unearthed Arcana by WotCs Mearls is up. "Mike Mearls introduces an alternative initiative system, inspired by AD&D and the journey to Lake Geneva, Wisconsin—the birthplace of D&D—for Gary Con 2017. While the initiative rules in fifth edition D&D are great for keeping the action moving and being easy to use at the table, the Greyhawk initiative variant takes a different approach. These rules add complexity, but with the goal of introducing more drama to combat."

He's calling it "Greyhawk Initiative". It'll be interesting to compare this to how we interpreted his earlier version of alternative initiative.

Mearls also talks about it in this video.

[video=youtube;hfSo4wVkwUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSo4wVkwUw[/video]


​

 

[JeffB]

Its only about 2 pages of explanation/the rules. The rest is an introduction and an example of combat.

 

[Staffan]

And much of what are rules are edge cases, like "What if you're dominating someone?"

 

[ro]

This sounds like a lot of fun! The adjustments suggested in this thread would make it a lot better.

Adjusting according to weapon usage would actually differentiate weapons from each other and give purpose to having different tools at hand, something that I've always thought very odd to be lacking.

I think the issues of duration are weird. I think things should be left as they are now: they last as written, with a new round starting for a character at the beginning of each of that character's turns.

The dice you roll should match:
Melee: the base damage of your weapon
Ranged: base damage increased by one die for ammunition weapons (non-rolling weapons like the blowgun can be raised to the nearest die roll with an average greater than the fixed damage number, 1d2 in this case)
Spells: based on max spell slot level:
- 0: 1
- 1: d2
- 2: d4
- 3: d6
- 4: d8
- 5: d10
- 6: d12
- 7: d4+d10
- 8: d6+d10
- 9: d8+d10
Bonus Action: d4 or one die less than it would have been as an action, whichever is lower
Disengage, Dodge: 0
Dash: d2
Help: d4
Movement, Hide, Use an Object: d6
Search: d10
Ready: on your turn, you can Ready any actions, movement, etc, for which you rolled initiative
Gained Options: If a choice on your turn grants you additional options for which you have not rolled, you may use them, but you take a d4 penalty for each on your initiative roll for the next round

You could add consequences, too. For example, if you get hit, you could have to add the dice for the attack you were hit by to your initiative for the next round. E.g. If you get hit by a dagger, you have to add a d4; if a longbow, a d10; if a 7th level spell, a d4+d10.
On the other hand, if you gained HP or THP, you could decrease your initiative by a d6, or if hit that round, cancel all additions from hits.

Edit:
I like @Athinar's idea below about a cost to talking. I'd say you can say up to 20 words if you can be heard. If you say anymore, you roll an additional d20. (I think a d100 would be too steep.)

 

[Xeviat]

After reading a lot of these, I wouldn't make bonus actions require extra initiative dice. Too many of them are circumstantial reactions. I'd mix this with the talk of unifying actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Athinar]

It also turns each round of combat into a miniature tactical scenario, with the players conferring about their goals for the round and their general plan of attack.

What about the "Fog of War"; sounds like Mike has never been in combat before; I say Nay to the "players conferring about their goals for the round and their general plan of attack" for each 6 seconds of combat

after thinking about it maybe the person with the quickest initiative could direct the action if she/he could be heard or seen and the other characters agreed to being told what to do

Talking has a modifier d100 to add to the total initiative roll?

 

[Athinar]

This takes care of the Assassin "Hidden" and "Suprise", I hit you first while I'm hidden and your surprised; Assassinate completed (with a bow or ballista)

Surprise
A surprised creature adds +10 to its initiative result and cannot take reactions while it is surprised. A creature is surprised until the end of the round during which it is surprised.

 

[werecorpse]

Not a fan for the following reasons:
1. It takes longer to start running if you are going to Dash;
2. It strongly favours archers over melee & especially 2WF (who will now likely be going last) (like archers need more help);
3. Bonus actions slow one down - so classes meant to be agile like the monk or rogue now often go last (move+melee+bonus);
4. It gets rid of readied actions and brings back delay;
5. It will likely frequently mean effects that are said to last 1 turn may either have no effect or last 2 rounds. That's a hugely swingy effect;
6. It puts a clog on the ability to react to changing situations;
7. It undervalues actions which may get lost in a system where actions are very very valuable;

but my main issue is what I've seen with the effect of systems where the players decide by committee at the beginning of each turn what they will do. Apart from faster or slower which can vary it means the more dominant personalities tend to dictate what everyone does - or more importantly the quieter players just do what they are told. They quieter players cede some control of their character and just roll the dice when it's their turn. Like cooperative board games it can end up being one voice commands all. Of course it's faster if it's one player controlling all the characters v one player controlling all the monsters. That may be going back to the old days like when they had a caller but is the antithesis of the way I enjoy group RPG play.

I like when it's your turn you get to decide what to do and strongly prefer it if the other players don't try and tell you what to do if they aren't asked. Some of my best memories have been when one player went off script either coming up with a brilliant idea on the fly in reaction to an in combat event or doing something crazy.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

He says he tried it at GaryCon to give it an old-school vibe. Gary + Old School = Greyhawk.

Nothing more to the name.

Hidden meaning: venerable old grognards = grey warhawks = greyhawk. ;-)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Of course it's faster if it's one player controlling all the characters v one player controlling all the monsters. That may be going back to the old days like when they had a caller ...

Wow, somebody else remembers the 'caller' concept. I'm usually greeted by blank looks when I mention that one.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Now that I've read it I'm not as opposed to it as I was, but I would prefer a few tweaks.

Like others have said, I think it's got melee and ranger reversed. Bonus actions should be just that, bonuses. Just don't add any die for them.

With those two tweaks, I would think about playing it, but it still has to weigh against the simplicity of the current system.

 

[Athinar]

Variant: Spell Disruption
For added AD&D flavor, you can introduce the spell disruption rule. Under this rule, if a creature that wants to cast a spell takes damage during the round before it can act, it is restricted to casting cantrips on its turn.

I say make the spell caster go to concentration camp first; failed save is cantrip

"concentration camp" is our term for the "Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage."

and the camp we are talking about is a camp like boot camp, football camp, etc, for training

 

[BookBarbarian]

I say make the spell caster go to...

Umm, did you mean to make such a casual reference? Or was this some tragic auto-correct thing?

 

[Athinar]

"concentration camp" is our term for the "Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage."

and the camp we are talking about is a camp like boot camp, football camp, etc, for training

 

[Mistwell]

But it does bring up a point, that others have already touched upon: ranged attacks are doubly rewarded under this system, with both a smaller initiative die and generally not needing to move. By contrast, a melee character ought to combine their attack with a move, just in case everyone nearby runs away. So, maybe like this instead:

Ranged attackers are also penalized in a way that isn't mentioned in the video. They no longer get to add their dexterity bonus to their initiative. Dex no has no impact on their initiative, whereas up until now it had a fairly meaningful impact. So they may be more likely to shoot earlier in the round, but they were always more likely to shoot earlier in the round because they were the ones with a higher dexterity score to begin with.

 

[arjomanes]

I like this system, but I'd never run it with anything other than Basic 5e. I think there might be too many variables and corner cases when you add in more complicated classes and feats.

 

[cbwjm]

Having read these this more detailed description of the rules, I quite like it. From the example it looks like it might make combat a little more interesting due to the uncertainty of actions.

 

[Athinar]

Did AD&D not have Weapon Speed Factor modifications for magic; a +1 reduced the speed factor by 1; possible use?

maybe be the 2nd had the Weapon Speed Factor modifications for magic

 

[Athinar]

My halfling assassin would move shot hide but not all was in that order; would slow her down allot

 

[cbwjm]

Did AD&D not have Weapon Speed Factor modifications for magic; a +1 reduced the speed factor by 1; possible use?

Spells had speed similar to weapons. In general it was a modifier equal to the spells level although I think divine magic was a bit slower than arcane. No idea if magic bonuses reduced speed factor it could be a good additional rule.

 

[werecorpse]

Wow, somebody else remembers the 'caller' concept. I'm usually greeted by blank looks when I mention that one.

Yes, I remember. Looking back now I see it as an attachment to the game due to its wargame roots. Happy to abandon that command structure.

I object slightly to the co-opting of the Greyhawk name to this initiative system, but I know I'm just being crotchety

My recollection of the way we played AD&D initiative (almost certainly incorrectly) was that if you got two attacks against a creature with one (or with one attack routine even if multi attacks like the gargoyles 4 attacks) you had one attack before and one after. As people got more and more attacks with haste or unearthed arcana specialisation the round got parsed even more. We would roll initiative once for each side on a d6 which only decided draws. So if you had a fighter with 3 attacks, a ranger with 2, a wizard casting a spell against say a hill giant with 1 attack and a hobgoblin archer with say 2 attacks and the players won the d6 initiative dice the round would go fighter first attack, ranger first attack, hobgoblin first attack, wizard only and fighter second attack, hill giant only attack, ranger second attack, hobgoblin second attack, fighter third attack.

I have memories as DM of calling for beginning of beginning of round attacks. Good times (but IMO the 5e initiative system is better).