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]


​

 

[Eubani]

Maybe if classes had certain actions that either did not add a dice or reduced a dice to maintain style and functionality. For example With Rogue Movement would reduced to d4 and Cunning action (and any action derived from it) would cost no dice. I do not believe MM gave this system enough thought with how it interacts with classes and effects on how they function both mechanically and aesthetically. I think another section needs to be added to these rules defining how each class effects the dice. I would als join in on the chorus that I believe that the dice for melee and ranged should be swapped if not using via weapon dice.

Given a bit more thought I think being over encumbered and having levels of exhaustion (maybe some other statuses or spell effects) should add or increase dice. Overall I believe that MM has not given enough though to the ramifications of this system.

 

[Lanefan]

Given a bit more thought I think being over encumbered and having levels of exhaustion (maybe some other statuses or spell effects) should add or increase dice.

Probably simpler if these things instead of changing the dice or needing more dice just added a flat number e.g. overencumbered gives +2 on any move initiative (but ranged, casting, and melee are unaffected), each level of exhaustion gives +1 on any move or melee initiative (but ranged and casting are unaffected), and so on.

Good idea, though.

Overall I believe that MM has not given enough though to the ramifications of this system.

Isn't that what we're here for?

Lanefan

 

[Aldarc]

Overall I believe that MM has not given enough though to the ramifications of this system.

Given his opinion about bonus actions, in general, I suspect that this initiative system may be less of an issue in his own houseruled game. But tackling this onto the pre-existing system seems meh.

Also, I wonder if there would be a way to switch things around such that the Mearls's system falls more neatly in-line with the overarching design philosophy of 3e+: i.e. "roll higher for everything!"

Obviously a lot of people who played 1-2E may Mearls's find "roll low" method non-complicated, but none of my players played 1-2E, and they found the idea of suddenly rolling low to be counterintuitive in light of the rest of the game's design. I still am skeptical that my players (or me, for that matter) would be onboard with the system even if the initiative system was re-adjusted to roll higher, but it would probably do a lot to make it more intuitive or acceptable to my players.

 

[R. Brent Clements]

I discussed the initiative variations presented here with my roommate. He responded very poorly to the idea of changes. Mostly his arguments were about complexity, which are of course valid, but there was also an obvious bias toward perceived "loss of opportunity" of the PCs, even though anything that effects the characters also affects the opponents.

Given the desire for as simple a system as possible, I also was thinking about the idea of using cards to determine initiative order. If you use cards with each combatant written on them, shuffle them and deal out the initiative order, that would be a much faster system. One of the realism problems--namely being able to use OOC knowledge of order of action to influence decisions--can be solved simply by not dealing the cards out in advance.

This system does not allow for Dex bonuses to initiative, but I was thinking a balance could be found by dealing out a small number (no more than 5, less if there are fewer combatants) of cards in order, and if any combatant currently drawn has a Dex mod, roll d4 for each +1. For each 1 rolled, that card jumps one space closer to the front. As each turn is taken, put the next card from the deck at the end of the sequence, and make whatever adjustments are necessary for the Dex mod of the new card. Thus the players (and the GM) have access to a minimum amount of advance knowledge of the order of action in the round.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's true (translation: I agree) that there are a lot of completely justifiable tweaks to the system that quickly lead to too much complexity and game slowdown. And I also agree that this may not work as a bolt-on because it affects other aspects of the game. (For example, abilities and effects that give modifiers to Initiative should perhaps be changed to alter the die roll, or AT LEAST rewritten to change the sign. But this new system also presents a whole new design space for special abilities.)

But that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing instead of dismissing out of hand.
1) Good solutions may be found to make this a perfectly viable option.
2) Even if that doesn't happen, it might someday be adopted for 6th edition, so let's improve it now.

 

[Lord Twig]

It's true (translation: I agree) that there are a lot of completely justifiable tweaks to the system that quickly lead to too much complexity and game slowdown. And I also agree that this may not work as a bolt-on because it affects other aspects of the game. (For example, abilities and effects that give modifiers to Initiative should perhaps be changed to alter the die roll, or AT LEAST rewritten to change the sign. But this new system also presents a whole new design space for special abilities.)

But that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing instead of dismissing out of hand.
1) Good solutions may be found to make this a perfectly viable option.
2) Even if that doesn't happen, it might someday be adopted for 6th edition, so let's improve it now.

This system isn't worth discussing and should be dismissed out of hand.
.
.
.
Okay, that was a joke. But I still think the whole system is needlessly complicated, doesn't solve an actual problem and reduces player agency. It is just bad, bad, bad.

But hey! If others like it, that's great! Have fun.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But I still think the whole system is needlessly complicated

I'll admit it's more complicated than the current system, but so is having a table of weapons instead of having everything just do 1d6. Yet many people clamor for more weapons. So then we get to the "needlessly" part, which moves us to your next two assertions...

doesn't solve an actual problem

You may not think some "features" of the current system are actual problems, but others do. There are many examples just in this thread of the effect that a fixed rotation of turns introduces. There's also the perennial "realism" problem, and while I acknowledge that everybody has different thresholds/filters for that, it doesn't make it any less real of a problem for those whose thresholds have been crossed.

and reduces player agency.

Now this one has me flummoxed. How does it reduce player agency? I suspect we are defining the term differently. Do you mean because there are fewer possible permutations of how to use your action and movement? That's fewer player options, not reduced agency, in my book. And I'm ok with it because some of those current options are so inexplicable narratively that I'd like to see them go.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well my post was mostly intended as a joke, but does represent my actual opinion. So, okay, I'll answer.

I'll admit it's more complicated than the current system, but so is having a table of weapons instead of having everything just do 1d6. Yet many people clamor for more weapons. So then we get to the "needlessly" part, which moves us to your next two assertions...

It looks like we agree that it is more complicated. My "needlessly" qualifier is due to the opinions below, as you noted.

You may not think some "features" of the current system are actual problems, but others do. There are many examples just in this thread of the effect that a fixed rotation of turns introduces. There's also the perennial "realism" problem, and while I acknowledge that everybody has different thresholds/filters for that, it doesn't make it any less real of a problem for those whose thresholds have been crossed.

Yeah, I don't see any rule problems caused by the current initiative system. There are play styles that are encouraged by the fixed order, like planing your action based on who goes before you and who is next for example, but that is not really a problem. Unless you just don't like it, maybe?

"Realism" could be a problem, but honestly I think the default initiative system is just as "realistic" as Mearls' new system. In that neither is very "realistic". If you wanted more realism you should break everything into segments and everyone can move in 5' increments one at a time. Then attacks and spells would start from the point you stopped moving. Or something like that. But just making the order random every round and penalizing characters with bonus actions doesn't add "realism".

But if you just like the randomness? Sure, personal preference.

Now this one has me flummoxed. How does it reduce player agency? I suspect we are defining the term differently. Do you mean because there are fewer possible permutations of how to use your action and movement? That's fewer player options, not reduced agency, in my book. And I'm ok with it because some of those current options are so inexplicable narratively that I'd like to see them go.

In the sense that something might happen during a round that you might want to react to, but since you rolled poorly there is nothing you can do about it. And if you roll poorly on the following round there is a good chance you won't be able to do anything at all. In the Mearls system you are locked into an action that you decided on before you even know what is going on.

With the initiative as written, on your turn you can do whatever you want. It's your turn. Have fun!

But hey, maybe you like that. Seriously, I get it. People like different things and I can understand the appeal. But on the other hand I know a lot of players that will just get frustrated and quit if you try to tell them they can't do anything on their turn because they made the wrong call at the beginning of the round.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This was brought up before, but I wonder if it is worth bringing up again.

There are two major components of this rule set which may need to be addressed separately.


Rolling 1d20+dex every turn and pre-declaring your actions does the vast majority of the work this system does in terms of encouraging a more random outcome that cyclical initiative does. And, removing the dex mod and just having it be a straight 1d20 roll accomplishes some of the other work.



So, does that system I just described do the majority of what you want, or do people really and truly like this multi-dice and multiple types of dice system that is causing a lot of separate issues?


Because the issue of classes like the rogue and monk being severely penalized for taking all their actions, or classes not being able to use situational bonus actions goes away if it is simply rolling a d20 every round. Heck, the math for initiative is non-existant and while I think it would slow down things a little, it clearly does so far less than determining what your pool of dice is going to be for this turn and adding them all together.


I'll stick with cycling. I brought this system up to one of my players and he seriously disapproved of trying it out, said it was way more than he was comfortable with and I happen to agree, but it is potentially useful to talk about which side of the system bothers you. They are different parts and accomplish different things.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I don't see any rule problems caused by the current initiative system. There are play styles that are encouraged by the fixed order, like planing your action based on who goes before you and who is next for example, but that is not really a problem. Unless you just don't like it, maybe?

You might not see it as a problem but to me this one awful metagame aspect alone is more than enough reason to take cyclic or turn-based initiative of any kind and throw it in a lake.

"Realism" could be a problem, but honestly I think the default initiative system is just as "realistic" as Mearls' new system. In that neither is very "realistic". If you wanted more realism you should break everything into segments and everyone can move in 5' increments one at a time. Then attacks and spells would start from the point you stopped moving.

That's actually what I'd prefer, hence my suggestions of having movement add +1 to initiative per x-distance moved rather than just adding a random roll. Anything - anything! - to get away from the mini-teleport sort of movement we've had since 3e and maybe even before.

In the sense that something might happen during a round that you might want to react to, but since you rolled poorly there is nothing you can do about it. And if you roll poorly on the following round there is a good chance you won't be able to do anything at all. In the Mearls system you are locked into an action that you decided on before you even know what is going on.

I don't at all mind there being some means of altering your declared action (in particular, something as simple as retargeting a spell or missile) if your initially-declared action no longer makes sense, and think this needs to be written in somehow (though with rather strict limits, to prevent abuses).

With the initiative as written, on your turn you can do whatever you want. It's your turn. Have fun!

Problem is, combat doesn't take turns. Combat doesn't believe in turns. Combat tries to kill you, and you do whatever you can to survive.

But on the other hand I know a lot of players that will just get frustrated and quit if you try to tell them they can't do anything on their turn because they made the wrong call at the beginning of the round.

Again, put in some factors that allow for retargeting (or, better and simpler yet, simply make it that you declare your target when you fire/resolve rather than at start of round) and other minor ways of reacting to changes in the situation...and then just accept the fact that you might not always get to do what you want, and neither might your foes.

But if the "loss of player agency" you refer to is the added inability to meta-gamely know who goes next all the time I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Lan-"the fog of war is rolling in"-efan