[UPDATED] Here's Mike Mearls' New D&D 5E Initiative System

In his AMA yesterday, WotC's Mike Mearls frequently referenced his dislike for D&D's initiative system, and mentioned that he was using a new initiative system in his own games. He later briefly explained what that was: "Roll each round. D4 = ranged, d8 = melee, d12 = spell, d6 = anything else, +d8 to swap gear, +d8 for bonus action, low goes 1st. Oh, and +d6 to move and do something ... adds tension, speeds up resolution. So far in play has been faster and makes fights more intense." That's the short version; there's likely more to it. Mearls mentioned briefly that he might trial it in Unearthed Arcana at some point to see what sort of reaction it gets.

In his AMA, Mearls indicated it was cyclic initiative he didn't like ("Cyclical initiative - too predictable"), which the above doesn't address at all (it merely changes the die rolls). Presumably there's more to the system than that quick couple of sentences up there, and it sounds like initiative is rolled every round. So if your initiative is based on your action, presumably you declare your action before rolling initiative (as opposed to declaring your action when your initiative comes around).

_____

UPDATE: I asked Mearls a couple of quick questions. He commented that it "lets ranged guys shoot before melee closes, spellcasters need to be shielded". He also mentioned that he "tinkered with using your weapon's damage die as your roll, but too inflexible, not sure it's worth it".

How is this implemented in-game? "Roll each round, count starts again at 1. Requires end of turn stuff to swap to end of round, since it's not static. In play I've called out numbers - Any 1s, 2s, etc, then just letting every PC go once monsters are done". You announce your action at the beginning of the round; you only need to "commit to the action type - you're not picking specific targets or a specific spell, for instance."

Dexterity does NOT adjust INITIATIVE. Mearls comments that "Dex is already so good, i don't miss it".

So what's the main benefit of the system? "Big benefit is that it encourages group to make a plan, then implement it. Group sees issue of the round and acts around it. I also think it adds a nice flow to combat - each round is a sequence. Plan, resolve, act, encourages group cohesion. Resolution is also faster - each player knows what to do; you don't need to pick spells ahead of acting, but groups so far have planned them."

Picture from ThinkGeek
SaveSave
SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave​

 

[Blue]

My 2cp:

Low initiative goes first allows for additive initiative by round.

For Example:

1d20-dex for opening round, lowest goes first. Declare/resolve actions on initiative as usual. Then Roll initiative modifier based on Mearls (or some other variant) dice to advance initiative. So Wizard rolls 1d20-dex and gets (14). On initiative count 14 he acts by casting a spell - cantrip (+1d12), casting a bonus action spell (+1d8), then moving back (+1d6). He rolls an 8,2, and 3 for 13 total. 14+13=27. He next acts on initiative 27. Meanwhile, Mr Archer rolled a lousy 16 (nat 20 - 4 for dex) for opening initiative. He shoots an arrow, rolling a d4 and gets a 2. His new initiative is 18. He shoots an arrow, rolls a 4 on 1d4, his new initiative is 22. He then shoots an arrow and moves back (since the enemy is closing in) rolling a 6 (1d4+1d6), his new initiative is 28. The wizard goes next on 27. Then the archer again on 28.

Something like that seems very interesting and do-able. Maybe the numbers need tweaking, maybe there are some more house rules (like you add 10 plus the die roll, not just die roll), etc. but I think it has serious potential.


Bah - @stoopski beat me to it. That's what I get for walk away mid-type.

I seriously hope this isn't it, otherwise he just upped the rate of fire for all missile weapons compared to melee weapons.

This interpretation would be ruinous with the current 5e rules, it would take serious work to rebalance.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I *gladly* give up a little extra realism for the play speed increase of roll-once cyclic initiative. I don't care about the borders between rounds, we just go.

Yes, this.

How about that depending on the action(s) you took this round, you roll the dice according to M. Mearls rules, but only after you take your turn. Then you add this to your current initiative.


Initiative order never resets to 0, it just increases.
A round is then not when everybody acted, but whenever it's your turn again.


So for example, When first initiative comes in, everyone rolls 1d20 - DEX mod, lowest goes first.
Let's say I roll 18.
If I attack with a Shortsword I roll a d8, and get a 4.
I would add a standard "6" to any action to space it out and help average out between different types of actions.
So I would then act again at initiative 28.

This is close to the new Alternity initiative "Impulse" system. In it, you take an action, and depending on what it is, you gain X Impulse, moving further on a wheel, and go again when your new place on that wheel comes up. So, in 5e, movement might only add 1 impulse, while actions add 2. Bonus actions don't use your impulse turn, but add to how much impulse you gain in a turn. Ie, if you attack with two weapons, you gain 2 impulse for using an action, and 1 more for usning a bonus action. If you move and use a bonus action to use an item, you gain 1 for moving, and 1 for the bonus action, for a total of 2.
Not sure it adds anything to the game over just using the existing system, but it seems easier and simpler to me than additive initiative, and possibly more fun. maybe.

How is rolling every round supposed to speed up combat??
I got really excited when he said he was working on a new initiative system. This just seems so much worse than what we already have.

Yep. I'm not sure what it actually adds to the game, at all.

Rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order every round is objectively more complex than rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order only once. Just saying.

Yeeeup. I've even considered rolling to randomize an Initiative DC for a group Initiative check, and just going counter clockwise around the table from there. Ie, the group rolls Initiative, if half or more succeed against my 5+2d6 or whatever, DC, the team goes first, if not, the enemies go first.

but, that does wonk up a lot of assumptions and the ability of the team to effectively react to monsters.

I've also considered just having notes on whose inititative bonus is what, and going in that order, or going round the table with at least one enemy between each player. This makes initiative entirely irrelevant, but is much simpler and faster, and I just can't bring myself to care about Mike's "boring/predictable" complaint. Not all parts of the system are there to excite you. Initiative is one of those rules, IMO, that is best when it gets the heck out of my way.

 

[flametitan]

I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed. I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike. Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc. Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack). But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.

So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?

But it's not just knife throwing. We're also saying that drawing an arrow, aiming it, and firing a bow (and at higher levels, multiple times per turn) is faster than the guy who's swinging their sword, and doesn't have to worry about drawing it.

That said, realism is kind of moot, as more likely what would happen is that the bow would get at least one shot off before the melee combatant gets in range, and now the archer will have to draw their sword as you wouldn't be able to get another shot off before being cut/stab/etc. Such a system would likely require us to have a much more complex style of initiative (chainmail would be a starting point), which I doubt most players would want to track.

 

[guachi]

Rolling initiative every round adds unpredictability to the game. Just like having to make attack rolls every round.

The point of rolling initiative every round or of declaring actions before rolling initiative is to add that element of uncertainty to the game and make knowing if you can do X before the enemy does Y exciting.

Also, it may seem like it takes longer to resolve a round if you declare actions first and then roll initiative but in practice it doesn't. Players declare less complex actions and tend to declare them faster in this system. It is, IMO, a better system.

The problem isn't declaring and/or rolling every round. The problem is when the system has too many modifiers.

 

[ninjayeti]

Mearls indicated it was cyclic initiative he didn't like ("Cyclical initiative - too predictable"), which the above doesn't address at all (it merely changes the die rolls).

This.

"If you don't like cyclical initiative, roll initiative at the start of each round."
-Shortest Unearthed Arcana article ever.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I like the idea of declared actions. I get incredibly frustrated with players who disengage from the game as soon as their turn is over. This of course leads to the situation where the new round comes around and I say "Joe its your turn" for the 3rd time and only then they stop discussing politics/sleeping/sketching and start to think of what they are going to do. Which kills momentum for everyone as they have to look up spells and have the rest of the party get them up to speed on what happened while they weren't paying attention. If they have to think of what they are going to do each round in advance maybe that will help things and help focus attention. More likely I'll just keep having to throw dice at certain players as they start killing the game at the start of each round rather than at the start of their individual turns.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But it's not just knife throwing. We're also saying that drawing an arrow, aiming it, and firing a bow (and at higher levels, multiple times per turn) is faster than the guy who's swinging their sword, and doesn't have to worry about drawing it.

That said, realism is kind of moot, as more likely what would happen is that the bow would get at least one shot off before the melee combatant gets in range, and now the archer will have to draw their sword as you wouldn't be able to get another shot off before being cut/stab/etc. Such a system would likely require us to have a much more complex style of initiative (chainmail would be a starting point), which I doubt most players would want to track.

Well, I guess my response is that in a sword fight, you're not just swinging your sword. You're also aiming (looking for an opening), and you're taking several swings that all factor into the same attack roll. Unlike ranged weapons which is one attack roll per shot.

Also, this:
[video=youtube;BEG-ly9tQGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk[/video]

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Though deep in my heart I've always liked the 1e system. Roll a D6 for each side and then go side by side. It always went faster but it holds back faster PC at the expense of slower PC. Though as the Ad&d DMG put it, quicker PC are harder to hit due to DEX mods to AC and so forth. It was also a more abstracted system with 1 minute rounds.

Maybe I should port over the Hackmaster system were you can move on every count of the round so there was no sitting there waiting for your turn...

 

[Grazzt]

Now we are back to old school and roll once at the start of combat for each side.

True "old school" had each side rolling initiative at the start of each round.

 

[Magister Ludorum]

I can see no way that this system speeds up combat. The reason I run 5th edition instead of 3rd is faster combat resolution (and fewer, more meaningful feats, and fewer bonuses and penalties added in with the die roll, et alia).