[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​

 

[OB1]

I don't see how Mearl's system is any better. It seems like its adding complexity to little benefit.

If the goal is to try and avoid static initiative, why not just reroll round to round?

The goal is to make the order of actions more unpredictable. Rerolling still means I know if I go before or after the Orc. It may be too complex, but I'm willing to give it a try to see if it makes the game more fun.

 

[Aldarc]

No, but if you did watch them, then why would you continue to repeat false claims that are directly contradicted in the videos? Just to troll everyone and waste our time?

Either way, it doesn't paint you in the most positive light.

So which false claims have I repeated? Furthermore, I would suggest that you refrain from making assertions about my character and actions, as I have politely refrained from making any about you.

I never said you couldn't be skeptical, but the things you are claiming are irrefutably addressed in those videos. I.e., it doesn't matter who Lars is, the video evidence clearly shows arrows easily penetrating chain mail armor at a rapid fire rate.

Similar videos have been shown about weaponry other than archery with similar results against mail. I do not doubt that arrows could penetrate mail armor or be fired rapidly, but it's also paramount to recognize a number of factors. (1) In many mock weapon trials (not just archery) against mail, the mail armor is often placed on a solid (non-moving) dummy, which actually increases the efficacy of the penetration/slashing on the armor. (2) Chain armor has never been just chain armor, as is often the case in many videos, but also included gambeson/padded armor. This is all not to say that arrows can't penetrate the armor, but that these sort of mock trials don't necessarily reflect much beyond the trial conditions. (3) These videos would only support the argument for the (composite) short bow but don't address other ranged weaponry. (4) These videos do not make a compelling case for why ranged weapons should be privileged with a "better" initiative order over melee weapon attacks.

They all clearly show how someone can fire accurately and quickly with a bow. There is no denying that.

I don't recall doubting that. My assertion was that it is trick/sport archery. And Lars is a trick shooter, while Kassai created competitive (Hungarian) Horseback Archery as a sport.

And in the last video, they explicitly state who Lajos is, and his credibility.

Did we even watch the same video that you posted? There is actually not much they tell you about Kassai in that regard if you actually listen.

So either you did not watch them and are lying, or you did and didn't pay any attention, or you did and you keep repeating claims that are false and were disproved in those videos just to waste our time.

Or I did watch them, but I don't find the video sources historically compelling or buy the argument you are making at face value?

But again, you're missing the point completely. In D&D, melee attack rolls encompass many strikes, and ranges weapons only count as one. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable that in the context of initiative, a ranged weapon would be faster than a melee weapon

Then why can't a melee weapon be faster than a ranged one given a similar pretext?

 

[Mercule]

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

So the players can argue about who should go first among themselves and object when the GM uses the same option against them. I remember those days.

 

[iserith]

My Twitter feed has been full of talk of Initiative today. Now this thread has exploded. I don't really have any skin in the game except to say that a quote from Winston Churchill came to mind, slightly modified for the topic:

The current initiative system is the worst form of handling turn order, except for all the others.

I think I'll stick with what we got.

 

[Shasarak]

Personally I would prefer using weapon/spell speed then this idea.

 

[Darkness]

... Just to troll everyone and waste our time? ... So either you did not watch them and are lying, or you did and didn't pay any attention, or you did and you keep repeating claims that are false and were disproved in those videos just to waste our time. Either way, it doesn't paint you in the most positive light. ...

Keep it civil, please. Aim for the argument, not the poster behind it.

 

[Darkness]

... just like Obama now looks a lot better now that we have Trump. ...

No politics on these boards, please.

 

[Grazzt]

So the players can argue about who should go first among themselves and object when the GM uses the same option against them. I remember those days.

Each to their own; groups are different. I never encountered this in my years of playing (since 1982).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Each to their own; groups are different. I never encountered this in my years of playing (since 1982).

Me either. 1e initiative went much faster than any of the individual systems since then IME.

 

[osarusan]

Whenever the conversation about how to improve initiative comes up, I have to recommend people take a look at the Hackmaster rules.
I don't know anyone who has played Hackmaster and not come away saying that the combat in that game is so much fun and far better than the way combat runs in D&D.
I was really hoping that Mearls' hint at a new initiative system might have been a simplified version of the Hackmaster count-up system tailored for D&D.
If you guys haven't seen it, look up Hackmaster Basic (free PDF) and take a look at the way combat works. It's a bit difficult to describe on paper, but they have an illustrated combat example.
In play, it's an amazing system. It's fast, exciting, and makes your choices *really* matter in combat.
Porting it to D&D would make worlds explode.