[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​

 

[osarusan]

I have to admit, my Primeval Thule campaign right now has no casters in it. WOWZERS did that speed up combat. We ran a 3 hour (a bit less actually) session this week and had 4 complete combats including one with over 20 combatants with tons of time left over. I'm very much of the opinion that it's the casters that grind the game to a halt.

Playing with no casters is an amazing experience! It really changes the game, and aside from speeding things up it makes it much dangerous. However I kind of prefer it to standard D&D where magic is so common there's nothing special about it anymore.

 

[Azzy]

Yeah, okay, no... No thanks, I'm good with the standard initiative rules.

 

[Azzy]

1. I know people will hate this, but, do away with round area of effects. Go back to the 4e style square fireballs. Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate it, but, it was a LOT faster. No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball just so and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's. Grrr. I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it. I'd much, much rather go back to squares.

Isn't that pretty much the default, anyway?

 

[Henry]

I thought so. So basically it's the 2E system which everybody was excited about giving up in 2001 (but with dice instead of set speeds?

It's funny, but no group I've gamed with in the past 17 years has had a problem with 3.x+ initiative -- personally I've never looked back. I've played many systems with alternative inits, e.g. Savage Worlds, Alternity, Gumshoe, etc. out of all of them, I might like Gumshoe's the best, for its strategic element, but the 3.x+ system hasn't caused many problems. Any problems caused are usually by me accidentally skipping someone if I'm in the heat of the moment.

(BTW, the 1st edition AD&D initiative system was, by the book, almost unplayable -- not because it was too difficult, but because some of the rules on the interaction between spell and melee were actually written two different ways in the same chapter. That said, it was still kind of neat. The best Cliff's Notes version I've seen is at:
http://knights-n-knaves.com/dmprata/ADDICT.pdf)

 

[Shasarak]

IME, there are many things that slow down combat in D&D. Initiative is so far down on that list that it doesn't even rank.

If our goal here is to speed up combat, there are so many changes that could be made that would help:

1. I know people will hate this, but, do away with round area of effects. Go back to the 4e style square fireballs. Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate it, but, it was a LOT faster. No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball just so and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's. Grrr. I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it. I'd much, much rather go back to squares.

Ug, no thanks. 4e did nothing to speed up repositioning except to make it worse by giving everyone burst/blast effects. Round effects work just as well square ones when you play off the grid.

 

[Sunseeker]

Like many of the things Mearls has created, this system is interesting but that's about it.

While many people are complaining about "needing to know what action you're going to take", this is truly a deeper gaming issue. Even if you original decision is no longer valid when your turn comes around, choosing and committing to an action is an entirely different kettle of fish. One that most people need to learn how to do anyway. I've played with far too many people who get "choice locked" fairly easily, especially under changing or intense situations, causing the whole game to grind to a halt while they figure out what they're doing...something they should have been figuring right from the start, and keeping up with every turn.

After thinking about this for a few moments, some other thoughts:

This system seems to punish elements that were given freely in the game. +d8 to change gear? Normally I can drop/draw a weapon every turn. +d6 to move? I can move every turn at no cost. +d8 for bonuses freely given? How do Polearm Masters even? Martial ranged who need to move less, are less likely to change weapons get the smallest die? Monk's whose very class is based on quickly entering and exiting combat get hit with the full swing of d8 for melee, +d8 for bonus, +d6 for move making them now ostensibly one of the slowest classes to act (minimum 3 init). Further, it seems to completely discourage the use of the action economy, and totally kills the fluidity that 5E seemed intent on bringing back. Players would, I think, be encouraged to do less each turn. Be less creative and more prone to "I hit it with my stick." while becoming overly concerned with getting to act at all if they took advantage of the more tactical, more fluid, and more creative options available to them.

Frankly, the system seems contrary to 5E, and many 5E design elements.

 

[Mistwell]

His concern is to speed up play and add tension, but his system has you roll each round and is more complicated? I don't get it.

The dice attached to various actions is what speeds things up. That system tends to place actions which are easier for players to make decisions early in the round, and then progress to more and more complex actions finally ending with spellcasting which tends to take the most amount of time for players to decide.

The effect is that those who need more time to decide what they're doing can use the time of the players with the least amount of time needed to make their decisions. And also importantly this system gets all the players thinking about what their action(s) will be right from the start of the round, rather than passively watching as the round progresses until it gets to them and only then do they start really thinking about it.

So the overall effect is often faster player decisionmaking, despite the dice and rolling every round.

 

[Hurin70]

I don't think this is an accurate at all. Mearls specifically called out 4e as being too complex a system for general use in the AMA interview, but did suggest that they might release something similar to 4e under a D&D Tactics banner for those who prefer that type of game.

It sounded to me at least like he was just blowing the question about what was good about 4e off. It was kind of like the developers of 5e promising a 4e/tactics 'module' that never really materialized. I think they're still in denial that 4e had some things that worked, and that throwing them all out with the bathwater was a bit rash.

It's like the question he got about why they called healing surges 'hit dice'. We all know the real reason: the internet mob got its torches and pitchforks out for 4e, and so everything about it had to go... even those areas in which 4e actually innovated and improved upon prior editions. So instead of something clear and indicative of function like 'healing surges', we got the nostalgic title of 'hit dice', which just confused things. I mean, even 'hit point dice' would have been better. But since nostalgia trumps rationality in the present edition, it had to be 'hit dice'.

 

[Valetudo]

It sounded to me at least like he was just blowing the question about what was good about 4e off. It was kind of like the developers of 5e promising a 4e/tactics 'module' that never really materialized. I think they're still in denial that 4e had some things that worked, and that throwing them all out with the bathwater was a bit rash.

It's like the question he got about why they called healing surges 'hit dice'. We all know the real reason: the internet mob got its torches and pitchforks out for 4e, and so everything about it had to go... even those areas in which 4e actually innovated and improved upon prior editions. So instead of something clear and indicative of function like 'healing surges', we got the nostalgic title of 'hit dice', which just confused things. I mean, even 'hit point dice' would have been better. But since nostalgia trumps rationality in the present edition, it had to be 'hit dice'.

Not to mention that bonus actions work exactly like minor actions. Man the amount of people that tried to tell me otherwise when 5th came out. Good times.

 

[Hussar]

Ug, no thanks. 4e did nothing to speed up repositioning except to make it worse by giving everyone burst/blast effects. Round effects work just as well square ones when you play off the grid.

Fine and dandy. But I play on a grid.