[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​

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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'.

I don't think you can blame nostalgia for that one, since "hit dice" in AD&D were something completely different and were a property of monsters anyway, not PCs. 5E "hit dice" are simply poorly named, full stop.

 

[Shasarak]

Fine and dandy. But I play on a grid.

My condolences.

I don't think you can blame nostalgia for that one, since "hit dice" in AD&D were something completely different and were a property of monsters anyway, not PCs. 5E "hit dice" are simply poorly named, full stop.

I dont get how they are poorly named. Hit Dice are called Hit Dice which seems as intuitive as any naming convention.

You could have called them Chazwazza's I suppose but then what would you call Bullfrogs?

 

[Hussar]

My condolences.

Why? I much prefer playing on a grid. I'd never go back to TOTM play. Just not for me.

So, if you play on a grid, pixelated circles and cones are a huge PITA. Square effects are much better.

And considering that 5e is pretty inconsistent about AoE's, it's not like it would be a problem.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I guess it could speed it up in this way (numbers pulled outta nowhere)

Std initiative: Player 1 takes 5 mins to decide>PCs action resolved, Player 2 takes 2 mins to decide>PCs action resolved, Player 3 takes 7 mins to decide>PCs action resolved, Player 4 takes 4 mins to decide>PCs action resolved. The total time deciding = 18 mins

Mearl initiative: concurrently Player 1 takes 5 mins to decide, Player 2 takes 2 mins to decide, Player 3 takes 7 mins to decide, Player 4 takes 4 mins to decide> PCs resolve actions in initiative order The total time deciding = 7 mins

But he's also said it is to get away from predictability, which it certainly does.

I'm always interested in new systems so would like to see it in full, not sure if I'd use it tho (because of the 'ends at the end of turn' weirdness) still interesting!

 

[Lanefan]

Why? I much prefer playing on a grid. I'd never go back to TOTM play. Just not for me.

So, if you play on a grid, pixelated circles and cones are a huge PITA. Square effects are much better.

So don't pixelate 'em at all. Use real circles.

You use a grid, so make yourself some see-through cutout discs that represent 5' radius, 10' radius, 20' radius, and any other size(s) you might need, based on your grid.

Then [big rule change alert!] during play instead of having your caster spend ages trying to exactly position the spell, ask roughly where it's to be centered and then make him roll to aim it - a really good aim roll gets the best possible result, a reasonable roll gets a reasonable result, and so on. A very poor roll might miss everything, depending on circumstances. In any case, you position the effect based on the aiming roll.

Then, you simply hold your see-through disc just above the character pieces and look down - it'll be pretty easy to see who gets hit.

Lan-"it's never made sense to me why things thrown or shot have to be aimed but spells do not"-efan

 

[dave2008]

It definitely took us a few sessions to get the hang of it, but once we did, everyone in my group fell in love with it.

The only reason we went back to D&D from Hackmaster is that we wanted to play some of the newer published adventures, and the two systems don't convert easily (though they appear like they should be able to). Hackmaster is so much deadlier and lower-power than D&D so running D&D adventures in Hackmaster results in very very deadly games. Also, Hackmaster is only good for people who LOVE crunch. So when you want a lighter game to play, D&D serves better.

But that combat system.... man! It still calls to me to come back.

Couldn't you just use the Hackmaster combat system (or at least initiative system) w/ D&D? I realize there are some issues (bonus actions, reactions, turn based effects), but it seems possible. I believe [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] had a thread fairly recently about his/her initiative system that was fairly similar to Hackmaster and he/she discussed how to overcome many of these issues.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The system in the OP has potential. I'd like to see the full version. I really hate cyclical initiative. Sure it's faster, but it's BORING. My favorite system was 2E. Combat was a lot more interesting and fun that way.

Re comments on deciding what you do before rolling initiative - I think it's fine to decide first. Theoretically everyone is acting at the same time not taking turns, so not knowing what everyone is doing whose actions are resolved first makes perfect sense. For the issue of preempted actions or changing your mind, I'd say your initiative can be raised but not lowered resolves this with little trouble.

On comments on weapon speed - while I like the idea of weapon speed, it's got some real problems. Sure, dagger guy can move faster than long sword guy, but who should go first depends a lot on distance and skill. If they start outside of dagger reach than sword guy can attack before dagger guy gets close enough to reach him, and if sword guy has some skill, dagger guy won't be able to close the distance and attack at all. I'd love to see a good combat system that takes into account reach and range, but it seems a bit outside of the scope of D&D.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Not trying to be snarky, but is that true? I would have to go back in look, but my recollection was that in 4e you had some typical minor actions that anyone could do, but in 5e you can only take a bonus action if you have an ability that specifically allows it.

4e Minor Actions (PHB pg 289):
Draw or sheathe a weapon - You can draw or sheathe a weapon
Drink a potion - Consume a potion
Drop prone - Drop down so that you are lying on the ground
Load a crossbow - Load a crossbow so that you can fire it
Open or close a door - Open or close a door or container that isn’t locked or stuck
Pick up an item - Pick up an object in your space or in an unoccupied square within reach
Retrieve or stow an Item - Retrieve or stow an item on your person
+ specific powers, magic items, or features that allow bonus actions

5e?:
I believe you have to have a specific feature, feat, or spell that allows the use of a bonus actions.

In addition, can't you substitute actions in 4e but not in 5e. Yep, 4e PHB pg 268. So the actions themselves are very similar there is definitely a difference in how they can be used.

 

[Craig Fox]

This initiative system won't suit every group, but there's at least one clear audience for it: those who, when the DM says "A dragon is charging towards you.", respond with "I shoot it!", "I run up and smash it!", "I cast a protection spell!", "I cast Magic M... ok, guess we should all roll for initiative and decide what to do when our turn comes round." For players like that, removing the somewhat artificial delay between the start of combat and choosing actions will help with immersion no end.

i'll be interested in seeing the fleshed out version, and may even try it out at the table. Some people have pointed out problems, but all of these can be solved in an initiative system like this. Is the order of action declaration important for tactical purposes - you'd like to know whether the dragon will breathe or claw/bite before deciding what to do? Compare an ability score, like Wisdom. Whoever has the lowest score has to declare their action first. A combatant may not need to use 0 as their baseline, which would make delaying intuitive and solves the problem of "what if my initiative comes up before that of the foe who debuffed me, causing a two turn debuff?"

 

[osarusan]

Couldn't you just use the Hackmaster combat system (or at least initiative system) w/ D&D? I realize there are some issues (bonus actions, reactions, turn based effects), but it seems possible. I believe [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] had a thread fairly recently about his/her initiative system that was fairly similar to Hackmaster and he/she discussed how to overcome many of these issues.

I haven't been able to come up with a system that would work elegantly to combine Hackmaster's countup with D&D actions. At best it complicates things too much to be worth it, at worst it nerfs players. The workarounds you'd have to come up with to deal with things like bonus actions, a fighter's action surge, multiple attacks, legendary actions, lair actions, and a lot of the nifty monster abilities would be a difficult task.

I'd love to see what [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] did in that respect, if he/she can post it to me or link it.