[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​

 

[Caliburn101]

Of course I read it - where I refer to 'high still goes first' that is a reference to the rules as written, no the proposed alternative...

 

[Caliburn101]

Did you seriously just claim that rules around D&D spellcasting should be changed because they're unrealistic?

Yes - just like a dagger does less damage than a sword and other 'illogical' stuff.

Mike Mearls is suggesting a more simulationist approach, so why not redirect your critique against him if you don't like it. Personally I do -but his order (and yes I DO know it's lowest goes first) is nevertheless cockeyed.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I tried to look for it, but I am terrible with the search tool

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

The basic rules I use are simple: everybody in combat declares their action at the start of the round, with highest Int getting to declare last if they want to, then the DM resolves their actions (or has the players resolve their own actions) just as he would in any other combat or noncombat situation. When it's necessary to determine which actions happened first due to ordering dependencies, roll initiative as needed. Since everybody's turn is happening concurrently, all references to "turn" become synonymous with "round", e.g. "save at end of turn" becomes "save at end of round", and you get one reaction per round.

There are some additional fiddly bits I added because I like the way they seamlessly integrate combat/noncombat activities (e.g. I added a Delay action which makes you automatically lose initiative but lets you declare your action after other actions have already been resolved; this facilitates things like Mexican standoffs and breaking off combat to negotiate surrender, since Delaying to negotiate now isn't tantamount to giving your enemy free attacks, it's just letting your enemy win initiative this round) but you might or might not need them.

There's a thread that walks you through how this works in practice, here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...verybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative) plus some discussion of goals and motivations, and various peoples' suggested alternative rules.

 

[CapnZapp]

Obviously you didn't read the actual comment. In this system lowest initiative acts first, not highest.

Obviously YOU didn't read his post , because he obviously noticed that lowest goes first. Then he 1) complained about the effects, and 2) shifted it back to highest first

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[osarusan]

The basic rules I use are simple: everybody in combat declares their action at the start of the round, with highest Int getting to declare last if they want to, then the DM resolves their actions (or has the players resolve their own actions) just as he would in any other combat or noncombat situation. When it's necessary to determine which actions happened first due to ordering dependencies, roll initiative as needed. Since everybody's turn is happening concurrently, all references to "turn" become synonymous with "round", e.g. "save at end of turn" becomes "save at end of round", and you get one reaction per round.

There are some additional fiddly bits I added because I like the way they seamlessly integrate combat/noncombat activities (e.g. I added a Delay action which makes you automatically lose initiative but lets you declare your action after other actions have already been resolved; this facilitates things like Mexican standoffs and breaking off combat to negotiate surrender, since Delaying to negotiate now isn't tantamount to giving your enemy free attacks, it's just letting your enemy win initiative this round) but you might or might not need them.

There's a thread that walks you through how this works in practice, here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...verybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative) plus some discussion of goals and motivations, and various peoples' suggested alternative rules.

Awesome! Thank you for sharing that. I will take a closer look.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

Ons thing this initiative system also does is make it so you have tot declare your action in advance.

So you het :
Declare actions
Roll initiatie
Resolve actions

If i would use this I might still have a normal initiative roll on the first round tot determin the order of declaring actions slowest declares first.

 

[Morrus]

The article up there has been updated with more information from Mearls!

 

[JeffB]

And I like it even more with the additional details. I like FFG Star Wars initiative for many of the same reasons he states about his initiative system.

 

[Queer Venger]

Not a fan of *this*, but if Mearls posts a more streamlined, less clunky system in UA I would consider play testing. *This* however, is not streamlined.