[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​

 

[Ristamar]

I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.

I got around this problem in 3.x by giving ongoing spells/effects/conditions their own place in the initiative track. It's extra bookkeeping, but it does allow for shifting initiative scores through Delayed actions or rerolling every round.

 

[Lanefan]

Here's a way to implement Mearls' initiative system....

Each round you declare your general intentions (in order of lowest to highest Proficiency Bonus) before gathering dice to roll for initiative (lowest roll goes first).

• Declare general actions, in order of lowest to highest Proficiency Bonus
• For creatures, CR = PB (min. 1)
• If PB is tied, lowest DEX or WIS mod declares first (use worst trait)
  
• Gather initiative dice based on your declared actions

Personally, I wouldn't get nearly so hung up on declaration order - I'd probably just go around the table.

Action & Corresponding Initiative Die

• Ranged attack (if readied*): d4
• Ranged attack (unreadied): d6
• Melee attack: dX (X=damage die)
• Cast a spell: d12
• Move and/or “do something”: d6
• Supplementary actions:
  • Add movement to attack/spell: +d6
  • Allow possible use of a Bonus Action: +d8
  • Swap gear/equipment: +d8

​
*A crossbow can be kept readied indefinitely; longbow and short bow attacks have disadvantage if they are held readied for more than X no. of rounds, where X = the highest number on the weapon's damage die.

Three quick thoughts:

1. I think the die range is too great. I'd rather see the range go from at widest d6 to d10, with add-ons for movement/gear change/etc.

2. How does this handle multi-attack or multi-shot rounds? IMO each should get its own separate initiative with the stipulation that they cannot be the same.

3. Don't try to make everyone's initiative different - if three things happen on a '6' then they all happen at once; don't worry about ordering them.

Lanefan

 

[schnee]

It's not a bad solution but it is finicky. I have to deal with attacks for every spell cast and then futz about with templates.

Or I can just make all spell effects square, get the same results and greatly speed things up.

We use a keychain flashlight on the table from above. Easy circular spell shapes.

People can try to get really cute with that, with the circle being exact. So, trying to be exceptionally precise, like catch a foe that's in combat with a party member and not fry your own person requires some kind of a spell roll. If they're firing it directly through a square with other melee people, if they miss the roll badly enough they hit someone in the way and it blows up... somewhat closer than they anticipated.

A few of those and they tend to play things more safe, which is a bit more realistic and balanced compared to the martials that have to roll for everything.

 

[jmucchiello]

Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.

Example: A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round. In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.

Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.

Not so much a solution--rather, the observation that the issue you identify exists independent of initiative system, and can manifest within the PHB initiative system. Take Stunning Strike for example. It stuns the target "until the end of your [the monk's] next turn." If the Stunning Strike is made on the enemy's turn (e.g. due to an opportunity attack, a readied action, or the 17th level Shadow Monk ability), it might cause the target to lose one action, or it might cause it to lose zero actions (e.g. if it already struck the monk). "Not effective at all" still happens in this context.

On a related note, you can likewise increase the effectiveness of e.g. Stinking Cloud or Flaming Sphere by casting it as a Readied Action for when a creature uses up its movement allotment. Now it HAS to end its turn within the spell's AoE (unless it Dashes, possibly provoking opportunity attacks, instead of attacking). This makes the spell more effective than usual, even with PHB initiative.

The issue you identify is actually an artifact of turn discretization, not the choice of initiative systems. QED.

 

[ad_hoc]

Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.

What if the creature is reduced to 0 HP? Does it still get its action this round, dying in the next round?

 

[Grazzt]

Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.

I'd rule the orc is stunned immediately. Otherwise, it seems weird.

 

[ad_hoc]

Here's a simple solution: Have the creature's initiative count frozen for the next round. If they went on count 4 this round, have them go on count 4 next round too. Also have the stun wear off at the end of the count that it was administered on.

Monk goes on count 3, Creature goes on count 4. Creature is stunned on count 3, loses action, keeps being stunned until the end of count 3 next round.

Creature goes on count 3, Monk goes on count 4. Creature is stunned on count 4, keeps being stunned until the end of count 4 next round. Creature's initiative doesn't matter because they lose their turn.

Additional rule: A creature cannot be stunned by the same Monk twice in consecutive rounds.

 

[Caliburn101]

I like Mearls's initiative system. What I'm pointing out is that it's absurd to complain about unrealistic spellcasting rules, because magic isn't real. Realism only applies to actions you can take in the real world.

If the rules dictated a specific real-world action required to cast a spell, we could talk about how long that action took. But they don't. You have to speak and gesture with a free hand--but what you have to say, and what gestures you have to make, are left unspecified. All we can say for certain is that casting a spell takes at least as long as is required for nerve impulses to travel from the brain to the arms... which is also true of swinging a sword.

Absurd??

Verbal components, Somatic components and Material components (or Foci manipulation) to one extent or another (depending on the spell) have to be coordinated together (multitasking). That takes longer than swinging a sword.

Are you really trying to claim that each of these components takes less than a second to do in combination - speak the spell vocals, wave your hands in the right configuration and handle the foci or components (including of course getting the right components out of the right pouch)?

I would say you seriously need to experiment with this at home with some improvised props whilst someone opposite you swings at you with a LARP sword.

After you have failed to get a spell off before getting hit the first fifty times or so the idea that spells should be slower to cast than swinging a weapon might seem far less absurd!

 

[Pauln6]

Absurd??

Verbal components, Somatic components and Material components (or Foci manipulation) to one extent or another (depending on the spell) have to be coordinated together (multitasking). That takes longer than swinging a sword.

Are you really trying to claim that each of these components takes less than a second to do in combination - speak the spell vocals, wave your hands in the right configuration and handle the foci or components (including of course getting the right components out of the right pouch)?

I would say you seriously need to experiment with this at home with some improvised props whilst someone opposite you swings at you with a LARP sword.

After you have failed to get a spell off before getting hit the first fifty times or so the idea that spells should be slower to cast than swinging a weapon might seem far less absurd!

Combat is not meant to represent one swing of the sword but rather the one good swing out of a series of parries, feinting, dodging, and trash talking. in the case of fighters, more than one good swing. All the higher die for spell casting indicates is that sometimes spell casting takes a bit more effort to get right. You can always house rule that the combat casting feat also gives advantage on the initiative roll, or reduces the die to a d10 or something?