[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​

 

[Dausuul]

Are you really trying to claim that each of these components takes less than a second to do in combination - speak the spell vocals

Less than a second, sure. I say verbal components are only one or two syllables. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)

wave your hands in the right configuration

I say these gestures are precise but not lengthy; they require no more time to perform than swinging a sword. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)

and handle the foci or components (including of course getting the right components out of the right pouch)?

Pulling components out of a pouch is the one case where you have a shadow of a point. However, if you have a spell focus, nothing is required (assuming you already have it in hand, which you should, since it's your equivalent of a sword and the sword guy has his sword in hand).

 

[Pauln6]

People that love playing spell casters are bound to argue in favour of assumptions that spell-casting is fast under such an initiative system. It is in their interests to be faster than those pesky weapon-wielding foes but it is relying on skewed assumptions that are not reflective of how pre-4E 'traditional' D&D casters were viewed. Full round actions, provoking opportunity attacks, spell interuption etc. In 1e initiative was equal across the board but playing with spell casters at higher levels was frustrating for (the other) players and DMs unless the player got to that level by sheer hard work. Be thankful spell-casting is not as frustratingly slow as MERP!

Mearls seems to be of that older school, of the view that the awesome oomph and versatility of spells should be offset by a disadvantage, such as occasionally being slower in the initiative. Another alternative could be rolling 1d4 plus the spell level, so simple cantrips, with a word and a wave, are as fast as missile weapons but more powerful spells take longer and longer, to the point that you will always be last. At least that gives your fighters a chance to get some licks in before you rain devastation on the enemies. ;-p

 

[Caliburn101]

Less than a second, sure. I say verbal components are only one or two syllables. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)


I say these gestures are precise but not lengthy; they require no more time to perform than swinging a sword. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)


Pulling components out of a pouch is the one case where you have a shadow of a point. However, if you have a spell focus, nothing is required (assuming you already have it in hand, which you should, since it's your equivalent of a sword and the sword guy has his sword in hand).

You say it, but you've never tried it, clearly.

Even very simple combinations of hand movement, a few words and an item used (component or not) is slower than weapons, except with ranged projectiles which take time to load and aim.

If you want your game to run with fast spells which only use one word, a single finger and a component that teleports unto your hands from a pouch, then you're right, it can be as fast as a sword etc. and there is nothing in the rules to say otherwise...

... except we aren't talking about the RAW, we are talking about Mearls' proposals which are trying to inject a little 'realism' into the initiative rules, in which case, your case holds no water.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have been fine with the cyclic Initiative since 3e.

Rolling each round does not interest me per se, but it does become interesting when it enables initiative adjustments based on action types.

The part which I definitely don't like in this version, is ranged combatants being the fastest. That's just wrong in more than one way... aiming and shooting an arrow cannot simply be faster than swinging a mace or thrusting a sword, making them equal is ok, but if they should be different, then ranged attacks should be slower, not faster. In addition, ranged combatants already have advantageous rules compared to melee combatants, they don't need yet another advantage. Finally, I also think that on average the melee combatants need to use the move action more often than ranged combatants (except when the ranged combatants can use their move to get out of cover and back behind it every single round, which is another huge advantage), and therefore making the move cost an additional initiative penalty just makes things worst.

Other than that, I think it's ok.

 

[Caliburn101]

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?

Yes it does, which makes me wonder why Mearls' has suggested this at all... but we are talking about Mearls' idea to bring some realism into initiative, so what you are saying is moot, actually.

 

[Dausuul]

... except we aren't talking about the RAW, we are talking about Mearls' proposals which are trying to inject a little 'realism' into the initiative rules, in which case, your case holds no water.

Explain to me why it is "realistic" for spells to take more than 1-2 syllables and a single quick hand gesture to cast. What is the real-world spell that requires a lengthier casting time?

Oh, that's right - there isn't one, because there are no real-world spells. Therefore 1-2 syllables and a single hand gesture is as realistic as anything else.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe going into minutiae for weapons, armor or spells in regards to initiative is taking it too far. The basics of D&D are about the class and race you choose. It is worth exploring but what dice is chosen should be influence the most by class, like a monk is faster that a fighter or a warlock is faster that a wizard. Race is a little more tricky, but I am all for removing one attribute like Dexterity having too much influence. I also like the ebb and flow of combat versus knowing everyone's order each round, but then again I don't run a table with more than 4 players on average.

 

[Pauln6]

Yes it does, which makes me wonder why Mearls' has suggested this at all... but we are talking about Mearls' idea to bring some realism into initiative, so what you are saying is moot, actually.

I don't believe the concept specifies whether your one good swing is your first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. Similarly, with combat happening simultaneously, perhaps the spell caster is waiting for the sweet spot - the moment when the target is most vulnerable, distracted, or in the best position - like on a shove penny machine - choose the wrong moment and by the time you've cast it, the spell may not work as well.

On a dice roll of 1d12, the spell is taking between 0.5 and 6 seconds to cast. Clearly the concept is not suggesting that spells MUST take a long time. It might not even be casting that takes the time but rather the swirling special effect that turns into the spell outcome. Haven't you seen Bedknobs and Broomsticks?

 

[Lanefan]

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

That, I have to say, is bloody genius!

And for cone effects you can just lay the flashlight on the table and the light will form a cone...

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.

I've made casters roll to aim area-effect spells since the day I started DMing. Since then, as I've slowly re-written all the spells (mostly to get them online) each has picked up a designation "area" or "targeted": keywords that point to whether an aiming orll is required (area) or not (targeted). This keyword appears in the spell's "range" entry, so a range might look like "50 indoors, 150 outdoors (area)" or "touch (targeted)".

Yes I still use different ranges for indoors and outdoors.

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.

As other have pointed out, this is still messy.

Someone upthread tossed in what to me seems the simplest idea, which I'll here repeat: the stunned target loses its next action no matter when it would occur. So, if the orc gets stunned but has already acted this round, it loses next round's action. If the orc gets stunned and hasn't yet acted this round it doesn't, and is back to normal next round...unless it gets stunned again.

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.

There are two root problems causing the disconnect here, I think.

One is the absurdly short round length. I've always thought spellcasting should require some impressive incantating and hand-waving, and a 1-second round just doesn't do it justice. The minute-long rounds in 1e were too far the other direction, but there has to be a happy medium in there somewhere - 20 seconds? 30 seconds?

The other problem, also tied to the need for impressive incantating and hand-waving, is that while in theory casting while under melee attack should be utterly impossible* as you are without fail going to be interrupted the game rules have over the editions made it less and less penalizing to do so. The very idea of "combat casting" is what's absurd*.

* - with one huge exception: a few specific battle-oriented spells e.g. Prayer being cast in the heat of combat by a battle or war cleric. In fact I have it that one of the "Somatic" components for a war cleric to cast Prayer at all is that she has to either be in or charge in to melee! The flip side is they can't be interrupted unless completely incapacitated or killed.

Lan-"aim is particularly important (and difficult) with things like rebounding lightning bolts, which 5e is sadly lacking"-efan

EDIT: a p.s. to the last bit: though I post here as Lanefan the Fighter, I should probably point out that nearly all the characters I've played recently - as in, the last 20-odd years - have been casters of one sort or another; so it's not like I'm coming at this from a pre-judged anti-caster angle.

 

[ad_hoc]

Someone upthread tossed in what to me seems the simplest idea, which I'll here repeat: the stunned target loses its next action no matter when it would occur. So, if the orc gets stunned but has already acted this round, it loses next round's action. If the orc gets stunned and hasn't yet acted this round it doesn't, and is back to normal next round...unless it gets stunned again.

The problem here is that you potentially miss out on a lot of attacks at advantage.

Attacking a stunned creature is at advantage and they automatically fail strength and dexterity saving throws.

A Monk's Stunning Strike should allow all of their allies and themselves a full round of actions against that target until they aren't stunned again.

I suggest having the stun take away the creature's next turn and last until the initiative count on the next round.