[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​

 

[Grazzt]

I would never play that way and I don't know of any groups I've been in that would either.

Same here. It's never worked that way in the game. The only time simultaneous resolution or whatever would be a thing is in the case of tied initiative (and I think this was mentioned in the 1e PHB or DMG).

 

[akr71]

This has merit, but my players likely won't go for it as they would need to declare what they are going to do at the beginning of the round and not change their mind as the situation unfolds (ie. a companion goes down and needs healing). I also fear that this system might encourage the characters to act impulsively and independently, rather than a cohesive party.

 

[Libramarian]

Since all actions are declared up front, I'm assuming all action is basically simultaneous. The orc will be stunned at the end of the round but his action takes place before (or during) the action that stuns him. It isn't weird unless you assume the action happens in the order it is resolved rather than in no particular order. The resolution order only exists because coordination of the action resolution requires serial access to the DM.

Yep exactly. If you don't allow any actions to interrupt anything else within the round, you're basically doing away with the concept of initiative entirely. This works fine, and I actually prefer it to most other initiative systems, which I think are too simple and too random.

Mearls' system seems to me a definite improvement over default 5e, but I don't like how any movement has the same time cost. In 1e you divide the character's per-round speed by 10 and divide the distance to be moved by that to find the time cost in segments. Satisfying but a bit of a bear in the heat of battle.

In Mearls' system you could say each square of movement increases your initiative count by 1, but that implies that characters with higher speeds can move farther per round, but are not actually faster, which is a bit weird. Perhaps a reasonable concession.

 

[Lanefan]

This has merit, but my players likely won't go for it as they would need to declare what they are going to do at the beginning of the round and not change their mind as the situation unfolds (ie. a companion goes down and needs healing).

You can always allow them to change their action, but it'll cost a few initiative pips to do so. Which makes sense - the Cleric's declared action was to stand in to battle with mace in hand, thus when Buddy goes down she has to put the mace away and pull out her healing components...which takes a bit of time as reflected by her lowered init.

The one thing I'd almost always allow is for targets to be chosen on resolution, as it were. Archer declares that her action for the round is to shoot, but I'd have no problem with her choosing her target on her initiative when she actually looses her arrow. Ditto for melee - if a front-liner is in close-quarters melee with several foes his declared action for the round would obviously be to attack, but he can decide which opponent to swing at on his init.

I also fear that this system might encourage the characters to act impulsively and independently, rather than a cohesive party.

Personally, I wouldn't mind this at all. Combat is by its very nature chaotic - the fog of war, and all that - and having this reflected in how the characters act just makes sense.

Lan-"a lawful orderly party is a dull boring party"-efan

 

[jmucchiello]

That is a huge house rule and deserves its own thread.

The whole "Mike Mearls New Initiative" system is a house rule. Simultaneous combat resolution is not a new concept. Nor is it "huge". It really is a minor difference.

I would never play that way and I don't know of any groups I've been in that would either.

And I know many people who would. Funny that. Different strokes for different folks. Who would have thought such a thing was possible on something as close knit as the Internet?

 

[Guest 6801328]

What I like is that it adds interesting trade-offs. There is a cost to things, but not in an entirely predictable way.

 

[akr71]

You can always allow them to change their action, but it'll cost a few initiative pips to do so. Which makes sense - the Cleric's declared action was to stand in to battle with mace in hand, thus when Buddy goes down she has to put the mace away and pull out her healing components...which takes a bit of time as reflected by her lowered init.

The one thing I'd almost always allow is for targets to be chosen on resolution, as it were. Archer declares that her action for the round is to shoot, but I'd have no problem with her choosing her target on her initiative when she actually looses her arrow. Ditto for melee - if a front-liner is in close-quarters melee with several foes his declared action for the round would obviously be to attack, but he can decide which opponent to swing at on his init.

Personally, I wouldn't mind this at all. Combat is by its very nature chaotic - the fog of war, and all that - and having this reflected in how the characters act just makes sense.

Lan-"a lawful orderly party is a dull boring party"-efan

Good points. I don't really want the party to discuss tactics after I ask for initiative rolls... its something that should develop over time as the party learns each others combat preferences. One other thing that I would alter would be the Bonus Action. Rather than adding an additional 1d8 or 1d6 to the character's initiative roll, I would allow separate rolls (of the appropriate die), resulting in the DM resolving the character's action and bonus action at different times during the round.

For Example: "I move behind the over-turned table to get partial cover and fire my crossbow at the orcs." Rolls 1d6 (move) + 1d4 (ranged attack). "Then I cast Healing Word as a Bonus Action on the Rogue." Rolls 1d12 (spell). The character would act on initiative counts 1d6+1d4 (move and attack) and 1d12 (spell). Yes, the spell could conceivably happen before the attack.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The one thing I'd almost always allow is for targets to be chosen on resolution, as it were. Archer declares that her action for the round is to shoot, but I'd have no problem with her choosing her target on her initiative when she actually looses her arrow. Ditto for melee - if a front-liner is in close-quarters melee with several foes his declared action for the round would obviously be to attack, but he can decide which opponent to swing at on his init.

This is very interesting. In AD&D melee was deemed a chaotic affair and the target was determined at random from those within reach.

 

[Lanefan]

This is very interesting. In AD&D melee was deemed a chaotic affair and the target was determined at random from those within reach.

Just re-read that bit in the DMG and - surprise, surprise - it's open to interpretation. I think he's assuming more movement and switching of foes and who's fighting who within the combat than generally occurs, which would certainly randomize things.

But if you're surrounded by 4 opponents whose only actions are to keep beating on you I can't see a good reason why you can't decide which particular one you're going to swing at.

Lanefan

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just re-read that bit in the DMG and - surprise, surprise - it's open to interpretation. I think he's assuming more movement and switching of foes and who's fighting who within the combat than generally occurs, which would certainly randomize things.

But if you're surrounded by 4 opponents whose only actions are to keep beating on you I can't see a good reason why you can't decide which particular one you're going to swing at.

Lanefan

Yeah that was the general consensus. If you were not currently engaged and were able to move then you could enter melee at a place of your choosing. Once engaged it became a more random slugfest. Using the rules like this means gaining initiative and charging to lock down certain enemy combatants becomes very important.