[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​

 

[Krachek]

Puh. Good thing MM does not always get his way. This is awful. Clunky, fiddly and requires a declaration phase. What would be the order of declaration anyway? Pretty big advantage knowing what the enemy is doing before you declare your action. Bleh.

Use passive deception and passive insight score to sort out who declare first to last.
Good deceiver and insighter should declare last.

 

[ad_hoc]

Use passive deception and passive insight score to sort out who declare first to last.
Good deceiver and insighter should declare last.

There really is no need to decide who declares first.

Just have each player declare what they are doing whenever they're ready. Done.

The nice thing about this is that if someone wants to have a discussion then all of the players get to take part since it is still all of their turns.

 

[discosoc]

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.

Can't speak for his system, in practice, but game systems where actions (with or without specifics) are declared up front like this usually result in much faster combat once everyone gets in the grove. This is in no small way related to the the player's not being able to micromanage their turns. What's interesting is that in the beginning things are often a bit more chaotic, but it doesn't usually take long for the players to settle into a normal routine of sorts. It also opens up fun options where the barbarian charges into the enemy ranks, throwing their actions out of whack or something.

Anyway, I personally think that the average player group acts too cohesively sometimes, like they are playing a table top game and not in the thick of a chaotic battle. If this curbs it a little, then maybe that's a good thing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I haven't caught up with the whole thread, so apologies if this has been addressed, but what are the implications for the various flavors of "until the end of your next turn" sort of abilities? A lot of those abilities are designed with the assumption that you or your opponent will get exactly one turn, but with any rules that switch up the order each round that number could become 0 or 2.

 

[Ristamar]

I haven't caught up with the whole thread, so apologies if this has been addressed, but what are the implications for the various flavors of "until the end of your next turn" sort of abilities? A lot of those abilities are designed with the assumption that you or your opponent will get exactly one turn, but with any rules that switch up the order each round that number could become 0 or 2.

I suggested this a few pages back...

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.

... but it didn't garner any type of response.

It's not a solution I'd personally ever want to go back to, but it did work.

 

[Derek Tietze]

For anyone wanting to try this on Roll20, I made this macro to give to your players to roll with. /roll (1d?{What is your action?|Melee attack,8|Ranged attack,4|Cast a Spell,12|Other,6}+1d?{Are you taking a bonus action?|no,0|yes,8}+1d?{Are you swapping gear?|no,0|yes,8}+1d?{Are you moving?|no,0|yes,6}) &{tracker}

 

[Hurin70]

Awesome.

Personally, I think Mike's initiative seems like a big "time suck" and as a player, I would hate to be locked into a type of action before I find out what is actually going on (nope, you cannot change your action to run away since you declared you were going to cast a spell). I get the realism of it, but meh.

Old style D&D and Rolemaster and such had init systems like this, and circular initiative was designed to get rid of that waste of time.

Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver. Rolemaster and DnD were the same IIRC back in the day when everything was cyclical (even AD&D IIRC, though correct me if I am wrong). Rolemaster, being always a bit more detailed system, went through a couple of different evolutions. The companion books offered alternate rules with things like different weapon speeds (a dagger was faster than a Claymore). In the revision that was Rolemaster Standard System (RMSS), you had different speeds of actions in general: snap, normal, and deliberate. So you could try to speed your action up in order to be able to resolve it first.

The upcoming edition of Rolemaster (RMU) has created a more nuanced action economy which uses Action Points kind of like the old Fallout games. That ensures that faster actions will go first.

In regards to declarations, you can actually play without them. I don't really think you need them at all, if you give players a reasonable opportunity to react to other players' actions via reactions.

 

[Hurin70]

I haven't caught up with the whole thread, so apologies if this has been addressed, but what are the implications for the various flavors of "until the end of your next turn" sort of abilities? A lot of those abilities are designed with the assumption that you or your opponent will get exactly one turn, but with any rules that switch up the order each round that number could become 0 or 2.

That's one of the big reasons why we just use cyclical initiative. It makes everything easier and faster, and cuts down on bookkeeping.

 

[Corwin]

"Roll Every Round" has pros and cons. But I think cyclical has a certain kind of "fairness" I don't think has been addressed yet.

Let's say we have six "entities" in a battle, with the following initiatives:

21 - Elf Archer
18 - Halfling Rogue
15 - (3) Hobgoblins
12 - Human Cleric
11 - (8) Goblins
09 - Dwarf Fighter

The elf knows in what order the remainder of the combatants are going in. All of them. Regardless of wheither this is cyclical or rolling every round. He knows his rogue buddy will go right after, then some monsters, before his cleric can act. And that his dwarf ally will have to wait til after the goblins to do anything. This informs his choice to act. With cyclical, he also knows that he and the halfling will be doing something right after the dwarf. Which also has an impact on his action decisions.

The human cleric knows that the goblins and the dwarf will be going immediately after him, and in that order. Rolling every round, that's the extent of the knowledge he has with which to base his action decisions on. He has no idea in what order the new round will play out and so there is a great deal of uncertainty which can cause indecision or a degree of consternation. Keeping in cyclical, he has confidence in knowing how the future round(s) will pace out as the combat continues.

Sure, some people think its appropriate to "punish" low initiatives with less options, or reduce decision certainty. And that's a thing you should do if you like it. But I'd expect less people will be willing to play 8 dex dwarves, and more high dex characters will naturally find their way to the table as players realize the nature of the mechanics in play. And how they impact combat effectiveness.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense and not just a long rambling mess.

 

[Lanefan]

"Roll Every Round" has pros and cons. But I think cyclical has a certain kind of "fairness" I don't think has been addressed yet.

Let's say we have six "entities" in a battle, with the following initiatives:

21 - Elf Archer
18 - Halfling Rogue
15 - (3) Hobgoblins
12 - Human Cleric
11 - (8) Goblins
09 - Dwarf Fighter

The elf knows in what order the remainder of the combatants are going in. All of them. Regardless of wheither this is cyclical or rolling every round. He knows his rogue buddy will go right after, then some monsters, before his cleric can act. And that his dwarf ally will have to wait til after the goblins to do anything. This informs his choice to act.

And this is exactly the heart of the problem as I see it. Combat's chaotic nature should completely prevent knowing "who goes next".

As at the table this is somewhat impractical unless everyone hides their dice, we can only look for partial solutions.

One is to re-roll each round, thus even if you know who's going when this round there's no guarantee it'll be that way next round; this force-limits any pre-planning to just the round you're in.
Two is to at least try to play in good faith (yes, DMs too) and NOT use this turn-order knowledge that 99% of the time* your character really doesn't have.

* - in a planned attack a group might pre-determine who does what in what order for the initial sequence (i.e. first round), but this is rare, and subsequent rounds should go back to random.

With cyclical, he also knows that he and the halfling will be doing something right after the dwarf. Which also has an impact on his action decisions.

It has an impact that it should not be able to have.

The human cleric knows that the goblins and the dwarf will be going immediately after him, and in that order. Rolling every round, that's the extent of the knowledge he has with which to base his action decisions on.

And ideally he wouldn't even have that much knowledge, but as I said...impractical.

He has no idea in what order the new round will play out and so there is a great deal of uncertainty which can cause indecision or a degree of consternation. Keeping in cyclical, he has confidence in knowing how the future round(s) will pace out as the combat continues.

There's supposed to be uncertainty! Most of the time you just do what you do and hope for the best; you can't always gaurantee your given action at any given time is going to be the most "optimal" (and nor should you be able to), and sometimes you'll mess it up.

Sure, some people think its appropriate to "punish" low initiatives with less options, or reduce decision certainty. And that's a thing you should do if you like it. But I'd expect less people will be willing to play 8 dex dwarves, and more high dex characters will naturally find their way to the table as players realize the nature of the mechanics in play. And how they impact combat effectiveness.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with punishing low initiatives - or any initiatives, for that matter - and everything to do with metagame vs. in-character knowledge.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense and not just a long rambling mess.

Oh, it makes sense as written...I just happen to greatly disagree with it.

Lan-"when lawful players meet the chaos of combat, things always get messy"-efan