[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​

 

[Corwin]

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

Given that's your personal take on how combat "is", and you want people to take their action in a blind bubble, that's fine. Do your thing. You aren't actually doing that "thing", though (because you never can--that is virtually impossible on any practical level). Which is why I find it odd you are married to such a process. Its not actually achieving your desired goal. At least not for most of the participants. Really only the one who rolled the very lowest initiative. And even then, there was coordination happening with that person, leading up to their round-ending action, because everyone at the table knew they were last and took it into consideration. As well the low roller themselves. It informed their decision making.

Also, your theory, that applying knowledge of when people go in the turn, is information "your character really doesn't have" is not objective fact. It is simply how you choose to see the way the game is played. Many people see it otherwise. Many people play where the PCs work in harmony, talking to each other and using teamwork, to coordinate their efforts as the scene plays out. There are countless examples of this in literature and cinema. So I'm sure you get where they are coming from.

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.

And yet still being fine with punishing low roles, and/or popular character tropes that do not require being quick to react. Because you are doing it whether you admit to it or not. Its just happening. By nature of how you are doing it. There's no practical way around it.

Also, AFAIC, you are using "metagame" in the least useful way here*. Setting aside the pejorative way in which you intended it, initiative is just one of literally many metagame aspect of this hobby. By its nature.



[*Not that there is a useful application of that word, IMO. But of all the marginally applicable ways to apply that tag, this is one of the least useful.]

 

[Lanefan]

Given that's your personal take on how combat "is", and you want people to take their action in a blind bubble, that's fine. Do your thing. You aren't actually doing that "thing", though (because you never can--that is virtually impossible on any practical level).

The impracticality of a full solution I'd already noted.

Which is why I find it odd you are married to such a process. Its not actually achieving your desired goal.

As already noted, full achievement of my goal is - though possible - somewhat impractical. That said, some steps to bring it closer are both easy and practical. Re-rolling init. each round is one such.

At least not for most of the participants. Really only the one who rolled the very lowest initiative. And even then, there was coordination happening with that person, leading up to their round-ending action, because everyone at the table knew they were last and took it into consideration. As well the low roller themselves. It informed their decision making.

Also, your theory, that applying knowledge of when people go in the turn, is information "your character really doesn't have" is not objective fact. It is simply how you choose to see the way the game is played. Many people see it otherwise. Many people play where the PCs work in harmony, talking to each other and using teamwork, to coordinate their efforts as the scene plays out. There are countless examples of this in literature and cinema. So I'm sure you get where they are coming from.

But the planning - though it can certainly still happen - shouldn't be influenced by the initiative dice.

If I'm a wizard about to chuck a fireball into an enemy-filled room I can still tell my allies to wait till I'm done before they charge in; and they can still choose whether to wait or not. I don't need to know anyone's initiative to do this, and they don't need to know mine. Same goes for most other planning; and keep in mind that "planning" doesn't automatically mean "this is how it's gonna go" as no plan survives contact...you know the rest.

And yet still being fine with punishing low roles, and/or popular character tropes that do not require being quick to react.

Yeah, that's another issue with the RAW: dex modifiers. Were it up to me, initiative would be an unmodified roll 99% of the time, with the other 1% left open to account for corner-case situations, magic items that bestow speed of action (or remove such), and so forth.

Because you are doing it whether you admit to it or not. Its just happening. By nature of how you are doing it. There's no practical way around it.

Well, there are ways around it - or at least partway around it - if you're willing to look for them. I've noted a few above. Another one is to use a much smaller initiative die (and here Mearls is really on the right track!) and allow simultaneous initiatives.

But the most important aspect is for the players to play through the eyes of their characters whenever possible; and realize (and encourage) that while the players' eyes see a nice orderly sequence of initiative dice the characters do not and cannot, and that what the character sees/knows is what determines what the character does next.

Also, AFAIC, you are using "metagame" in the least useful way here*. Setting aside the pejorative way in which you intended it, initiative is just one of literally many metagame aspect of this hobby. By its nature.

[*Not that there is a useful application of that word, IMO. But of all the marginally applicable ways to apply that tag, this is one of the least useful.]

There are many metagame aspects of this hobby, and some are unavoidable in order to allow for a playable game. But others aren't; and my point is simply that where these aspects can be removed, or mitigated, or even partly mitigated, it's preferable to do so.

Lan-"one day we'll have immersive holographs, and all of this will be moot"-efan

 

[Corwin]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],

I gotta say, I honestly think your post shoots past the point I originally made. I'm not sure where you drifted from the subject of my earlier observation, but nothing you are saying now really relates to the heart of it. Nor does it really explain why my observation remains acceptable, given your preferences.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't like MM's initiative. It did provoke a thought though. This is the thought. Stop me if you've heard this. On the first round of combat all players and the DM roll initiative on 1D10 and add any initiative modifiers. The highest result goes first. On the second round and all other rounds you roll an unmodified d10, alternatively you could roll 2d10 if you like a stronger median showing. (or even 3d6)

one player might have an initiative like this over the course of 4 rounds (plus surprise)

Character in question has a Dex of 18
Surprise (nothing to see here surprise is a weak spot of mine)
Round one 1d10+4 result 8
Round two 1d10+0 result 4
Round three 1d10+0 result 10
Round four 1d10+0 result 1

Some spells like Haste might affect initiative in later rounds.

What I feel this would reflect is hightened reflexes in some characters eg High Dexterity. After the initial round these heightened reflexes are displayed by Armor Class Bonuses, Saving Throws and Dexterity modifiers to Attack and Damage. Once the fight is going having greater reflexes doesn't necesarily mean go first it usually means greater success at hitting and avoiding being hit. IMO

 

[TheSwartz]

Next thing you know, we're going to have Weapon Speed initiative modifiers and then a slippery slope to bonuses/penalties to hit Specific Armor Types...

yup.

 

[ad_hoc]

Tried out a simplified version of it last weekend and it was great.

The rounds felt like they went much faster, I am not sure how much time, if any, we actually saved but it all felt smoother.

Combat was much more cinematic as the resolution of everyon's turns happened in quick succession.

Finally, there was very little downtime for each player which may be part of why it felt so fast.

 

[The Old Crow]

Tried out a simplified version of it last weekend and it was great.

The rounds felt like they went much faster, I am not sure how much time, if any, we actually saved but it all felt smoother.

Combat was much more cinematic as the resolution of everyon's turns happened in quick succession.

Finally, there was very little downtime for each player which may be part of why it felt so fast.

I would love to hear details. What was your simplified system? How did you handle monsters? Any unusual situations come up?

 

[ad_hoc]

I would love to hear details. What was your simplified system? How did you handle monsters? Any unusual situations come up?

No modifiers, just actions. So movement and bonus actions didn't cost extra dice.

Monsters were handled like I always do, in groups. I bunch up to 4 or so of a monster together into 1 initiative roll if they are all similar. I actually found it a bit easier because I didn't have to look up their Dex scores.

Well, the PCs were 'ambushed' by some NPCs with crossbows (the PCs had discovered evidence they were nearby so there was no surprise). 3 of the PCs rolled a 1 to get the jump on the NPCs (despite only rolling 1d4) including a PC casting a Sleep spell. It was pretty exciting.

Ties do come up fairly often and for last session I used Dex to break them.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I'd like an initiative system where you roll 1d6 for both sides, if the PC's when start on the left side of the DM and work your way right. Much easier.

 

[Lord Twig]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I wanted to get my opinion out there.

First, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way this is faster. I have played RPGs for over 30 years and have used a wide variety of initiative systems, including ones similar to what Mearls is suggesting, and it is not faster.

Current system: Figure out the order. Use that order every turn.
Mearls system: Figure out the order. Use that order for one turn. Figure out the order again.

Having everyone try to decide what they are going to do at the same time doesn't save time either. Currently as soon as you finish your current turn you can start figuring out what to do next turn. Now some players don't do that, but that is not the fault of the initiative system.

It also interrupts the flow of combat by adding an artificial pause to the combat every six seconds. There was some comments about how, when combat starts, the game is put on pause when everyone rolls initiative. Well now the game is put on pause after every round while everyone rolls initiative and has a little planning session. How does that make things smoother? In my games once combat starts it is non-stop action. One turn after another, without pause. How does pausing to re-roll initiative every round and then planning based on the new order make anything smoother?

Mearls also admits it messes with durations. In the game world, rounds don't exist. Your Monk doesn't say, "Well normally I can stun this guy for 6 seconds, but since I'm going last this round he will recover immediately. Guess I'll hope to go faster next round!" But with the Mearls system, that's exactly what happens.

His main complaint seems to be that cyclical initiative is too predictable. But that sounds like a personal preference to me, that is not a universal problem. If you like: "Yee ah! Chaos! Whooo! Anarchy! Aaaahhhh! Yeah!" Then sure, roll dice every round. Heck, roll dice to see what the enemies do. Roll dice for fumbles. Roll dice for random events. Go for it! But that would bug the ever-lovin' crap out of me.

So now a few words in his defense...

Do your players stop and discuss every characters turn as a group? Then declaring actions in advance might speed things up. Of course you can do that without re-rolling initiative, but still, it's a benefit.

As mentioned above, do you like more randomness in your game? The more rolls, the more random things are. That's a personal preference, but valid if it is what you prefer.

Ummm... Hmmm... I'm having trouble coming up with more benefits. Probably because I already decided it is not for me. So I'll just leave it here.