[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​

 

[osarusan]

How is rolling every round supposed to speed up combat??
I got really excited when he said he was working on a new initiative system. This just seems so much worse than what we already have.

 

[Jer]

I would suspect the speed-up in play is the pre-declaring of actions before you roll initiative. That would speed things up considerably - without that rolling initiative every round just adds time when compared to cyclic initiative. With it you have people committed to actions before the die roll which cuts down on choices they make during the actual combat rolls (and also puts pressure on them to hurry up and decide their action because they're holding everyone up until they roll). And yes the way you get rid of the cyclic initiative is to make your rolls every round.

Not a huge fan myself - cyclic initiative is fine for my table - but I can see how it would be a good option for some folks. (If I wanted a tweak for my table to speed things up we'd go back to side-based initiative and I'd pull out my old Torg Action Deck and use it to determine initiative. For my money it had the most dramatic initiative system in an RPG while still being one of the fastest.)

 

[jrowland]

My 2cp:

Low initiative goes first allows for additive initiative by round.

For Example:

1d20-dex for opening round, lowest goes first. Declare/resolve actions on initiative as usual. Then Roll initiative modifier based on Mearls (or some other variant) dice to advance initiative. So Wizard rolls 1d20-dex and gets (14). On initiative count 14 he acts by casting a spell - cantrip (+1d12), casting a bonus action spell (+1d8), then moving back (+1d6). He rolls an 8,2, and 3 for 13 total. 14+13=27. He next acts on initiative 27. Meanwhile, Mr Archer rolled a lousy 16 (nat 20 - 4 for dex) for opening initiative. He shoots an arrow, rolling a d4 and gets a 2. His new initiative is 18. He shoots an arrow, rolls a 4 on 1d4, his new initiative is 22. He then shoots an arrow and moves back (since the enemy is closing in) rolling a 6 (1d4+1d6), his new initiative is 28. The wizard goes next on 27. Then the archer again on 28.

Something like that seems very interesting and do-able. Maybe the numbers need tweaking, maybe there are some more house rules (like you add 10 plus the die roll, not just die roll), etc. but I think it has serious potential.


Bah - [MENTION=6882071]stoopski[/MENTION] beat me to it. That's what I get for walk away mid-type.

 

[kenmarable]

I *gladly* give up a little extra realism for the play speed increase of roll-once cyclic initiative. I don't care about the borders between rounds, we just go. This introduces a delay every single round not just in rolling and working out the new initiative but also in allowing players to know who's on deck and plan their action, especially near the border between rounds.

Also, it sounds like it requires "everyone declares actions first" in order to figure out what dice are rolled, which can leave players unable to take an action. "Ooh, sorry, if you wanted to move that would have changed your initiative, so since they guy you were fighting failed a save and is dead, you waste a round." Players HATE losing their actions for reasons outside their control.

No thank you.

I wouldn't presume from this quick overview that Mearls doesn't address that problem. This is more of a preview than really getting into the full nitty gritty details. So if there is an obvious flaw that large, I'd presume it's been addressed, just not explained in this preview.

One alternative that was mentioned above is maybe this isn't what you *will* do, but based on what you *just did*. Dunno if that's how he uses it, but that would solve this problem easily. If you were fast with your action this round, then you are better prepared to act this round. Even bakes in rewarding setting up your actions the round before.


Personally, it does seem like an interesting system, and I did actually enjoy the whole weapon speed thing way back in the day. However, that's not my personal taste nowadays. I like streamlined with less complexity rather than more. I might consider rerolling initiative every round to make it bit more chaotic, but sometimes the predictability also encourages more teamwork among players who can better coordinate. So it seems like a wash to me, but I might experiment sometime. I can see rolling different dice for different actions being really fun for some, but I don't think it really does it for me.

 

[lyle.spade]

Interesting, and going against norms of social media I will withhold full judgment until I can read his rules in full. At first glance, the idea of typing speed of action in combat to weapon or attack type has virtue. WOD accounted for that in their initiative system in detail in the old Storyteller's Guide and the nWOD Combat book, adding modifiers for long arms vs. pistols and things like that. It all worked well within that system. I am always suspicious of more dice rolling...that always sounds like a way to slow down play. But I'm interested in reading what he's got, should be make it available in full.

That said, I've adjusted 5e's initiative system in my game and it's worked well. Taking a cue from FFG's Star Wars, every PC rolls initiative, I usually do NPC/foe initiative in groups, and then we have a list of PC/NPC slots. We just work through them, trading off. Last weekend I ran with two players, and in both combat encounters the order was PC-For-PC. The players decided, regardless of who rolled what, which of them would fill the first slot in each round, and thus who'd fill the second. In a few rounds it made sense, given NPC actions, that they reverse their order - but they still used those same slots. Basically, the players, as a group in quick meta discussion, determine who'll fill each slot as combat moves through each round.

This has proven to inject some fluidity into each round, provide some more decisions and flexibility, but since it's built on the foundation of the 5e system it doesn't require learning and working through anything really new.

 

[Schmoe]

Rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order every round is objectively more complex than rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order only once. Just saying.

 

[dagger]

Rolling dice every round for everyone would slow it down...I know, we did it in 3.5 and PF. Now we are back to old school and roll once at the start of combat for each side.

 

[Morrus]

I'm trying to recall the early days of 3E, but wasn't everybody really excited about the idea of cyclic initiative then? I can't remember 2E well enough now -- was that initiative each round? Were weapon speeds in that edition, or 1E?

I must be getting old. I played those games for years, but I can't remember what was in which!

 

[Barolo]

I'm trying to recall the early days of 3E, but wasn't everybody really excited about the idea of cyclic initiative then? I can't remember 2E well enough now -- was that initiative each round? Were weapon speeds in that edition, or 1E?

I must be getting old. I played those games for years, but I can't remember what was in which!

A lot of people were indeed excited, which I think was more related to it being something new, and yes, in 2E we did roll every round, by the book, declaring actions before rolling because of speed factors. I don't remember weapon speeds in 1E, though, but my grey hair might have a word or two regarding my memory .

 

[thethain]

Honestly, I am kinda in the opposite boat, rolling extra dice to me feels like the slowdown would in no way be worth the tradeoff for more confusing initiative.

I am considering just using flat initiative modifiers for combat just because the start of combat feels like a hard stop when playing. Roll initiative then get a number from each player, trying to finagle the order as they all spit out random numbers at you.

I have tried keeping initiative for a few different combats, but ultimately anyone who rolled low always thinks we should reroll initiative even if the 1 additional action probably isn't going to change much.