[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​

 

[dave2008]

he also said that initiative slows the game and disrupts the tension of a fight "look, a dragon! Let's roll some dice and do some math". How does THAT helps with it? It's way worse

Maybe that is addressed in the full rules - of course maybe he hasn't solved that yet either. This is not even a UA article, just some ideas he his personally trying.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It might be interesting, but I'd rather use the new Alternity system where what you do this time changes how soon you go again.

 

[Blue]

Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.

Example: A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round. In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.

Or the reverse, where a giant goes, then gets stunned by the monk, and next round the monk goes first. So the giant doesn't lose any actions.

Looks like it could be ripe for gaming the system.

If you are debuffed until the end of your turn, declare a fast action so it's over sooner and the foes don't get as much advantage against you. If you are debuffed until the end of their turn, declare a slow, multi-part action so their initiative comes up first.

Reverse if you are doing the debuffing.

Now, this isn't to say this couldn't work in a D&D environment, just not the mix of durations that 5e has.

 

[Zaukrie]

Do people like that so the monsters go at the same time? I have never liked that.

 

[Morrus]

Who wrote this craptarded note? I see why there is no byline. It says in the quote you quoted "roll each round". Then you ask "maybe initiative is rolled each round?". Please leave the writing to the literate, maybe go watch wrassling or something.

Hi. Welcome to my place. Nice way to introduce yourself. Now go away.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee. I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword. However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon. Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.

Not every phase will be used every round of every combat. The order assumes engagement at range with combatants closing the distance. Once melee is joined yes it is faster than missile fire, but putting melee before missile fire creates some silly situations. Why is the guy with the loaded crossbow just standing there while the berserker with a sword closes in from 30 feet away and starts hacking?

 

[schnee]

I want to:

a) see the whole rule written out first
b) see a group of 6 players on YouTube play out a round of combat with the old initiative style
b) see the same group do the same combat with the new initiative

before I pass judgment.

I need to see how much discipline is required to make this work before I propose it to my crew.

I see what he's getting at - certain actions have innate advantages in speed, but that doesn't make them always go first. And making people declare actions first, once the habit is learned, may limit metagaming, enough so that even if a character's action is annulled by someone acting before them, causing them to choose a new action and re-roll, it might be faster.

But our group has 50% new players and I think this is probably a bit too advanced for them.

 

[CydKnight]

Not sure why everyone is getting hung up on whether or not it is faster.

"Hung up"? No. I simply wouldn't use the mechanic if it is as it appears to me in the OP description. If people were to invest emotionally enough to be "hung up", I can clearly see the origin. Part of the OP stated that this was faster according to Mearls and there have been a few reasons stated in this thread which might lead one to believe that might not be true at least some of the time. So until someone can show me that my interpretations are incorrect (incomplete system not withstanding, I can only comment on what has been presented.

 

[Kabouter Games]

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...

-=-=-

 

[Greg McCallister]

personally not a fan much prefer the ease of the original Initiative system this does seam very convoluted to crunchy for the 5e feel of the game just hope this stays as a optional way of doing it and it doesn't become the new way of doing it in a revised version of the game like what they did in 3rd make a 5.5 wouldn't be a bad thing mind you just saying if there is keep the old system please