[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​

 

[CheezyRamen]

This sounds like the most asinine thing I've heard. Why would anyone want to do initiative like this? I can't see how it would make combat move faster. Faster USUALLY = Simpler, such as both opposing parties roll d6, add highest init mod from each member and then each opposing parties move as a team. THAT'D be faster.

 

[Mistwell]

I am pretty sure this is the point of the system: Do things in the order of least complex to most complex, in terms of PLAYER COMPLEXITY.

In other words, shooting at someone involves the least complexity, the least number of choices for the player, the least number of likely reactions to it.

Going into melee increases complexity: someone may react to you hitting them, or attacking someone near them. You also may get in someone else's way.

Moving involves more complexity. It takes time to plot a course, and it may trigger a reaction, and interfere with other movement paths, and expenditure of other limited resources like with battle masters.

Spellcasting seems to take players the most amount of time. Lots of decisions about targets, DCs, effects, which spell to cast, etc..

So the entire system seems built to give the players with the most complex decisions the most time each round to make those decisions while the people with the least number of decisions to make, take their turns.

I am pretty sure that's the entire point of this. It's not simulationist. It's just a practical method of addressing how much time players tend to take to make up their minds about how to do something. It therefore would speed things up at the table, by tending to move the easiest decisions to the front of order, and the most complex ones to the back, as a time management tool.

But, because he doesn't want it entirely predictable each round, there are still die rolls involved. You won't necessarily go in those orders, but it will usually work out that way.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

My table has been using an alternative initiative system for almost two years. I didn't like how cyclical initiative encouraged tons of metagaming and "pixel bitching" with regard to movement, perfect action, etc. on each person's turn.

Our system:
0. New round begins (reset "per round" things like Legendary Actions, etc.)
1. Go around the table and declare a general action: attack with weapon, cast a spell, use object, channel divinity, etc. You must decide what you will do for your action (not move or bonus action) before rolling initiative.
2. Roll initiative as normal. We briefly toyed with modifiers based on weapon speed, spell level, etc. but it was way too clunky. So, now it's roll just like normal (d20 + DEX mod).
3. DM counts down from 25 or so. When your initiative comes up take your action. You can move and do whatever you want for your bonus action, but for your action you may only do what you originally declared OR you can dodge, dash, disengage instead OR you can Ready your originally declared action. There is no Delay option.
4. Rinse and repeat


I know it sounds like it will slow you down because you have to declare actions and roll initiative every round. For the first couple of months that was true for us, but now it's second nature. We save a TON of time on each player's turn because they no longer hem and haw about what to do. They know what they are doing (action already declared), now it's just a matter of adding a move (or not) and possibly a bonus action and doing your thing (declared action).

I'd say our combat rounds take about the same amount or just a little less time than when we were using cyclical initiative.

 

[CheezyRamen]

High / low DEX has no game effect then, along with Alert Feat, etc . . ?

High/low Dex has so much more to do than initiative lol. But yeah, the Alert feat is useless at that point. That wouldn't upset me or my players at all.

 

[Adam R. Boyd]

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.

 

[volanin]

High / low DEX has no game effect then, along with Alert Feat, etc . . ?

High/low Dex has so much more to do than initiative lol. But yeah, the Alert feat is useless at that point. That wouldn't upset me or my players at all.

Yes, DEX is ignored. The Alert Feat works by giving the player another card. When the first card is drawn, the player acts, and the second card is simply ignored.

It also has some problems with spell durations, which must be handwaved (some spells might last longer, others might be shorter). But the goal of this system is not to perfectly replace the current dice-based system. It's to be fast and unpredictable. And the players don't mind at all.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I am pretty sure this is the point of the system: Do things in the order of least complex to most complex, in terms of PLAYER COMPLEXITY.

In other words, shooting at someone involves the least complexity, the least number of choices for the player, the least number of likely reactions to it.

Going into melee increases complex: someone may react to you hitting them, or attacking someone near them.

Moving involves more complexity. It takes time to plot a course, and it may trigger a reaction.

Spellcasting seems to take players the most amount of time. Lots of decisions about targets, DCs, effects, which spell to cast, etc..

So the entire system seems built to give the players with the most complex decisions the most time each round to make those decisions while the people with the least number of decisions to make, take their turns.

I am pretty sure that's the entire point of this. It's not simulationist. It's just a practical method of addressing how much time players tend to take to make up their minds about how to do something. It therefore would speed things up at the table, by tending to move the easiest decisions to the front of order, and the most complex ones to the back, as a time management tool.

But, because he doesn't want it entirely predictable each round, there are still die rolls involved. You won't necessarily go in those orders, but it will usually work out that way.

Interesting thought. I assume that he must then ask for only general instructions at the start of the round. So 'I'll cast a spell', not 'I'll cast Hold Person on the third minotaur'. That way everyone knows ROUGHLY what they are doing, and can take advantage of the extra time to contemplate it, as you say.

 

[ddaley]

Back in the 80s, we used our own initiative system that was continuous, based on segments. It was pretty simple, but I don't remember exactly how we did it. It was something like d10 + weapon speed - dex mod would give you the segment on which you attacked. After you attacked, you would roll again and add the result to the current segment and that was your next attack segment.

Since a round was 10 segments I think, you knew exactly on which segment a spell would end or be cast etc. If you began casting your spell on the 11th segment and it took 5 segments to cast, then it would go off on the 16th segment... if it lasted a round, then it would end on the 26th segment.

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.

 

[malcolm_n]

I've read through a few ideas here, compared to the OP, and I like a bit of a hybrid of them. Something like:

Use whatever dice you're going to assign. First round of combat is standard. Everybody gets 1d20 + initiative as per normal rules because everybody is just starting. As each person ends their turn, they roll their new initiative based on the dice assigned and the actions they took that round. I moved and attacked with my dagger, so next round my initiative is 1d6 + 1d8. Lowest initiative still goes first on subsequent rounds.

1) things like Thieves' Reflexes still work because the first round of combat acts normally. Also, the thief would only roll initiative based on their largest set of actions (so they can't hose it by just moving on the second time around). Alert would still work too, since that also only affects primary initiative of +5.

2) "Stunning" or otherwise removing actions from something just means it doesn't act during its groups' initiative. If all orcs but Acdac go at initiative 7 this round, then roll 12 for next round, he goes on initiative 12 next round. If it's a solo monster, it rolls initiative on the next round as a flat d10 with no modifiers. In the case of ambushes, the first round goes to those performing the ambush, then initiative starts as flat d10 for everybody caught by surprise.

I may well try this out in our next session.

 

[Mistwell]

Interesting thought. I assume that he must then ask for only general instructions at the start of the round. So 'I'll cast a spell', not 'I'll cast Hold Person on the third minotaur'. That way everyone knows ROUGHLY what they are doing, and can take advantage of the extra time to contemplate it, as you say.

Yes. The order is rather similar to the order of combat in the game Old School Hack, which I believe Mike Mearls is familiar with (and which were done for ease of use and rapidity of combat). In that game (written by ENWorld user [MENTION=3994]kiznit[/MENTION] ), players just declare each round which action they are taking, not how they are taking it: