[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​

 

[Sacrosanct]

Lars Andersen is a show shooter. He doesn't draw his bow to its full length, and it's likely a low poundage bow to begin with. You wouldn't get away with that in an actual fight, and that he presents is as a viable combat manoeuvre is dishonest, based on art (which has had issues regarding realism before) and mythology.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2v5km2/in_which_lars_andersen_uses_bad_history_to_rake/

As for swords also having to look for openings, that is true, but then everything else is quicker. You can retract a your sword arm to parry, you can find an opening and thrust without having to first draw and arrow and be exposed.

Well, that's certainly a lot of speculation there, isn't it? Would you want to get shot by him? Obviously he's shooting with enough energy to pierce chain armor, which seems to me more than enough to cause real damage. We also know that many of the historical references are true. He didn't make up all of those tapestry images. Are they what he claimed universally? Probably not. But it did exist as is shown by the evidence. To call him dishonest speaks more about you and your agenda then does him. Watch that video on mute and only look at what is actually being done. You're handwaving all of it away based on your own biases in spite of actual evidence of what one can do with a bow, trick shot or no. That evidence being: here is indisputable proof of how fast someone can fire a bow and fire it accurately with effect (like piercing chain mail armor). Who cares about how historically accurate it is. We're talking about a fantasy game here after all.

And again, you're completely ignoring the way combat in D&D works. This is not one strike per sword compared to one shot per bow. D&D views many sword strikes as all part of the same attack roll, and does not with ranged weapons. So the question is, can you fire one arrow faster than you can strike a half dozen times? And not wild random strikes, but strikes used in a typical sword fight.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For all of you getting hung up on that video, here's another one, with her doing it "the right way". And she's shooting 1 arrow much faster than someone can get in a half dozen melee strikes. That's the point.

[video=youtube;1o9RGnujlkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI[/video]

 

[Sacrosanct]

Or this one (at the 2 minute mark).
[video=youtube;2yorHswhzrU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU[/video]

 

[jgsugden]

I've tried dozens of initiative systems in 5 different decades of gaming. My conclusion: No system will get wide approval.

My favorite system discards rounds as a construct. You roll a reaction die and when your reaction time comes up, you can declare an action. Actions take time and can be disrupted by intervening events. It has weapon speeds, spell lengths, etc... and takes about 5 pages of description to cover in addition to assigning weapon speeds, spell lengths, etc... to a lot of existing weapons, spells and magic items. Some of my players have loved this level of complexity and 'reality' - while others get frustrated and hate it.

In the end, I think that keeping it simple and accepting the lack of reality is the approach that works best. The game moves fast. Everybody understands what is taking place. The people that like hyper realism are unsatisfied, but someone was going to be unsatisfied and at least they benefit from a fast moving game.

 

[bmfrosty]

I'm trying to understand this.

1) Everyone decides what they're doing and rolls appropriate dice to determine initiative.
2) Sort out what order everyone goes it.
3) Play it out.
4) Go back to #1 if there are still baddies.

Is that right?

 

[LapBandit]

All these videos are of low draw bows like I used to hunt with as a child. Good for killing pheasants no doubt, but strike a man under chain mail and it doesn't feel like the equivalent of 1d6 + DEX. Hell, those 1 HP pheasants could sometimes take one and live.

 

[Sacrosanct]

All these videos are of low draw bows like I used to hunt with as a child. Good for killing pheasants no doubt, but strike a man under chain mail and it doesn't feel like the equivalent of 1d6 + DEX. Hell, those 1 HP pheasants could sometimes take one and live.

No, they are not. Especially the last one. That is a genuine reproduction bow used by the Hun warriors. It makes no sense for an archery expert who is training for combat to use a bow that is less powerful than the one he would be using in combat. In fact, that would be counter to effective training. And that's of course you ignoring again what is actually presented in front of you, this being the first video where his bow does get significant penetration through chain mail armor.

 

[Lanefan]

Some variant ideas:

First off, for this to work you have to allow simultaneous initiatives! If three different participants in a combat all have a '4' initiative then they all act on a 4.

Second: instead of a different die for casting, go old school and give each spell a casting time in segments, 8 to a round.

And now, most things can use d8 for initiative (low goes first), with no bonus/penalty for dexterity (dex already has enough going for it):

Ranged: d6 (I think d4 is a bit too generous) with each shot (if you get more than one) getting its own separate different initiative (you can't shoot twice on the same init.)
Melee: d8 with each attack* (if you get more than one) getting its own separate different initiative (you can't attack twice on the same init.)
Spell: d8 + casting time of spell**
Movement: add 1 to the roll for each x feet of movement, where x is based on your move rate

* - exception: if using two weapons they can attack at the same time.
** - the casting time (the segments between your actual roll and your adjusted roll) is when you can be interrupted; side effect: reins in casters a bit

And this could be squashed down even further if one likes: 6-segment rounds, ranged d4, everything else d6.

This is very, very close to what I've used for 30+ years - the d6 variant, only without the different die for ranged - ignoring some corner cases and exceptions. The only difference in mine is that high goes first: we resolve all the 6's, then the 5's, and so on down to 1's.

And yes, sometimes you (or an opponent) might miss two actions in a row due to a spell while other times you (or it) will miss none. Tough. Deal with it.

Lan-"can't see the forest for the fog of war"-efan

 

[Aldarc]

A video that clearly shows that a person can fire a bow a lot faster while aiming than people assume, and directly what I was responding to in that quote. But if you choose to miss the point completely and focus on items that aren't really all that related (my argument had nothing to do with historical accuracy, but only on how fast someone can accurately fire a bow), I suppose I can't stop you.

Sorry, but I cannot see an argument in which this too-oft-posted video would carry any weight or point to be made, historical or otherwise. In response to your other videos (all with low-draw bows), it's not just about how quickly one can shoot, but also aiming, penetration, and combat duress. How many swings can a sword make in a similar amount of time? Or jabs a knife make?

No, they are not. Especially the last one. That is a genuine reproduction bow used by the Hun warriors. It makes no sense for an archery expert who is training for combat to use a bow that is less powerful than the one he would be using in combat. In fact, that would be counter to effective training. And that's of course you ignoring again what is actually presented in front of you, this being the first video where his bow does get significant penetration through chain mail armor.

With all the trademark authenticity of the History Channel and their "historical" reconstructions and serious topics about samurais vs. knights.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry, but I cannot see an argument in which this too-oft-posted video would carry any weight or point to be made, historical or otherwise. In response to your other videos (all with low-draw bows), it's not just about how quickly one can shoot, but also aiming, penetration, and combat duress. How many swings can a sword make in a similar amount of time? Or jabs a knife make?

With all the trademark authenticity of the History Channel and their "historical" reconstructions and serious topics about samurais vs. knights.

With this response, it is obvious you never actually watched it. Otherwise you'd realize what a very odd statement for you to make.