[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​

 

[Mercule]

Each to their own; groups are different. I never encountered this in my years of playing (since 1982).

I don't think it was a common thing, but I remember one epic occurrence.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Whenever the conversation about how to improve initiative comes up, I have to recommend people take a look at the Hackmaster rules.
I don't know anyone who has played Hackmaster and not come away saying that the combat in that game is so much fun and far better than the way combat runs in D&D.
I was really hoping that Mearls' hint at a new initiative system might have been a simplified version of the Hackmaster count-up system tailored for D&D.
If you guys haven't seen it, look up Hackmaster Basic (free PDF) and take a look at the way combat works. It's a bit difficult to describe on paper, but they have an illustrated combat example.
In play, it's an amazing system. It's fast, exciting, and makes your choices *really* matter in combat.
Porting it to D&D would make worlds explode.

I posted something similar earlier. Its quite interesting in play .

 

[Grazzt]

Whenever the conversation about how to improve initiative comes up, I have to recommend people take a look at the Hackmaster rules.
I don't know anyone who has played Hackmaster and not come away saying that the combat in that game is so much fun and far better than the way combat runs in D&D.
I was really hoping that Mearls' hint at a new initiative system might have been a simplified version of the Hackmaster count-up system tailored for D&D.
If you guys haven't seen it, look up Hackmaster Basic (free PDF) and take a look at the way combat works. It's a bit difficult to describe on paper, but they have an illustrated combat example.
In play, it's an amazing system. It's fast, exciting, and makes your choices *really* matter in combat.
Porting it to D&D would make worlds explode.

Same one they used in Aces & Eights right? Count up. Like, in A&E, roll d10, add the counts for the actions you are performing. Each combatant does this, and lowest goes first? (It's a bit more detailed than that I know, but that's the basics. It definitely does away with the cyclic initiative as depending on each combatant's actions, someone can act quickly and sometimes more than once before you can.)

 

[osarusan]

I posted something similar earlier. Its quite interesting in play .

Ah sorry, I hadn't noticed.
But yeah, it is very interesting!
It is slightly more difficult to run that traditional D&D combat, but it's hard to go back once you've got the hang of it.
All of my players agree too.
I've been racking by brain trying to come up with a simplified version that would be compatible with D&D but it's much more complex than it sounds.
If Mearls and the UA team were to put something out there and send it down the playtest and survey pipeline, D&D would really be one step closer to the one-game-to-rule-them-all.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Ah sorry, I hadn't noticed.
But yeah, it is very interesting!
It is slightly more difficult to run that traditional D&D combat, but it's hard to go back once you've got the hang of it.
All of my players agree too.
I've been racking by brain trying to come up with a simplified version that would be compatible with D&D but it's much more complex than it sounds.
If Mearls and the UA team were to put something out there and send it down the playtest and survey pipeline, D&D would really be one step closer to the one-game-to-rule-them-all.

Oh no need for an apology, just agreeing with you. Its a departure but it makes the players stay in the game since you can move on any count. We had other issues with HM but I did like the initiative system.

 

[osarusan]

Same one they used in Aces & Eights right? Count up. Like, in A&E, roll d10, add the counts for the actions you are performing. Each combatant does this, and lowest goes first?

Yes, its based on their Aces & Eights system.

The DM counts up the seconds, and you act when your second comes up.
You can move 1 square per second (on a battle map this is awesome, with each PC moving simultaneously. It gets harder when you have a ton of monsters, but it can still be done without too much work.
When you make an attack, you add your weapon speed to your count and can't make another weapon attack until the new count comes up.
Basically any action has a speed cost, and you add a few seconds to your count to complete the action. Higher level spells take longer to cast than lower level ones, etc.
It also makes combat actions a lot of fun. Daggers attack much more quickly than greatswords, but do less damage.
You have options jab, which is a faster action to perform, but does half damage.
You can parry, which works even better with weapon size factors (spears parry really well).
All in all, the combat system feels much more realistic, and moves much faster and smoother. Gone are the awkward bits that round-based combat forces us to just sort of accept in order to make the abstraction work.

Making a version of this for 5th edition D&D would require quite a bit of work, as you'd have to take into account the existence of bonus actions and reactions, as well as certain monster abilities like lair/legendary actions. 5e combat actually works really well because of these added things, but it makes it much harder to disassemble and turn into something else.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Lars may be an exaggerating doof, but one thing is hard to argue. He gets a practice arrow into chain armor enough that a person wearing it would bleed. An actual arrowhead would pierce noticably deeper.

And the whole basis of holding the arrows in the hand holding the bow and setting the arrow on the "wrong" side works fine with full draw bows, it's just a bit of extra work to master, for most people.

Regardless, it's entirely in keeping with fantasy tropes of archers, which is what *actually* matters.

 

[Grazzt]

Yes, its based on their Aces & Eights system.

The DM counts up the seconds, and you act when your second comes up.
You can move 1 square per second (on a battle map this is awesome, with each PC moving simultaneously. It gets harder when you have a ton of monsters, but it can still be done without too much work.
When you make an attack, you add your weapon speed to your count and can't make another weapon attack until the new count comes up.
Basically any action has a speed cost, and you add a few seconds to your count to complete the action. Higher level spells take longer to cast than lower level ones, etc.
It also makes combat actions a lot of fun. Daggers attack much more quickly than greatswords, but do less damage.
You have options jab, which is a faster action to perform, but does half damage.
You can parry, which works even better with weapon size factors (spears parry really well).
All in all, the combat system feels much more realistic, and moves much faster and smoother. Gone are the awkward bits that round-based combat forces us to just sort of accept in order to make the abstraction work.

Making a version of this for 5th edition D&D would require quite a bit of work, as you'd have to take into account the existence of bonus actions and reactions, as well as certain monster abilities like lair/legendary actions. 5e combat actually works really well because of these added things, but it makes it much harder to disassemble and turn into something else.

Ah OK. Yeah, it was cool in A&E and sounds similar. In that game firing a pistol was quicker than firing say a shotgun. Reloading each varied as well. Fanfiring was the quickest if I recall but not accurate.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It did a good job of having daggers be quicker than longswords and players were able to do something each second potentially, if just move. You had to focus on the game to keep up. Maybe thats why my group didn't like HM.

 

[osarusan]

Ah OK. Yeah, it was cool in A&E and sounds similar. In that game firing a pistol was quicker than firing say a shotgun. Reloading each varied as well. Fanfiring was the quickest if I recall but not accurate.

Yep!

It works similarly in fantasy as well. You can aim and shoot with a bow, or you can rapid fire for an attack penalty.
TBH, the choices you can make in Hackmaster combat have such interesting outcomes that it dwarfs the need for the super cool class abilities you get in D&D.
I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, but it does make conversion much harder.