[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]

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.

Haha that's for sure! You definitely had to focus.
But on the other hand, you always had something to do. It stopped my one player from leaning back and opening up tinder or some other game on his phone during long combat rounds when he had little to do.
But yeah, if you were having a brainfog day, you weren't going to be able to run combat smoothly. It's also harder to explain to very new players.

 

[machineelf]

His concern is to speed up play and add tension, but his system has you roll each round and is more complicated? I don't get it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think this is an accurate at all. Mearls specifically called out 4e as being too complex a system for general use in the AMA interview, but did suggest that they might release something similar to 4e under a D&D Tactics banner for those who prefer that type of game.

At least he is consistent in missing the point of what made 4e good. DnD Tactics isn't going to be an option for people who love 4e, because it will be a damned tactical war game, which is a completely different thing.

I don't enjoy war games like warhammer or whThaveyou *at all*. I can barely sit through a game, and am bored the entire time.

4e is a strongly abstracted roleplaying game in which the characters are finely customizable and detailed, in terms of mechanical representation of their concepts. Wargame style facing rules and the like do not even move in the same direction as 4e, much less move closer to it.

Even when considering how the tactical elements of 4e work, what is needed to recapture that is nothing more than new player abilities. That is it. The tactics lived entirely within the action economy and the rules of the more tactical powers.

a new suite of variant classes, designed on the same chassis but with different abilities, said abilities being chosen from a list each time you get a new one, are 90% of what is needed for a "4e within 5e". Most of us will happily accept just new subclasses and some optional variant features for existing classes, if done well.

But if they go in with the design goal of making "DnD tactics" , they're gonna making something that misses the point, and 4e fans just roll their eyes at.

 

[Lanefan]

Even when considering how the tactical elements of 4e work, what is needed to recapture that is nothing more than new player abilities.

Er...new player abilities, or new character abilities?

Lan-"maybe they're looking at combining this 'tactics' game with a reboot of their minis game"-efan

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Er...new player abilities, or new character abilities?

Lan-"maybe they're looking at combining this 'tactics' game with a reboot of their minis game"-efan

Player character abilities. I'm not sure what else "player ability" could even be?

 

[Lanefan]

Player character abilities. I'm not sure what else "player ability" could even be?

Yeah, pet peeve of mine: if you mean character, say character.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Haha that's for sure! You definitely had to focus.
But on the other hand, you always had something to do. It stopped my one player from leaning back and opening up tinder or some other game on his phone during long combat rounds when he had little to do.
But yeah, if you were having a brainfog day, you weren't going to be able to run combat smoothly. It's also harder to explain to very new players.

Yep, that is why I liked it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wonder how hard it would really be to convert the new Alternity system for init to 5e.

Am I the only one here who has looked at or used it?

 

[Elgin Howell]

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.

I would have the stunned character add their initiative roll to whatever the stunning characters roll was. So their count begins that round after the stun is completed.

 

[hastur_nz]

Declare all your actions at the start of your round; roll init modifying for spell casting time, weapon speed, etc; DM runs through in order. That's basically what AD&D told you to do, if you could fathom what Gary wrote in the original DMG. It's kind of what 2e threw away, and 3.x onwards definitely threw it out.

Personally, I ran a campaign of AD&D rules a few years ago, for people who were used to 3.5 and 4e, and we tried using the "roll init each round" thing, at least for a while. It wasn't a success, maybe it required more from the DM, but basically I don't think it added anything worthwhile, it makes for more book-keeping / onto-it players and DM, then it also throws a bit more load on the DM to keep it all humming and adjudicate what happens when a deplcared action can't really be done anymore because stuff changed in between declaring an action and the action being actually actionable.

It feels like just more rolling dice for no real payoff.

I say Meh, don't need it, don't want it.