[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]

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?

But wasn't there an addition dice to add for movement? So if you need to move into melee you not only roll the melee dice, but you also roll the movement dice. Then you see how that compares to the single ranged dice of the other party. That is a pretty simple representation of the tension of someone running up to hit with a sword versus someone else preparing to shoot them with an arrow.

 

[dave2008]

"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.

I definitely see how it appears slower, but for a particular group it could be faster if the act of declaring an action (if that is even required) forces a more efficient approach to a player determining an action. The biggest time soak in most rounds for many is the time it takes the players to decided what they are going to do. However, if you declare the action first the resolution of the action can proceed much faster. Whether that saves any real time or not is debatable, but I would bet it feels faster.

 

[dave2008]

I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed. I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike. Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc. Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack). But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.

So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?

That is a really good point, but to be clear it isn't necessarily a series of strikes. It can just as easily be a series of feints, stunts, parries, dodges, and one actual strike for melee; and a series of load, draw, aim, re-aim, re-position, aim and fire for ranged.

That doesn't explain why ranged should go first. I still think the ranged should take longer or they could all be the same (maybe only heavy and/or reach weapons should take longer)

 

[dave2008]

I think a lot of players forget about the abstraction layer in the game

Agreed, but the abstraction should, IMO, apply to both ranged and melee.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I really liked the hackmaster system when I read it (and what I had read about it). It seemed so obvious. However, we a tried it with my group it just didn't catch and we went back to a more traditional D&D initiative. It could be we didn't try long enough to get into the flow of it. It is definitely harder to get the hang of.

 

[osarusan]

I really liked the hackmaster system when I read it (and what I had read about it). It seemed so obvious. However, we a tried it with my group it just didn't catch and we went back to a more traditional D&D initiative. It could be we didn't try long enough to get into the flow of it. It is definitely harder to get the hang of.

It definitely takes a little getting used to. It's fairly simple, but it's a big change from pretty much every other system out there, so its not easy to absorb quickly.
Once you get the flow of it, it makes combat much more exciting. However, I'm sure it's not for every group. D&D 5e's simplicity is one of its strongest features.

 

[guachi]

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.

The system may seem that it should take longer but what many people who do declaration first and initiative every round find is that players in the current 5e initiative system take a long time to declare and resolve their turns as well as not paying attention to the game. so they often ask "what's going on?".

If done right, everyone declares actions, grabs the appropriate dice and rolls, the DM starts counting up from 1 and then the action is resolved. The secret to making a system like this work is players staying engaged at the table so they resolve turns faster. It seems this is the case at Mearls' table.

My anecdotal evidence is that a well-implemented system of declare/roll does, in fact, go faster and keep people engaged. It may seem counterintuitive but it does work.

 

[dave2008]

It definitely takes a little getting used to. It's fairly simple, but it's a big change from pretty much every other system out there, so its not easy to absorb quickly.
Once you get the flow of it, it makes combat much more exciting. However, I'm sure it's not for every group. D&D 5e's simplicity is one of its strongest features.

That is what I thought. My group likes to try things out, but we typically only give it one session. If it doesn't catch on in that first session, we typically go back to how we were playing before.

We might have to give it another try in the future

 

[Hussar]

IME, there are many things that slow down combat in D&D. Initiative is so far down on that list that it doesn't even rank.

If our goal here is to speed up combat, there are so many changes that could be made that would help:

1. I know people will hate this, but, do away with round area of effects. Go back to the 4e style square fireballs. Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate it, but, it was a LOT faster. No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball just so and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's. Grrr. I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it. I'd much, much rather go back to squares.

2. ((Mearls mentions this in his AMA)) The bonus actions need to go. They are just too fiddly. I've seen to many times of, "I'm done... no wait, I still have my bonus action... ummm... errr... nope, no, not going to do anything... wait... hang on, I can... oh, no, that's not going to work.... Ok, yeah, I'm done."

3. We should have a D&D branded air horn to get players on task when their turn comes up.

I have to admit, my Primeval Thule campaign right now has no casters in it. WOWZERS did that speed up combat. We ran a 3 hour (a bit less actually) session this week and had 4 complete combats including one with over 20 combatants with tons of time left over. I'm very much of the opinion that it's the casters that grind the game to a halt.

 

[osarusan]

That is what I thought. My group likes to try things out, but we typically only give it one session. If it doesn't catch on in that first session, we typically go back to how we were playing before.

We might have to give it another try in the future

It definitely took us a few sessions to get the hang of it, but once we did, everyone in my group fell in love with it.

The only reason we went back to D&D from Hackmaster is that we wanted to play some of the newer published adventures, and the two systems don't convert easily (though they appear like they should be able to). Hackmaster is so much deadlier and lower-power than D&D so running D&D adventures in Hackmaster results in very very deadly games. Also, Hackmaster is only good for people who LOVE crunch. So when you want a lighter game to play, D&D serves better.

But that combat system.... man! It still calls to me to come back.