[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​

 

[Queer Venger]

Why? I much prefer playing on a grid. I'd never go back to TOTM play. Just not for me.

So, if you play on a grid, pixelated circles and cones are a huge PITA. Square effects are much better.

And considering that 5e is pretty inconsistent about AoE's, it's not like it would be a problem.

I too play on a grid, I use miniatures and I go for old school theatrical fun. For quick encounters I use TotM, but for everything else, I go fabulously grand.

#dwarvenforge

 

[Uller]

How is rolling every round supposed to speed up combat??

We reroll every round. I noticed my players zoned out waiting for their turn with the standard system. Players weren't ready to take they're turns and that slowed the game way down.

So we tried rerolling at the start of each round. Players roll and I declare the highest NPC init. Any PCs that beat it get to go. Then I resolve the NPC actions. Then I callout the next highest NPC and repeat until everyone has gone. The result is my players pay better attnetion because if they haven't gone they could go soon. If they have gone they will at least roll init soon and that will snap them out of their daydream.

Ymmv.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app

 

[OB1]

Fine and dandy. But I play on a grid.

I implemented a rule that says anyone engaged with someone hit with an area of effect is also targeted. Instantly removes the fidleyness whether in grid or TOM and has been a huge time saver.

 

[Colder]

I think I'm going to try this out. I'll print out a diagram with pictures and tape it to the front of my screen for easy player reference. I'll use dexterity to break ties. I might remove the penalty for moving, and readying an action would effectively have initiative 0.

The resolution for stunning strike and similar effects would be an easy "Target skips its next turn."

I think those solve most of the issues brought up in this thread that aren't "This couldn't possibly be nearly as fast as normal."

 

[DEFCON 1]

As far as speed is concerned... there's a not insignificant chance that the experience level of his players allows for faster resolution of actions in his method than the standard one. Rather than each individual player trying to come up with the most strategic or "best" action to take when each of their turns come up in cyclical initiative... the entire group figures out the "best" action for all of them to take at once together, and then they act on it on their turn. So you go from 4 to 8(?) individual "strategy sessions" by experienced players trying to find the best solution to their individual problem... to an entire group coming up with one single "best" solution to a group problem. That quite possibly speeds up his game at his table.

However, any other tables might very well not see that speed, especially with ones that have less experienced players, or players less interested in optimal tactics. A group "strategy session" with those players could end up devolving down to one or two players trying to make a group decision for everybody, and then trying to explain what each individual player's action should be when their turn comes up. That could result in a lot of needless and repetitive explanation, and take away agency from a lot of players who are just getting told what to do (rather than deciding on their own.) After all... for some number of tables, a player who is not strategically interested only has to look at the map when his or her turn comes up in the cyclical initiative, say "I want to move to this guy and hit him.", and do the action and move on. Which saves quite enough time to keep cyclical initiative faster for that table.

 

[BoneMan]

Glad I stuck to 3.5

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

We reroll every round. I noticed my players zoned out waiting for their turn with the standard system. Players weren't ready to take they're turns and that slowed the game way down.

So we tried rerolling at the start of each round. Players roll and I declare the highest NPC init. Any PCs that beat it get to go. Then I resolve the NPC actions. Then I callout the next highest NPC and repeat until everyone has gone. The result is my players pay better attnetion because if they haven't gone they could go soon. If they have gone they will at least roll init soon and that will snap them out of their daydream.

Ymmv.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app

That is my thought. More rolls may well speed up the game if it forces the players to pay more attention.

 

[Bawylie]

Been thinking about this.

Whenever I contemplate a change, I have to weigh the complexity of the change against its benefits. See if I value the benefits more than the drawbacks. But changes are hard to implement across multiple players when they're already accustomed to a particular method. So for me, the benefits have to be 4 times as good as the drawbacks/complexity or I don't want to make the change.

Cyclical initiative has a lot of precedent and people are used to turn-based play across games.

Popcorn initiative is popular in my kids' group. Hands go shooting up all the time for who wants next.

But let's say each turn does take an average of 3 minutes. In a 5 player game, the time between turns is arguably too long. Maybe up to 20 minutes between turns when you account for all of my NPC turns too.

Alright that seems like it could be more engaging. Having a declarative phase does seem like I can overlap a lot of the time players use to decide what they're going to do. Because even if the declarative phase takes 5 minutes, that reduces the time between turns by 10 minutes, I think.

So at minimum, I think I like having a round-by-round initiative, declarative phase, resolution phase.

Past that, it's a question of implementation. How simple, how complex, how much should speed of various actions play a factor? Mearls has a roll based on each action, with additional dice for additional actions on a turn. That seems okay. But it also seems like you can generally expect characters to behave the way their class is designed. So, generally speaking, a fighter is gonna fight, a caster is gonna cast. That suggests to me an initiative die that's distinct for each class. For example, fighters might get the best die because they're "the best at fighting" and all that means. While maybe wizards get the worst or slowest die since they're not strictly combat-oriented. Haven't tested anything but I'm just gonna postulate a d6 for fighters and a d12 for wizards. Rogues on a d8, clerics on a d10. (Obvs subject to revision).

Now that adds a bit of variability (which detracts from predictability), but also reasonably approximates the speeds that character's act during combat. And it's one die, not multiple, so you won't need to consult a chart when you act - just look at the initiative die on your character sheet. So that's minimal change there.

Now, if you wanted to, you could add in the speed factors of spells and weapons as listed in the DMG. I'm not sure I would - but you could. You could list the initiative modifier in the weapon itself. And I guess each spell level?

Then in practice, lowest rolls go first, and so on.

For monsters, I suppose I'd default to a d10 and maybe modify that by their dexterity modifier. Step the die up or down per modifier? Flat change? Not sure yet but I am certain I don't want any more than one modifier on any single roll.

I'd want to test it out, but that seems reasonably simple in process: use your class-based initiative die, modify by weapon speed or spell speed. Declare phase. Roll dice. Resolve phase. Roll dice. Hopefully minimal rules-referencing.

If that reduces time between turns to 10 minutes instead of 20 minutes, AND maintains "off-turn" engagement with the game, that all fits my requirement of getting 4x the benefit. IMO.

Anyone see any pitfalls or something I missed?


-Brad

 

[Uller]

That is my thought. More rolls may well speed up the game if it forces the players to pay more attention.

It worked well for fixing that specific problem, at least for me.

The quirkiness we encounter is with effects that last until the end of a character's next turn or trigger at the start of a turn. We have some house rules to deal with that that seem to work okay. End of turn effects last until the end of the next round...if you cast early in the round it can be a boost but it ensures it lasts through every characters' turn. Start of turn effects go immediately then at the start of the next round but no character can be effected twice without getting a turn. Again...works fine for us.

 

[guachi]

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.

I disagree with your first two points as being reasons combat is slowed down. Point one about AOE spell placement is something I've not seen. Perhaps it's my players or something I've managed to put a damper on, but the placement generally includes one or both of "I want to get this guy in the effect and/or target the most bad guys possible" and I as DM reply with "does getting these guys look good?"

And I haven't had bonus action decision problems. Maybe it's the people I've played with who have constant bonus actions have been on the ball with want they want to do or that the decision size is smaller (disengage or off hand attack?) and since it's the same decision over and over they have their decision tree sorry.

However, your last point is spot on. 30 years of playing and spellcasters are the worst in being indecisive. So many take. So. Long. I'm so glad in my current longish campaign that the two full casters know their stuff about their characters. One session, the Druid player played the Sorcerer and what a difference. She was lost after being on top of her spell list for months.