[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​

 

[fivepopes]

I really like the unpredictability this option introduces. However, having each player roll multiple dice for initiative each round will definitely slow down combat. A detailed initiative subsystem might be up Mearls alley but it's not what my game needs

While on the topic of alternative initiative rules, Shadow of the Demon Lord (by Robert Schwalb) should be mentioned. Fast/Slow turns and heroes always go first works surprisingly well. It's a nice piece of game design, check it out if you're so inclined.

 

[Argyle King]

Even though the rules are incomplete I'd really like to try this out during a combat or two in my next session, but would love to get some advice from the forum on a few things I'm not sure about.

1. Plan to roll initiative to decide declaration order, but will use just a straight d20 + Alert if anyone has. Low declares first.
2. Alert or Advantage - Roll 2 take lowest
3. Change of plans - When it's your initiative, declare new action(s), roll and add to original number.
4. Bonus Action - Declare after your action, roll and bonus action happens at new count
5. Move after Action - If you have movement left after you take your action or bonus action, declare move, roll and move at appropriate spot.

So potentially, a single player's turn might be broken up into 3 or 4 parts during a single round.

One thing I really like here is the added complexity (and maybe small nerf) to ranged attacks that require trade offs in your tactics. If you want to ensure that you attack early, you wouldn't want to add a movement die, and therefore you will remain exposed through the round. Add the movement and attack later, and your opponent may take cover before you can act and therefore end up with nothing to shoot at.

How does readying an action work in this system?

 

[OB1]

How does readying an action work in this system?

I would allow an action to be readied instead of taking it at your turn in initiative. So if you want to shoot your bow, but when your turn comes up everyone is behind cover, you can ready that action to say if someone moves from behind cover, I shoot them.

Of bigger concern to me now is trying to track this in a fight with more than 3 or 4 monsters. I have a feeling it might be a disaster. What I'm thinking about is having the monsters not declare. Instead, I always roll a d8 + d6 for the monsters and they all go at the same time, but have the roll come after the players declare. In this case, a change of plans would always mean just going after the monsters. Might also consider doing this for each type or group of monsters so that I'm never tracking more than 3 or 4 monster initiatives at once. Again, any change to your original declaration would mean going after all monsters had gone.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes - just like a dagger does less damage than a sword and other 'illogical' stuff.

Mike Mearls is suggesting a more simulationist approach, so why not redirect your critique against him if you don't like it. Personally I do -but his order (and yes I DO know it's lowest goes first) is nevertheless cockeyed.

I like Mearls's initiative system. What I'm pointing out is that it's absurd to complain about unrealistic spellcasting rules, because magic isn't real. Realism only applies to actions you can take in the real world.

If the rules dictated a specific real-world action required to cast a spell, we could talk about how long that action took. But they don't. You have to speak and gesture with a free hand--but what you have to say, and what gestures you have to make, are left unspecified. All we can say for certain is that casting a spell takes at least as long as is required for nerve impulses to travel from the brain to the arms... which is also true of swinging a sword.

 

[beholdsa]

I like it!

 

[Maul]

How exactly does this speed things up?

Sounds like initiative is being over-thought.

 

[The Old Crow]

How exactly does this speed things up?

Sounds like initiative is being over-thought.

Mearls' stated goal wasn't to speed up initiative in general, but to keep it from being slow when it was interfering with things that should be fast paced. In cyclical initiative a dragon appears, then everything stops while initiative is rolled, then each person takes their turn and decides what they will do one by one. In Mearls' system a dragon appears, and everyone says what they will do. Then initiative is rolled and and then one by one they resolve their stated actions. He also stated he wanted initiative to less predictable. I would say his system does indeed effectively address the things he wanted addressed.

 

[Libramarian]

The eureka moment comes when you realize that in D&D you don't need fancy initiative. Unlike a modern game where the first one to hit wins, there are so many attacks in a regular D&D fight, it matters much less who does their third attack the fastest.

Obviously there are still elements where initiative matters (assassin ambushes, save or suck spells), but still: much less pronounced need.

Initiative matters more than you think. Years ago I wrote a program to simulate (simple) D&D combats and was surprised to see how valuable initiative is. Think about it: if a combat lasts 4 rounds, it's a big difference whether you get 4 turns or only 3.

In fact initiative matters so much I think it either deserves a complex treatment or the concept should be discarded entirely and it simply assumed that everything happening in a round takes the full round to happen, with interruptions being basically illegal to declare.

This leads to some weirdness (why does it take as long to attack as it does to move and attack?) but I think if you want intra-round ordering and interruptions you need pretty detailed rules to support that, not just DM fiat or a coin flip.

 

[Gadget]

I think the point of this system is not to necessarily make it faster (though it certainly could be faster for certain groups by keeping players focused), but to make initiative matter more by being less predictable, increasing tension, and taking into account what your character is doing. I don't even think realism is really the point, except maybe as a small side effect. This may be one of those things that sounds more complex than it is in play, but play testing would probably be required.

The fact is that the current cyclic initiative system is undoubtedly simple, it is such a non-entity that it might as well not be there. It may be worth a slight increase in complexity if it increases player engagement and offers fun game play. On the other hand, with 5e's penchant for more foes over single monsters, it might be a little too cumbersome in practice as well. It would be interesting to see a refined version of these rules.

 

[Ratskinner]

I much prefer my own homebrew version, which actually DOES speed the game up a lot. Everyone rolls as normal. Then as the DM, I look at where my monsters go. Let's say they go on 14. I will call out, "Anyone above 14 may go." Then I go, and then I call out "Everyone else can go."

This reminds me of a system that I used with 3e for a while: "Fast" monsters go on 20, "Regular" monsters go on 13(? IIRC), "Slow" monsters go on 7 (or just last for zombies and a few others). All you had to do was roll to find out which set(s) of monsters you beat. I seem to recall something about declaring some members of large groups "Fast" or "Slow" to prevent big clump-ups of DM work as well.

The fastest D&D-like system I can recall working with recently is actually the Old-School Hack system that someone noted upstream. Its not really suited to the 5e RAW, and some folks will poo-poo it as unfair/unbalanced, but dang it moved and didn't seem to harsh anyone's mellow during play. Sometimes I think its way too easy to get bogged down in theorycraft vs. playcraft.