Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 7716244" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Yep exactly. If you don't allow any actions to interrupt anything else within the round, you're basically doing away with the concept of initiative entirely. This works fine, and I actually prefer it to most other initiative systems, which I think are too simple and too random.Mearls' system seems to me a definite improvement over default 5e, but I don't like how any movement has the same time cost. In 1e you divide the character's per-round speed by 10 and divide the distance to be moved by that to find the time cost in segments. Satisfying but a bit of a bear in the heat of battle.In Mearls' system you could say each square of movement increases your initiative count by 1, but that implies that characters with higher speeds can move farther per round, but are not actually faster, which is a bit weird. Perhaps a reasonable concession.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 7716244, member: 6688858"] Yep exactly. If you don't allow any actions to interrupt anything else within the round, you're basically doing away with the concept of initiative entirely. This works fine, and I actually prefer it to most other initiative systems, which I think are too simple and too random. Mearls' system seems to me a definite improvement over default 5e, but I don't like how any movement has the same time cost. In 1e you divide the character's per-round speed by 10 and divide the distance to be moved by that to find the time cost in segments. Satisfying but a bit of a bear in the heat of battle. In Mearls' system you could say each square of movement increases your initiative count by 1, but that implies that characters with higher speeds can move farther per round, but are not actually faster, which is a bit weird. Perhaps a reasonable concession. [/QUOTE]

Verification