D&D 5E Who has tried out the UA Greyhawk initiative rules variant?


log in or register to remove this ad

There are a bunch of threads on this topic.

One that is quite recent, it's probably still on the first page.

To sum up - A bunch of people have tried it and liked it. A bunch of people think it is horrible and anyone who likes it is clearly delusional.
 

It's been a half year or more since this UA article:

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAGreyhawkInitiative.pdf

Has anyone tried to use this alternative initiative system in their 5e games?

How has the variant played out at the table? What worked and what didn't work for you?

Did you adopted the variant permanently? As-is or with any modifications?

I have used it since it came out, and I love it! It forces my players to be much more attuned to the situation at hand, and to be more tactically minded (do I declare a move, or just go for the quick attack?). They are more engaged than they ever have been, which is good. I do make a few changes:

• Missile weapons; base d4
• Skill or Ability checks; base d6
• Melee weapons; base d8
• Using a Tool or Implement; base d8
• Retrieving an item at hand; base d8
• Spells; base d10
• Retrieving a stowed item, base d10
• Modifiers (all cumulative)
o Finesse, or Light property; quicken 1 step
o Ammunition, Heavy, Loading, Two-handed slow by 1 step
o High Level Spells (i.e. 6th level or higher) slow by 1 step
 

It makes combat slower, it makes curious assumptions like firing a bow being faster than swinging a blade and at the end the character does all his turn so it's not fine grained for each action. There is a good thing there, dexterity loses importance.
 




I have actually not tried the Greyhawk Initiative system, but I have tried the similar Speed Factor Initiative and liked it quite a lot. What I found was that, contrary to what one might expect upon reading that you re-roll Initiative every round, it actually sped up combat a lot. That was actually the main benefit for me, as there was very little slowdown from players trying to carefully weigh options on their turns. I found that players losing actions due to their declared action no longer being possible was actually very, very rare, however it was quite common that players would get to their turn and say, “Aww man, I wish I could do X instead,” but always knew exactly what X was, so I added a house rule that you can choose to Ready an action instead of taking your declared action. This didn’t cause an noticeable slowdown, so I kept it. I noticed that in this system players use options like dash and disengage far less often, so I’ve considered experimenting with the Greyhawk Initiative system and having those options add dice instead of costing an action, but I haven’t tested that yet. I would also not want to use either option with a group with players who aren’t very experienced with D&D. The primary draw for me was the way it sped up combat, which I don’t think it would do if the players weren’t all very familiar with all of their spells and abilities. That’s why I’m not currently using it, because my group right now has two brand new players and one player who has only played online and isn’t used to doing everything analogue. Ultimately, it’s a useful tool in the toolbox. If you and your players don’t mind a little added complexity, it’s definitely worth a try, but it won’t be for every group.
 

I have wanted to use it, others that like it say it speeds up combat, but it seems to increase complexity though. I don't like how missile weapon attacks are favored above melee attacks in system that is already very generous to missile attacks. I think the point is that it forces the players to think about what they want to do ahead of time, and reduces the 'gamest' ability of players to all act before or between opponents and set up devastating one, two combos. I'm not sure if it is worth the additional mental load though.
 

I have wanted to use it, others that like it say it speeds up combat, but it seems to increase complexity though. I don't like how missile weapon attacks are favored above melee attacks in system that is already very generous to missile attacks. I think the point is that it forces the players to think about what they want to do ahead of time, and reduces the 'gamest' ability of players to all act before or between opponents and set up devastating one, two combos. I'm not sure if it is worth the additional mental load though.
It’s definitely a trade off, which is why I pick and choose whether to use it depending on the group. If you do try it at some point and the ranged attacks being faster bothers you, it would be easy to assign a larger die to ranged attacks and not have movement add a die.
 

Remove ads

Top