[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​

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mearls is realizing that the DnD system is too basic and simplistic; the same could be said for many other elements of the system. I think people are starting to realize that, now that the nostalgia has worn off. 4th Edition is looking a lot better in hindsight...

Is the nostalgia really going to wear off? I doubt it. Without nostalgia, 5e is just another FRPG.

It sounded to me at least like he was just blowing the question about what was good about 4e off. It was kind of like the developers of 5e promising a 4e/tactics 'module' that never really materialized. I think they're still in denial that 4e had some things that worked, and that throwing them all out with the bathwater was a bit rash.

I doubt it's actual denial, any remotely aware designer's known all along - it's more a matter of PR, of reading and catering to the market.

If your customers are complaining that a simplified product is more complicated (because it's less familiar and they're not willing to un-learn the old way), you come out with a more complicated product and tout it as being simple again. You speak the language your customers understand, and don't challenge their preconceived notions.

It's like the question he got about why they called healing surges 'hit dice'. We all know the real reason: the internet mob got its torches and pitchforks out for 4e, and so everything about it had to go... even those areas in which 4e actually innovated and improved upon prior editions. So instead of something clear and indicative of function like 'healing surges', we got the nostalgic title of 'hit dice', which just confused things. I mean, even 'hit point dice' would have been better. But since nostalgia trumps rationality in the present edition, it had to be 'hit dice'.

HD really didn't work much like healing surges - you can't spend them in combat, the don't underlie any healing powers, they don't constitute nearly the fraction of daily hp resources that surges did, etc - and they do correspond fairly strongly to classic HD. You use them to determine your hps as you level, generally get 1 per level, add your CON bonus to each one, etc. Spending them on an hour-long 'short' rest to get back hps is a healing-surge-like function, grafted onto the old HD mechanic, or a severely bowdlerized take on healing surges, more than it's 'really' healing surges with the serial numbers filed off (though that gets the point across, too, and I've said it myself at times).

4e is a strongly abstracted roleplaying game in which the characters are finely customizable and detailed, in terms of mechanical representation of their concepts.
..what is needed to recapture that is nothing more than new player abilities. a new suite of variant classes, designed on the same chassis but with different abilities, said abilities being chosen from a list each time you get a new one, are 90% of what is needed for a "4e within 5e". Most of us will happily accept just new subclasses and some optional variant features for existing classes, if done well.

That'd be nice, and wouldn't have to impact the standard game at all - just a bunch of optional material - but it would also be a lot of material, tantamount to a separate game, really...

Er...new player abilities, or new character abilities?

Player character abilities. I'm not sure what else "player ability" could even be?

Reading comprehension? 'Player choices' or 'Player-facing options' would be another way of putting it, I suppose. You could load down 5e with tons of character abilities, and you'd have something more like 3.5, with both PCs and NPCs very rules-heavy. To get a 4e vibe you'd only have to present more/better-balanced options on the player side, so PCs become more customizeable, while monsters/NPCs are left relatively simple for the DM to whip up and manage in play.

But, either way, you'd be working against 5e's strongly-expressed classic-feel and DM-Empowerment goals.

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. do away with round area of effects. Go back to the 4e style square fireballs. 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.

The whole "TotM is simpler/makes combat faster" canard is real problem. Visual aids make combat simpler and speed up the process, because you're not constantly describing & re-describing the scene, they don't tempt the DM to sacrifice fairness or consistency for speed, either. Using visual aids that are all to the same scale makes it that much easier. Putting them on a grid and making movement/area/positioning less granular is a further simplification.

2. ((Mearls mentions this in his AMA)) The bonus actions need to go. They are just too fiddly.

IDK, wouldn't that strip away a lot of options?

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.

The more players you have, the slower the game runs. The more of them that choose to play casters, the slower the game runs.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm going to have to run a test game using these rules and see how they go.

That and go back to being a dick about time spent on a players turn at the table. Time to whip these jokers into shape again.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

The main issue is half the group is there to play D&D, and half is there to hang out with the guys and knock back a few cans as much as play D&D. Half of them are hyper political and don't see each other save for D&D night and have to catch up.

Our group has a gab session before we start playing for this very reason. Everyone wants to chat since they haven't seen each other for two weeks. I only start the game once the initial flurry of conversation has started to wane.

 

[dave2008]

Glad I stuck to 3.5

For what?

 

[Bradley Hindman]

The whole "TotM is simpler/makes combat faster" canard is real problem. Visual aids make combat simpler and speed up the process, because you're not constantly describing & re-describing the scene, they don't tempt the DM to sacrifice fairness or consistency for speed, either. Using visual aids that are all to the same scale makes it that much easier. Putting them on a grid and making movement/area/positioning less granular is a further simplification.

I think this depends a lot on the players at the table. My table runs far faster without a grid. For simple combats, we go full theater of the mind. However, for large or complicated conflicts, I use a big white board to provide a rough sketch or map. We use magnets to give a general indication of the location of each character and monster. But, there is no grid. I learned long ago that WITH MY GROUP if you put a grid down, every decision becomes an exercise in micromanagement to optimize the path taken, the number of foes threatened, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For simple combats, we go full theater of the mind. However, for large or complicated conflicts, I use a big white board to provide a rough sketch or map.

Nod. TotM is ideal for very simple and/or low-importance situations - quickie combats that are forgone conclusions, for instance, or that are too inconvenient to set up using any sort of visual aid, like larger backdrop conflicts that the PCs are expected to evade or participate in only peripherally - where the burden on the DM can be kept to a minimum. When there's more at stake or when the details of the action matter more or there is any concern for accuracy or fairness, then visual aids simplify the task of tracking everything, and put everyone on the same page.

if you put a grid down, every decision becomes an exercise in micromanagement to optimize the path taken, the number of foes threatened, etc.

If that's what interests you, sure. You can try to do all that under TotM, too, you'd just be badgering the DM with questions and alternative judgement calls, it'd be a nightmare to try to resolve fairly & clearly, while in the simplified context of a grid, it's easy enough for each player to do on their own.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

If that's what interests you, sure. You can try to do all that under TotM, too, you'd just be badgering the DM with questions and alternative judgement calls, it'd be a nightmare to try to resolve fairly & clearly, while in the simplified context of a grid, it's easy enough for each player to do on their own.

I suspect I wasn't very clear. When we play with a grid, combat comes to a grinding halt because the players spend so much time figuring out exactly how they move. When we play without a grid, everybody just eyeballs it and combat proceeds much more quickly. My point was that this is an artifact of the way we play. I could easily see that a different group of players would have the opposite result.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

How do you account for the following:

- Movement (suggest adding 1 to the roll per x feet of movement)
- Non-standard actions:
- - - Changing weapon or item(s) held (Mearls says +d8 which IMO is too much; maybe a flat +3 to the roll?)
- - - Device use e.g. wand, potion, ring (which should be the same no matter what class you are - maybe d8?)

Otherwise, looks good.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

I suspect I wasn't very clear. ...My point was that this is an artifact of the way we play. I could easily see that a different group of players would have the opposite result.

I caught that, yes. It's like the way adding capacity to part of a network can slow it down, overall. It depends on the network and where the capacity is added.

 

[Bawylie]

How do you account for the following:

- Movement (suggest adding 1 to the roll per x feet of movement)
- Non-standard actions:
- - - Changing weapon or item(s) held (Mearls says +d8 which IMO is too much; maybe a flat +3 to the roll?)
- - - Device use e.g. wand, potion, ring (which should be the same no matter what class you are - maybe d8?)

Otherwise, looks good.

Lanefan

You know, I think I'm good leaving movement as-is and just saying it's part of the class. I don't want to penalize faster movers like eagle totem barbarian, for instance.

Also I don't know that weapon swapping matters too terribly and I generally don't charge the bonus action or interact with an object item all that often in play. But if you did want to, +2 or +3 would probably cover that reasonably well. Probably +2 since everyone remembers that +2 rule from 3rd ed.

Now wands, potions, and rings - that's interesting. Because, do you go with the spell level as a modifier? A flat modifier? Or change the die? So what about this: roll your initiative die twice and take the better result (if that's all you're doing this turn). Or roll twice and take the worse result (if you're using the wand, potion, ring in place of your bonus action or in addition to your normal action or whatever)? How's that?


-Brad