Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: "Greyhawk" Initiative

The latest Unearthed Arcana by WotCs Mearls is up. "Mike Mearls introduces an alternative initiative system, inspired by AD&D and the journey to Lake Geneva, Wisconsin—the birthplace of D&D—for Gary Con 2017. While the initiative rules in fifth edition D&D are great for keeping the action moving and being easy to use at the table, the Greyhawk initiative variant takes a different approach. These rules add complexity, but with the goal of introducing more drama to combat."

He's calling it "Greyhawk Initiative". It'll be interesting to compare this to how we interpreted his earlier version of alternative initiative.

Mearls also talks about it in this video.

[video=youtube;hfSo4wVkwUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSo4wVkwUw[/video]


​

 

[Sir Brennen]

To figure out spellcasting speeds, you could make it based on how complicated casting the spell is with verbal, somatic, and material components. A spell with only one of those could be d6, two of them d8, and all three d10 (of course, you'd also have to have an implement or a material component in-hand at the time).

Hmmm... thinking of a few things. I don't like most of this, but some of it is interesting.

I think it's been mentioned, but all of the suggestions to modify spellcasting based on spell level (or complexity) means the spell caster has to decide what spell they're casting at the beginning of the round. This UA variant, as presented, isn't that restricted. You get to decide what spell to cast when your turn comes up, not at the start of the round. Having to declare first limits options alot for spell casters, and they will often end up with nothing to do. Monster I was going to charm moved out of LoS? Tough luck. UA RAW? Oh, I'll just cast fireball at that cluster of enemies instead (or, like the example in the article, change tactics to slow a foe I noticed seems to be getting ready to run.)

I think to keep this Init variant as fun as possible means still allowing flexibility on the generic declarations the players make at the start of the round.

 

[Wrathamon]

this might be a reason Mearls doesnt like Bonus Actions ... it doesnt work well with his Initiative System.

 

[Mercule]

Watching the video and GH means in this context D&D in the 70's and 80's.

Yeah. That's what I was afraid of (I was mobile when I first commented and couldn't really watch the video). Not exactly how I'd like to see the idea of "Greyhawk" used. It's a different style of play than the Realms, yes, but not because of mechanics. It's just a different setting.

 

[cooperjer]

I think it's been mentioned, but all of the suggestions to modify spellcasting based on spell level (or complexity) means the spell caster has to decide what spell they're casting at the beginning of the round. This UA variant, as presented, isn't that restricted. You get to decide what spell to cast when your turn comes up, not at the start of the round. Having to declare first limits options alot for spell casters, and they will often end up with nothing to do. Monster I was going to charm moved out of LoS? Tough luck. UA RAW? Oh, I'll just cast fireball at that cluster of enemies instead (or, like the example in the article, change tactics to slow a foe I noticed seems to be getting ready to run.)

I think to keep this Init variant as fun as possible means still allowing flexibility on the generic declarations the players make at the start of the round.

I proposed the initiative for spells to be d6, d8, d10 based on the number of components to my players as well. I also suggested that bonus actions will not contribute to the initiative calculation. This includes casting spells as a bonus action. I also suggested that a spell casting initiative could be based on 1d4 or 1d6 per component used. Finally, I suggested that if a character cannot take an action when their turn comes, then rolling a d6 and adding it should allow them to take their turn later.

I then looked up a few spells to get an idea of which ones use all three and which ones use two. I feel a caster will know which spell they will want to use in advance enough to shift the flow of combat. There are several spells that use only two components. There are several spells that use all three. A player may look up the number of spell components on a few spells to determine if they are going to cast 2 component spell or a 3 component spell. If they roll for a 2 component spell and then find they need a 3 component spell, then when their turn comes they can roll a d6 and shift their turn to later in the round.

I am concerned that giving a player a chance to change their mind will slow the turn down. I gave the caveat that if turn time is dragging on due to indecision then I'll remove the optional d6 to shift turns later into the round.

 

[OB1]

So the rules don't cover this, but who declares first, the players or the monsters? Or would standard initiative be a good way to determine, with highest declaring last. Or does everyone decide and then reveal their dice at the same time?

It seems that having information, such as a wizard deciding to cast a spell, might mean picking different actions on your side (perhaps everyone in the party adds a move die to try and take cover or spread out before the wizard casts).

Am I overthinking this?

 

[ad_hoc]

So the rules don't cover this, but who declares first, the players or the monsters? Or would standard initiative be a good way to determine, with highest declaring last. Or does everyone decide and then reveal their dice at the same time?

It seems that having information, such as a wizard deciding to cast a spell, might mean picking different actions on your side (perhaps everyone in the party adds a move die to try and take cover or spread out before the wizard casts).

Am I overthinking this?

Yes.

The honour system prevails. The DM has a lot more information than what the enemy creatures are supposed to have. The DM is supposed to play the creatures reasonably based on what they should know, their personalities, etc. If the DM isn't doing this then it is a problem beyond the initiative system.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I proposed the initiative for spells to be d6, d8, d10 based on the number of components to my players as well. I also suggested that bonus actions will not contribute to the initiative calculation. This includes casting spells as a bonus action. I also suggested that a spell casting initiative could be based on 1d4 or 1d6 per component used. Finally, I suggested that if a character cannot take an action when their turn comes, then rolling a d6 and adding it should allow them to take their turn later.

I then looked up a few spells to get an idea of which ones use all three and which ones use two. I feel a caster will know which spell they will want to use in advance enough to shift the flow of combat. There are several spells that use only two components. There are several spells that use all three. A player may look up the number of spell components on a few spells to determine if they are going to cast 2 component spell or a 3 component spell. If they roll for a 2 component spell and then find they need a 3 component spell, then when their turn comes they can roll a d6 and shift their turn to later in the round.

I am concerned that giving a player a chance to change their mind will slow the turn down. I gave the caveat that if turn time is dragging on due to indecision then I'll remove the optional d6 to shift turns later into the round.

You seem to contradict yourself a bit with these statements:

I feel a caster will know which spell they will want to use in advance enough to shift the flow of combat.
[...]
I am concerned that giving a player a chance to change their mind will slow the turn down.

I'm not talking about a player "changing their mind" - I mean when their chosen option simply isn't viable at the point their turn comes up. Not declaring the specific spell ahead of time, even though it's likely they know what they're going to cast, allows for them to switch to a backup spell, adapting to the changing circumstances of the battle.

Making them stick to what they've declared in the initiative phase could also have the effect of creating indecision - they've got to cast the spell they choose, so what's the best spell to pick if things change during the round?

Would you also make archers declare a target in advance, and if that target dies or becomes no longer visible, make them lose their action as well? A ranged attacker can currently simply pick the best/preferred target when their turn comes up. They may still end up with no targets, but that will happen far less than having to declare one. Same with casting spells.

And if you're worried about adding time for a player to figure out their turn, why, oh, why have a system where you have to stop and look up the specifics of the spell each time one is cast in combat? Think of the poor DM who has more than one spell caster NPC fighting the party.

The "adding a d6" to take a turn later ... nope. If they can't take the action now, it's still unlikely they'll be able to do it later. Unless you're suggesting they can also make a new declaration of what they're doing (potential for abuse there.) I mean:

DM: Any 9's?
Player 1: That's me, but the orc I was going to charm is dead.
DM: OK, roll me a d6 to act later.
Player 1: I got a 1.
DM: Alright. Any 10's?
Player 1: Uh, that's me, and the orc I was going to charm is still dead.

Like someone else said, this UA system is slightly more simulationist than the current initiative system. The question is, how far down the simulation rabbit hole to you want to go with further tweaks? Especially with non-real world things like casting spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, I know this isn't going to be a system I end up using. My players have a hard enough time not taking too many actions or following the order of their round right now, having them declare and roll and add and then end up not being able to do what they want to do.... it just doesn't work with my group.


However, looking over this discussion, I think there are two things that aren't being discussed that should be taken into consideration.


First, spellcasting and especially that disruption option. I know for people who come from the ye olden days of vancian and losing the slot and taking five rounds to cast a spell this may seem very lax, but it is actually kind of brutal and it is worse for those who don't have cantrips.

For example, the Ranger wants to shoot a foe with his bow, roll 1d4. But, if he wants to hunter's mark them then shoot them it is 1d4+1d10. If they need to move first then we've got 1d4+1d6+1d10. Now, during this dash to the pillar, hunter's mark and shoot you could end up rolling much lower than the goblin who just shoots you.

And with the variant now that you've been hit you can only cast a cantrip... and you don't have cantrips because you are a ranger. And what about a 4 elements monk? Are we considering their ki abilities "casting a spell"? What do they do if their use of Shatter or Fist of Unbroken Air is disrupted... and shatter is very different from Fist so how are we going to decide that one?

This system looks decently simple with archer, melee and wizard or cleric, but Rogues, Monks, Rangers who are casting, I mean, there are a lot of scenarios that start getting odd.



The second thing no one is talking about is how this works for the DM running multiple monsters.

They recommend rolling as a group, but that means that all your monsters are taking the same actions. How often is that really the case?

Ive run goblin combats where I've had some enemies move and attack, some attack, some shoot, some shoot and hide, some run and hide. Each reacting to a different set of players. Two or three groups might be manageable, but if you end up with a spellcaster, some melee brutes and some snipers you could quickly end up with five groups, and there is an interesting discussion to be had about spells that cause grappling or restraint that take an action to end. That is clearly a d6 roll on the initiative, but if they get hit before they act that raises questions about how being webbed effects their choice to move and attack, could they attack the web and then move anyways?

And of course, monster actions that don't fit into the typical mold of actions. Dragon's Breath on a 1d6?

Actually, hold that, what do we do with Legendary actions? Do we treat them like reactions, unaffected by initiative despite being movement, attacks, and spellcasting. Wingbeat is a save and move, is that a melee attack or a movement action? What about a spell they can cast at-will, if they take damage and we are using the variant does it count as a cantrip for them, so the Bheur Hag taking damage can still cast Hold Person?

I think it is very possible to say that for every problem the players might have, the DM is going to end up with three times the problems, because they have three times the monsters and decision points that the players are going to have

 

[Lord Twig]

Several posters have pointed out that it is good to take a look at something that is accepted as the standard and questioning whether it is really is the best way to do things. And I agree that it is good to do so. However, that does not mean that you will always find out that it is not the best. It is entirely possible that you will try something new and discover that the old tried-and-true method really is the best, or at least better than the new proposition.

In my opinion, this is one of those times.

Now I understand that there will be a personal preference component here. Some people will love the round-by-round planning, all the extra rolls and tactical play. There are also many that like the extra randomness. But there are those, like myself, that find this a big, un-fun, mess.

Additionally, there is just no way that this speeds up combat. I'm sorry, I know there are people saying, "It makes my game faster!" But I don't believe it. There are other people that say, "It makes my game feel faster. Even though it takes longer on the clock." Now that I believe.

But hey, let it never be said that I won't at least try to make a new system work. So here is my suggestion for an alternate system. Now I fully admit it will be slower than the current initiative system, but it should satisfy the simulationist player and leaves a lot of the the "Greyhawk Initiative" ideas intact.

One round consists of 30 segments. All dice are the same except there are no movement dice. Instead movement costs 1 segment for every 5' of movement and you add any segments used for movement to your roll for your action. You do not have to declare movement in advance. You can not start an attack or spell until you have a valid target.

1. Everyone makes their Statement of Intent, basically what they are going to do in the round, then they roll their dice.
2. If you are also going to use a bonus action, roll the die for it and keep it separate.
3. The round starts at segment 1.
4. Movement always goes first.
5. Everyone that is moving moves their character 5' per segment, then whoever has a action for that segment can take their action. Highest Dex goes first and a die roll can be made in case of ties.
6. If you are using a Bonus Action you pick which action you are using and act on the segment determined by that action. You then add the roll for your second action to the current segment to determine when you act again.
7. Spell or effect durations are determined by the segment when it is cast. So if you cast a 1 round duration spell on segment 16 on one round, the spell will last until the beginning of segment 16 on the next round.
8. You can change your declared action at any time by declaring a new action. You then roll the appropriate die or dice for the new action(s), then add the current segment +3 to the result (the +3 is a penalty for changing your action mid-round). That is your new Initiative. If the total is greater than 30 you have lost your turn.

Example of play:
Let's say you are using two short swords and want to run up to an orc and attack with both weapons. Roll 2d6 and keep each result separate. You roll a 3 and a 5. On rounds 1 through 4 you move up to the orc (20') and engage the orc. Both you and the orc now have a valid target and start your attacks. You decide to use your 3 hoping to get a hit in before the orc swings his great axe. On 7 you attack the orc and hit, but he remains up. You still have a valid target for your second attack, so add the 5 you rolled for your second attack to 7 (the current round) and determine that your second attack will go on 12. Unfortunately the orc rolled a 5 for his attack and will strike you on segment 9. But you are in luck, the orc misses. However, on segment 10 the wizard kills the orc with a Magic Missile; time to change plans.

You add 3 to the current segment of 10 and start moving on 13. The next round you step up next to another orc and engage. Adding your 5 to 14 gives you 19, still plenty of time. Since no one else has any actions left you go ahead and make your second attack, taking out the orc.

Some spot rules:
-Every extra attack from the Extra Attack feature is a base 3 initiative. So if you rolled a 7 and didn't move you would attack on 7, 10, 13 and 16 if you had four attacks. (You can use a d4, but there is already a lot of rolls to keep track of.)
-Stunned or incapacitated characters would make a statement of intent and roll initiative immediately after the condition wore off.
-Disengage would be a 1d4 roll and could be done at anytime without the +3 penalty. Assuming you haven't already used your action of course.

There you go! It has some randomness, combat flows in real time, extra actions are not penalized, and spells and effects always last a consistent amount of time.

Full disclosure. This is not really a "new" system. Similar methods have been used by other game systems in the past. RuneQuest has used "Statement of Intent" and "Strike Ranks" (what I am calling segments) since the 70's, but had set numbers for actions instead of rolling dice. Likewise Champions (or The Hero System) has used Segments for decades to break up a Turn (basically a 12 second round). So I know that this system will be playable, it has been done before. It is just a matter of taste as to whether you think it is a "good" way to do it. Just like Mearls' system.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This is an interesting system. I'm finding that the simplicity of 5e combat is kind of wearing thing and when my OotA game wraps up in the fal if I don't go to a different system I'm going to play test something like this. 5e combat needs more random excitement. And a tad more realism. realism for D&D that is.