Mearl's variant initiative & AMA

[TheTeaMustFlow]

So apparently in his recent AMA (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4118-Mike-Mearls-D-D-AMA-Summary-Rangers-Initiative-WotC-Staff-Levels-Fave-Pizza#.WSLoMWgrJPY), Mike Mearls ragged on the 5e initiative system as it was too predictable for his tastes, and he later posted a variant initiative system on twitter (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4119-Here-s-Mike-Mearls-New-D-D-5E-Initiative-System#.WSLoKmgrJPY).

Thoughts? To me it seems pretty bad, screws over melee characters (particularly twf) and sorcerers quite badly, and results in the old 'I decided I'd hit the guy in front of me but he moved, guess I'll just stab the air hurr durr' problem.

Also, more generally, any thoughts on the AMA in general?

[gameogre]

I liked his system. I'm not going to use it but it seemed like it was a good start if you had troubles with the system already in place.

I'll just keep using the same initiative we have been using because although its flawed and broken it's also easy and fast and what we are used to.

[Contrast]

Multiple systems have tried to convince me to reroll initiative every round. None have ever convinced me that the extra time it takes is worth the hassle.

[BiPolar]

I'm also confused as to how the Bonus Action 'penalty' works. A lot of bonus actions are triggered by events. You don't plan on doing them, so how does that work?

[Sigreid]

I think his suggested system has too many fiddly bits and would wind up slowing down the action for minimal if any benefit to the fun.

[apepi]

Honestly this is a horrible idea. Say for example you choose to say you are going to move/bonus action/swap gear...but by that time what you were going to do ends up being irrelevant and you don't want to do those actions any more? The system is too wobbly and punishes those who chooses to do something and that change during even between each round. And you would also have to roll each round? Nope, that just makes everything slower.

Sometimes the most simplest things are the best ones.

[RSP]

I like the idea behind it but doesn't seem refined enough to allow the game to flow.

I may just try a simplified d20 every round and remove dex from the mod (while still including other mods like Alertness or Jack of All Trades)

[JAL_1138]

It looks like a dodgy, wonky, more complicated version of 2e initiative for individual characters instead of each side, using a d20 with the overcomplication of extra die rolls for weapon speed and casting time instead of static modifiers, and borks bonus actions.

As for melee vs. range—range going first is supposed to be taken care of by encounter distance, not weapon speed—shoot before they close distance, either by fighting at long distance or via readied actions or try to get surprise. Crossbow Expert (just don't use the bonus action) plus Sharpshooter becomes slightly broken, because you can consistently beat melee characters in initiative, tamed a bit by not getting the bonus action attack if you want the initiative boost.

Also screws over melee Assassins, since a key class feature procs on their going first in a round.


If cyclical initiative is his problem, why not just use side initiative a'la TSR (A)D&D (Basic, 1e, 2e) from the DMG? It's rolled each round, calls actions in advance, and is far less fiddly than rolling two dice per person per round and then reshuffling the initiative order accordingly.

[Theodoxus]

I suspect, the idea is, if you're planning on making multiple actions, you roll your primary actions initiative - say, d4 for a ranged attack. You roll a 3. When 3 comes up, you shoot your crossbow. Then, you decide to run, so after you shoot your crossbow, you roll a d6. You get a 5. Now your initiative is 8. When 8 comes up, you get to move (and can move in response to anything that happened between 4 and 8. If you then decide to take a bonus action, say, you're a rogue and want to Hide, you roll an additional d8 after you've moved, getting a 3. You now get to Hide when initiative hits 11 and you're done for the round.

Is it better than book-standard initiative? From a time saving perspective, no way in hell. Is it more 'realistic'? Probably.

As I've sussed it out, I'd probably use it - though I agree it probably needs a bit more granularity when it comes to weapons. A smaller die for light and larger for heavy... Probably would need to make the lowest base (Ranged) attack a d6 so a hand crossbow would go on d4 and a heavy crossbow on a d8... Move the others accordingly...

ETA: I've been thinking a bit more on this, and I actually really like it. In the thread the OP posted, there was mention of wonky things like a monk stunning an orc, and the next round, the orc goes before the monk so they're effectively stunned for 2 rounds, which isn't fair. But, if you mark the "segment" the monk stuns the orc, and then make that the base of the orcs next round, it makes perfect sense. If the monk stuns the orc on segment 7 (melee attack d8, rolls a 7), then the next turn, the orc gets to start his turn on segment 7, rolling a d8+7 for his melee attack. The monk will probably get to attack him before hand, possibly stunning him again - but that's literally no different then how combat work with book-standard initiative. (and the monk could conceivably keep stunning him...

At 5th level, monk attacks orc with a melee attack on segment 7, orc fails save, gets stunned. Monk attacks again (another d8 to initiative, for a 13 - orc makes the save. Monk decides to flurry (bonus action, d8 for 18 - orc fails another save, and doesn't begin his next round until segment 18+initiative.) Sure, the monk just blew all his Ki, but he's locked that poor Orc out of combat for the entire next round.)

[xen]

This is needlessly complicated to me.

My group has been experimenting with side initiative to encourage group planning and so far everyone loves it

[Hrugner]

I don't see this really bringing anything to the game. It could work well enough but everyone declaring their action type at the beginning of the round would bog it down too much to be worth adding to the game.

[Tetrasodium]

it seems like a very overly complicated derivative of DCC's initiative based on weapons. rolling each round sounds awful though. I's suggest either use side initiative (dmg270) or a popcorn type thing where person who just went decides who is next & allow people with things like the alert +5 initiative to inject themselves where they please.

[dejarnjc]

This is needlessly complicated to me.

My group has been experimenting with side initiative to encourage group planning and so far everyone loves it

How does side initiative work? Do you take an average of the PCs roles? And for large groups of enemies do you break the enemies into groups?

[Laserlight]

How does side initiative work? Do you take an average of the PCs roles? And for large groups of enemies do you break the enemies into groups?

They way I'm planning to do it, if I can get the characters to stop doing PvP and start fighting the monsters....

Roll initiative.
If you're higher than the monsters' 10+DEX, you act.
The monsters act.
After that, all characters act. (Some would consider it "late in round 1", whereas the ones who've already acted would consider it "beginning of round 2", but it's all simultaneous).
Then all monsters act.
"All PCs" and "all monsters" continue alternating from there.

[Sigreid]

How does side initiative work? Do you take an average of the PCs roles? And for large groups of enemies do you break the enemies into groups?

What I've typically done is the characters have individual initiative and their opponents go as a group using the best initiative among them. Usually at least some of the characters get to go first.

[coredump]

Rolling each round just isn't that bad, we did it for years and years. Still do occasionally.


If I wanted a more 'dispersed' initiative, I would use the Hackmaster system, which is by far my favorite initiative system.

At first is sounds complicated, but in play it works out very smoothly.

[Theodoxus]

Rolling each round just isn't that bad, we did it for years and years. Still do occasionally.


If I wanted a more 'dispersed' initiative, I would use the Hackmaster system, which is by far my favorite initiative system.

At first is sounds complicated, but in play it works out very smoothly.

I have no experience with Hackmaster, so I looked it up. Found the Basic rules summary - so I don't know how much it might have been expanded upon/refined in the intervening years, but it's definitely something I'll bring up with my players. Seems like the basic combat (both attacker and defender roll) would port fairly seamlessly into 5E; and I'm already looking into Armor as DR and Magic Resistance too.

Whether all of that works with a 3d20 system that I really want to implement is unknown.., but more options is always a good thing.

[Cybren]

If it plays similarly to speed factor initiative, it wouldn't actually make combats take longer. The added time of rolling every round is balanced out with players being forced to think of their turns all at once and then executing them, less time for "ohh what's going on? I wasn't paying attention during the rest of the combat so now i have to spend five minutes getting caught up" guys and their cousins, the "strategist" that needs to take 10+ minutes just to decide if they want to second wind or disengage with their fighter/rogue

[Joe the Rat]

Rolling each round just isn't that bad, we did it for years and years. Still do occasionally.


If I wanted a more 'dispersed' initiative, I would use the Hackmaster system, which is by far my favorite initiative system.

At first is sounds complicated, but in play it works out very smoothly.It almost looks like he's trying to back into the system, save that by his you are still performing everything at once.

And it gimps melee casters - though I suppose that may be an idea here.

I'm trying to think of a way to flute this together into a system (rolling for your move, action, possible BA). Action die based on action type (move, object use, action, weapon attack (die based on weapon size/property), spellcasting (die by / mod by spell level), initiative modifiers spent to reduce rolls / do rerolls. Very much inspired by Hackmaster.

Line up your dice, count up from 1, when you hit a number you can "spend" the die to do that action, then add up from there to when you can do the next. Bonus actions might be "concurrent" - you count them alongside a move/action for availability. After everyone's dice are spent, reroll.

Extra attack / split attack / split move is where it starts breaking down conceptually.

[mephnick]

I have a feeling Mearls and I wouldn't get along at a table for very long.

[JAL_1138]

Rolling each round just isn't that bad, we did it for years and years. Still do occasionally.


If I wanted a more 'dispersed' initiative, I would use the Hackmaster system, which is by far my favorite initiative system.

At first is sounds complicated, but in play it works out very smoothly.


If it plays similarly to speed factor initiative, it wouldn't actually make combats take longer. The added time of rolling every round is balanced out with players being forced to think of their turns all at once and then executing them, less time for "ohh what's going on? I wasn't paying attention during the rest of the combat so now i have to spend five minutes getting caught up" guys and their cousins, the "strategist" that needs to take 10+ minutes just to decide if they want to second wind or disengage with their fighter/rogue

Weapon Speed was still wonky back in 2e when it was a static number (and thus wasn't as time-consuming as rolling extra dice), because of the way it interacted with reach weapons--since there were no AoOs (until PO: C&T came out) other than retreating, aside from setting to receive a charge, it made reach weapons oddly disadvantageous because a dagger-wielder would often win initiative despite that realistically (verisimilitudinously?) they should be at a huge disadvantage. Casting time did help keep melee combatants more competitive with spellcasters, but it was a static modifier based on the spell in question (and thus faster than an additional die roll) as well.

5e's action economy is significantly different than 2e's was, too, and Mearls' method borks it a fair bit. With half-a-dozen different types of die rolls to remember for the different types of weapon and action, and the weird way this interacts weirdly with certain aspects of 5e (certain feats, certain bonus actions that come from triggering effects, etc.), Mearls' method here seems like way more of a fiddly, overcomplicated hassle than 2e initiative was.

If I wanted to roll every round, I'd just roll every round, and maybe chuck in casting time as a static modifier—much like 2e—instead of using Mearls' version. I would however change from 2e in that I'd have every action be used on the character's initiative, instead of sticking iterative attacks after the first at the end of the round.

[Theodoxus]

Extra attack / split attack / split move is where it starts breaking down conceptually.

I don't think so... If you attack on 13, then move on 11, but only move half your speed, and make a second attack on 6, I'd let you move again immediately afterwards.

[Though honestly, I'm finding a lot of value in the Hackmaster system, and would simply have initiative "Count Up" until combat is over. Movement becomes slightly problematic without using Hackmaster's movement descriptors... and by then, you might as well play Hackmaster - as weapon lengths become pertinent (to alleviate the Polearm vs Dagger problem brought up above.)]

Hmm... how complicated do I want to make combat... :smallwink:

[Gtdead]

Personally I'm a fan of passive static initiative. Only those with same initiative roll unless they want to talk it out.

Generally speaking, builds have the initiative they need. It's uncommon to find a ranged character with low initiative, or a cleric with high.

[Tetrasodium]

it seems like a very overly complicated derivative of DCC's initiative based on weapons. rolling each round sounds awful though. I's suggest either use side initiative (dmg270) or a popcorn type thing where person who just went decides who is next & allow people with things like the alert +5 initiative to inject themselves where they please.

Reading some of the other explanations & thinking on it more. I'm starting to think the new idea might be growing on me & that it could work well once everyone at the table was on the same page of understanding I dislike the static initiatives so much that I usually try to use popcorn style when I gm stuff

[ad_hoc]

I think a lot of people may have missed that this isn't the full system. It's just the idea of it.

I like it and will be trying a simplified version of it soon.

I particularly like the idea of coming together as a group at the beginning of each round to state what you're doing. I think it will speed up the game.

[Princess]

As well intentioned as it may appear to be, it serves as further evidence of the Chaotic Evil nature of the Mearls. Beware, I say. Beware.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't like it, it sounds too complex. Now I wouldn't mind something like 'you can take a move action, a standard action, and a bonus action, roll 1d6 for each' because that's just numbers and it gives the question of 'do I want to try to act first or act lots' (although the idea of how to deal with bonus actions being triggered by stuff is confusing, unless players are willing to give up a standard or move action), but decide type of action, decide if I want secondary actions, form dice pool from various sizes of die, roll and total is just a lot of steps (more than 'one, two, or three actions' at any rate).


Multiple systems have tried to convince me to reroll initiative every round. None have ever convinced me that the extra time it takes is worth the hassle.

I pretty much only use generate every round initiative these days, but it's because I like the Savage Worlds cards system where you just deal every character/group a playing card and then count down from Ace to Deuce (Jokers are wild* and give a +2 to actions), but it's interesting as the distribution of cards varies with what's been dealt (you only shuffle if you deal a joker) and so relative speeds change a lot as combat moves on. Oh, resolve ties by reverse alphabetical order of suits, no roll offs here.

It also has two types of 'speed', if you're Level Headed you draw multiple cards and act on the best (3 with the improved version), while if you're Quick you discard are draw anything less than a 6 (and keep going until you've got a 6 or better). These stack, allowing for very fast characters who can still be beaten with luck, but annoying slows the game even more.

It slows the game, but I like what it brings to the table. It's the best part of the system, especially before faster characters slow it down, and doesn't punish players who don't realise how important going first can be (because even the slowest guy can still draw the Ace of Spades or a Joker).

Otherwise I'd probably just go for round the table initiative. It's quick, and it doesn't matter how order is generated in round robin initiative as long as someone goes first.

* And don't have to be declared until you want to, allowing you to interrupt somebody's action, because Jokers are awesome.

[Theodoxus]

(although the idea of how to deal with bonus actions being triggered by stuff is confusing, unless players are willing to give up a standard or move action)

This keeps coming up, but I'm having a real hard time coming up with an example outside of possibly, an offhand attack (or monk FoB) because your target isn't dead... but then, I don't see that as an issue, as you'd just move or something if your target dies between your last attack, and declared BA to attack again...

Can you give a concrete example of what you're talking about?

[Hrugner]

This keeps coming up, but I'm having a real hard time coming up with an example outside of possibly, an offhand attack (or monk FoB) because your target isn't dead... but then, I don't see that as an issue, as you'd just move or something if your target dies between your last attack, and declared BA to attack again...

Can you give a concrete example of what you're talking about?

A monk declares his action to attack, his plan is to throw a dagger at a target. The target moves behind cover before the monks turn, so now the monk also needs to move to attack the target increasing his initiative. When the monk moves into position to attack his initial target he discovers another target nearer to him and decides to attack him and make a follow up flurry attack. He's gone from a low initiative to a very high initiative.

If the intent is to lock players into their declared action, then it greatly penalizes classes with multiple play options per encounter. At the very least there should be an "all out" initiative option available for characters who want to maintain their flexibility.

[Tanarii]

IMO resolving based on declared actions is fine for D&D. It worked for Classic and AD&D 1e. In fact, in many ways it's far superior to post-3e cyclical initiative. You certainly can run 5e that way if you really want to, although it'd probably break down a little at the edges. (Pre-declaring actions in a post 3e world works best if you work it as declaring which action you will use (Dodge, Attack, Cast a Spell, etc) and worry about things like targets at the time of resolution.)

But individual initiative rolling based on what weapon you're using or spell you're casting work well. AD&D 2e initiative, especially AD&D 2e Combat & Tactics, showed that. What made Classic / AD&D 1e work was they used side initiative when initiative was needed at all, with edge cases (tie, duels, etc) where individual initiative (or weapon speeds, or lengths, or casting segments, etc) could be used as needed. They were edge cases, not something rolled every damn round. Of course, some people insisted on using the edge-case rules every damn round ... and then declared them broken. Which eventually led to the 3e cyclical round.

Edit: What interests me in that AMA the most is that their are 10 employees for D&D at WoTC. I'm not surprised that it's so small, but I do find it's interesting that all the devs there are for something as popular as D&D. (Although given their evergreen & slow release strategy, it makes far more sense.)

[Anonymouswizard]

This keeps coming up, but I'm having a real hard time coming up with an example outside of possibly, an offhand attack (or monk FoB) because your target isn't dead... but then, I don't see that as an issue, as you'd just move or something if your target dies between your last attack, and declared BA to attack again...

Can you give a concrete example of what you're talking about?

I don't know, I don't play 5e enough to memorise it, I was just acknowledging it as a weakness in my system (although in my system I'd just have players declare one/two/three actions, roll their d6s, and assign action types as desired on their turn).

Heck, my system already penalises characters that use bonus actions, and so I'd likely never use it in a game of 5e (might for a homebrew game, it adds some strategy to initiative if the # of actions you take influences the order they're resolved in).

EDIT: I'm actually surprised he said as many as ten, I was assuming four or five permanents and the rest done by contractors. Although I realise that game can take manyears to create, so it's not overly surprising.

EDIT2: just saw 'I wish Adventurers League was more story focused. There's something of a combat-centric tradition that carried over from earlier editions. It's not a huge issue, but I don't want people to see AL as a D&D variant.' Story-focused D&D, now that would be a variant :smallbiggrin:

[RSP]

Couple issues I've thought of, in addition to those mentioned, is the very real possibility of using something like the Shove action, succeeding to knock your opponent down, but then their turn comes up and they stand up prior to your melee attacks. I don't like the idea of "your character's efforts are wasted based on luck," nor do I think it's more realistic to knock someone down (say Shield bash bonus action) only to have them stand up before I have a chance to swing a sword at them.

Also, this system completely takes Alert out of the game, and severely nerfs Chsmpion's Bonus to initiative. It hurts Bard's JoAT, but there's still plenty of rolls that are effected by that ability to call it "severely nerfed." Strength, dex and Con checks however, don't happen that often, particularly outside of Athletics and Acrobatics, one of which, at least, a Fighter will be proficient in already.

[Cybren]

Couple issues I've thought of, in addition to those mentioned, is the very real possibility of using something like the Shove action, succeeding to knock your opponent down, but then their turn comes up and they stand up prior to your melee attacks. I don't like the idea of "your character's efforts are wasted based on luck," nor do I think it's more realistic to knock someone down (say Shield bash bonus action) only to have them stand up before I have a chance to swing a sword at them. This is a feature not a bug. In standard initiative things like getting knocked prone or being disarmed are too predictable in you go- i go- you go -i go.

[Vaz]

I'm curious; why did the creator of the game make a variant Initiative rule? If it's not good enough for him to use, why does he not make the variant Initiative in the core game?

[mephnick]

I'm curious; why did the creator of the game make a variant Initiative rule? If it's not good enough for him to use, why does he not make the variant Initiative in the core game?

Because Mike Mearls doesn't understand rules or mechanics well enough to be let near anything substantial in a published product. He's a "throw stuff out there" guy.

[RSP]

This is a feature not a bug. In standard initiative things like getting knocked prone or being disarmed are too predictable in you go- i go- you go -i go.

Breaking up "I go - you go - I go" is different than "your actions are wasted." I can understand wanting to add a little variety to combat, but devaluing entire builds (like Shield Master bashers) and taking away viable options is not a way to make play more fun.

[Cybren]

Breaking up "I go - you go - I go" is different than "your actions are wasted." I can understand wanting to add a little variety to combat, but devaluing entire builds (like Shield Master bashers) and taking away viable options is not a way to make play more fun.

This is a reach. It doesn't "devalue" shield master". If anything it gives you an equal chance to exploit the enemy being prone for an extra turn as it does for them to stand up right away. And if you want to guarantee that you stand up before they hit you, you aren't taking any actions.


Because Mike Mearls doesn't understand rules or mechanics well enough to be let near anything substantial in a published product. He's a "throw stuff out there" guy.

I need more eyeroll emoticons.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm curious; why did the creator of the game make a variant Initiative rule? If it's not good enough for him to use, why does he not make the variant Initiative in the core game?

There can be various reasons for a designer to dislike a mechanic, especially over a year after release. Potentially it might have been something they really couldn't change while writing for whatever reason, it might be that there wasn't enough playtesting for the things he dislikes to become apparent, it might just be that the system was a quick fix and they plan to provide an alternative more in-depth system later.

In this case I think it's that round robin 1d20+dex initiative is there because of 'tradition', it's been like that in every edition since 3e and so it's in some ways a legacy thing.


Because Mike Mearls doesn't understand rules or mechanics well enough to be let near anything substantial in a published product. He's a "throw stuff out there" guy.

This can also be it. I don't know if it's true, but looking at the brief version of his initiative system and the idea that the more complex system is faster I can understand why people might have this idea.

Heck, I disagree with Mearls on at least one part of the game (the Warlock class is my favourite because the type of caster I am (pact boon) is separate to my flavour (my pact itself), I think it balances specific and general flavourings the best, I like how any patron can give any boon), so I'm certainly not one to talk about his design abilities.

[RSP]

This is a reach. It doesn't "devalue" shield master". If anything it gives you an equal chance to exploit the enemy being prone for an extra turn as it does for them to stand up right away. And if you want to guarantee that you stand up before they hit you, you aren't taking any actions.

I wouldn't call it a reach: the point is it can make your bonus action useless. I would find this less fun, and I believe other players, if their actions are rendered moot, would agree. People, generally, like their choices to have meaning. Adding in sequences where this occurs decreases fun in my opinion (which I believe he's already stated occurs whenever your declared action is no longer possible, like the enemy you planned on attacking is no longer in reach but I could be mistaken about this part).

As I stated earlier, I do like the idea behind
Meals' initiative but when it takes certain types of builds/Feats out of the game (Alert), or devalues them (Shield Master, Champion, Jack of All Trades), that's a negative in my book, and would need to be worked out prior to being able to implement it.

You can call that a reach if you want, but I think most people like having more choices in their builds, not less.

[Jerrykhor]

Another problem with non-cyclical initiative is that spells that last 1 round or require saves every round may be weaker, because they may last less than 1 round.

[Luccan]

Multiple systems have tried to convince me to reroll initiative every round. None have ever convinced me that the extra time it takes is worth the hassle.

I've always found this interesting. My IRL groups have always been small, so I think this effected it, but we always did roll every round. Might have taken an extra 5-10 seconds per round? I know that can add up for long fights, but we never found it a hassle (I suspect this is also because in 3.X, we had spells which lasted X rounds last until the end of round Y. So it didn't matter when you cast on round 1, it ended after the last turn of round Y.)

[RSP]

Another interesting facet: does the DM have to announce what the NPC's are doing? So either the NPCs aren't bound by this restriction (which if you can't change your action after it's declared, is a significant restriction), or the side that has to announce their actions first is at a significant disadvantage.

I imagine you could have the DM and each Player roll a die to see which character's actions have to be announced first. Maybe a D20 and have it be modified by their Int to see how quick thinking they are?

[Astofel]

A lot of people are focusing on how this affects players, but I'm concerned with its effect on how DMs run encounters. For instance, the players are fighting a group of 5 goblins. Unless the goblins all do the same thing on all their turns, the DM can't really use group initiative for them. Imagine two of the goblins want to hang back and shoot arrows while 3 rush into melee. Even if the DM uses group initiative, he's now got 2 to keep track of instead of 1. Things get even more complicated when a goblin wants to perhaps use his bonus action to Disengage and run for backup, or one of the archers runs out of ammo and decides to run into melee. And that's only with 5 goblins, things get even more hectic the more creatures there are, and the DM might end up rolling for several of them that he wouldn't need to under normal initiative rules. It also means he needs to keep track of every creature's 'declared' action that round, which is especially difficult if some of them are identical statwise.

[Thrudd]

Rolling every round for every character feels like a lot. Cyclical individual initiative is not my favorite, either.

Group initiative with a d6 instead of a d20. Declare actions before initiative is rolled, but mainly to establish whether anyone is casting spells- there is no penalty for changing your action if conditions change.

Combat rounds proceed in different phases, ala Basic, with each side acting in initiative order during each phase.

declare actions-
roll initiative-
Phase 1 - talking and spell casting begins - prepared actions/loaded missile weapons may attack
Phase 2, movement -
phase 3, missile attacks/ranged cantrips and magic items -
phase 4, melee attacks -
phase 5, spells go off

This means anyone casting a spell cannot do anything else for that round, and the other side will potentially have a chance to attack them before the spell is finished.

The archers on both sides will have a chance to shoot before any melee attacks occur.
if an archer has a knocked arrow or loaded crossbow at the ready, they can shoot before the movement phase (must have been declared before encounter begins/before surprise roll) Otherwise, they are considered drawing ammo, loading and aiming during the movement phase (crossbow loading must be performed stationary - no movement during that round).

In the movement phase, the side with initiative may choose to perform all their movement first, wait for the other side to move first, or allow the other side to begin moving and then interrupt them at any point to take their own moves.

A character's movement automatically stops if the moving character comes within attack reach of a melee combatant - so you can screen and block access to areas or spell casters, and your party's formation will make some difference.

In the case of tie initiative, both sides go simultaneously - sides alternate individual actions, no damage is applied until both sides have had a chance to attack.

[Theodoxus]

Another interesting facet: does the DM have to announce what the NPC's are doing? So either the NPCs aren't bound by this restriction (which if you can't change your action after it's declared, is a significant restriction), or the side that has to announce their actions first is at a significant disadvantage.

I imagine you could have the DM and each Player roll a die to see which character's actions have to be announced first. Maybe a D20 and have it be modified by their Int to see how quick thinking they are?

I'll be honest, this thread has got me spinning around when it comes to initiative. I started looked at all kinds of options. My next campaign, I'm designing from the bottom up - I've already decided on stat generation (average of 4d20L1). But I've come up with an 'Initiative Modifier', that takes the average of Dex, Int and Wis (to represent physical quickness, mental quickness and perception). The full value will replace Dexterity for determining ties to initiative (it'll go IM ->Dex->Int->Wis->Die roll to break ties). But it will also determine who declares first when deciding actions, lowest goes first - the player (or monster) with the highest IM cues in to what everyone else is planning, and can act accordingly. Then the modifier for the IM (based on any other attribute modifier) will be their actual Initiative bonus.

I'm also planning on using the Speed Factor option from the DMG. This will be an intermediary step to get my players used to this type of initiative (as we've played cyclical for close to 2 decades now). As my final vision is a Count Up type of initiative - but I'm still developing exactly how I want that to work, and how much added minutia that will require for D&D.

[Tanarii]

Might have taken an extra 5-10 seconds per round?My experience is determining initiative takes longer than 1 player's turn, in every edition that's used individual initiative. So you're effectively adding an additional player if you roll every round.

Probably more time lost before each player's turn due to hesitation. Getting players to pay attention to when their turn is up and immediately start acting is hardest in the first round or two, but as they settle into the rhythm of who went before them in the previous rounds.

Personally I already find cyclical initiative to be the biggest hurdle to maintain player interest in the game. Players tend to zone out when it's not their turn unless you keep things VERY snappy. Especially in large groups of 6-8 players. My rule of thumb is the entire round should take no more than be, averaged across the battle, 5 minutes for a group that size, including DM turn. Changing initiative every round would blow that out of the water.

[ad_hoc]

My experience is determining initiative takes longer than 1 player's turn, in every edition that's used individual initiative. So you're effectively adding an additional player if you roll every round.

Probably more time lost before each player's turn due to hesitation. Getting players to pay attention to when their turn is up and immediately start acting is hardest in the first round or two, but as they settle into the rhythm of who went before them in the previous rounds.

Personally I already find cyclical initiative to be the biggest hurdle to maintain player interest in the game. Players tend to zone out when it's not their turn unless you keep things VERY snappy. Especially in large groups of 6-8 players. My rule of thumb is the entire round should take no more than be, averaged across the battle, 5 minutes for a group that size, including DM turn. Changing initiative every round would blow that out of the water.

I think it depends on the group.

I say this with the caveat that I would never play in a game with more than 5 players anyway.

The thing with cyclical initiative is that people also pause to plan their turns when their turn comes up. I have tried to stop this but there is only so much to be done. People are engaged in the game which is great. The downside is that some people's turns take a long time.

In Mearls' initiative system everyone plans their turns at the same time so all the players are doing something, not just being bystanders. Then you resolve all of the actions. That part shouldn't take very long.

[Tetrasodium]

A lot of people are focusing on how this affects players, but I'm concerned with its effect on how DMs run encounters. For instance, the players are fighting a group of 5 goblins. Unless the goblins all do the same thing on all their turns, the DM can't really use group initiative for them. Imagine two of the goblins want to hang back and shoot arrows while 3 rush into melee. Even if the DM uses group initiative, he's now got 2 to keep track of instead of 1. Things get even more complicated when a goblin wants to perhaps use his bonus action to Disengage and run for backup, or one of the archers runs out of ammo and decides to run into melee. And that's only with 5 goblins, things get even more hectic the more creatures there are, and the DM might end up rolling for several of them that he wouldn't need to under normal initiative rules. It also means he needs to keep track of every creature's 'declared' action that round, which is especially difficult if some of them are identical statwise.

Last week I was playing in a game where 6 players were up against 14 mooks a (weak)caster & a (weak) guardian type. this kind of thing would have turned the encounter into a disaster. I think that if you had a fate style concede system where you could throw out a wildly inappropriate encounter with options other than TPK that it might help

[RSP]

A lot of people are focusing on how this affects players, but I'm concerned with its effect on how DMs run encounters. For instance, the players are fighting a group of 5 goblins. Unless the goblins all do the same thing on all their turns, the DM can't really use group initiative for them. Imagine two of the goblins want to hang back and shoot arrows while 3 rush into melee. Even if the DM uses group initiative, he's now got 2 to keep track of instead of 1. Things get even more complicated when a goblin wants to perhaps use his bonus action to Disengage and run for backup, or one of the archers runs out of ammo and decides to run into melee. And that's only with 5 goblins, things get even more hectic the more creatures there are, and the DM might end up rolling for several of them that he wouldn't need to under normal initiative rules. It also means he needs to keep track of every creature's 'declared' action that round, which is especially difficult if some of them are identical statwise.

One DM I know loves mobs, and I'm pretty sure this system makes using lots of lower CR creatures next to impossible to maintain. The system essentially begs DMs to make any battle involve, at most, 3 maybe 4 enemies max (and of the same creature type at that). Or be in the Will Hunting-range of memory retention.

We're mainly talking about the slow down effect on each Player managing a single character, but, yeah, I'd imagine the DM tracking 8 goblins, 3 orcs and a hill giant is going to need lots of dedicated dice or go thru a lot of scratch paper. Either way I'm not sure of a good system to track which npc declared what action on each die roll.

[MadBear]

having played a ton of 7th Sea, I don't see this slowing down the game all that much. In fact, since your not doing math, and trying to figure out who has the highest initiative, it's a quick go of:

DM:Players declare your actions and roll appropriate dice
Players: *rolling dice*

DM: 1, 2, 3,

Player: I rolled a 3, I attack

DM: Ok, 2 goblins also rolled 3, they attack next

DM: 4, 5

Player: I rolled a 5, I'll cast fireball

so and and so fourth.

It definitely would change up the feel of the game and so I might give this a go at my table.

[Tanarii]

It definitely would change up the feel of the game and so I might give this a go at my table.Yeah, no way I'm counting initiative out loud in my current campaign. It'd be fine if I was running a battle-mat tactical simulator game though.

[MadBear]

Yeah, no way I'm counting initiative out loud in my current campaign. It'd be fine if I was running a battle-mat tactical simulator game though.

It's more interesting then you might think. Give it a try just to see how it plays out. 7th sea has a similar system, and I find their initiative way more engaging then 5e (although, 5e is still better overall in my opinion).

I don't know if this is how Mearls does it, but in 7th sea, you just have to act after your number. Meaning if you roll a 1, but don't want to act right away, you can hold your action throughout the round (at 10 everyone holding their action goes starting with the player with the lowest number). This opens up some PC player tactics as they try to figure who should go when, all the while, possibly letting the enemy take actions if they don't go soon enough.

[RSP]

It's more interesting then you might think. Give it a try just to see how it plays out. 7th sea has a similar system, and I find their initiative way more engaging then 5e (although, 5e is still better overall in my opinion).

I don't know if this is how Mearls does it, but in 7th sea, you just have to act after your number. Meaning if you roll a 1, but don't want to act right away, you can hold your action throughout the round (at 10 everyone holding their action goes starting with the player with the lowest number). This opens up some PC player tactics as they try to figure who should go when, all the while, possibly letting the enemy take actions if they don't go soon enough.

The Mearls system has different dice depending on what action you do so you need to announce it before rolling, rather than just going after your number comes up.

As you seem to be using something similar, how are you dealing with initiative mods like Alert, Jack of All Trades, etc?

[Tanarii]

It's more interesting then you might think. Give it a try just to see how it plays out. 7th sea has a similar system, and I find their initiative way more engaging then 5e (although, 5e is still better overall in my opinion).No, it wouldn't be more interesting. I've intentionally cultivated making mechanics as integrated into the flow of the game as possible, to keep them invisible and non-disruptive. That would blow it right out of the water.

Like I said, it'd be fine in a battle-mat tactical simulator game. I played that for 2-1/2 editions (from 2e Combat & Tactics through the end of 4e), and it's work just fine for that kind of game.

[MadBear]

The Mearls system has different dice depending on what action you do so you need to announce it before rolling, rather than just going after your number comes up.


It'd still work. The lower the # the quicker you could potentially go, but it also allows you to go later if it benefits you. Essentially you have more options if you roll low (go early, or risk going later).



As you seem to be using something similar, how are you dealing with initiative mods like Alert, Jack of All Trades, etc?

Since most people are rolling d4-d12 instead of a d20, I'd just have alert/others subtract a straight -2 to their roll. That makes the most sense to me.

[RSP]

It'd still work. The lower the # the quicker you could potentially go, but it also allows you to go later if it benefits you. Essentially you have more options if you roll low (go early, or risk going later).

Mearls' system locks you into an action, which is what I dislike. And DMs need to track a lot more in this system (just rolling one die per enemy group wouldn't be too much work but multiple dice, per action/move/etc, per npc is sounding like a whole lot of additional tracking/time wasted from a DMing point of view.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, no way I'm counting initiative out loud in my current campaign. It'd be fine if I was running a battle-mat tactical simulator game though.

I mean, I personally like it, but as I said I already use cards for initiative and any player who doesn't leave their card where I can see it doesn't get their turn, so calling the number out loud is just being polite (and gets dropped entirely in large battles where it's PCs+Allies versus Villains+Mooks).

For the 'how do you/would you solve initiative boosters' problem, for JoaT I'd probably leave it where it is (boosting initiative is obviously not what it's intended to do, just a nice side effect), for all others I'd let them draw an extra card per thing and use the best result.


Since most people are rolling d4-d12 instead of a d20, I'd just have alert/others subtract a straight -2 to their roll. That makes the most sense to me.

The problem is people aren't rolling just a d4-d12, if I want to move and engage in melee I'm rolling 1d8+1d6. If I want to move and engage in melee with two weapons it's 2d8+1d6. If I want to cast a spell and move then it's 1d12+1d6. Most people will be rolling two dice either for a better position or to use a bonus action ability.

(It gets even worse with War Magic, is it 2d8, or 1d8+1d12? With moving it could be 1d8+1d12+1d6).

EDIT: corrected dice types.

[MadBear]

Mearls' system locks you into an action, which is what I dislike. And DMs need to track a lot more in this system (just rolling one die per enemy group wouldn't be too much work but multiple dice, per action/move/etc, per npc is sounding like a whole lot of additional tracking/time wasted from a DMing point of view.

That's not how I'd run it, but that's just me.

So for example if I'd use a variant of Mearls system:

Roll each round. D4 = ranged, d6 = anything that wasn't an attack/or spell d8 = melee, d12 = spell,

I'd rule it to say that you could always use a lower dice action in place of your original roll. The person who rolled a D4 was locked into their ranged attack. A person who rolled a d6 could switch to the d4 action, a person who rolled a d8 could switch to a d6/d4 action, so forth and so on.

The reason this works is that by rolling a higher dice, your already penalized compared to the faster action person. So if you end up swapping out your maneuver it'd still be fair. So if you originally selected melee, but the baddies died and there was an archer in the distance, you could drop your d8 melee action in place of the d6 move action + dash.

of you were going to cast fireball, but the cleric went down, you could sub your d12 action for the d6 move+heal potion action.

At this point though, I'm just talking about how I'd run it. As a DM I'd like it because I'd just roll the dice for the minions, and since i don't worry about modifiers, I can just leave them there, and slowly pull them away as they used their action. Can't imagine it'd take up that much time, and it'd definitely change up the monotony of cyclical initiative.

[Theodoxus]

I mean, I personally like it, but as I said I already use cards for initiative and any player who doesn't leave their card where I can see it doesn't get their turn, so calling the number out loud is just being polite (and gets dropped entirely in large battles where it's PCs+Allies versus Villains+Mooks).

For the 'how do you/would you solve initiative boosters' problem, for JoaT I'd probably leave it where it is (boosting initiative is obviously not what it's intended to do, just a nice side effect), for all others I'd let them draw an extra card per thing and use the best result.



The problem is people aren't rolling just a d4-d12, if I want to move and engage in melee I'm rolling 1d8+1d6. If I want to move and engage in melee with two weapons it's 2d8+1d6. If I want to cast a spell and move then it's 1d12+1d6. Most people will be rolling two dice either for a better position or to use a bonus action ability.

(It gets even worse with War Magic, is it 2d8, or 1d8+1d12? With moving it could be 1d8+1d12+1d6).

EDIT: corrected dice types.

That's not at all how I read Mearls plan. You roll a die for your initial action, regardless of what you plan to do later in the round. Once your action is up, you roll for whatever additional action you want to take, and that action happens later in the round.

Your way would mean everyone was simply pushing initiatives into the teens (and not much else in terms of innovation), and the guy who just shoots a bow and does nothing else is twiddling his thumbs waiting for the initiative to finally catch up to the 2d8+1d6 folk.

[MaxWilson]

Couple issues I've thought of, in addition to those mentioned, is the very real possibility of using something like the Shove action, succeeding to knock your opponent down, but then their turn comes up and they stand up prior to your melee attacks.

You realize that this happens 100% of the time already under PHB initiative? Which is why you always grapple and THEN shove.

With a variant initiative system at least you've got a chance to shove the guy prone and then attack him before he gets up. Under cyclic initiative you have no chance.

Winner: variant initiative systems including DMG Speed Factor Initiative, and also Mearl's homebrew system, among others.

[RSP]

You realize that this happens 100% of the time already under PHB initiative? Which is why you always grapple and THEN shove.

With a variant initiative system at least you've got a chance to shove the guy prone and then attack him before he gets up. Under cyclic initiative you have no chance.

Winner: variant initiative systems including DMG Speed Factor Initiative, and also Mearl's homebrew system, among others.

Not at all. I'm sorry if you want to declare someone the "winner" here, but hold off on the blue ribbon ceremony a sec to understand the rules: the shield bash Shove bonus action can occur prior to the attack action. So your character uses said BA to shove, knocking down the opponent, then get Advantage on your ensuing attacks.

So feel free to attack, then shove the enemy down, and yes, letting them stand up before you attack, on your Action. However, anyone with any sense, will do the BA shove first, thereby getting the advantage on attacks "100% of the time."

If you really need the confidence boost, though, feel free to standby acknowledging yourself, and whomever else, the "winner."

[Cybren]

Not at all. I'm sorry if you want to declare someone the "winner" here, but hold off on the blue ribbon ceremony a sec to understand the rules: the shield bash Shove bonus action can occur prior to the attack action. So your character uses said BA to shove, knocking down the opponent, then get Advantage on your ensuing attacks.

So feel free to attack, then shove the enemy down, and yes, letting them stand up before you attack, on your Action. However, anyone with any sense, will do the BA shove first, thereby getting the advantage on attacks "100% of the time."

If you really need the confidence boost, though, feel free to standby acknowledging yourself, and whomever else, the "winner."

You're consistently ignoring that it comes out a wash: you're as likely to get an extra turn of attacking a prone opponent as you are for them to stand up before you can attack them. And even then, not every shove attempt is from shield master, which means if you only have one attack, there's no point at all in a one on one combat to shoving someone prone. Even with shield master, it will eat your bonus action every turn, which you could be using for other things.

I don't know that I like mearls system because he just hastily summarized it on twitter, but I don't think I've seen a valid criticism here other than "i'm worried about all that die rolling bogging things down".

[Tanarii]

I don't know that I like mearls system because he just hastily summarized it on twitter, but I don't think I've seen a valid criticism here other than "i'm worried about all that die rolling bogging things down".Having to decide your action in advance is a 'valid criticism' to many people. Especially if it includes the possibility of losing the action due to it no longer being valid.

That's one thing cyclical initiative does very well. You just decide to do things in reaction to the changing tactical situation. You don't have to declare it in advance. Some people prefer one method, some people prefer the other, seeing one or the other as a better simulation. IMO they're both totally valid ways to play war games. Which is what the D&D tactical combat resolution system still is, at it's heart.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I don't know that I like mearls system because he just hastily summarized it on twitter, but I don't think I've seen a valid criticism here other than "i'm worried about all that die rolling bogging things down".

Then you've clearly not been looking very hard, given all the complaining about how it screws over particular archetypes (e.g. twf, sorcerers, anyone that needs to move a lot, thrown weapon users) and massively benefits others (archers) for no good reason.

[Cybren]

Having to decide your action in advance is a 'valid criticism' to many people. Especially if it includes the possibility of losing the action due to it no longer being valid.

That's one thing cyclical initiative does very well. You just decide to do things in reaction to the changing tactical situation. You don't have to declare it in advance. Some people prefer one method, some people prefer the other, seeing one or the other as a better simulation. IMO they're both totally valid ways to play war games. Which is what the D&D tactical combat resolution system still is, at it's heart.

I don't think you can "lose your action" in this system in any practical sense. if someone can present a common gameplay scenario where it would happen, i'll be glad to hear it, however.



Then you've clearly not been looking very hard, given all the complaining about how it screws over particular archetypes (e.g. twf, sorcerers, anyone that needs to move a lot, thrown weapon users) and massively benefits others (archers) for no good reason.

No, they're invalid because "screws over" is such absurd hyperbole in this case that the people arguing it are wrong to claim that.

EDIT: mearls even explains why it benefits archers that way in a subsequent tweet, so you can say "for bad reasons" but it's literally false to claim 'for no reason'.

[Tanarii]

I don't think you can "lose your action" in this system in any practical sense. if someone can present a common gameplay scenario where it would happen, i'll be glad to hear it, however.I had a feeling I should have left that part out. It's not particularly relevant to my point, which is not declaring actions vs declaring actions are a valid preference in playstyle. So having to do so in this system, which appears to be required for it to work at all, would be a valid criticism of it. (A preferential criticism, but that's still valid if phrased as such.)

[RSP]

You're consistently ignoring that it comes out a wash: you're as likely to get an extra turn of attacking a prone opponent as you are for them to stand up before you can attack them. And even then, not every shove attempt is from shield master, which means if you only have one attack, there's no point at all in a one on one combat to shoving someone prone. Even with shield master, it will eat your bonus action every turn, which you could be using for other things.

I don't know that I like mearls system because he just hastily summarized it on twitter, but I don't think I've seen a valid criticism here other than "i'm worried about all that die rolling bogging things down".

I'm not ignoring anything. My criticism of it was 1) it leads to actions that become wasted, as that's less fun for people playing a game where all you do is declare actions, and 2) it weakens or completely takes character builds off the board.

You're the one "ignoring" what's being said:

I was specifically talking about builds, and specifically talking about Shield Master so italizicing "not every shove attempt is from shield master" is completely pointless to what I said and isn't a counter argument. Yes, there are other ways to shove, but that's not what I was referring to, so good for you; you know that there's alternative ways to shove in D&D and how to italize on this board!

Neither of us are qualified to throw out statements like "you're as likely to get an extra turn of attacking a prone opponent as you are for them to stand up before you can attack them," as we haven't seen the whole system. I imagine, the intricacies this system involves, that you might actually roll per attack, as 5e specifically allows movement between attacks. So the system very well could be: Bonus Action d6, Attack d8 for each attack, move d6. So a d6 is likely to come before a d8 (which would invalidate your point that it's just as likely), not to mention the shover has already used a BA, meaning the opponent is counting down from their initial roll of d6 while the shover is waiting the full d8, further invalidating your "it's just as likely" thought.

Again, please actually look at what I'm writing before making up criticism of my pints that don't actually exist. The system absolutely limits options (flat out throws away any Initiate bonus and devalues strategic builds based on Action economy and there's a lot more than just Shield Master). And it can lead to characters losing their actions or having their actions be rendered moot, neither of which increases fun for the player.

Though I like the idea behind the change, I don't like that it has these two faults (on top of being a lot more difficult for a DM to handle combat).

[RSP]

I don't think you can "lose your action" in this system in any practical sense. if someone can present a common gameplay scenario where it would happen, i'll be glad to hear it, however.


No, they're invalid because "screws over" is such absurd hyperbole in this case that the people arguing it are wrong to claim that.

EDIT: mearls even explains why it benefits archers that way in a subsequent tweet, so you can say "for bad reasons" but it's literally false to claim 'for no reason'.

I'm assuming you've read these responses based on your quotes, from Mearls answering what happens if you need to change your action:

"I'm sorry to say but in my system you are basically screwed. #wotcstaff"

"they're stuck - hasn't been an issue yet; group planning accounts for it so far #wotcstaff"

So no changing your Action, which, in a "practical sense" is losing your Action. If I'm attacking and roll my die, and I'm waiting for my turn, but the situation changes and there's no one within range to attack when my time comes up I'm now "stuck" and "basically screwed."

So I don't see how this is "invalid because "screws over" is such absurd hyperbole in this case." It's a very valid objection to the system: the game is played because it's fun and taking away a Player's actions doesn't increase the fun, it in fact lessens it. And at the cost of taking more time and generating headaches for the DM who needs to track all the NPCs, whereas Players just need to manage this system for their lone character.

[Cybren]

I'm saying in a practical sense it doesn't happen because... when would it happen? What common scenarioin gameplay would cause you to lose an action?

[Tanarii]

I'm saying in a practical sense it doesn't happen because... when would it happen? What common scenarioin gameplay would cause you to lose an action?
Enemy adjacent to you moves away before your melee attack can go off.
Edit: Target of a spell or archery attack moved behind total cover. That one could cost the caster a spell slot.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

No, they're invalid because "screws over" is such absurd hyperbole in this case that the people arguing it are wrong to claim that.
...How? The advantages this gives particular fighting styles, and disadvantages it gives others, are clear and significant. In particular, characters reliant on bonus actions and/or mobility are particularly disadvantaged. I've mocked up a quick anydice program to show this (http://anydice.com/program/bcc7).


EDIT: mearls even explains why it benefits archers that way in a subsequent tweet, so you can say "for bad reasons" but it's literally false to claim 'for no reason'.
Yes, which is why you will note that did not, in fact, say "for no reason". I said "for no good reason". Which is synonymous with "for bad reasons". Specifically, the bad reason being that ranged characters continue to have an initiative advantage after melee closes. The guy with the heavy crossbow is very likely to go before the guy with the knife whether knifey is 200 feet away or currently grappling him.


I don't think you can "lose your action" in this system in any practical sense. if someone can present a common gameplay scenario where it would happen, i'll be glad to hear it, however.
TWFer is in melee with caster. TWFer prepares to make melee attacks, including TWF bonus action, against caster. Caster prepares to cast spell. Caster wins initiative (highly probable, because 1d12 has a significantly lower mean than 2d8). Caster casts Dimension Door. TWFer has nothing to melee attack. TWFer is sad.

And actually, this can happen basically any time a melee character decides to attack a currently engaged enemy and that enemy moves away somehow. I used the particular example of a TWFer versus a caster because a) it is one where the caster winning is highly probable and b) because it shows Mearl's design objectives ("spellcasters need to be shielded") failing.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't think you can "lose your action" in this system in any practical sense. if someone can present a common gameplay scenario where it would happen, i'll be glad to hear it, however.


The traditional example is essentially 'I'm a 2WF fighter and DudeMcbadface is in my face, so I decide to make an attack with a bonus action of hand attack, rolling 2d8 and getting a 9 (average value), while Ranger McBowface decides he's just going to shoot his bow and rolls a d4, getting a 3. Ranger McBowface kills his original target and uses his final attack against the only enemy he can see, DudeMcbadface, and kills him via a crit or something. Now it comes to my turn, and I can't do anything'. Not exactly common, but more than feasible (how many times has this happened in your games, but it's fine as you can just move to another guy as hey, you didn't have to decide your action until now).

Now, this is significantly less likely of those thinking that the system goes 'roll four primary action, after you've done that to roll for your next action and add it' are correct (which is not how it's worded at all, but would work as a system [heck, would work great as a variant on 'tick' based combat] so I have no problem with people discussing that variation).

...Actually I think I've just worked out the initiative system I want in my homebrew game.

[Cybren]

Enemy adjacent to you moves away before your melee attack can go off.
Edit: Target of a spell or archery attack moved behind total cover. That one could cost the caster a spell slot.
Ah, if only players could decide to move to attack something...

as for losing a spell slot, I guess that depends on if you haev to say exactly which spell you're casting and who you're casting it on or just "i'm casting a spell". Which is why I found most of these criticisms so absurd- it's not an actual set of rules, it's a guy asked to summarize his house rules, with people reacting like he broke D&D.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ah, if only players could decide to move to attack something...

But what if I decided not to roll an extra d6 to give myself movement, but my enemy still wasn't next to me at my initiative count for whatever reason (more likely for people using 2WF, this system screws over a certain class of build).

[Cybren]

...How? The advantages this gives particular fighting styles, and disadvantages it gives others, are clear and significant. In particular, characters reliant on bonus actions and/or mobility are particularly disadvantaged. I've mocked up a quick anydice program to show this (http://anydice.com/program/bcc7).



An anydice page is a far cry from actually using the rules in play, which you can't do, because you don't have them, just a description of them. The purpose of house rules is to create a different effect in gameplay, so that it achieved creating a different effect in gameplay is essentially tautological. Whether or not it plays worse, that is to say, the act of playing directly hampers the capability of one set of characters or another to the detriment of the game is a judgement that can only be made by playing it.



Yes, which is why you will note that did not, in fact, say "for no reason". I said "for no good reason". Which is synonymous with "for bad reasons". Specifically, the bad reason being that ranged characters continue to have an initiative advantage after melee closes. The guy with the heavy crossbow is very likely to go before the guy with the knife whether knifey is 200 feet away or currently grappling him.

1)
Whether or not it is a good reason isn't in this or most cases an objective fact. The reason exists, and whether or not that reason is good depends on what you intend on creating in gameplay.
2)
Well, both of them go at the same time, one is just resolved before the other. Even in standard initiative the turns are concurrent, after all. This scenario is one of the exact reasons mearls wanted to change the rules, given he states he wanted to make things less predictable and feel more dangerous and/or chaotic in play. In standard initiative the ranged character gets to shoot and run and you get to chase and stab and it's not particularly interesting. There's no tension or decision in whether you should try to reach the guy to hit him or not, since you will always reach the guy and hit him.


But what if I decided not to roll an extra d6 to give myself movement, but my enemy still wasn't next to me at my initiative count for whatever reason (more likely for people using 2WF, this system screws over a certain class of build).
I don't know, they're not my house rules. As someone earlier mentioned, they read it that you don't decide until you actually do the thing, so maybe on your initiative you get to add the d6 for having to move and then go on that initiative order with the rest of your turn?

[Anonymouswizard]

While here I'll almost never reach the guy and got him, because he's just rolling lower than me. I see no reason not to kite with a ranged weapon in this system.

Now if ranged attacks also used 1d8 it would be interesting, ranged would get a speed advantage if they stay still when melee characters have to move. Get the shot off now and hope to kill him before he reaches Squishy McCaster, or if he's one move away from you you don't have a decent chance of kiting him (actually a massive improvement over standard initiative which sadly isn't in the Meals system).

Oh, and FWIW statistical analysis is a very powerful tool here we can go further than we have and work out how likely it is certain action combinations will act before others, which would be really interesting and tell us exactly who's getting screwed over.

EDIT: I say again, 'oh, I need to move, I'll add a d6' is literally not what we've been given (and seems to go directly against Mearls's clarifications of 'no changing your action').

[MadBear]

It seems really obvious to me that none of us fully know the system that Mearls is using, and the conjecture on if it's bad or not, is kinda pointless without more info.

At best, we can guess how he adjudicates it, which may or may not be how it's played at his table.

[RSP]

It seems really obvious to me that none of us fully know the system that Mearls is using, and the conjecture on if it's bad or not, is kinda pointless without more info.

At best, we can guess how he adjudicates it, which may or may not be how it's played at his table.

Sure, except this entire thread is specifically asking what we think about what he said.

I think it's fine to go based off what Mearls has said, while acknowledging we might not have all the particuliars (like whether you're rolling d8 per attack, or for the entire attack action: his original statement referred to d4 for "ranged"/d8 for "melee" and acknowledges another d8 to switch stuff out, which to me is saying "I shoot my bow for the first attack against the Orcs, but then I'll switch out to my rapier for my second attack, as they'll probably have closed the distance by then.") Yeah, this is just an assumption, but it's based on what he said, which is really no different than discussing any RAI.

[RSP]

I don't know, they're not my house rules. As someone earlier mentioned, they read it that you don't decide until you actually do the thing, so maybe on your initiative you get to add the d6 for having to move and then go on that initiative order with the rest of your turn?

Mearls has stated you plan your turn prior to rolling initiative and that you are in fact "stuck" with your plan.

[ad_hoc]

It seems really obvious to me that none of us fully know the system that Mearls is using, and the conjecture on if it's bad or not, is kinda pointless without more info.

At best, we can guess how he adjudicates it, which may or may not be how it's played at his table.

This.

All we really know is that it works well in his game.

This is also the lead designer of 5e. We have ample evidence that he knows what he's doing.

[MadBear]

Sure, except this entire thread is specifically asking what we think about what he said.

I think it's fine to go based off what Mearls has said, while acknowledging we might not have all the particuliars (like whether you're rolling d8 per attack, or for the entire attack action: his original statement referred to d4 for "ranged"/d8 for "melee" and acknowledges another d8 to switch stuff out, which to me is saying "I shoot my bow for the first attack against the Orcs, but then I'll switch out to my rapier for my second attack, as they'll probably have closed the distance by then.") Yeah, this is just an assumption, but it's based on what he said, which is really no different than discussing any RAI.

Sure, and the first page looked at it fairly broadly which is a fair way of viewing it. But as soon as we drift into specifics praises/criticisms/strengths/weaknesses we've moved beyond what is meaningful conversation since there's no way to know what a valid criticism even means when there is no answer.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is also the lead designer of 5e. We have ample evidence that he knows what he's doing.

[citation needed]

[RSP]

Sure, and the first page looked at it fairly broadly which is a fair way of viewing it. But as soon as we drift into specifics praises/criticisms/strengths/weaknesses we've moved beyond what is meaningful conversation since there's no way to know what a valid criticism even means when there is no answer.

I disagree. The OP asked what's thought of what we do know. You're arbitrarily making a stance that it's wrong to opine about x, y, z but okay to talk about a,b,c. I disagree with making this stance, there's no reason to not answer the question in the OP: what do we think about what was said.

[RSP]

Mearls has stated you plan your turn prior to rolling initiative and that you are in fact "stuck" with your plan.


This.

All we really know is that it works well in his game.

This is also the lead designer of 5e. We have ample evidence that he knows what he's doing.

We do have more info than this and Mearls himself has answered additional questions. Granted we don't have all the info, but we do know more than just "it works well in his game."

We also only have his point of view in this, by the way...

[Cybren]

We do have more info than this and Mearls himself has answered additional questions. Granted we don't have all the info, but we do know more than just "it works well in his game."

We also only have his point of view in this, by the way...

Ah, yes, certainly he's lying to us and really his players hate it and are about to mutiny. I still need that eyeroll emoticon

[MadBear]

[citation needed]

hint: the evidence you're looking for rymes with "Pungeons & Pragons hifth pedition"

[Zorku]

If you fill in some of the blanks of this variant initiative it can do pretty much whatever you want it to. Upset by the idea that sometimes folks will lose at initiative and attack the empty space where their opponent was? Either let them attack the guy that was there just as he is disengaging, or allow them to add dice to their initiative if they haven't gone yet. Upset that "until your next turn" effects have weird durations now? Rewrite them in the obvious ways so that they get the same impact (your defensive spell lasts until this initiative count next round, your control spell screws with the target's action the next time his initiative comes up.) Yeah, he's already filled in some of the blanks with dumb rulings, but if you already know that you don't like the implications of that then just homebrew some tweaks that make it do what you want.

The other big complaint I've seen is that it's complex, but actually make a little chart and it's dead simple.
Action: d4,8,12,6
Bonus action: d6
Move: d8
Swap gear: d12

"Who's got less than 4? Ok, let's hear your numbers. Ok, you go first." Resolve those PCs and any opponents then ask who's got up to 8, then 12, then who's left. First DM I ever played under basically did this and it kicks the ass of how every other table does initiative. This way is even faster because there's no reason to even try to write it down.

The only remaining gripe is that this is a big disadvantage to two weapon fighters, and... yeah, they got screwed pretty much like always. That's a silly way to go into combat and 5e already doesn't respect it. The only place it remotely makes sense is a rogue with knives, to increase the odds of a sneak attack each round, but we're all familiar with how that competes with other stuff the rogue should do. Life sucks when you wanna be Drizzt or your WoW character. #sorrynotsorry



Then you've clearly not been looking very hard, given all the complaining about how it screws over particular archetypes (e.g. twf, sorcerers, anyone that needs to move a lot, thrown weapon users) and massively benefits others (archers) for no good reason.
The current system massively benefits archers. If you actually have any sense of what initiative means and how combat actually works, it makes no sense to tie dex to initiative... except that this means arrows are gonna fly earlier in the initiative than other things. The devs want archers going first, and to the extent that they do not always go first in the current system, that's just because the dev team couldn't come up with a way to get them numerically closer to the front of initiative.

[Tanarii]

Ah, if only players could decide to move to attack something...Youve already declared what you're doing. If you can't do it, you lose it. This is what we know, because it's how he said it works. if he intended for you to be able to temporarily 'save' your action if it's no longer possible, inserting a declared move, then some method for determining when the saved attack occurs after that, he could have said that instead. But he didn't say that.

[Theodoxus]

Seems to me, the easiest way to alleviate all the silliness of who goes when, it to simply, actually, have everything happen simultaneously. Shoot bows, fireball the crowd, run into the enemies, bar the door, hide under a table, whatever. But no damage is done until everyone has done everything in the round. Then, roll all the damage - if everyone focuses on one dude and does massive overkill damage while ignoring another target, so be it - that's real life in 6 seconds.

It's the only way to simulate anything close to verisimilitude and not 'screw the melee'.

[Anonymouswizard]

hint: the evidence you're looking for rymes with "Pungeons & Pragons hifth pedition"

This assumes that I think 5e is a well designed game. I don't, at all (I do however think it's fun, and so am willing to play it). I think it's missing half the rules and includes stupid decisions.

[MadBear]

This assumes that I think 5e is a well designed game. I don't, at all (I do however think it's fun, and so am willing to play it). I think it's missing half the rules and includes stupid decisions.

Wow.... well I couldn't disagree more. This is by far my favorite version of D&D and one of my favorite RPG's in general. Guess, that is the point upon which we diverge.

[Theodoxus]

Eh, if it had kept the promises that they'd promoted - that it would be modular and tuned to go from pretty basic to fairly complex, I'd agree. But as it is, it takes a few ideas and makes them better (incorporating a lot of feats from 3.P into base abilities and attacks) and then takes others and makes them way worse, sacrificing fun on the alter of either sacred cows, or action economy.

I was really hoping the DMG would have a LOT more dials to fiddle the complexity with... instead, we got some Old Style Unearthed Arcana options that feel tacked on and half-assed.

I'm closer to aligning with Anonymous than Mad in regards to the awesomeness of 5e. I agree it's fun, and I enjoy running games - it's just not what they were promoting in 2014.

[Anonymouswizard]

Wow.... well I couldn't disagree more. This is by far my favorite version of D&D and one of my favorite RPG's in general. Guess, that is the point upon which we diverge.

Well I also like a different thing to most 4e fans (I like complex interlocking rules, although I also like it when those rules are streamlined). I mean I hate the increased focus on rule zero without a counterpoint for the players (then again some of my favourite games give the players no narrative power).

To explain, I like it when the rules work well together and don't leave gaps. This means I prefer stuff like The Dark Eye (despite weapon skills working differently to all other skills) more than stuff like D&D5e (where the skill rules feel cut down and like a hole to me).

EDIT: actually Theodoxus brings up a good point, all the stuff that got me excited for D&D5e (modularity and roleplaying features being the big ones) weren't actually in there. Conversely I love The Dark Eye 5e because, although it's nowhere near my perfect game, everything I wanted from the description (including boiling down to 'looks like classless D&D but is rather different) is there, I don't feel like I was lied to by an incompetent designer (unfair to Mearls, I think the final product suffered due to pressure from multiple angles).

So I don't think Mearls is a terrible designer, I just don't think he's a particularly great one. I'd likely call him average.

[RSP]

Ah, yes, certainly he's lying to us and really his players hate it and are about to mutiny. I still need that eyeroll emoticon

Yeah, it's probably not a valid response to the "all we know is Mearls likes it." Because the guys who work together at WoTC probably don't play together (yet no one else there is espousing the benefits of this system). And there's never been a table where the players disagreed with something the DM did so it's probably irrelevant whether or not his players prefer the standard system or not.

[ad_hoc]

Had our first session with a simplified version of the system. For now we are just declaring actions and not anything else.

It was a lot of fun. Everyone liked it. There was a great flow to the round where everyone declares together and can discuss what they're doing if they want.

Then all of the resolution happens quite quickly.

I am not sure if it was faster than what we were doing before but it certainly felt faster which is all I really care about.

There was even a fun moment where they fought some enemies who popped up with crossbows and 3 characters rolled a 1 (even one with a spell) to take them out before they could act.

[BurgerBeast]

Some of the most memorable games I've ever played were the ones that used individual initiative. They go back to the 2e days.

As DM, on each turn, the first thing I would do was decide what each monster would do. Then, I'd ask each player what he was doing. It would take a little discussing to get this sorted, but it was paid back by the anticipation and the awesomeness of watching the plan unfold.

Then, we'd roll initiative, and the action would play out. As DM I would use my brain to let players reasonably adjust actions on the fly.

Then, the action would be described in detail and all players would have a visual (imagined visual) image of the situation from which to make decisions about the next round.

Combat was so awesome back then. Cyclic initiative destroyed all of that.