# [UPDATED] Here's Mike Mearls' New D&D 5E Initiative System



## Lanefan (May 16, 2017)

At first glance that has a lot of potential.  Thumbs up!


----------



## CapnZapp (May 16, 2017)

So no connection to any ability score, then?

Not only do you get to roll a very quick d4 instead of a d8, you also don't need to add the d6 needed to charge into melee...

As if the rules needed to give ranged combat any more advantages over melee...

Of course, why am I surprised Mmearls managed to find an eleventh(!) thing to tweak in favor of ranged combat...? By now it's  apparent he is on a personal crusade to destroy classical fantasy tropes and how they rely on melee combat.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> So no connection to any ability score, then?
> 
> Not only do you get to roll a very quick d4 instead of a d8, you also don't need to add the d6 needed to charge into melee...
> 
> ...




Calm down. That was just the short elevator pitch version, not the actual rules. The rules might appear in an UA.


----------



## Waterbizkit (May 16, 2017)

Other than changing all weapon attacks to be a d8 versus the d4/d8 ranged/melee split... I think that's a system with some solid potential. And I don't say this for the same reasons as CapnZapp with regards to ranged dominance, the system removes dexterity from the equation entirely which I like. I suggest the change just for the sake of simplicity. 

Alternatively, maybe weapon attacks are all d6 and heavy weapons are d8... 

Anyway, interesting...


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 16, 2017)

Sorry, but Mike Mearls needs to do some sword fighting or at least some LARP and redo this entirely.

Before a LARPer can get off a single spell I can have draw a sword and hit them three times at least, and it's the same against ranged. It should be in THIS order and with dice which have a bonus due to a relevant stat, so high still goes first;

1d6 + Spellcasting Stat = Cast Spell
1d8 + Dex Bonus = Ranged Attack
1d10 + Dex Bonus = Melee Attack
1d12 + Wis Bonus = Delay Action
1d12 + Dex Bonus = Sprint

Or perhaps do it by weapon type - so light or unarmed gets 1d12, normal 1d10 and heavy 1d8 for instance...

You could also choose to take Advantage on an attack action initiative roll in return for Disadvantage on the roll to hit (unless you already have disadvantage, in which base, not...)


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Cyclical initiative may be boringly predictable, but it seems that there are other, simpler ways to solve the issue rather than introducing this level of multiplied complexity.


----------



## Herobizkit (May 16, 2017)

Next thing you know, we're going to have Weapon Speed initiative modifiers and then a slippery slope to bonuses/penalties to hit Specific Armor Types...


----------



## GarrettKP (May 16, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Sorry, but Mike Mearls needs to do some sword fighting or at least some LARP and redo this entirely.
> 
> Before a LARPer can get off a single spell I can have draw a sword and hit them three times at least, and it's the same against ranged. It should be in THIS order and with dice which have a bonus due to a relevant stat, so high still goes first;
> 
> ...




Obviously you didn't read the actual comment. In this system lowest initiative acts first, not highest.


----------



## Dartavian (May 16, 2017)

I agree with his take on the RAW Initiative system. I personally like it what he has come up with, it does seem promising. As far as including ability to initiative, you could easily apply any initiative bonuses as a sum deducted from the die roll total.


----------



## Baumi (May 16, 2017)

Interesting and I welcome any change to the standard Initiative System, but I cannot see this being faster. Also you already have to know at Initiative-Stage what you want to do (so what happens if the circumstances change)?

On the other hand, the biggest timekiller in combat is the indecision. Such a system could theoretically make each turn much faster since you already know beforehand what you will do...


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2017)

So, what happens if one creature's action renders another's proposed action invalid? Do they get to re-specify, or do they lose their action?


----------



## Greenmtn (May 16, 2017)

I like the idea of trying to improve the initiative system, and think this could be a good start. I am however having a hard time wrapping my head around how this is going to make resolution any quicker, which is what he says he wants to do with it.

The current system you grab 1 dice and look up your bonus. Done.

This, they way I am reading it, you need to commit to what you are doing, look up what dice or combination of dice you are using and then you are done.


I can see how it adds unpredictability and tension, I think it would make combat take longer but I think I like the idea of doing initiative every round to add a feeling of chaos to the combat but I worry it would slow things down more.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 16, 2017)

Little surprised that this is Mearls' prefers system. It adds complexity and die rolls based on variable factors rolls and is pseudo-simulationist in nature, neither of which seem to really be what 5E is about. I don't see the benefit over the base system honestly. 

I was hoping his system was more about declared actions and resolution choice or something. A system like that would be much more cooperative.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (May 16, 2017)

Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.

Example:  A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round.  In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.


----------



## JohnnyZemo (May 16, 2017)

I run a couple of larger groups (5-6 players), and rolling for initiative every round would slow combat down significantly. I'm okay with the current system.


----------



## CydKnight (May 16, 2017)

Am I reading this right?  This sounds like you will have to know your action before each initiative roll.  If this is the case, what happens if circumstances change before your turn in that round effecting what action you want to take?  What else could you do but continue in the same order regardless?  

On the surface, that doesn't seem any better to me than one 20-sided die roll for initiative at the start of combat.  It's more die rolls and more for a DM to track with negligible benefit in my humble opinion.

I welcome any corrections if my interpretation is in error.


----------



## kenmarable (May 16, 2017)

Interesting system, but one odd side effect (as presented) is that you need to know your actions before you roll initiative for that round. You need to know if you are gong to take a bonus action, or swap gear, etc. Quite often you do already know, but you would be less able to react to things that happen in the same round. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug for some, but it is an interesting side effect hidden in there. Once you roll initiative, you are committed to the kinds of actions you will take.

(As an aside, my first thought was that it would help speed up indecisive players by making them decide ahead of time what they would do. But really it just moves that problem, so rather than waiting for them to decide when it's their turn, you instead wait on them to decide so that they can roll initiative. So no real benefit there.)


----------



## jasper (May 16, 2017)

...Interesting system, but one odd side effect (as presented) is that you need to know your actions before you roll initiative for that round.....
So instead of waiting on Kenmarble to declare if he going to swing a sword or cast a spell at Init 12, we now have to wait on Kenmarble (and the rest of people who take 5 minutes to decide an action) to  decide on which die he throwing.


----------



## jasper (May 16, 2017)

...Interesting system, but one odd side effect (as presented) is that you need to know your actions before you roll initiative for that round.....
So instead of waiting on Kenmarble to declare if he going to swing a sword or cast a spell at Init 12, we now have to wait on Kenmarble (and the rest of people who take 5 minutes to decide an action) to  decide on which die he throwing.


----------



## stoopski (May 16, 2017)

How about that depending on the action(s) you took this round, you roll the dice according to M. Mearls rules, but only after you take your turn. Then you add this to your current initiative.


Initiative order never resets to 0, it just increases.
A round is then not when everybody acted, but whenever it's your turn again.


So for example, When first initiative comes in, everyone rolls 1d20 - DEX mod, lowest goes first.
Let's say I roll 18.
If I attack with a Shortsword I roll a d8, and get a 4.
I would add a standard "6" to any action to space it out and help average out between different types of actions.
So I would then act again at initiative 28.


What is neat is that you make this roll AFTER your action so you don't have to know in advance what to do, and it does not slow down the combat as the next player's turn may already start.

On the other hand, it might unbalance faster actions that will now act more frequently than slower actions throwing out the whole math of the system... That's why adding the standard 6 to any action might help balance it out.


----------



## Dausuul (May 16, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Sorry, but Mike Mearls needs to do some sword fighting or at least some LARP and redo this entirely.



Did you seriously just claim that rules around D&D spellcasting should be changed because they're unrealistic?


----------



## Warmaster Horus (May 16, 2017)

As an aside there are many RPGs out there that make you declare your actions before executing them in the turn.  In this case perhaps you could change your action but then need to throw the appropriate die again on your turn, putting you further down the initiative line?


----------



## The Old Crow (May 16, 2017)

Mearl's initiative system is kinda cool. Definitely has potential.

The one thing I don't like is ranged weapons being so fast. Why would they be? Especially since there are already penalties built in for moving and switching gear. It should be faster to use a weapon in hand to whack the thing standing right in front of you than to hit something at a distance when you might also  have to draw and knock an arrow. I'd switch the melee to d4 and ranged to d8.

 Actually, since I hate picking up d4s, unless they are those nice noncaltropian barrel d4s, I would rework this for myself so the lowest die starts at d6.


----------



## Psikerlord# (May 16, 2017)

i prefer simply rolling init each round: keeps things nicely unpredictable, but simple and quick. No mods, inc no dex mod (which is plenty strong, without also needing to affect init).


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (May 16, 2017)

MarkB said:


> So, what happens if one creature's action renders another's proposed action invalid? Do they get to re-specify, or do they lose their action?






CydKnight said:


> Am I reading this right?  This sounds like you will have to know your action before each initiative roll.  If this is the case, what happens if circumstances change before your turn in that round effecting what action you want to take?  What else could you do but continue in the same order regardless?



Personally, I'd let you change your action if circumstances change by adding an additional die to your initiative.

So for example you were going to take a ranged attack, but someone piles into you before you get to go. You could swap to attacking them in melee by rolling a d8 maybe and adding it to your initiative score.

As Morrus emphasised, these are not the full rules that Mearls uses, just a few-sentence summary of the basics.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 16, 2017)

I have radical idea. 

How about everyone declares actions and a simple d6 is rolled each round for each side. Highest roll goes first and initiative is rolled each round.

Do you think it could work?


----------



## M.T. Black (May 16, 2017)

Mearls indicated it was _cyclic initiative he didn't like ("Cyclical initiative - too predictable"), which the above doesn't address at all (it merely changes the die rolls).

_It does address it by requiring you to re-roll initiative _each round._

Also, I think requiring players to state actions at the start of a round is a feature, not a bug!


----------



## Blue (May 16, 2017)

I *gladly* give up a little extra realism for the play speed increase of roll-once cyclic initiative.  I don't care about the borders between rounds, we just go.  This introduces a delay every single round not just in rolling and working out the new initiative but also in allowing players to know who's on deck and plan their action, especially near the border between rounds.

Also, it sounds like it requires "everyone declares actions first" in order to figure out what dice are rolled, which can leave players unable to take an action.  "Ooh, sorry, if you wanted to move that would have changed your initiative, so since they guy you were fighting failed a save and is dead, you waste a round."  Players HATE losing their actions for reasons outside their control.

No thank you.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO (May 16, 2017)

Been tinkering with using Savage Worlds system - deck of playing cards, counting down Ace to Deuce. Great system, easy to keep track of who's taken a turn, who hasn't, bigger groups, etc. Jokers get to go whenever they want, even interrupt another turn and so on. High DEX etc get to draw again (like Quick Edge - discard & draw again if less than 5) if they get a card lower than X (depending on DEX bonus).


----------



## osarusan (May 16, 2017)

How is rolling _every round_ supposed to speed up combat??
I got really excited when he said he was working on a new initiative system. This just seems so much worse than what we already have.


----------



## Jer (May 16, 2017)

I would suspect the speed-up in play is the pre-declaring of actions before you roll initiative.  That would speed things up considerably - without that rolling initiative every round just adds time when compared to cyclic initiative.  With it you have people committed to actions before the die roll which cuts down on choices they make during the actual combat rolls (and also puts pressure on them to hurry up and decide their action because they're holding everyone up until they roll).  And yes the way you get rid of the cyclic initiative is to make your rolls every round.

Not a huge fan myself - cyclic initiative is fine for my table - but I can see how it would be a good option for some folks.  (If I wanted a tweak for my table to speed things up we'd go back to side-based initiative and I'd pull out my old Torg Action Deck and use it to determine initiative.  For my money it had the most dramatic initiative system in an RPG while still being one of the fastest.)


----------



## jrowland (May 16, 2017)

My 2cp:

Low initiative goes first allows for additive initiative by round.

For Example:

1d20-dex for opening round, lowest goes first. Declare/resolve actions on initiative as usual. Then Roll initiative modifier based on Mearls (or some other variant) dice to advance initiative. So Wizard rolls 1d20-dex and gets (14). On initiative count 14 he  acts by casting a spell - cantrip (+1d12), casting a bonus action spell (+1d8), then moving back (+1d6). He rolls an 8,2, and 3 for 13 total. 14+13=27. He next acts on initiative 27. Meanwhile, Mr Archer rolled a lousy 16 (nat 20 - 4 for dex) for opening initiative. He shoots an arrow, rolling a d4 and gets a 2. His new initiative is 18. He shoots an arrow, rolls a 4 on 1d4, his new initiative is 22. He then shoots an arrow and moves back (since the enemy is closing in) rolling a 6 (1d4+1d6), his new initiative is 28. The wizard goes next on 27. Then the archer again on 28.

Something like that seems very interesting and do-able. Maybe the numbers need tweaking, maybe there are some more house rules (like you add 10 plus the die roll, not just die roll), etc. but I think it has serious potential.


Bah - [MENTION=6882071]stoopski[/MENTION] beat me to it. That's what I get for walk away mid-type.


----------



## kenmarable (May 16, 2017)

Blue said:


> I *gladly* give up a little extra realism for the play speed increase of roll-once cyclic initiative.  I don't care about the borders between rounds, we just go.  This introduces a delay every single round not just in rolling and working out the new initiative but also in allowing players to know who's on deck and plan their action, especially near the border between rounds.
> 
> Also, it sounds like it requires "everyone declares actions first" in order to figure out what dice are rolled, which can leave players unable to take an action.  "Ooh, sorry, if you wanted to move that would have changed your initiative, so since they guy you were fighting failed a save and is dead, you waste a round."  Players HATE losing their actions for reasons outside their control.
> 
> No thank you.




I wouldn't presume from this quick overview that Mearls doesn't address that problem. This is more of a preview than really getting into the full nitty gritty details. So if there is an obvious flaw that large, I'd presume it's been addressed, just not explained in this preview.

One alternative that was mentioned above is maybe this isn't what you *will* do, but based on what you *just did*. Dunno if that's how he uses it, but that would solve this problem easily. If you were fast with your action this round, then you are better prepared to act this round. Even bakes in rewarding setting up your actions the round before.


Personally, it does seem like an interesting system, and I did actually enjoy the whole weapon speed thing way back in the day. However, that's not my personal taste nowadays. I like streamlined with less complexity rather than more. I might consider rerolling initiative every round to make it bit more chaotic, but sometimes the predictability also encourages more teamwork among players who can better coordinate. So it seems like a wash to me, but I might experiment sometime. I can see rolling different dice for different actions being really fun for some, but I don't think it really does it for me.


----------



## lyle.spade (May 16, 2017)

Interesting, and going against norms of social media I will withhold full judgment until I can read his rules in full. At first glance, the idea of typing speed of action in combat to weapon or attack type has virtue. WOD accounted for that in their initiative system in detail in the old Storyteller's Guide and the nWOD Combat book, adding modifiers for long arms vs. pistols and things like that. It all worked well within that system. I am always suspicious of more dice rolling...that always sounds like a way to slow down play. But I'm interested in reading what he's got, should be make it available in full.

That said, I've adjusted 5e's initiative system in my game and it's worked well. Taking a cue from FFG's Star Wars, every PC rolls initiative, I usually do NPC/foe initiative in groups, and then we have a list of PC/NPC slots. We just work through them, trading off. Last weekend I ran with two players, and in both combat encounters the order was PC-For-PC. The players decided, regardless of who rolled what, which of them would fill the first slot in each round, and thus who'd fill the second. In a few rounds it made sense, given NPC actions, that they reverse their order - but they still used those same slots. Basically, the players, as a group in quick meta discussion, determine who'll fill each slot as combat moves through each round.

This has proven to inject some fluidity into each round, provide some more decisions and flexibility, but since it's built on the foundation of the 5e system it doesn't require learning and working through anything really new.


----------



## Schmoe (May 16, 2017)

Rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order every round is objectively more complex than rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order only once.  Just saying.


----------



## dagger (May 16, 2017)

Rolling dice every round for everyone would slow it down...I know, we did it in 3.5 and PF. Now we are back to old school and roll once at the start of combat for each side.


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2017)

I'm trying to recall the early days of 3E, but wasn't everybody really excited about the idea of cyclic initiative then? I can't remember 2E well enough now -- was that initiative each round? Were weapon speeds in that edition, or 1E?

I must be getting old. I played those games for years, but I can't remember what was in which!


----------



## Barolo (May 16, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I'm trying to recall the early days of 3E, but wasn't everybody really excited about the idea of cyclic initiative then? I can't remember 2E well enough now -- was that initiative each round? Were weapon speeds in that edition, or 1E?
> 
> I must be getting old. I played those games for years, but I can't remember what was in which!




A lot of people were indeed excited, which I think was more related to it being something new, and yes, in 2E we did roll every round, by the book, declaring actions before rolling because of speed factors. I don't remember weapon speeds in 1E, though, but my grey hair might have a word or two regarding my memory .


----------



## thethain (May 16, 2017)

Honestly, I am kinda in the opposite boat, rolling extra dice to me feels like the slowdown would in no way be worth the tradeoff for more confusing initiative.

I am considering just using flat initiative modifiers for combat just because the start of combat feels like a hard stop when playing. Roll initiative then get a number from each player, trying to finagle the order as they all spit out random numbers at you.

I have tried keeping initiative for a few different combats, but ultimately anyone who rolled low always thinks we should reroll initiative even if the 1 additional action probably isn't going to change much.


----------



## ChapolimX (May 16, 2017)

This gives me ideas for a system.

What if you roll initiative as usual at beginning of combat. 1d20 + bonus, top goes first. This is your *initiative score* for that combat and you should take note of it. Now, every action has a *speed factor *associated. After every turn based on your actions you subtract a die roll from your initiative score and get your *position* in the next round. This is not cumulative. After every turn you subtract the *speed factor* from the *initiative score *you rolled at combat start.

This would play like this.
_
Combat start a player rolls initiative an gets 12. This is his initiative score for this combat.
First round he moves a shots an arrow. After his turn he rolls the speed factor of 1d4 +1d6 (by Mearl's system) and gets 8. His position in next turn initiative is 4.
Second round he acts at initiative 4. He now fires his bow but do not move so speed factor is 1d4. He rolls 1 and acts at position 11 next round.

_Who think this can work? As a nice trick some actions might have speed factor 0 or a positive speed factor. Lets say if you choose dodge action only this round (speed factor = 0) your position the next round is your full initiative score. Now if you chose the action, take initiative (speed factor = +1d6), you do nothing this round but add 1d6 for your position on the next.

EDIT:  Except that @stoopski and @jrowland already proposed something similar in a better way but I didn't get from first read.


----------



## Vexorg (May 16, 2017)

I like the "popcorn" initiative better.

*monsters always go first unless suprised.

*roll initiative. Highest goes first.

*first player chooses who goes second. Second chooses third etc.

*After last player, monsters go again , then last player is first the next round.

*Effect that last one turn instead last two turns when the last player in the round casts them.


----------



## drjones (May 16, 2017)

Theres two pieces here, one is changing the dice to fit the action and the other rerolling each round.  I am not a fan of the first, it actually seems slower at the table to me because complex characters may have one of three or four different action types and may well want to change their action when it is their turn.  And for a DM, this does not lessen the number of die rolls it just complicates them.  The second part would make things more interesting but will also slow things down significantly in a big fight.  

I know this is a rough draft idea, and really it would be fine in a homebrew where everyone buys in.  But for a UA, there has to be a better alternative.  Maybe just a quick app that rolls everyones init each round?


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

I much prefer my own homebrew version, which actually DOES speed the game up a lot.   Everyone rolls as normal.  Then as the DM, I look at where my monsters go.  Let's say they go on 14.  I will call out, "Anyone above 14 may go."  Then I go, and then I call out "Everyone else can go."

The first thing you may be thinking is how that screws up things because in 5e some actions either start or end at your turn.  But after years now of using it, I'm telling you that's not an issue, and really hasn't been.  It saves a lot of time from having to go down the initiative order, and allows the players to feel like they have more control over their actions.  It also implements a "hold action" way better IMO than the game handles it now.  I.e., I still use the hold action for that official declaration from the player as written, but it allows a "minor hold" action because if you rolled higher than your buddy, you can still wait until after he or she goes as long as both of you went faster (or slower) than the monsters without affecting what you want to do.


----------



## volanin (May 16, 2017)

HawaiiSteveO said:


> Been tinkering with using Savage Worlds system - deck of playing cards, counting down Ace to Deuce. Great system, easy to keep track of who's taken a turn, who hasn't, bigger groups, etc. Jokers get to go whenever they want, even interrupt another turn and so on. High DEX etc get to draw again (like Quick Edge - discard & draw again if less than 5) if they get a card lower than X (depending on DEX bonus).




I use cards as well, but simpler:

*1.* Each player/monster has a card.
*2.* As a card is drawn from the deck, the corresponding player/monster acts and draws the next card.
*3.* The deck is reshuffled each round.

It's VERY fast, unpredictable, changes every round and you never know exactly when you're going to act, so it keeps the players attention focused. I tried a lot of initiative systems, and this is the one my tables prefer by far.

I even customize my cards with the hero/npc drawings, which helps immersion a lot:

View attachment 84191


----------



## Tyler Henderson (May 16, 2017)

Here's my thoughts. If you don't like the cyclical nature of initiative: roll initiative like normal. Highest initiative goes on "1", and everyone else goes on "1 + (highest initiative - personal initiative)". Every action has an "initiative penalty". For example, a move is "+2". So if you go on "1", and you choose to move for that initiative, you get your next action on "3". Light weapons could be "8", regular/offhand weapons and "1 round" casting time spells could be "10", 2-handed weapons could be "12". Abilities that grant multiple attacks per round could simply reduce the initiative penalty.

I admit that it needs work, but it gets rid of the cyclical nature of combat, and doesn't burden the players with having to determine actions beforehand. Maybe those penalties need to be higher, so you don't get numerous additional actions between other characters, but it could allow a character with a high initiative and light weapon to get in 2 hits versus a slow enemy with a heavy weapon. It also gets rid of the complaints that each characters actions all take place together, and spaces each action out, forcing you to figure out when to actually drink that potion of healing.


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> I much prefer my own homebrew version, which actually DOES speed the game up a lot.   Everyone rolls as normal.  Then as the DM, I look at where my monsters go.  Let's say they go on 14.  I will call out, "Anyone above 14 may go."  Then I go, and then I call out "Everyone else can go."
> 
> The first thing you may be thinking is how that screws up things because in 5e some actions either start or end at your turn.  But after years now of using it, I'm telling you that's not an issue, and really hasn't been.  It saves a lot of time from having to go down the initiative order, and allows the players to feel like they have more control over their actions.  It also implements a "hold action" way better IMO than the game handles it now.  I.e., I still use the hold action for that official declaration from the player as written, but it allows a "minor hold" action because if you rolled higher than your buddy, you can still wait until after he or she goes as long as both of you went faster (or slower) than the monsters without affecting what you want to do.



This reminds me of the Cypher System initiative. In the Cypher System, the monster's initiative is static; it's tied to the monster's difficulty and Target Number. Players roll initiative. Whoever rolls higher than that number acts before the monster in whatever order they see fit, the monster goes, and then whoever rolled lower than the monster goes in whatever order they see fit. Additional monsters may mix things up, depending on their difficulty, but a number of Cypher System GMs I know will usually just streamline this.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO (May 16, 2017)

volanin said:


> I use cards as well, but simpler:
> 
> *1.* Each player/monster has a card.
> *2.* As a card is drawn from the deck, the corresponding player/monster acts and draws the next card.
> ...




High / low DEX has no game effect then, along with Alert Feat, etc . . ?


----------



## Tormyr (May 16, 2017)

I just run cyclic initiative, and I also roll for each monster. I do this to spread out the damage and ganging up that monsters can otherwise do when they all go at the same time. It also breaks up some working together on the player's side unless they specifically try to work together. There are a lot of nice ideas here from other people, but one of the biggest issues I have seen with re-rolling initiative is all the different effects that have any duration (as has been noted upthread). Having something like a monk stun work on a creature twice (or 0 times if the monk goes last, stuns, and then goes first) really seems to mess things up. So many other parts of the 5e ruleset actually depend on that cyclic initiative.

Anyone looking for ideas on how to handle what to do if everyone declares actions first and someone changes their choice could look for inspiration in the Doctor Who RPG. That system has Runners, Talkers, Doers, and Fighters in that order (I think). A runner always goes before someone who has chosen any other option, and runners determine their order. If someone changes their option down the order, I think they just go later, but there are some real penalties for a Fighter becoming a Doer. They still go before other fighters, but after the Doers and anyone else that has actually resolved their action. My knowledge of the Doctor Who system is very basic though, so don't quote me on it.


----------



## guachi (May 16, 2017)

I don't believe dexterity should have an effect on initiative. It's already good enough as it is.

IMO, the benefits of using cards - speed and unpredictability - outweigh anything else.


----------



## CheezyRamen (May 16, 2017)

This sounds like the most asinine thing I've heard. Why would anyone want to do initiative like this? I can't see how it would make combat move faster. Faster USUALLY = Simpler, such as both opposing parties roll d6, add highest init mod from each member and then each opposing parties move as a team. THAT'D be faster.


----------



## Mistwell (May 16, 2017)

I am pretty sure this is the point of the system: Do things in the order of least complex to most complex, in terms of PLAYER COMPLEXITY. 

In other words, shooting at someone involves the least complexity, the least number of choices for the player, the least number of likely reactions to it. 

Going into melee increases complexity: someone may react to you hitting them, or attacking someone near them.  You also may get in someone else's way. 

Moving involves more complexity. It takes time to plot a course, and it may trigger a reaction, and interfere with other movement paths, and expenditure of other limited resources like with battle masters.

Spellcasting seems to take players the most amount of time.   Lots of decisions about targets, DCs, effects, which spell to cast, etc..

So the entire system seems built to give the players with the most complex decisions the most time each round to make those decisions while the people with the least number of decisions to make, take their turns.  

I am pretty sure that's the entire point of this. It's not simulationist.  It's just a practical method of addressing how much time players tend to take to make up their minds about how to do something.  It therefore would speed things up at the table, by tending to move the easiest decisions to the front of order, and the most complex ones to the back, as a time management tool.

But, because he doesn't want it entirely predictable each round, there are still die rolls involved.  You won't necessarily go in those orders, but it will usually work out that way.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 16, 2017)

My table has been using an alternative initiative system for almost two years. I didn't like how cyclical initiative encouraged tons of metagaming and "pixel bitching" with regard to movement, perfect action, etc. on each person's turn.

Our system:
0. New round begins (reset "per round" things like Legendary Actions, etc.)
1. Go around the table and declare a general action: attack with weapon, cast a spell, use object, channel divinity, etc. You must decide what you will do for your action (not move or bonus action) before rolling initiative.
2. Roll initiative as normal. We briefly toyed with modifiers based on weapon speed, spell level, etc. but it was way too clunky. So, now it's roll just like normal (d20 + DEX mod).
3. DM counts down from 25 or so. When your initiative comes up take your action. You can move and do whatever you want for your bonus action, but for your action you may only do what you originally declared OR you can dodge, dash, disengage instead OR you can Ready your originally declared action. There is no Delay option.
4. Rinse and repeat


I know it sounds like it will slow you down because you have to declare actions and roll initiative every round. For the first couple of months that was true for us, but now it's second nature. We save a TON of time on each player's turn because they no longer hem and haw about what to do. They know what they are doing (action already declared), now it's just a matter of adding a move (or not) and possibly a bonus action and doing your thing (declared action).

I'd say our combat rounds take about the same amount or just a little less time than when we were using cyclical initiative.


----------



## CheezyRamen (May 16, 2017)

HawaiiSteveO said:


> High / low DEX has no game effect then, along with Alert Feat, etc . . ?




High/low Dex has so much more to do than initiative lol. But yeah, the Alert feat is useless at that point. That wouldn't upset me or my players at all.


----------



## Adam R. Boyd (May 16, 2017)

Who wrote this craptarded note? I see why there is no byline. It says in the quote you quoted "roll each round". Then you ask "maybe initiative is rolled each round?". Please leave the writing to the literate, maybe go watch wrassling or something.


----------



## volanin (May 16, 2017)

HawaiiSteveO said:


> High / low DEX has no game effect then, along with Alert Feat, etc . . ?






CheezyRamen said:


> High/low Dex has so much more to do than initiative lol. But yeah, the Alert feat is useless at that point. That wouldn't upset me or my players at all.




Yes, DEX is ignored. The Alert Feat works by giving the player another card. When the first card is drawn, the player acts, and the second card is simply ignored.

It also has some problems with spell durations, which must be handwaved (some spells might last longer, others might be shorter). But the goal of this system is not to perfectly replace the current dice-based system. It's to be fast and unpredictable. And the players don't mind at all.


----------



## Charles Rampant (May 16, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> I am pretty sure this is the point of the system: Do things in the order of least complex to most complex, in terms of PLAYER COMPLEXITY.
> 
> In other words, shooting at someone involves the least complexity, the least number of choices for the player, the least number of likely reactions to it.
> 
> ...




Interesting thought. I assume that he must then ask for only general instructions at the start of the round. So 'I'll cast a spell', not 'I'll cast _Hold Person_ on the third minotaur'. That way everyone knows ROUGHLY what they are doing, and can take advantage of the extra time to contemplate it, as you say.


----------



## ddaley (May 16, 2017)

Back in the 80s, we used our own initiative system that was continuous, based on segments.  It was pretty simple, but I don't remember exactly how we did it.  It was something like d10 + weapon speed - dex mod would give you the segment on which you attacked.  After you attacked, you would roll again and add the result to the current segment and that was your next attack segment.

Since a round was 10 segments I think, you knew exactly on which segment a spell would end or be cast etc.  If you began casting your spell on the 11th segment and it took 5 segments to cast, then it would go off on the 16th segment... if it lasted a round, then it would end on the 26th segment.





Warmaster Horus said:


> Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.
> 
> Example:  A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round.  In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.


----------



## malcolm_n (May 16, 2017)

I've read through a few ideas here, compared to the OP, and I like a bit of a hybrid of them. Something like:

Use whatever dice you're going to assign. First round of combat is standard. Everybody gets 1d20 + initiative as per normal rules because everybody is just starting. As each person ends their turn, they roll their new initiative based on the dice assigned and the actions they took that round. I moved and attacked with my dagger, so next round my initiative is 1d6 + 1d8. Lowest initiative still goes first on subsequent rounds.

1) things like Thieves' Reflexes still work because the first round of combat acts normally. Also, the thief would only roll initiative based on their largest set of actions (so they can't hose it by just moving on the second time around). Alert would still work too, since that also only affects primary initiative of +5.

2) "Stunning" or otherwise removing actions from something just means it doesn't act during its groups' initiative. If all orcs but Acdac go at initiative 7 this round, then roll 12 for next round, he goes on initiative 12 next round. If it's a solo monster, it rolls initiative on the next round as a flat d10 with no modifiers. In the case of ambushes, the first round goes to those performing the ambush, then initiative starts as flat d10 for everybody caught by surprise.

I may well try this out in our next session.


----------



## Mistwell (May 16, 2017)

Charles Rampant said:


> Interesting thought. I assume that he must then ask for only general instructions at the start of the round. So 'I'll cast a spell', not 'I'll cast _Hold Person_ on the third minotaur'. That way everyone knows ROUGHLY what they are doing, and can take advantage of the extra time to contemplate it, as you say.




Yes.  The order is rather similar to the order of combat in the game Old School Hack, which I believe Mike Mearls is familiar with (and which were done for ease of use and rapidity of combat).  In that game (written by ENWorld user [MENTION=3994]kiznit[/MENTION] ), players just declare each round which action they are taking, not how they are taking it:


----------



## Chicken_Heart (May 16, 2017)

Needlessly complicated. All we need for new players is a complex system for initiative on top of already complicated combat rules. To keep things interesting in some games I just have the players re-roll initiative every turn. The initiative rules aren't perfect, but they get the job done.


----------



## Iosue (May 16, 2017)

This strikes me as essentially the 2e initiative system: declare actions, roll 1d8 for initiative every round, adjust result with modifiers depending on action, lowest goes first. The difference is instead of modifiers, Mearls uses different dice, which is similar to his preference for using skill dice over straight proficiency bonus.


----------



## Ath-kethin (May 16, 2017)

Hmm. I'm not too impressed. It seems to offer no real advantage over the system we use at my table, which is pretty much just rolling each round and using the weapon speed modifiers in the DMG.


----------



## Osgood (May 16, 2017)

I get the idea, but it seems like it will be confusing and slow to roll various dice every round. We already have a weapon speed optional rule, why bother with this? If I were to use this, I'd be inclined to just use the weapon's damage die, and maybe spells are d10 or d12 + spell level. Rather than bothering with adding dice for movement, bonus actions, weapon switches etc., just a static +2.


----------



## Anthro78 (May 16, 2017)

Why don't we just play a Fantasy Flight roleplaying game and roll 73 types of dice and consult the oracle as to what they mean?


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2017)

Barolo said:


> A lot of people were indeed excited, which I think was more related to it being something new, and yes, in 2E we did roll every round, by the book, declaring actions before rolling because of speed factors. I don't remember weapon speeds in 1E, though, but my grey hair might have a word or two regarding my memory .




I thought so. So basically it's the 2E system which everybody was excited about giving up in 2001 (but with dice instead of set speeds).

*Save**Save*​


----------



## Iosue (May 16, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I thought so. So basically it's the 2E system which everybody was excited about giving up in 2001 (but with dice instead of set speeds).




Dice instead of set speeds is a major change that addresses the major problem people had with 2e initiative: remembering all those modifiers and then adding them to the roll.


----------



## OB1 (May 16, 2017)

I think I'm starting to get my head around this, and I think it might be very interesting.  Obviously a lot of speculation in what follows.  I'm assuming that if you want to change your action when it becomes your turn, you roll the appropriate die and add it to your total, giving you your new place in the order.  

Start of round, 2 PCs, 2 Monsters

Rangy McRanger - Going to shoot my bow at Orc (Rolls 1d4 and gets a 4)
Gnomy Paladinick the Awesome - Going to attack with my Sword (Rolls 1d8 and gets a 5)
Orc - Move and Attack with Sword (Rolls 1d8 and 1d6 and gets a 3 total)
Dire Wolf - Move and Bite (rolls 1d8 and gets 8)

DM starts counting off initiative
1,2,3
Orc Moves up and attacks Rangy McRanger, it's a crit!  Rangy goes down!
4
Rangy Makes a death saving throw and fails!
5
Gnomy - Now I'm changing my action and want to lay hands on Rangy (Rolls d6 and gets a 5, new total is 10)
6,7,8
Dire Wolf - Bite and Grapple Gnomy - Gnomy wins grapple check
9, 10
Gnomy - Lays hands on Rangy, bringing him back up
Start Round 2

I'd also assume that if a player adds a bonus action mid round after they act, they take their action at the normal time and then roll to see when their bonus action comes up.  Same with deciding to move after an action or in between a multi-attack action (in which case the first blow would come at the regular initiative).  There is risk reward here, say for a monk, who might want to just roll action, move and bonus die all at once at the beginning and get to do everything together rather than risk splitting apart 2 attacks, a flurry of blows and movement.

My one concern is if there might be issues with the order in which actions are declared in the first place.  If I start the order saying the dragon is going to use her breath weapon, does everyone then decide to take the dodge action that round?  Is that a bad thing?  Would you roll declaration order at the start of combat using the regular initiative rolls with highest going last (assumes it's better to declare at the end than the beginning)?

I think there is a lot of potential here and that it adds a wonderful layer of strategy when playing TOM.


----------



## dave2008 (May 16, 2017)

GlassJaw said:


> Little surprised that this is Mearls' prefers system. It adds complexity and die rolls based on variable factors rolls and is pseudo-simulationist in nature, neither of which seem to really be what 5E is about. I don't see the benefit over the base system honestly.
> 
> I was hoping his system was more about declared actions and resolution choice or something. A system like that would be much more cooperative.




It seems to me that this system requires declared actions. Otherwise you wouldn't know what to roll. 

Also, in other places in the article Mearls professed his preference for die rolls (proficiency for example), but this was not instituted because the survey's showed a strong preference for static numbers.


----------



## dave2008 (May 16, 2017)

CydKnight said:


> Am I reading this right?  This sounds like you will have to know your action before each initiative roll.  If this is the case, what happens if circumstances change before your turn in that round effecting what action you want to take?  What else could you do but continue in the same order regardless?
> 
> On the surface, that doesn't seem any better to me than one 20-sided die roll for initiative at the start of combat.  It's more die rolls and more for a DM to track with negligible benefit in my humble opinion.
> 
> I welcome any corrections if my interpretation is in error.




We don't have the mechanics for the whole system, so there are a lot of things that would need to be ironed out before it could be added as an option to the game.  In addition, it seems the main reason he likes it is that it is less predictable. Not sure why everyone is getting hung up on whether or not it is faster.


----------



## Flamestrike (May 16, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> So no connection to any ability score, then?
> 
> Not only do you get to roll a very quick d4 instead of a d8, you also don't need to add the d6 needed to charge into melee...
> 
> ...




You may be the first person I put on ignore.

All you do is whinge and whine about the game. On an Internet forum dedicated to discussion of the game. It's like every time your posts come up I know what they going to say before I even read them... and then foolishly I read them and they just anger me.

Out of the hundreds of role-playing games available _why do you play this one?
_
I mean you seem to hate it so much that you log onto the Internet and spent several hours of each day whining about how bad it is. On a forum for people that _like_ the game no less. Sounds like you've wasted months of your life complaining about a game that you waste months of your life playing that you don't even like.

It's just really super weird.

Like I hated fourth edition. I loathed it. But I didn't waste any time or my life whingeing about it histrionically on the Internet on a daily basis; I just went off and found a different game to play.

Why do you play a game you so clearly hate? Why do you spend your leisure time so?

On the topic of the initiative variant, I hate it. I'm more than happy with a d20 and cycling initiative.


----------



## JeffB (May 16, 2017)

Anthro78 said:


> Why don't we just play a Fantasy Flight roleplaying game and roll 73 types of dice and consult the oracle as to what they mean?




FFG star wars initiative is fast and an unopposed roll. its not really any harder than 3/4/5e D&D. Because it also does not tie to specific characters every round but which "side" gets to go next, it's also far less boring than D&D cyclic initiative.


----------



## Iosue (May 16, 2017)

By the by, here's my homebrewed side-initiative system, based off B/X's combat sequence:

Both sides roll 1d6, highest roll goes first.
1. Roll morale, if needed, and Death Saves.
2. Initial movement, and all other various non-attack Actions.
3. Missile attacks and any remaining movement.
4. Magic spells and any remaining movement.
5. Melee attacks and any remaining movement.
6. Saving throws and endings of effects/conditions.

I find this works great in person, but not so great with Roll20 online play because people get distracted, mics get muted, etc.


----------



## Blitzner (May 16, 2017)

he also said that initiative slows the game and disrupts the tension of a fight "look, a dragon! Let's roll some dice and do some math". How does THAT helps with it? It's way worse


----------



## Staccat0 (May 16, 2017)

I might be compelled to try something like this, but I think it would need to be less frequent.

It's less thematic but I might say that there are "triggers" for rolling initiative including a PC dropping and new combatants entering the battlefield. When one of these events occurs you reroll initiative based on the LAST action you took instead of the NEXT.


----------



## dave2008 (May 16, 2017)

CheezyRamen said:


> This sounds like the most asinine thing I've heard. Why would anyone want to do initiative like this? I can't see how it would make combat move faster. Faster USUALLY = Simpler, such as both opposing parties roll d6, add highest init mod from each member and then each opposing parties move as a team. THAT'D be faster.




Then you need to get out more - there a lot more asinine things out there.  But to your issues:
1) We don't have the full rules
2) What is asinine for one group is not for another (it may even be essential)
3) The primary reason he states is to achieve unpredictability, not speed
4) It could be faster if, as it appears, you are required to declare your actions first, and this forces players to make quick decisions, players who otherwise take a long time to decided what they want to do

It is clearly not for everyone, and it is not intended to.  It appears it also works for him and his group.  See point 2 again.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 16, 2017)

Intriguing ideas on this thread. For those actually contributing, thank you. I like a lot of this, and might use some of it.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (May 16, 2017)

I may be tempted to use the the initiative from Shadow of the Demon Lord from Robert Shwalb. Each rounds is divided in 4 steps:
1. Players and Dm choose if they want to do a Fast Turn (only one action or move) or a Slow Turn (Whole turn as normal)
2. Resolve fast turns, players first then monsters.
3. Resolve slow turn, players then monsters.
4. End of the Round. Roll death saving throws if any. 

Players decide who goes in what order. Surprised creature stays surprised until the end of the first round.


----------



## dave2008 (May 16, 2017)

Iosue said:


> By the by, here's my homebrewed side-initiative system, based off B/X's combat sequence:
> 
> Both sides roll 1d6, highest roll goes first.
> 1. Roll morale, if needed, and Death Saves.
> ...




Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee.  I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword.  However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon.  Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.


----------



## kalil (May 16, 2017)

Puh. Good thing MM does not always get his way. This is awful. Clunky, fiddly and requires a declaration phase. What would be the order of declaration anyway? Pretty big advantage knowing what the enemy is doing before you declare your action. Bleh.


----------



## dave2008 (May 16, 2017)

Blitzner said:


> he also said that initiative slows the game and disrupts the tension of a fight "look, a dragon! Let's roll some dice and do some math". How does THAT helps with it? It's way worse




Maybe that is addressed in the full rules - of course maybe he hasn't solved that yet either.  This is not even a UA article, just some ideas he his personally trying.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 16, 2017)

It might be interesting, but I'd rather use the new Alternity system where what you do this time changes how soon you go again.


----------



## Blue (May 16, 2017)

Warmaster Horus said:


> Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.
> 
> Example:  A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round.  In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.




Or the reverse, where a giant goes, then gets stunned by the monk, and next round the monk goes first.  So the giant doesn't lose any actions.

Looks like it could be ripe for gaming the system.

If you are debuffed until the end of your turn, declare a fast action so it's over sooner and the foes don't get as much advantage against you.  If you are debuffed until the end of their turn, declare a slow, multi-part action so their initiative comes up first.

Reverse if you are doing the debuffing.

Now, this isn't to say this couldn't work in a D&D environment, just not the mix of durations that 5e has.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 16, 2017)

Do people like that so the monsters go at the same time? I have never liked that.


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2017)

Adam R. Boyd said:


> Who wrote this craptarded note? I see why there is no byline. It says in the quote you quoted "roll each round". Then you ask "maybe initiative is rolled each round?". Please leave the writing to the literate, maybe go watch wrassling or something.




Hi. Welcome to my place. Nice way to introduce yourself. Now go away.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 16, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee.  I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword.  However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon.  Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.




Not every phase will be used every round of every combat.  The order assumes engagement at range with combatants closing the distance. Once melee is joined yes it is faster than missile fire, but putting melee before missile fire creates some silly situations. Why is the guy with the loaded crossbow just standing there while the berserker with a sword closes in from 30 feet away and starts hacking?


----------



## schnee (May 16, 2017)

I want to:

a) see the whole rule written out first
b) see a group of 6 players on YouTube play out a round of combat with the old initiative style
b) see the same group do the same combat with the new initiative

before I pass judgment.

I need to see how much discipline is required to make this work before I propose it to my crew.

I see what he's getting at - certain actions have innate advantages in speed, but that doesn't make them _always_ go first. And making people declare actions first, once the habit is learned, may limit metagaming, enough so that even if a character's action is annulled by someone acting before them, causing them to choose a new action and re-roll, it might be faster.

But our group has 50% new players and I think this is probably a bit too advanced for them.


----------



## CydKnight (May 16, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> Not sure why everyone is getting hung up on whether or not it is faster.



"Hung up"?  No.  I simply wouldn't use the mechanic if it is as it appears to me in the OP description.  If people were to invest emotionally enough to be "hung up", I can clearly see the origin.  Part of the OP stated that this was faster according to Mearls and there have been a few reasons stated in this thread which might lead one to believe that might not be true at least some of the time.  So until someone can show me that my interpretations are incorrect (incomplete system not withstanding, I can only comment on what has been presented.


----------



## R P Davis (May 16, 2017)

Herobizkit said:


> Next thing you know, we're going to have Weapon Speed initiative modifiers and then a slippery slope to bonuses/penalties to hit Specific Armor Types...




-=-=-


----------



## Greg McCallister (May 16, 2017)

personally not a fan much prefer the ease of the original Initiative system this does seam very convoluted to crunchy for the 5e feel of the game just hope this stays as a optional way of doing it and it doesn't become the new way of doing it in a revised version of the game like what they did in 3rd make a 5.5 wouldn't be a bad thing mind you just saying if there is keep the old system please


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee.  I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword.  However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon.  Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.




I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed.  I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike.  Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc.  Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack).  But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.

So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 16, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> Other than copying a previous work, why would spells and ranged attacks go before melee.  I am somewhat proficient with a bow and throwing knives, less so with a sword.  However, it is still much faster for me to accurately hit something with a melee weapon.  Since there is not range accuracy penalty I assume the characters are taking time to aim, and thus should be slower to act.






Sacrosanct said:


> I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed.  I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike.  Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc.  Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack).  But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.
> 
> So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?




I think a lot of players forget about the abstraction layer in the game


----------



## Dartavian (May 16, 2017)

Flamestrike said:


> You may be the first person I put on ignore.
> 
> All you do is whinge and whine about the game. On an Internet forum dedicated to discussion of the game. It's like every time your posts come up I know what they going to say before I even read them... and then foolishly I read them and they just anger me.
> 
> ...




Even though we may disagree on the initiative variant, everything else is spot on! I too get tired of seeing the same old winey song and dance in every discussion in the forums.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Flamestrike said:


> You may be the first person I put on ignore.
> 
> All you do is whinge and whine about the game. On an Internet forum dedicated to discussion of the game. It's like every time your posts come up I know what they going to say before I even read them... and then foolishly I read them and they just anger me.
> 
> ...





Reading this post was kinda surreal because I've made it myself pretty much exactly word for word in the past.  I think it's because some people think if they keep complaining and don't stop, the designers will eventually "listen" and change the game to how they want it.  When has that ever worked in the history of ever for anyone?

Finally, I just started using my ignore button.  I was always against it, but not anymore. I mean, this is a forum about games, not a discussion on life or death.  So ignoring people like that makes the environment much more pleasant.


----------



## guachi (May 16, 2017)

I like the idea of only declaring an Action before rolling initiative. 

I playtested a different initiative system that was more freewheeling where initiative rolls were only made when timing mattered. It worked well for the one battle I used it for.

What I'm really looking for is an initiative system to replace cyclical initiative with. Whether that's using cards or only declaring an action and then rolling, I want something else. I'd also prefer a system where players declare before knowing the initiative order.

Uncertainty is fun!


----------



## LapBandit (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Reading this post was kinda surreal because I've made it myself pretty much exactly word for word in the past.  I think it's because some people think if they keep complaining and don't stop, the designers will eventually "listen" and change the game to how they want it.  When has that ever worked in the history of ever for anyone?
> 
> Finally, I just started using my ignore button.  I was always against it, but not anymore. I mean, this is a forum about games, not a discussion on life or death.  So ignoring people like that makes the environment much more pleasant.




Perhaps you're ignoring a divergent voice because it doesn't confirm your bias?  I also find it funny when people complain about complaining and then try to hold the moral high-ground.

Tell me again why his voice shouldn't count when the designers weigh what their audience wants?


----------



## Blue (May 16, 2017)

kenmarable said:


> Interesting system, but one odd side effect (as presented) is that you need to know your actions before you roll initiative for that round. You need to know if you are gong to take a bonus action, or swap gear, etc.




You bring up a great point, but one that's made more confusing by things like conditional actions.

"Oh look, I got a crit, now I can take a bonus action attack thanks to Great Weapon Master."

Do I decide at that point to take the bonus action and delay all the rest of my action until a later point?  Just the bonus action attack happens later?  Can I split up my move for the round so so is happening before action and some after the bonus action even if they are now on different initiatives?

or maybe a bonsu action that happens sometimes doesn't add.  That avoids those issues but skews the "realism" this is trying for because a reliable bonus action attack slows everything down but a unreliable one doesn't?


----------



## shamurai7 (May 16, 2017)

This seems awful. I do understand the thought process but what little 'makes sense' you gain from it is not worth the tradeoff of bogging down a perfectly good single die roll that is in place.

This system goes against the spirit of the ruleset anyway. Less is more.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

LapBandit said:


> Perhaps you're ignoring a divergent voice because it doesn't confirm your bias?




No, pretty sure that's not it, but the reason is exactly like Flamestrike described.  Perhaps you should read his post that I quoted and agreed with and you could have saved yourself a lot of time.



> Tell me again why his voice shouldn't count when the designers weigh what their audience wants?




Totally NOT what we were saying.


----------



## robus (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> I much prefer my own homebrew version, which actually DOES speed the game up a lot.   Everyone rolls as normal.  Then as the DM, I look at where my monsters go.  Let's say they go on 14.  I will call out, "Anyone above 14 may go."  Then I go, and then I call out "Everyone else can go."
> 
> The first thing you may be thinking is how that screws up things because in 5e some actions either start or end at your turn.  But after years now of using it, I'm telling you that's not an issue, and really hasn't been.  It saves a lot of time from having to go down the initiative order, and allows the players to feel like they have more control over their actions.  It also implements a "hold action" way better IMO than the game handles it now.  I.e., I still use the hold action for that official declaration from the player as written, but it allows a "minor hold" action because if you rolled higher than your buddy, you can still wait until after he or she goes as long as both of you went faster (or slower) than the monsters without affecting what you want to do.




This is actually very similar to the FFG Star Wars initiative system. Initiative rolls allocate slots in the initiative order :

* PC
* PC
* NPC
* PC
* NPC
* PC

It's up to the PCs who goes in which slot and up the GM who goes in the NPC slots. So not quite as structured as your system. but it can make for a more flexible cycle if that's what people want.


----------



## Blue (May 16, 2017)

jrowland said:


> My 2cp:
> 
> Low initiative goes first allows for additive initiative by round.
> 
> ...




I _*seriously*_ hope this isn't it, otherwise he just upped the rate of fire for all missile weapons compared to melee weapons.

This interpretation would be ruinous with the current 5e rules, it would take serious work to rebalance.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 16, 2017)

Blue said:


> I *gladly* give up a little extra realism for the play speed increase of roll-once cyclic initiative.  I don't care about the borders between rounds, we just go.



 Yes, this. 



stoopski said:


> How about that depending on the action(s) you took this round, you roll the dice according to M. Mearls rules, but only after you take your turn. Then you add this to your current initiative.
> 
> 
> Initiative order never resets to 0, it just increases.
> ...




This is close to the new Alternity initiative "Impulse" system. In it, you take an action, and depending on what it is, you gain X Impulse, moving further on a wheel, and go again when your new place on that wheel comes up. So, in 5e, movement might only add 1 impulse, while actions add 2. Bonus actions don't use your impulse turn, but add to how much impulse you gain in a turn. Ie, if you attack with two weapons, you gain 2 impulse for using an action, and 1 more for usning a bonus action. If you move and use a bonus action to use an item, you gain 1 for moving, and 1 for the bonus action, for a total of 2. 
Not sure it adds anything to the game over just using the existing system, but it seems easier and simpler to me than additive initiative, and possibly more fun. maybe. 



d-minky said:


> How is rolling _every round_ supposed to speed up combat??
> I got really excited when he said he was working on a new initiative system. This just seems so much worse than what we already have.



Yep. I'm not sure what it actually adds to the game, at all. 



Schmoe said:


> Rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order every round is objectively more complex than rolling initiative and figuring out the relative order only once.  Just saying.




Yeeeup. I've even considered rolling to randomize an Initiative DC for a group Initiative check, and just going counter clockwise around the table from there. Ie, the group rolls Initiative, if half or more succeed against my 5+2d6 or whatever, DC, the team goes first, if not, the enemies go first. 

but, that does wonk up a lot of assumptions and the ability of the team to effectively react to monsters. 

I've also considered just having notes on whose inititative bonus is what, and going in that order, or going round the table with at least one enemy between each player. This makes initiative entirely irrelevant, but is much simpler and faster, and I just can't bring myself to care about Mike's "boring/predictable" complaint. Not all parts of the system are there to excite you. Initiative is one of those rules, IMO, that is best when it gets the heck out of my way.


----------



## flametitan (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed.  I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike.  Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc.  Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack).  But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.
> 
> So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?




But it's not _just_ knife throwing. We're also saying that drawing an arrow, aiming it, and firing a bow (and at higher levels, _multiple times per turn_) is faster than the guy who's swinging their sword, and doesn't have to worry about drawing it.

That said, realism is kind of moot, as more likely what would happen is that the bow would get at least one shot off before the melee combatant gets in range, and now the archer will have to draw their sword as you wouldn't be able to get another shot off before being cut/stab/etc. Such a system would likely require us to have a _much_ more complex style of initiative (chainmail would be a starting point), which I doubt most players would want to track.


----------



## guachi (May 16, 2017)

Rolling initiative every round adds unpredictability to the game. Just like having to make attack rolls every round.

The point of rolling initiative every round or of declaring actions before rolling initiative is to add that element of uncertainty to the game and make knowing if you can do X before the enemy does Y exciting.

Also, it may seem like it takes longer to resolve a round if you declare actions first and then roll initiative but in practice it doesn't. Players declare less complex actions and tend to declare them faster in this system. It is, IMO, a better system. 

The problem isn't declaring and/or rolling every round. The problem is when the system has too many modifiers.


----------



## ninjayeti (May 16, 2017)

M.T. Black said:


> Mearls indicated it was _cyclic initiative he didn't like ("Cyclical initiative - too predictable"), which the above doesn't address at all (it merely changes the die rolls).
> 
> _



_
This.  

"If you don't like cyclical initiative, roll initiative at the start of each round."  
-Shortest Unearthed Arcana article ever._


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 16, 2017)

I like the idea of declared actions.  I get incredibly frustrated with players who disengage from the game as soon as their turn is over.  This of course leads to the situation where the new round comes around and I say "Joe its your turn" for the 3rd time and only then they stop discussing politics/sleeping/sketching and start to think of what they are going to do.  Which kills momentum for everyone as they have to look up spells and have the rest of the party get them up to speed on what happened while they weren't paying attention.  If they have to think of what they are going to do each round in advance maybe that will help things and help focus attention.  More likely I'll just keep having to throw dice at certain players as they start killing the game at the start of each round rather than at the start of their individual turns.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

flametitan said:


> But it's not _just_ knife throwing. We're also saying that drawing an arrow, aiming it, and firing a bow (and at higher levels, _multiple times per turn_) is faster than the guy who's swinging their sword, and doesn't have to worry about drawing it.
> 
> That said, realism is kind of moot, as more likely what would happen is that the bow would get at least one shot off before the melee combatant gets in range, and now the archer will have to draw their sword as you wouldn't be able to get another shot off before being cut/stab/etc. Such a system would likely require us to have a _much_ more complex style of initiative (chainmail would be a starting point), which I doubt most players would want to track.




Well, I guess my response is that in a sword fight, you're not just swinging your sword.  You're _also_ aiming (looking for an opening), and you're taking several swings that all factor into the same attack roll.  Unlike ranged weapons which is one attack roll per shot.

Also, this:
[video=youtube;BEG-ly9tQGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk[/video]


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 16, 2017)

Though deep in my heart I've always liked the 1e system.  Roll a D6 for each side and then go side by side.  It always went faster but it holds back faster PC at  the expense of slower PC.  Though as the Ad&d DMG put it, quicker PC are harder to hit due to DEX mods to AC and so forth.  It was also a more abstracted system with 1 minute rounds.

Maybe I should port over the Hackmaster system were you can move on every count of the round so there was no sitting there waiting for your turn...


----------



## Grazzt (May 16, 2017)

dagger said:


> Now we are back to old school and roll once at the start of combat for each side.




True "old school" had each side rolling initiative at the start of each round.


----------



## Magister Ludorum (May 16, 2017)

I can see no way that this system speeds up combat. The reason I run 5th edition instead of 3rd is faster combat resolution (and fewer, more meaningful feats, and fewer bonuses and penalties added in with the die roll, et alia).


----------



## dagger (May 16, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> True "old school" had each side rolling initiative at the start of each round.




Yep, but we want combat to be even faster, so its been 'modernized'.


----------



## Grazzt (May 16, 2017)

dagger said:


> Yep, but we want combat to be even faster, so its been 'modernized'.




I see. Carry on then.


----------



## Dausuul (May 16, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I like the idea of declared actions.  I get incredibly frustrated with players who disengage from the game as soon as their turn is over.  This of course leads to the situation where the new round comes around and I say "Joe its your turn" for the 3rd time and only then they stop discussing politics/sleeping/sketching and start to think of what they are going to do.  Which kills momentum for everyone as they have to look up spells and have the rest of the party get them up to speed on what happened while they weren't paying attention.  If they have to think of what they are going to do each round in advance maybe that will help things and help focus attention.  More likely I'll just keep having to throw dice at certain players as they start killing the game at the start of each round rather than at the start of their individual turns.



I don't think switching initiative methods is the solution to this one. I would solve it as follows:


First, talk to the players in question about whether there's something that could help them stay engaged.
If this conversation does not lead to improvements, institute a 10-second policy: If you don't announce your action (not just start deciding on it, but actually say what it is) within 10 seconds of your turn coming up, you lose your turn and the next person gets to go.
Upon instituting this policy, enforce it rigorously, fairly, and without mercy.


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, this:



A trick shot archery video with questionable use of historical sources that has been debunked and well-criticized?


----------



## robus (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, I guess my response is that in a sword fight, you're not just swinging your sword.  You're _also_ aiming (looking for an opening), and you're taking several swings that all factor into the same attack roll.  Unlike ranged weapons which is one attack roll per shot.
> 
> Also, this:
> [video=youtube;BEG-ly9tQGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk[/video]




Wow! That guy is intense!


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> A trick shot archery video with questionable use of historical sources that has been debunked and well-criticized?




A video that clearly shows that a person can fire a bow a lot faster while aiming than people assume, and directly what I was responding to in that quote.  But if you choose to miss the point completely and focus on items that aren't really all that related (my argument had nothing to do with historical accuracy, but _only_ on how fast someone can accurately fire a bow), I suppose I can't stop you.


----------



## flametitan (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, this:
> *Lars Andersen*




Lars Andersen is a show shooter. He doesn't draw his bow to its full length, and it's likely a low poundage bow to begin with. You wouldn't get away with that in an actual fight, and that he presents is as a viable combat manoeuvre is dishonest, based on art (which has had issues regarding realism before) and mythology.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2v5km2/in_which_lars_andersen_uses_bad_history_to_rake/

As for swords also having to look for openings, that is true, but then _everything else_ is quicker. You can retract a your sword arm to parry, you can find an opening and thrust without having to first draw and arrow and be exposed.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 16, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> I don't think switching initiative methods is the solution to this one. I would solve it as follows:
> 
> 
> First, talk to the players in question about whether there's something that could help them stay engaged.
> ...




Oh I've done it all.  I ask them that specific first question and get "Man your games are the best and love you DM'ing".   So I ask them why they have trouble paying attention.  Then I ask them again as they quit paying attention...

The main issue is half the group is there to play D&D, and half is there to hang out with the guys and knock back a few cans as much as play D&D.  Half of them are hyper political and don't see each other save for D&D night and have to catch up.  I have a lot of fun but it may be time to get out the mini hourglass and start timing.


----------



## The Old Crow (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> A video that clearly shows that a person can fire a bow a lot faster while aiming than people assume, and directly what I was responding to in that quote.  But if you choose to miss the point completely and focus on items that aren't really all that related (my argument had nothing to do with historical accuracy, but _only_ on how fast someone can accurately fire a bow), I suppose I can't stop you.




Or, maybe it's high level and high DEX. Perhaps it isn't the bow which is making him aim fast, but skill. Like someone might have with a sword, too, if they put time and effort and had a talent for it.


----------



## schnee (May 16, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> A trick shot archery video with questionable use of historical sources that has been debunked and well-criticized?




The only parts that have been 'debunked' are the parts where he's talking.

His shooting is still bad ass. 

If he can pull that sort of amazing stuff in 'closing to melee range' space in reality, then imagine what is possible if you add the requisite amount of Hollywood heroic nonsense that's been added to every movie sword fight over the decades.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

flametitan said:


> Lars Andersen is a show shooter. He doesn't draw his bow to its full length, and it's likely a low poundage bow to begin with. You wouldn't get away with that in an actual fight, and that he presents is as a viable combat manoeuvre is dishonest, based on art (which has had issues regarding realism before) and mythology.
> 
> Here's a more detailed breakdown of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2v5km2/in_which_lars_andersen_uses_bad_history_to_rake/
> 
> As for swords also having to look for openings, that is true, but then _everything else_ is quicker. You can retract a your sword arm to parry, you can find an opening and thrust without having to first draw and arrow and be exposed.




Well, that's certainly a lot of speculation there, isn't it?  Would you want to get shot by him?  Obviously he's shooting with enough energy to pierce chain armor, which seems to me more than enough to cause real damage.  We also know that many of the historical references are true.  He didn't make up all of those tapestry images.  Are they what he claimed universally?  Probably not.  But it did exist as is shown by the evidence.  To call him dishonest speaks more about you and your agenda then does him.  Watch that video on mute and only look at what is actually being done.  You're handwaving all of it away based on your own biases in spite of actual evidence of what one can do with a bow, trick shot or no.  That evidence being: here is indisputable proof of how fast someone can fire a bow and fire it accurately with effect (like piercing chain mail armor).  Who cares about how historically accurate it is.  We're talking about a fantasy game here after all.

And again, you're completely ignoring the way combat in D&D works.  This is not one strike per sword compared to one shot per bow.  D&D views _many_ sword strikes as all part of the same attack roll, and does not with ranged weapons.  So the question is, can you fire one arrow faster than you can strike a half dozen times?  And not wild random strikes, but strikes used in a typical sword fight.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

For all of you getting hung up on that video, here's another one, with her doing it "the right way".  And she's shooting 1 arrow much faster than someone can get in a half dozen melee strikes. That's the point.

[video=youtube;1o9RGnujlkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI[/video]


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Or this one (at the 2 minute mark).  
[video=youtube;2yorHswhzrU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU[/video]


----------



## jgsugden (May 16, 2017)

I've tried dozens of initiative systems in 5 different decades of gaming.  My conclusion: No system will get wide approval.  

My favorite system discards rounds as a construct.  You roll a reaction die and when your reaction time comes up, you can declare an action.  Actions take time and can be disrupted by intervening events.  It has weapon speeds, spell lengths, etc... and takes about 5 pages of description to cover in addition to assigning weapon speeds, spell lengths, etc... to a lot of existing weapons, spells and magic items.  Some of my players have loved this level of complexity and 'reality' - while others get frustrated and hate it.  

In the end, I think that keeping it simple and accepting the lack of reality is the approach that works best.  The game moves fast.  Everybody understands what is taking place.  The people that like hyper realism are unsatisfied, but someone was going to be unsatisfied and at least they benefit from a fast moving game.


----------



## bmfrosty (May 16, 2017)

I'm trying to understand this.

1) Everyone decides what they're doing and rolls appropriate dice to determine initiative.
2) Sort out what order everyone goes it.
3) Play it out.
4) Go back to #1 if there are still baddies.

Is that right?


----------



## LapBandit (May 16, 2017)

All these videos are of low draw bows like I used to hunt with as a child.  Good for killing pheasants no doubt, but strike a man under chain mail and it doesn't feel like the equivalent of 1d6 + DEX.  Hell, those 1 HP pheasants could sometimes take one and live.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

LapBandit said:


> All these videos are of low draw bows like I used to hunt with as a child.  Good for killing pheasants no doubt, but strike a man under chain mail and it doesn't feel like the equivalent of 1d6 + DEX.  Hell, those 1 HP pheasants could sometimes take one and live.




No, they are not.  Especially the last one.  That is a genuine reproduction bow used by the Hun warriors.  It makes no sense for an archery expert who is training for combat to use a bow that is less powerful than the one he would be using in combat.  In fact, that would be counter to effective training.  And that's of course you ignoring _again_ what is actually presented in front of you, this being the first video where his bow _does_ get significant penetration through chain mail armor.


----------



## Lanefan (May 16, 2017)

Some variant ideas:

First off, for this to work you have to allow simultaneous initiatives!  If three different participants in a combat all have a '4' initiative then they all act on a 4.

Second: instead of a different die for casting, go old school and give each spell a casting time in segments, 8 to a round.  

And now, most things can use d8 for initiative (low goes first), with no bonus/penalty for dexterity (dex already has enough going for it):

Ranged: d6 (I think d4 is a bit too generous) with each shot (if you get more than one) getting its own separate different initiative (you can't shoot twice on the same init.)
Melee: d8 with each attack* (if you get more than one) getting its own separate different initiative (you can't attack twice on the same init.)
Spell: d8 + casting time of spell**
Movement: add 1 to the roll for each x feet of movement, where x is based on your move rate

* - exception: if using two weapons they can attack at the same time.
** - the casting time (the segments between your actual roll and your adjusted roll) is when you can be interrupted; side effect: reins in casters a bit

And this could be squashed down even further if one likes: 6-segment rounds, ranged d4, everything else d6.

This is very, very close to what I've used for 30+ years - the d6 variant, only without the different die for ranged - ignoring some corner cases and exceptions.  The only difference in mine is that high goes first: we resolve all the 6's, then the 5's, and so on down to 1's.

And yes, sometimes you (or an opponent) might miss two actions in a row due to a spell while other times you (or it) will miss none.  Tough.  Deal with it. 

Lan-"can't see the forest for the fog of war"-efan


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> A video that clearly shows that a person can fire a bow a lot faster while aiming than people assume, and directly what I was responding to in that quote.  But if you choose to miss the point completely and focus on items that aren't really all that related (my argument had nothing to do with historical accuracy, but _only_ on how fast someone can accurately fire a bow), I suppose I can't stop you.



Sorry, but I cannot see an argument in which this too-oft-posted video would carry any weight or point to be made, historical or otherwise. In response to your other videos (all with low-draw bows), it's not just about how quickly one can shoot, but also aiming, penetration, and combat duress. How many swings can a sword make in a similar amount of time? Or jabs a knife make? 



Sacrosanct said:


> No, they are not.  Especially the last one.  *That is a genuine reproduction bow used by the Hun warriors.*  It makes no sense for an archery expert who is training for combat to use a bow that is less powerful than the one he would be using in combat.  In fact, that would be counter to effective training.  And that's of course you ignoring _again_ what is actually presented in front of you, this being the first video where his bow _does_ get significant penetration through chain mail armor.



With all the trademark authenticity of the History Channel and their "historical" reconstructions and serious topics about samurais vs. knights.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> Sorry, but I cannot see an argument in which this too-oft-posted video would carry any weight or point to be made, historical or otherwise. In response to your other videos (all with low-draw bows), it's not just about how quickly one can shoot, but also aiming, penetration, and combat duress. How many swings can a sword make in a similar amount of time? Or jabs a knife make?
> 
> With all the trademark authenticity of the History Channel and their "historical" reconstructions and serious topics about samurais vs. knights.




With this response, it is obvious you never actually watched it.  Otherwise you'd realize what a very odd statement for you to make.


----------



## guachi (May 16, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I like the idea of declared actions.  I get incredibly frustrated with players who disengage from the game as soon as their turn is over.  This of course leads to the situation where the new round comes around and I say "Joe its your turn" for the 3rd time and only then they stop discussing politics/sleeping/sketching and start to think of what they are going to do.




^^^^^^^^^^

This. So much this. In principle rolling initiative once and going cyclical should take less time. But in practice, the above is too often how it's implemented.

In practice, having to redo initiative every round (as long as there aren't a lot of modifiers) *and* declare actions before rolling (even if it's just an Action as defined in game) can end up being faster as players stay more engaged.


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> With this response, it is obvious you never actually watched it.  Otherwise you'd realize what a very odd statement for you to make.



Because no one could possibly be skeptical of your video sources or the claims they make?


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> Because no one could possibly be skeptical of your video sources or the claims they make?




No, because if you did bother to even watch them, you'd see your claims to be as ridiculous as possible because they directly contradict what you've been saying.  You're dismissing evidence without even looking at it and making claims that are directly addressed in said evidence.  That's not just disingenuous, that's incredibly lazy.  Stop digging a hole man.  And while you're at it, go look up who Lajos Kassai (the man in the last video) is.


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> No, because if you did bother to even watch them, you'd see your claims to be as ridiculous as possible because they directly contradict what you've been saying.  You're dismissing evidence without even looking at it and making claims that are directly addressed in said evidence.  That's not just disingenuous, that's incredibly lazy.  Stop digging a hole man.  And while you're at it, go look up who Lajos Kassai (the man in the last video) is.



You keep saying that I haven't watched the videos, but I have. Twice each at this point since apparently my first time didn't count. Am I supposed to watch and simply agree? Repeating that assertion that I have not watched these videos at this point is just false. I just don't particularly buy into what you are arguing or the often hyperbolically exaggerated claims made on the History Channel, and I don't know why you find that incredulous. At your suggestion, I have looked up Lajos Kassai. He does indeed sound impressive from his accomplishments and his shooting expertise, but it's also competitive shooting.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> You keep saying that I haven't watched the videos, but I have. Twice each at this point since apparently my first time didn't count. Am I supposed to watch and simply agree?




No, but if you did watch them, then why would you continue to repeat false claims that are directly contradicted in the videos?  Just to troll everyone and waste our time?  I never said you couldn't be skeptical, but the things you are claiming are irrefutably addressed in those videos.  I.e., it doesn't matter who Lars is, the video evidence clearly shows arrows easily penetrating chain mail armor at a rapid fire rate.  They all clearly show how someone can fire accurately and quickly with a bow.  There is no denying that.  And in the last video, they explicitly state who Lajos is, and his credibility.  So either you did not watch them and are lying, or you did and didn't pay any attention, or you did and you keep repeating claims that are false and were disproved in those videos just to waste our time.  Either way, it doesn't paint you in the most positive light.  Also, while competitive shooting bows are a lighter draw weight than war bows, they are about the same as hunting bows, so any comments (not just from you) that states they wouldn't do much damage are blatantly inaccurate.  Additionally, if a PC in D&D can be stronger than an ogre, then having a 100# draw weight would be insignificant to the rate of accurate fire compared to the woman in that second video did with the 40# bow she had.

But again, you're missing the point completely.  In D&D, melee attack rolls encompass many strikes, and ranges weapons only count as one.  Therefore, it's entirely reasonable that in the context of initiative, a ranged weapon would be faster than a melee weapon


----------



## LordEntrails (May 16, 2017)

Or just use current init rules and re-roll at the start of every round. Or go back to weapon speeds from 1e (?) that no one ever used. And then figure out how spell durations work and delayed actions and...

Or, just say say KISS and use the system as is.


----------



## dagger (May 16, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> I see. Carry on then.




We do it that way in our 1e game and always have (default 1e initiative is rough)


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 16, 2017)

Herobizkit said:


> Next thing you know, we're going to have Weapon Speed initiative modifiers and then a slippery slope to bonuses/penalties to hit Specific Armor Types...



 We can hope.  ;P


----------



## Nine Hands (May 16, 2017)

HawaiiSteveO said:


> Been tinkering with using Savage Worlds system - deck of playing cards, counting down Ace to Deuce. Great system, easy to keep track of who's taken a turn, who hasn't, bigger groups, etc. Jokers get to go whenever they want, even interrupt another turn and so on. High DEX etc get to draw again (like Quick Edge - discard & draw again if less than 5) if they get a card lower than X (depending on DEX bonus).




I've been using this system for quite some time in my Mekton game and it works well.

I even chose certain cards (Ace of Spades) to give the player's a bonus when drawn.  This was because they were members of the Black Aces squadron.


----------



## dagger (May 16, 2017)

1e and 2e.., 


In our 1e/2e game we declare before the roll but it's mainly to identify who is going to start casting (but not the actual spell) for spell disruption.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 16, 2017)

bmfrosty said:


> I'm trying to understand this.
> 
> 1) Everyone decides what they're doing and rolls appropriate dice to determine initiative.
> 2) Sort out what order everyone goes it.
> ...




Note that step #2 is often unnecessary. You only need it when there are mutually exclusive-actions in #3, such as two guys both knocking each other unconscious in the same round. But if one guy does 27 HP of damage to the other, while taking 18 HP of damage in return, it doesn't matter what order things happened in and you can skip step #2.


----------



## Nine Hands (May 16, 2017)

volanin said:


> I use cards as well, but simpler:
> 
> *1.* Each player/monster has a card.
> *2.* As a card is drawn from the deck, the corresponding player/monster acts and draws the next card.
> *3.* The deck is reshuffled each round.




That looks awesome.  I'm going to start doing this for my convention games.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 16, 2017)

LordEntrails said:


> Or just use current init rules and re-roll at the start of every round. Or go back to weapon speeds from 1e (?) that no one ever used.




I used them. In 2nd edition, anyway. (Never played 1E except the Gold Box games.)


----------



## Ath-kethin (May 16, 2017)

From the 5e DMG, starting on page 270: 



> *SPEED FACTOR*
> Some DMs find the regular progression of initiative too predictable and prone to abuse. Players can use their knowledge of the initiative order to influence their decisions. For example, a badly wounded fighter might charge a troll because he knows that the cleric goes before the monster and can heal him. Speed factor is an option for initiative that introduces more uncertainty into combat, at the cost of speed of play. Under this variant, the participants in a battle roll initiative each round. Before rolling, each character or monster must choose an action.
> 
> *Initiative Modifiers*.
> ...




I fail to see how this system, or some slight variation of it, fails to accomplish every goal most of us have with initiative. It keeps people engaged, it keeps combat fast, and it keeps things from being too predictable. 

Really, the takeaway idea form this discussion for me is just removing the Dex modifier to initiative. I am in agreement with many that Dex does enough already. I've heard discussions of people using their INT modifier instead, and maybe I'll start doing that. Or maybe adding 1/4 or 1/5 of the character's level to the roll? Maybe the proficiency bonus? That way higher level characters still go faster (as they normally would due to boosting their Dex scores over time). Hmmm.


----------



## Hurin88 (May 16, 2017)

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

Actions that are faster should go first. This was the case for example in Rolemaster. I'm glad the new edition of Rolemaster is going to an even more sophisticated system, with Action Points much like the old Fallout games.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 16, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


> *Mearls is realizing that the DnD system is too basic and simplistic; the same could be said for many other elements of the system. I think people are starting to realize that, now that the nostalgia has worn off.* 4th Edition is looking a lot better in hindsight, just like Obama now looks a lot better now that we have Trump.
> 
> Actions that are faster should go first. This was the case for example in Rolemaster. I'm glad the new edition of Rolemaster is going to an even more sophisticated system, with Action Points much like the old Fallout games.




Well, I agree with your first two sentences anyway.


----------



## HobbitFan (May 16, 2017)

I don't see how Mearl's system is any better.  It seems like its adding complexity to little benefit.  

If the goal is to try and avoid static initiative, why not just reroll round to round?


----------



## Argyle King (May 16, 2017)

The proposed system sounds as though it might heavily favor ranged combat.   Low rolls are better and ranged attackers roll  1d4?


----------



## OB1 (May 16, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


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




I don't think this is an accurate at all.  Mearls specifically called out 4e as being too complex a system for general use in the AMA interview, but did suggest that they might release something similar to 4e under a D&D Tactics banner for those who prefer that type of game.

As for 5e, I would say that now is a good time to add rules to the system to allow those who have mastered the basic rules a chance at more complexity, and in fact it looks like that is going to happen with the rules expansion this fall.  But IMO the core system isn't too basic and simplistic, it's great for both new and casual players.  I'll be interested in looking at the "Advanced" rule set, but my bet is the more casual group I DM for will want to stick with the basic rules depending on how much complexity it adds.


----------



## Sacrosanct (May 16, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


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




5e has been out for 5 years, if you count the playtest.  That's a bit long for nostalgia, don't you think?  And there are no signs people are getting tired of 5e yet either.  By comparison, 4e was out only 4 years.  So what does that say about 4e?


----------



## OB1 (May 16, 2017)

HobbitFan said:


> I don't see how Mearl's system is any better.  It seems like its adding complexity to little benefit.
> 
> If the goal is to try and avoid static initiative, why not just reroll round to round?




The goal is to make the order of actions more unpredictable. Rerolling still means I know if I go before or after the Orc.  It may be too complex, but I'm willing to give it a try to see if it makes the game more fun.


----------



## Aldarc (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> No, but if you did watch them, then why would you continue to repeat false claims that are directly contradicted in the videos?  Just to troll everyone and waste our time?





> Either way, it doesn't paint you in the most positive light.



So which false claims have I repeated? Furthermore, I would suggest that you refrain from making assertions about my character and actions, as I have politely refrained from making any about you. 



> I never said you couldn't be skeptical, but the things you are claiming are irrefutably addressed in those videos.  I.e., it doesn't matter who Lars is, the video evidence clearly shows arrows *easily penetrating chain mail armor *at a rapid fire rate.



Similar videos have been shown about weaponry other than archery with similar results against mail. I do not doubt that arrows could penetrate mail armor or be fired rapidly, but it's also paramount to recognize a number of factors. (1) In many mock weapon trials (not just archery) against mail, the mail armor is often placed on a solid (non-moving) dummy, which actually increases the efficacy of the penetration/slashing on the armor. (2) Chain armor has never been just chain armor, as is often the case in many videos, but also included gambeson/padded armor. This is all not to say that arrows can't penetrate the armor, but that these sort of mock trials don't necessarily reflect much beyond the trial conditions. (3) These videos would only support the argument for the (composite) short bow but don't address other ranged weaponry. (4) These videos do not make a compelling case for why ranged weapons should be privileged with a "better" initiative order over melee weapon attacks. 



> They all clearly show how someone can fire accurately and quickly with a bow. There is no denying that.



I don't recall doubting that. My assertion was that it is trick/sport archery. And Lars is a trick shooter, while Kassai created competitive (Hungarian) Horseback Archery as a sport. 



> And in the last video, they explicitly state who Lajos is, and his credibility.



Did we even watch the same video that you posted? There is actually not much they tell you about Kassai in that regard if you actually listen. 



> So either you did not watch them and are lying, or you did and didn't pay any attention, or you did and you keep repeating claims that are false and were disproved in those videos just to waste our time.



Or I did watch them, but I don't find the video sources historically compelling or buy the argument you are making at face value? 



> But again, you're missing the point completely.  In D&D, melee attack rolls encompass many strikes, and ranges weapons only count as one.  Therefore, it's entirely reasonable that in the context of initiative, a ranged weapon would be faster than a melee weapon



Then why can't a melee weapon be faster than a ranged one given a similar pretext?


----------



## Mercule (May 16, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> True "old school" had each side rolling initiative at the start of each round.



So the players can argue about who should go first among themselves and object when the GM uses the same option against them. I remember those days.


----------



## iserith (May 16, 2017)

My Twitter feed has been full of talk of Initiative today. Now this thread has exploded. I don't really have any skin in the game except to say that a quote from Winston Churchill came to mind, slightly modified for the topic:

*The current initiative system is the worst form of handling turn order, except for all the others.
*
I think I'll stick with what we got.


----------



## Shasarak (May 16, 2017)

Personally I would prefer using weapon/spell speed then this idea.


----------



## Darkness (May 16, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> ... Just to troll everyone and waste our time? ... So either you did not watch them and are lying, or you did and didn't pay any attention, or you did and you keep repeating claims that are false and were disproved in those videos just to waste our time.  Either way, it doesn't paint you in the most positive light. ...



*Keep it civil, please. Aim for the argument, not the poster behind it.*


----------



## Darkness (May 16, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


> ... just like Obama now looks a lot better now that we have Trump. ...



*No politics on these boards, please.*


----------



## Grazzt (May 16, 2017)

Mercule said:


> So the players can argue about who should go first among themselves and object when the GM uses the same option against them. I remember those days.




Each to their own; groups are different. I never encountered this in my years of playing (since 1982).


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 16, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> Each to their own; groups are different. I never encountered this in my years of playing (since 1982).





Me either.   1e initiative went much faster than any of the individual systems since then IME.


----------



## osarusan (May 16, 2017)

Whenever the conversation about how to improve initiative comes up, I have to recommend people take a look at the Hackmaster rules.
I don't know anyone who has played Hackmaster and not come away saying that the combat in that game is so much fun and far better than the way combat runs in D&D.
I was really hoping that Mearls' hint at a new initiative system might have been a simplified version of the Hackmaster count-up system tailored for D&D.
If you guys haven't seen it, look up Hackmaster Basic (free PDF) and take a look at the way combat works. It's a bit difficult to describe on paper, but they have an illustrated combat example.
In play, it's an amazing system. It's fast, exciting, and makes your choices *really* matter in combat.
Porting it to D&D would make worlds explode.


----------



## Mercule (May 16, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> Each to their own; groups are different. I never encountered this in my years of playing (since 1982).



I don't think it was a common thing, but I remember one epic occurrence.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> Whenever the conversation about how to improve initiative comes up, I have to recommend people take a look at the Hackmaster rules.
> I don't know anyone who has played Hackmaster and not come away saying that the combat in that game is so much fun and far better than the way combat runs in D&D.
> I was really hoping that Mearls' hint at a new initiative system might have been a simplified version of the Hackmaster count-up system tailored for D&D.
> If you guys haven't seen it, look up Hackmaster Basic (free PDF) and take a look at the way combat works. It's a bit difficult to describe on paper, but they have an illustrated combat example.
> ...




I posted something similar earlier.  Its quite interesting in play .


----------



## Grazzt (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> Whenever the conversation about how to improve initiative comes up, I have to recommend people take a look at the Hackmaster rules.
> I don't know anyone who has played Hackmaster and not come away saying that the combat in that game is so much fun and far better than the way combat runs in D&D.
> I was really hoping that Mearls' hint at a new initiative system might have been a simplified version of the Hackmaster count-up system tailored for D&D.
> If you guys haven't seen it, look up Hackmaster Basic (free PDF) and take a look at the way combat works. It's a bit difficult to describe on paper, but they have an illustrated combat example.
> ...




Same one they used in Aces & Eights right? Count up. Like, in A&E, roll d10, add the counts for the actions you are performing. Each combatant does this, and lowest goes first? (It's a bit more detailed than that I know, but that's the basics. It definitely does away with the cyclic initiative as depending on each combatant's actions, someone can act quickly and sometimes more than once before you can.)


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I posted something similar earlier.  Its quite interesting in play .




Ah sorry, I hadn't noticed.
But yeah, it is very interesting!
It is slightly more difficult to run that traditional D&D combat, but it's hard to go back once you've got the hang of it.
All of my players agree too.
I've been racking by brain trying to come up with a simplified version that would be compatible with D&D but it's much more complex than it sounds.
If Mearls and the UA team were to put something out there and send it down the playtest and survey pipeline, D&D would really be one step closer to the one-game-to-rule-them-all.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> Ah sorry, I hadn't noticed.
> But yeah, it is very interesting!
> It is slightly more difficult to run that traditional D&D combat, but it's hard to go back once you've got the hang of it.
> All of my players agree too.
> ...





Oh no need for an apology, just agreeing with you.    Its a departure but it makes the players stay in the game since you can move on any count.  We had other issues with HM but I did like the initiative system.


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> Same one they used in Aces & Eights right? Count up. Like, in A&E, roll d10, add the counts for the actions you are performing. Each combatant does this, and lowest goes first?



Yes, its based on their Aces & Eights system.

The DM counts up the seconds, and you act when your second comes up.
You can move 1 square per second (on a battle map this is awesome, with each PC moving simultaneously. It gets harder when you have a ton of monsters, but it can still be done without too much work.
When you make an attack, you add your weapon speed to your count and can't make another weapon attack until the new count comes up.
Basically any action has a speed cost, and you add a few seconds to your count to complete the action. Higher level spells take longer to cast than lower level ones, etc.
It also makes combat actions a lot of fun. Daggers attack much more quickly than greatswords, but do less damage.
You have options jab, which is a faster action to perform, but does half damage.
You can parry, which works even better with weapon size factors (spears parry really well).
All in all, the combat system feels much more realistic, and moves much faster and smoother. Gone are the awkward bits that round-based combat forces us to just sort of accept in order to make the abstraction work.

Making a version of this for 5th edition D&D would require quite a bit of work, as you'd have to take into account the existence of bonus actions and reactions, as well as certain monster abilities like lair/legendary actions. 5e combat actually works really well because of these added things, but it makes it much harder to disassemble and turn into something else.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> No, they are not.  Especially the last one.  That is a genuine reproduction bow used by the Hun warriors.  It makes no sense for an archery expert who is training for combat to use a bow that is less powerful than the one he would be using in combat.  In fact, that would be counter to effective training.  And that's of course you ignoring _again_ what is actually presented in front of you, this being the first video where his bow _does_ get significant penetration through chain mail armor.




Lars may be an exaggerating doof, but one thing is hard to argue. He gets a practice arrow into chain armor enough that a person wearing it would bleed. An actual arrowhead would pierce noticably deeper. 

And the whole basis of holding the arrows in the hand holding the bow and setting the arrow on the "wrong" side works fine with full draw bows, it's just a bit of extra work to master, for most people. 

Regardless, it's entirely in keeping with fantasy tropes of archers, which is what *actually* matters.


----------



## Grazzt (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> Yes, its based on their Aces & Eights system.
> 
> The DM counts up the seconds, and you act when your second comes up.
> You can move 1 square per second (on a battle map this is awesome, with each PC moving simultaneously. It gets harder when you have a ton of monsters, but it can still be done without too much work.
> ...




Ah OK. Yeah, it was cool in A&E and sounds similar. In that game firing a pistol was quicker than firing say a shotgun. Reloading each varied as well. Fanfiring was the quickest if I recall but not accurate.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 17, 2017)

It did a good job of having daggers be quicker than longswords and players were able to do something each second potentially, if just move.  You had to focus on the game to keep up.  Maybe thats why my group didn't like HM.


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> Ah OK. Yeah, it was cool in A&E and sounds similar. In that game firing a pistol was quicker than firing say a shotgun. Reloading each varied as well. Fanfiring was the quickest if I recall but not accurate.




Yep!

It works similarly in fantasy as well. You can aim and shoot with a bow, or you can rapid fire for an attack penalty.
TBH, the choices you can make in Hackmaster combat have such interesting outcomes that it dwarfs the need for the super cool class abilities you get in D&D.
I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, but it does make conversion much harder.


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> It did a good job of having daggers be quicker than longswords and players were able to do something each second potentially, if just move.  You had to focus on the game to keep up.  Maybe thats why my group didn't like HM.




Haha that's for sure! You definitely had to focus.
But on the other hand, you always had something to do. It stopped my one player from leaning back and opening up tinder or some other game on his phone during long combat rounds when he had little to do.
But yeah, if you were having a brainfog day, you weren't going to be able to run combat smoothly. It's also harder to explain to very new players.


----------



## machineelf (May 17, 2017)

His concern is to speed up play and add tension, but his system has you roll each round and is more complicated? I don't get it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2017)

OB1 said:


> I don't think this is an accurate at all.  Mearls specifically called out 4e as being too complex a system for general use in the AMA interview, but did suggest that they might release something similar to 4e under a D&D Tactics banner for those who prefer that type of game.




At least he is consistent in missing the point of what made 4e good. DnD Tactics isn't going to be an option for people who love 4e, because it will be a damned tactical war game, which is a completely different thing. 

I don't enjoy war games like warhammer or whThaveyou *at all*. I can barely sit through a game, and am bored the entire time. 

4e is a strongly abstracted roleplaying game in which the characters are finely customizable and detailed, in terms of mechanical representation of their concepts. Wargame style facing rules and the like do not even move in the same direction as 4e, much less move closer to it. 

Even when considering how the tactical elements of 4e work, what is needed to recapture that is nothing more than _new player abilities_. That is it. The tactics lived entirely within the action economy and the rules of the more tactical powers. 

a new suite of variant classes, designed on the same chassis but with different abilities, said abilities being chosen from a list each time you get a new one, are 90% of what is needed for a "4e within 5e". Most of us will happily accept just new subclasses and some optional variant features for existing classes, if done well. 

But if they go in with the design goal of making "DnD tactics" , they're gonna making something that misses the point, and 4e fans just roll their eyes at.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2017)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Even when considering how the tactical elements of 4e work, what is needed to recapture that is nothing more than _new player abilities_.



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

Lan-"maybe they're looking at combining this 'tactics' game with a reboot of their minis game"-efan


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Er...new player abilities, or new character abilities?
> 
> Lan-"maybe they're looking at combining this 'tactics' game with a reboot of their minis game"-efan




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


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2017)

doctorbadwolf said:


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



Yeah, pet peeve of mine: if you mean character, say character.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> Haha that's for sure! You definitely had to focus.
> But on the other hand, you always had something to do. *It stopped my one player from leaning back and opening up tinder or some other game on his phone during long combat rounds when he had little to do.*
> But yeah, if you were having a brainfog day, you weren't going to be able to run combat smoothly. It's also harder to explain to very new players.




Yep, that is why I liked it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2017)

I wonder how hard it would really be to convert the new Alternity system for init to 5e. 

Am I the only one here who has looked at or used it?


----------



## Elgin Howell (May 17, 2017)

Warmaster Horus said:


> Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.
> 
> Example:  A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round.  In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.




I would have the stunned character add their initiative roll to whatever the stunning characters roll was. So their count begins that round after the stun is completed.


----------



## hastur_nz (May 17, 2017)

Declare all your actions at the start of your round; roll init modifying for spell casting time, weapon speed, etc; DM runs through in order.  That's basically what AD&D told you to do, if you could fathom what Gary wrote in the original DMG.  It's kind of what 2e threw away, and 3.x onwards definitely threw it out.

Personally, I ran a campaign of AD&D rules a few years ago, for people who were used to 3.5 and 4e, and we tried using the "roll init each round" thing, at least for a while.  It wasn't a success, maybe it required more from the DM, but basically I don't think it added anything worthwhile, it makes for more book-keeping / onto-it players and DM, then it also throws a bit more load on the DM to keep it all humming and adjudicate what happens when a deplcared action can't really be done anymore because stuff changed in between declaring an action and the action being actually actionable.

It feels like just more rolling dice for no real payoff.

I say Meh, don't need it, don't want it.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not every phase will be used every round of every combat.  The order assumes engagement at range with combatants closing the distance. Once melee is joined yes it is faster than missile fire, but putting melee before missile fire creates some silly situations. Why is the guy with the loaded crossbow just standing there while the berserker with a sword closes in from 30 feet away and starts hacking?




But wasn't there an addition dice to add for movement?  So if you need to move into melee you not only roll the melee dice, but you also roll the movement dice.  Then you see how that compares to the single ranged dice  of the other party.  That is a pretty simple representation of the tension of someone running up to hit with a sword versus someone else preparing to shoot them with an arrow.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

CydKnight said:


> "Hung up"?  No.  I simply wouldn't use the mechanic if it is as it appears to me in the OP description.  If people were to invest emotionally enough to be "hung up", I can clearly see the origin.  Part of the OP stated that this was faster according to Mearls and there have been a few reasons stated in this thread which might lead one to believe that might not be true at least some of the time.  So until someone can show me that my interpretations are incorrect (incomplete system not withstanding, I can only comment on what has been presented.




I definitely see how it appears slower, but for a particular group it could be faster if the act of declaring an action (if that is even required) forces a more efficient approach to a player determining an action.  The biggest time soak in most rounds for many is the time it takes the players to decided what they are going to do.  However, if you declare the action first the resolution of the action can proceed much faster.  Whether that saves any real time or not is debatable, but I would bet it feels faster.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think it's important to keep in mind how D&D combat is designed.  I.e., when you attack, you're not just making one strike.  Even all the way back in the early days, a round is so long, and encompasses many strikes, dodges, parries, etc.  Obviously this doesn't apply to ranged weapons (because they use ammo and therefore can only be used once per attack).  But for melee, D&D views it as a series of strikes.
> 
> So in that context, is is faster to throw a single knife, or make a half dozen sword attacks?




That is a really good point, but to be clear it isn't necessarily a series of strikes.  It can just as easily be a series of feints, stunts, parries, dodges, and one actual strike for melee; and a series of load, draw, aim, re-aim, re-position, aim and fire for ranged.

That doesn't explain why ranged should go first.  I still think the ranged should take longer or they could all be the same (maybe only heavy and/or reach weapons should take longer)


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

ExploderWizard said:


> I think a lot of players forget about the abstraction layer in the game




Agreed, but the abstraction should, IMO, apply to both ranged and melee.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> Ah sorry, I hadn't noticed.
> But yeah, it is very interesting!
> It is slightly more difficult to run that traditional D&D combat, but it's hard to go back once you've got the hang of it.
> All of my players agree too.
> ...




I really liked the hackmaster system when I read it (and what I had read about it).  It seemed so obvious.  However, we a tried it with my group it just didn't catch and we went back to a more traditional D&D initiative.  It could be we didn't try long enough to get into the flow of it.  It is definitely harder to get the hang of.


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> I really liked the hackmaster system when I read it (and what I had read about it).  It seemed so obvious.  However, we a tried it with my group it just didn't catch and we went back to a more traditional D&D initiative.  It could be we didn't try long enough to get into the flow of it.  It is definitely harder to get the hang of.




It definitely takes a little getting used to. It's fairly simple, but it's a big change from pretty much every other system out there, so its not easy to absorb quickly.
Once you get the flow of it, it makes combat much more exciting. However, I'm sure it's not for every group. D&D 5e's simplicity is one of its strongest features.


----------



## guachi (May 17, 2017)

secondhander said:


> His concern is to speed up play and add tension, but his system has you roll each round and is more complicated? I don't get it.




The system may seem that it should take longer but what many people who do declaration first and initiative every round find is that players in the current 5e initiative system take a long time to declare and resolve their turns as well as not paying attention to the game. so they often ask "what's going on?".

If done right, everyone declares actions, grabs the appropriate dice and rolls, the DM starts counting up from 1 and then the action is resolved. The secret to making a system like this work is players staying engaged at the table so they resolve turns faster. It seems this is the case at Mearls' table.

My anecdotal evidence is that a well-implemented system of declare/roll does, in fact, go faster and keep people engaged. It may seem counterintuitive but it does work.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> It definitely takes a little getting used to. It's fairly simple, but it's a big change from pretty much every other system out there, so its not easy to absorb quickly.
> Once you get the flow of it, it makes combat much more exciting. However, I'm sure it's not for every group. D&D 5e's simplicity is one of its strongest features.




That is what I thought.  My group likes to try things out, but we typically only give it one session.  If it doesn't catch on in that first session, we typically go back to how we were playing before.

We might have to give it another try in the future


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2017)

IME, there are many things that slow down combat in D&D.  Initiative is so far down on that list that it doesn't even rank.

If our goal here is to speed up combat, there are so many changes that could be made that would help:

1.  I know people will hate this, but, do away with round area of effects.  Go back to the 4e style square fireballs.  Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate it, but, it was a LOT faster.  No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball _just so_ and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's.  Grrr.  I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it.  I'd much, much rather go back to squares.

2.  ((Mearls mentions this in his AMA)) The bonus actions need to go.  They are just too fiddly.  I've seen to many times of, "I'm done... no wait, I still have my bonus action... ummm... errr... nope, no, not going to do anything... wait... hang on, I can... oh, no, that's not going to work.... Ok, yeah, I'm done."  

3.  We should have a D&D branded air horn to get players on task when their turn comes up.  

I have to admit, my Primeval Thule campaign right now has no casters in it.  WOWZERS did that speed up combat.  We ran a 3 hour (a bit less actually) session this week and had 4 complete combats including one with over 20 combatants with tons of time left over.  I'm very much of the opinion that it's the casters that grind the game to a halt.


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> That is what I thought.  My group likes to try things out, but we typically only give it one session.  If it doesn't catch on in that first session, we typically go back to how we were playing before.
> 
> We might have to give it another try in the future




It definitely took us a few sessions to get the hang of it, but once we did, everyone in my group fell in love with it.

The only reason we went back to D&D from Hackmaster is that we wanted to play some of the newer published adventures, and the two systems don't convert easily (though they appear like they should be able to). Hackmaster is so much deadlier and lower-power than D&D so running D&D adventures in Hackmaster results in very very deadly games. Also, Hackmaster is only good for people who LOVE crunch. So when you want a lighter game to play, D&D serves better.

But that combat system.... man! It still calls to me to come back.


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, my Primeval Thule campaign right now has no casters in it.  WOWZERS did that speed up combat.  We ran a 3 hour (a bit less actually) session this week and had 4 complete combats including one with over 20 combatants with tons of time left over.  I'm very much of the opinion that it's the casters that grind the game to a halt.




Playing with no casters is an amazing experience! It really changes the game, and aside from speeding things up it makes it much dangerous. However I kind of prefer it to standard D&D where magic is so common there's nothing special about it anymore.


----------



## Azzy (May 17, 2017)

Yeah, okay, no... No thanks, I'm good with the standard initiative rules.


----------



## Azzy (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> 1.  I know people will hate this, but, do away with round area of effects.  Go back to the 4e style square fireballs.  Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate it, but, it was a LOT faster.  No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball _just so_ and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's.  Grrr.  I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it.  I'd much, much rather go back to squares.




Isn't that pretty much the default, anyway?


----------



## Henry (May 17, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I thought so. So basically it's the 2E system which everybody was excited about giving up in 2001 (but with dice instead of set speeds?




It's funny, but no group I've gamed with in the past 17 years has had a problem with 3.x+ initiative -- personally I've never looked back. I've played many systems with alternative inits, e.g. Savage Worlds, Alternity, Gumshoe, etc. out of all of them, I might like Gumshoe's the best, for its strategic element, but the 3.x+ system hasn't caused many problems. Any problems caused are usually by me accidentally skipping someone if I'm in the heat of the moment.

(BTW, the 1st edition AD&D initiative system was, by the book, almost unplayable -- not because it was too difficult, but because some of the rules on the interaction between spell and melee were actually written two different ways in the same chapter. That said, it was still kind of neat. The best Cliff's Notes version I've seen is at:
http://knights-n-knaves.com/dmprata/ADDICT.pdf)


----------



## Shasarak (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> IME, there are many things that slow down combat in D&D.  Initiative is so far down on that list that it doesn't even rank.
> 
> If our goal here is to speed up combat, there are so many changes that could be made that would help:
> 
> 1.  I know people will hate this, but, do away with round area of effects.  Go back to the 4e style square fireballs.  Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate it, but, it was a LOT faster.  No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball _just so_ and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's.  Grrr.  I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it.  I'd much, much rather go back to squares.




Ug, no thanks.  4e did nothing to speed up repositioning except to make it worse by giving everyone burst/blast effects.  Round effects work just as well square ones when you play off the grid.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 17, 2017)

Like many of the things Mearls has created, this system is _interesting_ but that's about it.

While many people are complaining about "needing to know what action you're going to take", this is truly a deeper gaming issue.  Even if you original decision is no longer valid when your turn comes around, choosing and committing to an action is an entirely different kettle of fish.  One that most people need to learn how to do _anyway_.  I've played with far too many people who get "choice locked" fairly easily, especially under changing or intense situations, causing the whole game to grind to a halt while they figure out what they're doing...something they should have been figuring right from the start, and keeping up with every turn.

After thinking about this for a few moments, some other thoughts:

This system seems to punish elements that were given freely in the game.  +d8 to change gear?  Normally I can drop/draw a weapon every turn.  +d6 to move?  I can move every turn at no cost.  +d8 for bonuses freely given?  How do Polearm Masters even?  Martial ranged who need to move less, are less likely to change weapons get the smallest die?  Monk's whose very class is based on quickly entering and exiting combat get hit with the full swing of d8 for melee, +d8 for bonus, +d6 for move making them now ostensibly one of the slowest classes to act (minimum 3 init).  Further, it seems to completely discourage the use of the action economy, and totally kills the fluidity that 5E seemed intent on bringing back.  Players would, I think, be encouraged to do _less_ each turn.  Be _less_ creative and *more* prone to "I hit it with my stick." while becoming overly concerned with getting to act _at all_ if they took advantage of the more tactical, more fluid, and more creative options available to them.

Frankly, the system seems contrary to 5E, and many 5E design elements.


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2017)

secondhander said:


> His concern is to speed up play and add tension, but his system has you roll each round and is more complicated? I don't get it.




The dice attached to various actions is what speeds things up.  That system tends to place actions which are easier for players to make decisions early in the round, and then progress to more and more complex actions finally ending with spellcasting which tends to take the most amount of time for players to decide.  

The effect is that those who need more time to decide what they're doing can use the time of the players with the least amount of time needed to make their decisions. And also importantly this system gets all the players thinking about what their action(s) will be right from the start of the round, rather than passively watching as the round progresses until it gets to them and only then do they start really thinking about it.

So the overall effect is often faster player decisionmaking, despite the dice and rolling every round.


----------



## Hurin88 (May 17, 2017)

OB1 said:


> I don't think this is an accurate at all.  Mearls specifically called out 4e as being too complex a system for general use in the AMA interview, but did suggest that they might release something similar to 4e under a D&D Tactics banner for those who prefer that type of game.




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

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


----------



## Valetudo (May 17, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


> It sounded to me at least like he was just blowing the question about what was good about 4e off. It was kind of like the developers of 5e promising a 4e/tactics 'module' that never really materialized. I think they're still in denial that 4e had some things that worked, and that throwing them all out with the bathwater was a bit rash.
> 
> It's like the question he got about why they called healing surges 'hit dice'. We all know the real reason: the internet mob got its torches and pitchforks out for 4e, and so everything about it had to go... even those areas in which 4e actually innovated and improved upon prior editions. So instead of something clear and indicative of function like 'healing surges', we got the nostalgic title of 'hit dice', which just confused things. I mean, even 'hit point dice' would have been better. But since nostalgia trumps rationality in the present edition, it had to be 'hit dice'.



Not to mention that bonus actions work exactly like minor actions. Man the amount of people that tried to tell me otherwise when 5th came out. Good times.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> Ug, no thanks.  4e did nothing to speed up repositioning except to make it worse by giving everyone burst/blast effects.  Round effects work just as well square ones when you play off the grid.




Fine and dandy. But I play on a grid.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 17, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


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




I don't think you can blame nostalgia for that one, since "hit dice" in AD&D were something completely different and were a property of monsters anyway, not PCs. 5E "hit dice" are simply poorly named, full stop.


----------



## Shasarak (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Fine and dandy. But I play on a grid.




My condolences.



Hemlock said:


> I don't think you can blame nostalgia for that one, since "hit dice" in AD&D were something completely different and were a property of monsters anyway, not PCs. 5E "hit dice" are simply poorly named, full stop.




I dont get how they are poorly named.  Hit Dice are called Hit Dice which seems as intuitive as any naming convention.

You could have called them Chazwazza's I suppose but then what would you call Bullfrogs?


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> My condolences.




Why?  I much prefer playing on a grid. I'd never go back to TOTM play. Just not for me. 

So, if you play on a grid, pixelated circles and cones are a huge PITA. Square effects are much better. 

And considering that 5e is pretty inconsistent about AoE's, it's not like it would be a problem.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 17, 2017)

I guess it could speed it up in this way (numbers pulled outta nowhere)

Std initiative: Player 1 takes 5 mins to decide>PCs action resolved, Player 2 takes 2 mins to decide>PCs action resolved, Player 3 takes 7 mins to decide>PCs action resolved, Player 4 takes 4 mins to decide>PCs action resolved. The total time deciding = 18 mins

Mearl initiative: concurrently Player 1 takes 5 mins to decide, Player 2 takes 2 mins to decide, Player 3 takes 7 mins to decide, Player 4 takes 4 mins to decide> PCs resolve actions in initiative order The total time deciding = 7 mins

But he's also said it is to get away from predictability, which it certainly does.

I'm always interested in new systems so would like to see it in full, not sure if I'd use it tho (because of the 'ends at the end of turn' weirdness) still interesting!


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Why?  I much prefer playing on a grid. I'd never go back to TOTM play. Just not for me.
> 
> So, if you play on a grid, pixelated circles and cones are a huge PITA. Square effects are much better.



So don't pixelate 'em at all.  Use real circles.

You use a grid, so make yourself some see-through cutout discs that represent 5' radius, 10' radius, 20' radius, and any other size(s) you might need, based on your grid.

Then [_big rule change alert!_] during play instead of having your caster spend ages trying to exactly position the spell, ask roughly where it's to be centered and then make him roll to aim it - a really good aim roll gets the best possible result, a reasonable roll gets a reasonable result, and so on.  A very poor roll might miss everything, depending on circumstances.  In any case, you position the effect based on the aiming roll.

Then, you simply hold your see-through disc just above the character pieces and look down - it'll be pretty easy to see who gets hit.

Lan-"it's never made sense to me why things thrown or shot have to be aimed but spells do not"-efan


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> It definitely took us a few sessions to get the hang of it, but once we did, everyone in my group fell in love with it.
> 
> The only reason we went back to D&D from Hackmaster is that we wanted to play some of the newer published adventures, and the two systems don't convert easily (though they appear like they should be able to). Hackmaster is so much deadlier and lower-power than D&D so running D&D adventures in Hackmaster results in very very deadly games. Also, Hackmaster is only good for people who LOVE crunch. So when you want a lighter game to play, D&D serves better.
> 
> But that combat system.... man! It still calls to me to come back.




Couldn't you just use the Hackmaster combat system (or at least initiative system) w/ D&D?  I realize there are some issues (bonus actions, reactions, turn based effects), but it seems possible.  I believe [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] had a thread fairly recently about his/her initiative system that was fairly similar to Hackmaster and he/she discussed how to overcome many of these issues.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 17, 2017)

The system in the OP has potential.  I'd like to see the full version.  I really hate cyclical initiative.  Sure it's faster, but it's BORING.  My favorite system was 2E.  Combat was a lot more interesting and fun that way.

Re comments on deciding what you do before rolling initiative - I think it's fine to decide first.  Theoretically everyone is acting at the same time not taking turns, so not knowing what everyone is doing whose actions are resolved first makes perfect sense.  For the issue of preempted actions or changing your mind, I'd say your initiative can be raised but not lowered resolves this with little trouble.

On comments on weapon speed - while I like the idea of weapon speed, it's got some real problems.  Sure, dagger guy can move faster than long sword guy, but who should go first depends a lot on distance and skill.  If they start outside of dagger reach than sword guy can attack before dagger guy gets close enough to reach him, and if sword guy has some skill, dagger guy won't  be able to close the distance and attack at all.  I'd love to see a good combat system that takes into account reach and range, but it seems a bit outside of the scope of D&D.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

Valetudo said:


> Not to mention that bonus actions work exactly like minor actions. Man the amount of people that tried to tell me otherwise when 5th came out. Good times.




Not trying to be snarky, but is that true?  I would have to go back in look, but my recollection was that in 4e you had some typical minor actions that anyone could do, but in 5e you can only take a bonus action if you have an ability that specifically allows it.  

4e Minor Actions (PHB pg 289):
Draw or sheathe a weapon -  You can draw or sheathe a weapon
Drink a potion  - Consume a potion
Drop prone - Drop down so that you are lying on the ground
Load a crossbow - Load a crossbow so that you can fire it
Open or close a door - Open or close a door or container that isn’t locked or stuck
Pick up an item - Pick up an object in your space or in an unoccupied square within reach
Retrieve or stow an Item - Retrieve or stow an item on your person
*+ specific powers, magic items, or features that allow bonus actions*

5e?:
I believe you have to have a specific feature, feat, or spell that allows the use of a bonus actions.  

In addition, can't you substitute actions in 4e but not in 5e.  Yep, 4e PHB pg 268.  So the actions themselves are very similar there is definitely a difference in how they can be used.


----------



## Craig Fox (May 17, 2017)

This initiative system won't suit every group, but there's at least one clear audience for it: those who, when the DM says "A dragon is charging towards you.", respond with "I shoot it!", "I run up and smash it!", "I cast a protection spell!", "I cast Magic M... ok, guess we should all roll for initiative and decide what to do when our turn comes round." For players like that, removing the somewhat artificial delay between the start of combat and choosing actions will help with immersion no end.

i'll be interested in seeing the fleshed out version, and may even try it out at the table. Some people have pointed out problems, but all of these can be solved in an initiative system like this. Is the order of action declaration important for tactical purposes - you'd like to know whether the dragon will breathe or claw/bite before deciding what to do? Compare an ability score, like Wisdom. Whoever has the lowest score has to declare their action first. A combatant may not need to use 0 as their baseline, which would make delaying intuitive and solves the problem of "what if my initiative comes up before that of the foe who debuffed me, causing a two turn debuff?"


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> Couldn't you just use the Hackmaster combat system (or at least initiative system) w/ D&D?  I realize there are some issues (bonus actions, reactions, turn based effects), but it seems possible.  I believe  [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] had a thread fairly recently about his/her initiative system that was fairly similar to Hackmaster and he/she discussed how to overcome many of these issues.




I haven't been able to come up with a system that would work elegantly to combine Hackmaster's countup with D&D actions. At best it complicates things too much to be worth it, at worst it nerfs players. The workarounds you'd have to come up with to deal with things like bonus actions, a fighter's action surge, multiple attacks, legendary actions, lair actions, and a lot of the nifty monster abilities would be a difficult task. 

I'd love to see what  [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] did in that respect, if he/she can post it to me or link it.


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 17, 2017)

Of course I read it - where I refer to 'high still goes first' that is a reference to the rules as written, no the proposed alternative...


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 17, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> Did you seriously just claim that rules around D&D spellcasting should be changed because they're unrealistic?




Yes - just like a dagger does less damage than a sword and other 'illogical' stuff.

Mike Mearls is suggesting a more simulationist approach, so why not redirect your critique against him if you don't like it. Personally I do -but his order (and yes I DO know it's lowest goes first) is nevertheless cockeyed.


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> I haven't been able to come up with a system that would work elegantly to combine Hackmaster's countup with D&D actions. At best it complicates things too much to be worth it, at worst it nerfs players. The workarounds you'd have to come up with to deal with things like bonus actions, a fighter's action surge, multiple attacks, legendary actions, lair actions, and a lot of the nifty monster abilities would be a difficult task.
> 
> I'd love to see what  [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] did in that respect, if he/she can post it to me or link it.




I tried to look for it, but I am terrible with the search tool


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> I haven't been able to come up with a system that would work elegantly to combine Hackmaster's countup with D&D actions. At best it complicates things too much to be worth it, at worst it nerfs players. The workarounds you'd have to come up with to deal with things like bonus actions, a fighter's action surge, multiple attacks, legendary actions, lair actions, and a lot of the nifty monster abilities would be a difficult task.
> 
> I'd love to see what  [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] did in that respect, if he/she can post it to me or link it.




The basic rules I use are simple: everybody in combat declares their action at the start of the round, with highest Int getting to declare last if they want to, then the DM resolves their actions (or has the players resolve their own actions) just as he would in any other combat or noncombat situation. When it's necessary to determine which actions happened first due to ordering dependencies, roll initiative as needed. Since everybody's turn is happening concurrently, all references to "turn" become synonymous with "round", e.g. "save at end of turn" becomes "save at end of round", and you get one reaction per round.

There are some additional fiddly bits I added because I like the way they seamlessly integrate combat/noncombat activities (e.g. I added a Delay action which makes you automatically lose initiative but lets you declare your action after other actions have already been resolved; this facilitates things like Mexican standoffs and breaking off combat to negotiate surrender, since Delaying to negotiate now isn't tantamount to giving your enemy free attacks, it's just letting your enemy win initiative this round) but you might or might not need them.

There's a thread that walks you through how this works in practice, here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...verybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative) plus some discussion of goals and motivations, and various peoples' suggested alternative rules.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 17, 2017)

GarrettKP said:


> Obviously you didn't read the actual comment. In this system lowest initiative acts first, not highest.



Obviously YOU didn't read his post  , because he obviously noticed that lowest goes first. Then he 1) complained about the effects, and 2) shifted it back to highest first 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## osarusan (May 17, 2017)

Hemlock said:


> The basic rules I use are simple: everybody in combat declares their action at the start of the round, with highest Int getting to declare last if they want to, then the DM resolves their actions (or has the players resolve their own actions) just as he would in any other combat or noncombat situation. When it's necessary to determine which actions happened first due to ordering dependencies, roll initiative as needed. Since everybody's turn is happening concurrently, all references to "turn" become synonymous with "round", e.g. "save at end of turn" becomes "save at end of round", and you get one reaction per round.
> 
> There are some additional fiddly bits I added because I like the way they seamlessly integrate combat/noncombat activities (e.g. I added a Delay action which makes you automatically lose initiative but lets you declare your action after other actions have already been resolved; this facilitates things like Mexican standoffs and breaking off combat to negotiate surrender, since Delaying to negotiate now isn't tantamount to giving your enemy free attacks, it's just letting your enemy win initiative this round) but you might or might not need them.
> 
> There's a thread that walks you through how this works in practice, here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...verybody-resolves-WAS-Simultaneous-Initiative) plus some discussion of goals and motivations, and various peoples' suggested alternative rules.




Awesome! Thank you for sharing that. I will take a closer look.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (May 17, 2017)

Ons thing this initiative  system also  does is make it so you have tot declare your action in advance.

So you het :
Declare actions
Roll initiatie
Resolve actions

If i would use this I might still have a normal initiative  roll on the first round tot determin the order of declaring actions slowest declares first.


----------



## Morrus (May 17, 2017)

The article up there has been updated with more information from Mearls!


----------



## JeffB (May 17, 2017)

And I like it even more with the additional details. I like FFG Star Wars initiative for many of the same reasons he states about his initiative system.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (May 17, 2017)

Not a fan of *this*, but if Mearls posts a more streamlined, less clunky system in UA I would consider play testing. *This* however, is not streamlined.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Why?  I much prefer playing on a grid. I'd never go back to TOTM play. Just not for me.
> 
> So, if you play on a grid, pixelated circles and cones are a huge PITA. Square effects are much better.
> 
> And considering that 5e is pretty inconsistent about AoE's, it's not like it would be a problem.




I too play on a grid, I use miniatures and I go for old school theatrical fun. For quick encounters I use TotM, but for everything else, I go fabulously grand.

#dwarvenforge


----------



## Uller (May 17, 2017)

d-minky said:


> How is rolling _every round_ supposed to speed up combat??




We reroll every round.  I noticed my players zoned out waiting for their turn with the standard system.  Players weren't ready to take they're turns and that slowed the game way down.

So we tried rerolling at the start of each round.  Players roll and I declare the highest NPC init.  Any PCs that beat it get to go.  Then I resolve the NPC actions.  Then I callout the next highest NPC and repeat until everyone has gone.  The result is my players pay better attnetion because if they haven't gone they could go soon.  If they have gone they will at least roll init soon and that will snap them out of their daydream.

Ymmv.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app


----------



## OB1 (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Fine and dandy. But I play on a grid.




I implemented a rule that says anyone engaged with someone hit with an area of effect is also targeted.  Instantly removes the fidleyness whether in grid or TOM and has been a huge time saver.


----------



## Colder (May 17, 2017)

I think I'm going to try this out.  I'll print out a diagram with pictures and tape it to the front of my screen for easy player reference.  I'll use dexterity to break ties.  I might remove the penalty for moving, and readying an action would effectively have initiative 0.

The resolution for stunning strike and similar effects would be an easy "Target skips its next turn."

I think those solve most of the issues brought up in this thread that aren't "This couldn't possibly be nearly as fast as normal."


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 17, 2017)

As far as speed is concerned... there's a not insignificant chance that the experience level of his players allows for faster resolution of actions in his method than the standard one.  Rather than each individual player trying to come up with the most strategic or "best" action to take when each of their turns come up in cyclical initiative... the entire group figures out the "best" action for all of them to take at once together, and then they act on it on their turn.  So you go from 4 to 8(?) individual "strategy sessions" by experienced players trying to find the best solution to their individual problem... to an entire group coming up with one single "best" solution to a group problem.  That quite possibly speeds up his game at his table.

However, any other tables might very well not see that speed, especially with ones that have less experienced players, or players less interested in optimal tactics.  A group "strategy session" with those players could end up devolving down to one or two players trying to make a group decision for everybody, and then trying to explain what each individual player's action should be when their turn comes up.  That could result in a lot of needless and repetitive explanation, and take away agency from a lot of players who are just getting told what to do (rather than deciding on their own.)  After all... for some number of tables, a player who is not strategically interested only has to look at the map when his or her turn comes up in the cyclical initiative, say "I want to move to this guy and hit him.", and do the action and move on.  Which saves quite enough time to keep cyclical initiative faster for that table.


----------



## BoneMan (May 17, 2017)

Glad I stuck to 3.5


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 17, 2017)

Uller said:


> We reroll every round.  I noticed my players zoned out waiting for their turn with the standard system.  Players weren't ready to take they're turns and that slowed the game way down.
> 
> So we tried rerolling at the start of each round.  Players roll and I declare the highest NPC init.  Any PCs that beat it get to go.  Then I resolve the NPC actions.  Then I callout the next highest NPC and repeat until everyone has gone.  The result is my players pay better attnetion because if they haven't gone they could go soon.  If they have gone they will at least roll init soon and that will snap them out of their daydream.
> 
> ...




That is my thought.  More rolls may well speed up the game if it forces the players to pay more attention.


----------



## Bawylie (May 17, 2017)

Been thinking about this. 

Whenever I contemplate a change, I have to weigh the complexity of the change against its benefits. See if I value the benefits more than the drawbacks.  But changes are hard to implement across multiple players when they're already accustomed to a particular method. So for me, the benefits have to be 4 times as good as the drawbacks/complexity or I don't want to make the change. 

Cyclical initiative has a lot of precedent and people are used to turn-based play across games. 

Popcorn initiative is popular in my kids' group. Hands go shooting up all the time for who wants next. 

But let's say each turn does take an average of 3 minutes. In a 5 player game, the time between turns is arguably too long. Maybe up to 20 minutes between turns when you account for all of my NPC turns too. 

Alright that seems like it could be more engaging. Having a declarative phase does seem like I can overlap a lot of the time players use to decide what they're going to do. Because even if the declarative phase takes 5 minutes, that reduces the time between turns by 10 minutes, I think. 

So at minimum, I think I like having a round-by-round initiative, declarative phase, resolution phase. 

Past that, it's a question of implementation. How simple, how complex, how much should speed of various actions play a factor? Mearls has a roll based on each action, with additional dice for additional actions on a turn. That seems okay. But it also seems like you can generally expect characters to behave the way their class is designed. So, generally speaking, a fighter is gonna fight, a caster is gonna cast. That suggests to me an initiative die that's distinct for each class. For example, fighters might get the best die because they're "the best at fighting" and all that means. While maybe wizards get the worst or slowest die since they're not strictly combat-oriented. Haven't tested anything but I'm just gonna postulate a d6 for fighters and a d12 for wizards. Rogues on a d8, clerics on a d10. (Obvs subject to revision). 

Now that adds a bit of variability (which detracts from predictability), but also reasonably approximates the speeds that character's act during combat. And it's one die, not multiple, so you won't need to consult a chart when you act - just look at the initiative die on your character sheet. So that's minimal change there. 

Now, if you wanted to, you could add in the speed factors of spells and weapons as listed in the DMG. I'm not sure I would - but you could. You could list the initiative modifier in the weapon itself. And I guess each spell level? 

Then in practice, lowest rolls go first, and so on. 

For monsters, I suppose I'd default to a d10 and maybe modify that by their dexterity modifier. Step the die up or down per modifier? Flat change? Not sure yet but I am certain I don't want any more than one modifier on any single roll. 

I'd want to test it out, but that seems reasonably simple in process: use your class-based initiative die, modify by weapon speed or spell speed. Declare phase. Roll dice. Resolve phase. Roll dice. Hopefully minimal rules-referencing. 

If that reduces time between turns to 10 minutes instead of 20 minutes, AND maintains "off-turn" engagement with the game, that all fits my requirement of getting 4x the benefit. IMO. 

Anyone see any pitfalls or something I missed? 


-Brad


----------



## Uller (May 17, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> That is my thought.  More rolls may well speed up the game if it forces the players to pay more attention.



It worked well for fixing that specific problem, at least for me.

The quirkiness we encounter is with effects that last until the end of a character's next turn or trigger at the start of a turn.  We have some house rules to deal with that that seem to work okay.  End of turn effects last until the end of the next round...if you cast  early in the round it can be a boost but it ensures it lasts through every characters' turn.  Start of turn effects go immediately then at the start of the next round but no character can be effected twice without getting a turn.  Again...works fine for us.


----------



## guachi (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, my Primeval Thule campaign right now has no casters in it.  WOWZERS did that speed up combat.  We ran a 3 hour (a bit less actually) session this week and had 4 complete combats including one with over 20 combatants with tons of time left over.  I'm very much of the opinion that it's the casters that grind the game to a halt.




I disagree with your first two points as being reasons combat is slowed down. Point one about AOE spell placement is something I've not seen. Perhaps it's my players or something I've managed to put a damper on, but the placement generally includes one or both of "I want to get this guy in the effect and/or target the most bad guys possible" and I as DM reply with "does getting these guys look good?" 

And I haven't had bonus action decision problems. Maybe it's the people I've played with who have constant bonus actions have been on the ball with want they want to do or that the decision size is smaller (disengage or off hand attack?) and since it's the same decision over and over they have their decision tree sorry.

However, your last point is spot on. 30 years of playing and spellcasters are the worst in being indecisive. So many take. So. Long. I'm so glad in my current longish campaign that the two full casters know their stuff about their characters. One session, the Druid player played the Sorcerer and what a difference. She was lost after being on top of her spell list for months.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 17, 2017)

Hurin88 said:


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



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



Hurin88 said:


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



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

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



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



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



doctorbadwolf said:


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



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


Lanefan said:


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





doctorbadwolf said:


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



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

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



Hussar said:


> IME, there are many things that slow down combat in D&D.  Initiative is so far down on that list that it doesn't even rank.
> 
> If our goal here is to speed up combat, there are so many changes that could be made that would help:
> 
> 1.  do away with round area of effects.  Go back to the 4e style square fireballs.   it was a LOT faster.  No more time spent faffing about as the caster player fiddles with placing his fireball _just so_ and the repositioning it fifteen times so he can get the bad guys and just miss the other PC's.  Grrr.  I've seen the game grind to a screeching halt too many times watching this that I HATE it.  I'd much, much rather go back to squares.



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



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



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



> I have to admit, my Primeval Thule campaign right now has no casters in it.  WOWZERS did that speed up combat.  We ran a 3 hour (a bit less actually) session this week and had 4 complete combats including one with over 20 combatants with tons of time left over.  I'm very much of the opinion that it's the casters that grind the game to a halt.



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


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 17, 2017)

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

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


----------



## Bradley Hindman (May 17, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


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




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


----------



## dave2008 (May 17, 2017)

BoneMan said:


> Glad I stuck to 3.5




For what?


----------



## Bradley Hindman (May 17, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


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




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


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 17, 2017)

Bradley Hindman said:


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



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



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



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


----------



## Bradley Hindman (May 17, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


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




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


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2017)

Bawylie said:


> So at minimum, I think I like having a round-by-round initiative, declarative phase, resolution phase.
> 
> Past that, it's a question of implementation. How simple, how complex, how much should speed of various actions play a factor? Mearls has a roll based on each action, with additional dice for additional actions on a turn. That seems okay. But it also seems like you can generally expect characters to behave the way their class is designed. So, generally speaking, a fighter is gonna fight, a caster is gonna cast. That suggests to me an initiative die that's distinct for each class. For example, fighters might get the best die because they're "the best at fighting" and all that means. While maybe wizards get the worst or slowest die since they're not strictly combat-oriented. Haven't tested anything but I'm just gonna postulate a d6 for fighters and a d12 for wizards. Rogues on a d8, clerics on a d10. (Obvs subject to revision).
> 
> ...



How do you account for the following:

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

Otherwise, looks good. 

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 17, 2017)

Bradley Hindman said:


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



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


----------



## Bawylie (May 17, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> How do you account for the following:
> 
> - Movement (suggest adding 1 to the roll per x feet of movement)
> - Non-standard actions:
> ...




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

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

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


-Brad


----------



## CapnZapp (May 17, 2017)

Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver, and it's easy to forget the bad old days when you needed scrap paper when initiative changed every round. 

The eureka moment comes when you realize that in D&D you don't need fancy initiative. Unlike a modern game where the first one to hit wins, there are so many attacks in a regular D&D fight, it matters much less who does their third attack the fastest.

Obviously there are still elements where initiative matters (assassin ambushes, save or suck spells), but still: much less pronounced need.

So when we played 4e we had our brains and hands full of all sorts of crap, and there an individual action mattered even less, so we began using "sofa initiative". Imagine yourself to be the DM, sitting in a armchair. The players sit either in the couch to your right, or in the couch to your left.  

The players rolled once at the start of the fight. The one with the highest initiative got to start, then initiative always went clockwise. As the DM I had two "slots". One at my spot, one at the opposite side - the gap between sofas. My "fast" monsters went the first time either of my slots came up, my "slow" monsters the next slot. 

No notetaking needed.


----------



## Lanefan (May 18, 2017)

Bawylie said:


> You know, I think I'm good leaving movement as-is and just saying it's part of the class. I don't want to penalize faster movers like eagle totem barbarian, for instance.
> 
> Also I don't know that weapon swapping matters too terribly and I generally don't charge the bonus action or interact with an object item all that often in play. But if you did want to, +2 or +3 would probably cover that reasonably well. Probably +2 since everyone remembers that +2 rule from 3rd ed.



Sounds fine.



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



Can't really use spell level as not all devices directly replicate spells.

I'd be tempted to just give devices their own set die (say, d8) which you roll instead of your normal die if your intended action is to use a device.  If you then change your mind you add 4 to your roll to do something else (this to prevent slow classes from "cheating" by using the device die in bad faith)

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (May 18, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver, and it's easy to forget the bad old days when you needed scrap paper when initiative changed every round.



We just leave the initiative dice in front of us once they've been rolled, then roll 'em again next round.


----------



## OB1 (May 18, 2017)

Even though the rules are incomplete I'd really like to try this out during a combat or two in my next session, but would love to get some advice from the forum on a few things I'm not sure about.

1.  Plan to roll initiative to decide declaration order, but will use just a straight d20 + Alert if anyone has.  Low declares first.
2.  Alert or Advantage - Roll 2 take lowest
3.  Change of plans - When it's your initiative, declare new action(s), roll and add to original number.
4.  Bonus Action - Declare after your action, roll and bonus action happens at new count
5.  Move after Action - If you have movement left after you take your action or bonus action, declare move, roll and move at appropriate spot.  

So potentially, a single player's turn might be broken up into 3 or 4 parts during a single round.

One thing I really like here is the added complexity (and maybe small nerf) to ranged attacks that require trade offs in your tactics.  If you want to ensure that you attack early, you wouldn't want to add a movement die, and therefore you will remain exposed through the round.  Add the movement and attack later, and your opponent may take cover before you can act and therefore end up with nothing to shoot at.


----------



## Lanefan (May 18, 2017)

OB1 said:


> Even though the rules are incomplete I'd really like to try this out during a combat or two in my next session, but would love to get some advice from the forum on a few things I'm not sure about.
> 
> 1.  Plan to roll initiative to decide declaration order, but will use just a straight d20 + Alert if anyone has.  Low declares first.
> 2.  Alert or Advantage - Roll 2 take lowest
> ...



Suggestion: instead of d20 use a smaller die...d8?  d6?  Allow simultaneous.

Change of actions - your idea is I think a bit too punitive.  You might almost have to rule on it case by case, as some action changes will realistically be much quicker than others.  For example, changing from an attack action to a move action (because your intended foe is already dead before you attack, say) shouldn't take any extra time at all; while changing from a spellcasting action to a melee action (e.g. while you're preparing to cast a previously-unseen foe gets in your grille) certainly would take some time.  Here I'd say just add flat numbers to the roll as you-as-DM see fit e.g. +5 for the cast-to-melee change and +0 for the melee-to-move change.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> So don't pixelate 'em at all.  Use real circles.
> 
> You use a grid, so make yourself some see-through cutout discs that represent 5' radius, 10' radius, 20' radius, and any other size(s) you might need, based on your grid.
> 
> ...




It's not a bad solution but it is finicky. I have to deal with attacks for every spell cast and then futz about with templates. 

Or I can just make all spell effects square, get the same results and greatly speed things up. 

Yes, I get that the results are less "accurate ". Fair enough. But then again we've already dropped 1-2-1 counting for movement since it's too much of a PITA. I'd just apply the same thing to spells.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 18, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver, and it's easy to forget the bad old days when you needed scrap paper when initiative changed every round.
> 
> The eureka moment comes when you realize that in D&D you don't need fancy initiative. Unlike a modern game where the first one to hit wins, there are so many attacks in a regular D&D fight, it matters much less who does their third attack the fastest.
> 
> ...




Awesome. 

Since I just handed the reins of DM over to someone else, I will suggest sofa initiative. And, I will suggest a roll (or possibly winner of init gets) to determine clockwise vs. counterclockwise.

Personally, I think Mike's initiative seems like a big "time suck" and as a player, I would hate to be locked into a type of action before I find out what is actually going on (nope, you cannot change your action to run away since you declared you were going to cast a spell). I get the realism of it, but meh.

Old style D&D and Rolemaster and such had init systems like this, and circular initiative was designed to get rid of that waste of time.


----------



## machineelf (May 18, 2017)

Craig Fox said:


> This initiative system won't suit every group, but there's at least one clear audience for it: those who, when the DM says "A dragon is charging towards you.", respond with "I shoot it!", "I run up and smash it!", "I cast a protection spell!", "I cast Magic M... ok, guess we should all roll for initiative and decide what to do when our turn comes round." For players like that, removing the somewhat artificial delay between the start of combat and choosing actions will help with immersion no end.




You could always have your players roll for initiative at the start of the session and at the end of battles to set up for the next one. That way the initiative is already set when that dragon attacks there is no delay.

Rolling for initiative every round is not for me, and I am not convinced it would speed up game play.


----------



## Olive (May 18, 2017)

I always like realism and dynamism in combat systems and so this has an appeal although I'm sure my players would hate it. But I don't think ti would speed things up - in fact I think it would make it worse. My players are old hands and they know from round to round what they want to do (more or less) and as long as initiative doesn't get shouted out all at once it only takes a few seconds to get the list down. I suspect that asking them to say at the start of the round what they want to do would actually make them much m more circumspect about their plans and make things take forever...


----------



## Craig Fox (May 18, 2017)

secondhander said:


> You could always have your players roll for initiative at the start of the session and at the end of battles to set up for the next one. That way the initiative is already set when that dragon attacks there is no delay.
> 
> Rolling for initiative every round is not for me, and I am not convinced it would speed up game play.




That's a pragmatic solution, but not necessarily an immersive one. Player dice rolls are always (with a few exceptions like the diviner) resolved immediately, and I think initiative dice need to be as well. It'd be a bit weird for party members to discuss how they'll be going at 9,15,18 etc in the next fight.

Rolling for initiative each round is clearly not for everyone, but I think a point's been missed in the focus on whether game play speeds up. I don't think that reducing a combat's overall elapsed time is the system's actual goal. Instead, I think it's aiming at a sense of immediacy and encouraging players to be involved for the whole combat, rather than just switching on when their turn comes round.


----------



## fivepopes (May 18, 2017)

I really like the unpredictability this option introduces. However, having each player roll multiple dice for initiative _each round_ will definitely slow down combat. A detailed initiative subsystem might be up Mearls alley but it's not what my game needs 

While on the topic of alternative initiative rules, Shadow of the Demon Lord (by Robert Schwalb) should be mentioned. Fast/Slow turns and heroes always go first works surprisingly well. It's a nice piece of game design, check it out if you're so inclined.


----------



## Argyle King (May 18, 2017)

OB1 said:


> Even though the rules are incomplete I'd really like to try this out during a combat or two in my next session, but would love to get some advice from the forum on a few things I'm not sure about.
> 
> 1.  Plan to roll initiative to decide declaration order, but will use just a straight d20 + Alert if anyone has.  Low declares first.
> 2.  Alert or Advantage - Roll 2 take lowest
> ...




How does readying an action work in this system?


----------



## OB1 (May 18, 2017)

Johnny3D3D said:


> How does readying an action work in this system?




I would allow an action to be readied instead of taking it at your turn in initiative.  So if you want to shoot your bow, but when your turn comes up everyone is behind cover, you can ready that action to say if someone moves from behind cover, I shoot them.  

Of bigger concern to me now is trying to track this in a fight with more than 3 or 4 monsters.  I have a feeling it might be a disaster.  What I'm thinking about is having the monsters not declare.  Instead, I always roll a d8 + d6 for the monsters and they all go at the same time, but have the roll come after the players declare.  In this case, a change of plans would always mean just going after the monsters.  Might also consider doing this for each type or group of monsters so that I'm never tracking more than 3 or 4 monster initiatives at once.  Again, any change to your original declaration would mean going after all monsters had gone.


----------



## Dausuul (May 18, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Yes - just like a dagger does less damage than a sword and other 'illogical' stuff.
> 
> Mike Mearls is suggesting a more simulationist approach, so why not redirect your critique against him if you don't like it. Personally I do -but his order (and yes I DO know it's lowest goes first) is nevertheless cockeyed.



I like Mearls's initiative system. What I'm pointing out is that it's absurd to complain about unrealistic spellcasting rules, because _magic isn't real_. Realism only applies to actions you can take in the real world.

If the rules dictated a specific real-world action required to cast a spell, we could talk about how long that action took. But they don't. You have to speak and gesture with a free hand--but what you have to say, and what gestures you have to make, are left unspecified. All we can say for certain is that casting a spell takes at least as long as is required for nerve impulses to travel from the brain to the arms... which is also true of swinging a sword.


----------



## beholdsa (May 18, 2017)

I like it!


----------



## Maul (May 18, 2017)

How exactly does this speed things up?   

Sounds like initiative is being over-thought.


----------



## The Old Crow (May 18, 2017)

Maul said:


> How exactly does this speed things up?
> 
> Sounds like initiative is being over-thought.




Mearls' stated goal wasn't to speed up initiative_ in general_, but to keep it from being slow when it was interfering with things that should be fast paced. In cyclical initiative a dragon appears, then everything stops while initiative is rolled, then each person takes their turn and decides what they will do one by one. In Mearls' system a dragon appears, and everyone says what they will do. Then initiative is rolled and and then one by one they resolve their stated actions. He also stated he wanted initiative to less predictable. I would say his system does indeed effectively address the things he wanted addressed.


----------



## Libramarian (May 18, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> The eureka moment comes when you realize that in D&D you don't need fancy initiative. Unlike a modern game where the first one to hit wins, there are so many attacks in a regular D&D fight, it matters much less who does their third attack the fastest.
> 
> Obviously there are still elements where initiative matters (assassin ambushes, save or suck spells), but still: much less pronounced need.




Initiative matters more than you think. Years ago I wrote a program to simulate (simple) D&D combats and was surprised to see how valuable initiative is. Think about it: if a combat lasts 4 rounds, it's a big difference whether you get 4 turns or only 3.

In fact initiative matters so much I think it either deserves a complex  treatment or the concept should be discarded entirely and it simply  assumed that everything happening in a round takes the full round to happen, with interruptions being basically illegal to declare.

This leads to some weirdness (why does it take as long to attack as it does to move and attack?) but I think if you want intra-round ordering and interruptions you need pretty detailed rules to support that, not just DM fiat or a coin flip.


----------



## Gadget (May 18, 2017)

I think the point of this system is not to necessarily make it faster (though it certainly could be faster for certain groups by keeping players focused), but to make initiative _matter_ more by being less predictable, increasing tension, and taking into account _what_ your character is doing.  I don't even think realism is really the point, except maybe as a small side effect.  This may be one of those things that sounds more complex than it is in play, but play testing would probably be required.  

The fact is that the current cyclic initiative system is undoubtedly simple, it is such a non-entity that it might as well not be there.  It may be worth a slight increase in complexity if it increases player engagement and offers fun game play.  On the other hand, with 5e's penchant for more foes over single monsters, it might be a little too cumbersome in practice as well.  It would be interesting to see a refined version of these rules.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 19, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> I much prefer my own homebrew version, which actually DOES speed the game up a lot.   Everyone rolls as normal.  Then as the DM, I look at where my monsters go.  Let's say they go on 14.  I will call out, "Anyone above 14 may go."  Then I go, and then I call out "Everyone else can go."




This reminds me of a system that I used with 3e for a while: "Fast" monsters go on 20, "Regular" monsters go on 13(? IIRC), "Slow" monsters go on 7 (or just last for zombies and a few others). All you had to do was roll to find out which set(s) of monsters you beat. I seem to recall something about declaring some members of large groups "Fast" or "Slow" to prevent big clump-ups of DM work as well.

The fastest D&D-like system I can recall working with recently is actually the Old-School Hack system that someone noted upstream. Its not really suited to the 5e RAW, and some folks will poo-poo it as unfair/unbalanced, but dang it moved and didn't seem to harsh anyone's mellow during play. Sometimes I think its way too easy to get bogged down in theorycraft vs. playcraft.


----------



## Connorsrpg (May 19, 2017)

I too (and I guess our group) have not enjoyed cyclic initiative, especially same order every round.

We love using a card system very similar to Savage Worlds for ALL our games. It adds a lot of uncertainty to combat, especailly when your next turn might be. We like that.

Anyhoo, for anyone interested, here's our Card Initiative for sev systems, inc: 5E, Cypher, Year Zero Engine (MYZ & Coriolis), and AGE!

http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/all-card-initiative

Another element it brings is we add Talents/Edges/Feats that 'trigger' on certain cards/suits/numbers/etc. This becomes a lot of fun if a PC can get multiple cards and then has to decide between going first OR triggering a power. 

We have not found it slows things down, in fact often faster as the GM is freed from book-keeping - especially if you have a player handle the cards like we do.


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2017)

Libramarian said:


> In fact initiative matters so much I think it either deserves a complex  treatment or the concept should be discarded entirely and it simply  assumed that everything happening in a round takes the full round to happen, with interruptions being basically illegal to declare.



Caution: removing interruptions really makes my day if I'm a caster...

Lan-"there's a third option between complex-treatment and abandon-completely, that being simple-but-random, which I think is what Mearls is sort of going for"-efan


----------



## PrimevalSeeker (May 19, 2017)

I like the idea of the weapon damage die contributing to initiative and i don't see how it would be too inflexible. It is almost like having weapon attack speed, where small weapons like daggers are faster than bulky two-handers.

This could be extended to spells, making low level (simpler spells) usually cast before high level (complex spells).

I agree with DEX not contributing to initiative, since it already is a strong stat. Maybe intellect can give a bonus (artificers and wizards have studied for so long and hard and they have cast each spell so many times, that they can do it faster compared to other magic users?) or maybe no stat should give a bonus, since initiative can be due to other sources other than being nimble or smart.


----------



## canucksaram (May 19, 2017)

*D&D 5E Initiative a la Mike Mearls (?)*

Here's a way to implement Mearls' initiative system....

Each round you declare your general intentions (in order of lowest to highest Proficiency Bonus) before gathering dice to roll for initiative (lowest roll goes first).



Declare general actions, in order of lowest to highest Proficiency Bonus
For creatures, CR = PB (min. 1)
If PB is tied, lowest DEX or WIS mod declares first (use worst trait)

Gather initiative dice based on your declared actions


*Action & Corresponding Initiative Die*


Ranged attack (if readied*): d4
Ranged attack (unreadied): d6 
Melee attack: dX (X=damage die)
Cast a spell: d12
Move and/or “do something”: d6
Supplementary actions:
Add movement to attack/spell: +d6 
Allow possible use of a Bonus Action: +d8
Swap gear/equipment: +d8

​
*A crossbow can be kept readied indefinitely; longbow and short bow attacks have disadvantage if they are held readied for more than X no. of rounds, where X = the highest number on the weapon's damage die.


----------



## The Old Crow (May 19, 2017)

canucksaram said:


> Here's a way to implement Mearls' initiative system....
> 
> Each round you declare your general intentions (in order of lowest to highest Proficiency Bonus) before gathering dice to roll for initiative (lowest roll goes first).
> 
> ...




I like your idea of differentiating between a readied ranged attack and an unreadied one. Readied could just be the d4 initiative, though, and unreadied could go off of the damage die like other weapons.


----------



## canucksaram (May 19, 2017)

[MENTION=6816423]The Old Crow[/MENTION]

Hmm....

How about d4 for a readied ranged attack a dX one shift lower than the damage die for an unreadied ranged attack?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 19, 2017)

I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.

I am however thinking, that in the first round of combat, it may be possible to have a simultaneous announcement of actions. And modifiers for your actions.

Thinking about it for a few minutes maybe you can let the user choose if he wants a one round ability take effect immediately and end at the same round or delay the effect to the end of the round and have it last the next round. Maybe that could work.


----------



## Uller (May 19, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.
> 
> I am however thinking, that in the first round of combat, it max be possible to have a simultaneous announcement of actions. And modifiers for your actions.



What we do is if it is one round or ends at the end of a character's turn it lasts until the end of the next round.

Yes...sometimes that means spells get a little boost.  But it is better than the alternative.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app


----------



## ad_hoc (May 19, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.




There are 2 main things that are affected by this if I recall correctly. Save Ends is fine as it triggers at the end of the enemy's turn. 

1. Dodge Action - Have it take effect on initiative count 0. Basically, as soon as it is declared. Then it ends at the end of the round. The player still rolls initiative for everything else they're going to do on their turn.

2. Stunning Strike - This one is a bit trickier. It is worded in such a way that you cannot stun a creature in consecutive turns. It also means the creature is easier for allies to hit for a full round. What if it ended at the start of the creature's 2nd turn after being stunned or at the end of the next round whichever came sooner? You could also give the creature an initiative penalty on the following turn.

Examples: Monk wins initiative. Creature stunned loses action/move round 1. Round 2 creature takes initiative penalty allies get to attack including Monk while creature is still stunned. Creature gets turn and is no longer stunned.

Creature wins initiative. Round 2 loses action/move due to stun. End of Round 2 no longer stunned.

Alternatively the creature could be stunned for the following round, still taking actions this round. This is simpler but potentially jarring and not as fun. A delayed impact stun could still be cool.


----------



## Corwin (May 19, 2017)

I find _Declaring Actions Before Rolling Initiative_ to have a few issues and hiccups that annoy me. But there is one thing I've noticed from such a method that I really like. I've found it tamps down focus fire tactics to a degree. Groups battle each other more "naturally", IMX. The combatants tend to shy away from pre-declaring the ganging up on a single foe, lest it drops before their turn comes around, and they no longer have a valid target for their attack. This, to me at least, gives the combats a more cinematic feel for whatever reason. Which I very much enjoy.


----------



## Ristamar (May 19, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.




I got around this problem in 3.x by giving ongoing spells/effects/conditions their own place in the initiative track.  It's extra bookkeeping, but it does allow for shifting initiative scores through Delayed actions or rerolling every round.


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2017)

canucksaram said:


> Here's a way to implement Mearls' initiative system....
> 
> Each round you declare your general intentions (in order of lowest to highest Proficiency Bonus) before gathering dice to roll for initiative (lowest roll goes first).
> 
> ...



Personally, I wouldn't get nearly so hung up on declaration order - I'd probably just go around the table.


> *Action & Corresponding Initiative Die*
> 
> 
> Ranged attack (if readied*): d4
> ...



Three quick thoughts:

1. I think the die range is too great.  I'd rather see the range go from at widest d6 to d10, with add-ons for movement/gear change/etc.

2. How does this handle multi-attack or multi-shot rounds?  IMO each should get its own separate initiative with the stipulation that they cannot be the same.

3. Don't try to make everyone's initiative different - if three things happen on a '6' then they all happen at once; don't worry about ordering them.

Lanefan


----------



## schnee (May 19, 2017)

Hussar said:


> It's not a bad solution but it is finicky. I have to deal with attacks for every spell cast and then futz about with templates.
> 
> Or I can just make all spell effects square, get the same results and greatly speed things up.




We use a keychain flashlight on the table from above. Easy circular spell shapes.

People can try to get really cute with that, with the circle being exact. So, trying to be exceptionally precise, like catch a foe that's in combat with a party member and not fry your own person requires some kind of a spell roll. If they're firing it directly through a square with other melee people, if they miss the roll badly enough they hit someone in the way and it blows up... somewhat closer than they anticipated.

A few of those and they tend to play things more safe, which is a bit more realistic and balanced compared to the martials that have to roll for everything.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 19, 2017)

Warmaster Horus said:


> Makes actions that last a round a little wonky.
> 
> Example:  A monk stuns an orc who is then stunned for its' turn at the end of the round.  In the next round the orc goes before the monk and is still stunned, losing two actions to a single stun.




Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (May 20, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I love initiative every round. But I hate how abilities that last for a single round interact with that. They are now either not effective at all, working normally or twice as effective, depending on your and your targets initiative results. If there is a solution I am immediately sold.




Not so much a solution--rather, the observation that the issue you identify exists independent of initiative system, and can manifest within the PHB initiative system. Take Stunning Strike for example. It stuns the target "until the end of your [the monk's] next turn." If the Stunning Strike is made on the enemy's turn (e.g. due to an opportunity attack, a readied action, or the 17th level Shadow Monk ability), it might cause the target to lose one action, or it might cause it to lose zero actions (e.g. if it already struck the monk). "Not effective at all" still happens in this context.

On a related note, you can likewise increase the effectiveness of e.g. Stinking Cloud or Flaming Sphere by casting it as a Readied Action for when a creature uses up its movement allotment. Now it HAS to end its turn within the spell's AoE (unless it Dashes, possibly provoking opportunity attacks, instead of attacking). This makes the spell more effective than usual, even with PHB initiative.

The issue you identify is actually an artifact of turn discretization, not the choice of initiative systems. QED.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 20, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
> IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.




What if the creature is reduced to 0 HP? Does it still get its action this round, dying in the next round?


----------



## Grazzt (May 20, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
> IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.




I'd rule the orc is stunned immediately. Otherwise, it seems weird.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 20, 2017)

Here's a simple solution: Have the creature's initiative count frozen for the next round. If they went on count 4 this round, have them go on count 4 next round too. Also have the stun wear off at the end of the count that it was administered on.

Monk goes on count 3, Creature goes on count 4. Creature is stunned on count 3, loses action, keeps being stunned until the end of count 3 next round.

Creature goes on count 3, Monk goes on count 4. Creature is stunned on count 4, keeps being stunned until the end of count 4 next round. Creature's initiative doesn't matter because they lose their turn.

Additional rule: A creature cannot be stunned by the same Monk twice in consecutive rounds.


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 20, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> I like Mearls's initiative system. What I'm pointing out is that it's absurd to complain about unrealistic spellcasting rules, because _magic isn't real_. Realism only applies to actions you can take in the real world.
> 
> If the rules dictated a specific real-world action required to cast a spell, we could talk about how long that action took. But they don't. You have to speak and gesture with a free hand--but what you have to say, and what gestures you have to make, are left unspecified. All we can say for certain is that casting a spell takes at least as long as is required for nerve impulses to travel from the brain to the arms... which is also true of swinging a sword.




_*Absurd??
*_
Verbal components, Somatic components and Material components (or Foci manipulation) to one extent or another (depending on the spell) have to be coordinated together (multitasking). That takes longer than swinging a sword.

Are you _really_ trying to claim that each of these components takes less than a second to do _in combination_ - speak the spell vocals, wave your hands in the right configuration and handle the foci or components (including of course getting the right components out of the right pouch)?

I would say you seriously need to experiment with this at home with some improvised props whilst someone opposite you swings at you with a LARP sword.

After you have failed to get a spell off before getting hit the first fifty times or so the idea that spells should be slower to cast than swinging a weapon might seem far less absurd!


----------



## Pauln6 (May 20, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> _*Absurd??
> *_
> Verbal components, Somatic components and Material components (or Foci manipulation) to one extent or another (depending on the spell) have to be coordinated together (multitasking). That takes longer than swinging a sword.
> 
> ...




Combat is not meant to represent one swing of the sword but rather the one good swing out of a series of parries,  feinting, dodging, and trash talking.   in the case of fighters,  more than one good swing.  All the higher die for spell casting indicates is that sometimes spell casting takes a bit more effort to get right.   You can always house rule that the combat casting feat also gives advantage on the initiative roll, or reduces the die to a d10 or something?


----------



## Dausuul (May 20, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Are you _really_ trying to claim that each of these components takes less than a second to do _in combination_ - speak the spell vocals



Less than a second, sure. I say verbal components are only one or two syllables. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)



Caliburn101 said:


> wave your hands in the right configuration



I say these gestures are precise but not lengthy; they require no more time to perform than swinging a sword. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)



Caliburn101 said:


> and handle the foci or components (including of course getting the right components out of the right pouch)?



Pulling components out of a pouch is the one case where you have a shadow of a point. However, if you have a spell focus, _nothing_ is required (assuming you already have it in hand, which you should, since it's your equivalent of a sword and the sword guy has _his_ sword in hand).


----------



## Pauln6 (May 20, 2017)

People that love playing spell casters are bound to argue in favour of assumptions that spell-casting is fast under such an initiative system. It is in their interests to be faster than those pesky weapon-wielding foes but it is relying on skewed assumptions that are not reflective of how pre-4E 'traditional' D&D casters were viewed.  Full round actions, provoking opportunity attacks, spell interuption etc.  In 1e initiative was equal across the board but playing with spell casters at higher levels was frustrating for (the other) players and DMs unless the player got to that level by sheer hard work.  Be thankful spell-casting is not as frustratingly slow as MERP!

Mearls seems to be of that older school, of the view that the awesome oomph and versatility of spells should be offset by a disadvantage, such as occasionally being slower in the initiative.  Another alternative could be rolling 1d4 plus the spell level, so simple cantrips, with a word and a wave, are as fast as missile weapons but more powerful spells take longer and longer, to the point that you will always be last.  At least that gives your fighters a chance to get some licks in before you rain devastation on the enemies. ;-p


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 20, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> Less than a second, sure. I say verbal components are only one or two syllables. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)
> 
> 
> I say these gestures are precise but not lengthy; they require no more time to perform than swinging a sword. (Nothing in the rules contradicts this.)
> ...




You say it, but you've never tried it, clearly.

Even very simple combinations of hand movement, a few words and an item used (component or not) is slower than weapons, except with ranged projectiles which take time to load and aim.

If you want your game to run with fast spells which only use one word, a single finger and a component that teleports unto your hands from a pouch, then you're right, it can be as fast as a sword etc. and there is nothing in the rules to say otherwise...

... except we aren't talking about the RAW, we are talking about Mearls' proposals which are trying to inject a little 'realism' into the initiative rules, in which case, your case holds no water.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 20, 2017)

I have been fine with the cyclic Initiative since 3e.

Rolling each round does not interest me per se, but it does become interesting when it enables initiative adjustments based on action types.

The part which I definitely don't like in this version, is ranged combatants being the fastest. That's just _wrong_ in more than one way... aiming and shooting an arrow cannot simply be faster than swinging a mace or thrusting a sword, making them equal is ok, but if they should be different, then ranged attacks should be slower, not faster. In addition, ranged combatants already have advantageous rules compared to melee combatants, they don't need yet another advantage. Finally, I also think that on average the melee combatants need to use the move action more often than ranged combatants (except when the ranged combatants can use their move to get out of cover and back behind it every single round, which is another huge advantage), and therefore making the move cost an additional initiative penalty just makes things worst.

Other than that, I think it's ok.


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 20, 2017)

Pauln6 said:


> Combat is not meant to represent one swing of the sword but rather the one good swing out of a series of parries,  feinting, dodging, and trash talking.   in the case of fighters,  more than one good swing.  All the higher die for spell casting indicates is that sometimes spell casting takes a bit more effort to get right.   You can always house rule that the combat casting feat also gives advantage on the initiative roll, or reduces the die to a d10 or something?




Yes it does, which makes me wonder why Mearls' has suggested this at all... but we are talking about Mearls' idea to bring some realism into initiative, so what you are saying is moot, actually.


----------



## Dausuul (May 20, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> ... except we aren't talking about the RAW, we are talking about Mearls' proposals which are trying to inject a little 'realism' into the initiative rules, in which case, your case holds no water.




Explain to me why it is "realistic" for spells to take more than 1-2 syllables and a single quick hand gesture to cast. What is the real-world spell that requires a lengthier casting time?

Oh, that's right - there isn't one, because there are no real-world spells. Therefore 1-2 syllables and a single hand gesture is as realistic as anything else.


----------



## Uchawi (May 20, 2017)

I believe going into minutiae for weapons, armor or spells in regards to initiative is taking it too far. The basics of D&D are about the class and race you choose. It is worth exploring but what dice is chosen should be influence the most by class, like a monk is faster that a fighter or a warlock is faster that a wizard. Race is a little more tricky, but I am all for removing one attribute like Dexterity having too much influence. I also like the ebb and flow of combat versus knowing everyone's order each round, but then again I don't run a table with more than 4 players on average.


----------



## Pauln6 (May 20, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Yes it does, which makes me wonder why Mearls' has suggested this at all... but we are talking about Mearls' idea to bring some realism into initiative, so what you are saying is moot, actually.




I don't believe the concept specifies whether your one good swing is your first, second, third, fourth,  fifth,  or sixth.  Similarly,  with combat happening simultaneously,  perhaps the spell caster is waiting for the sweet spot - the moment when the target is most vulnerable,  distracted,  or in the best position - like on a shove penny machine - choose the wrong moment and by the time you've cast it, the spell may not work as well.  

On a dice roll of 1d12, the spell is taking between 0.5 and 6 seconds to cast.  Clearly the concept is not suggesting that spells MUST take a long time.  It might not even be  casting that takes the time but rather the swirling special effect that turns into the spell outcome. Haven't you seen Bedknobs and Broomsticks?


----------



## Lanefan (May 20, 2017)

schnee said:


> We use a keychain flashlight on the table from above. Easy circular spell shapes.



That, I have to say, is bloody genius!

And for cone effects you can just lay the flashlight on the table and the light will form a cone... 



> People can try to get really cute with that, with the circle being exact. So, trying to be exceptionally precise, like catch a foe that's in combat with a party member and not fry your own person requires some kind of a spell roll. If they're firing it directly through a square with other melee people, if they miss the roll badly enough they hit someone in the way and it blows up... somewhat closer than they anticipated.
> 
> A few of those and they tend to play things more safe, which is a bit more realistic and balanced compared to the martials that have to roll for everything.



I've made casters roll to aim area-effect spells since the day I started DMing.  Since then, as I've slowly re-written all the spells (mostly to get them online) each has picked up a designation "area" or "targeted": keywords that point to whether an aiming orll is required (area) or not (targeted).  This keyword appears in the spell's "range" entry, so a range might look like "50 indoors, 150 outdoors (area)" or "touch (targeted)".

Yes I still use different ranges for indoors and outdoors. 



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Regardless of whether the monk stuns the orc before or after the orc, the orc still acts on THIS round. NEXT round, the orc is stunned. Simple.
> IOW, stun and similar affects never get rid of this turns' action, only subsequent turns.



As other have pointed out, this is still messy.

Someone upthread tossed in what to me seems the simplest idea, which I'll here repeat: the stunned target loses its next action no matter when it would occur.  So, if the orc gets stunned but has already acted this round, it loses next round's action.  If the orc gets stunned and hasn't yet acted this round it doesn't, and is back to normal next round...unless it gets stunned again.



			
				Caliburn101 said:
			
		

> Verbal components, Somatic components and Material components (or Foci manipulation) to one extent or another (depending on the spell) have to be coordinated together (multitasking). That takes longer than swinging a sword.
> 
> Are you really trying to claim that each of these components takes less than a second to do in combination - speak the spell vocals, wave your hands in the right configuration and handle the foci or components (including of course getting the right components out of the right pouch)?
> 
> I would say you seriously need to experiment with this at home with some improvised props whilst someone opposite you swings at you with a LARP sword.



There are two root problems causing the disconnect here, I think.

One is the absurdly short round length.  I've always thought spellcasting should require some impressive incantating and hand-waving, and a 1-second round just doesn't do it justice.  The minute-long rounds in 1e were too far the other direction, but there has to be a happy medium in there somewhere - 20 seconds?  30 seconds?

The other problem, also tied to the need for impressive incantating and hand-waving, is that while in theory casting while under melee attack should be utterly impossible* as you are without fail going to be interrupted the game rules have over the editions made it less and less penalizing to do so.  The very idea of "combat casting" is what's absurd*. 

* - with one huge exception: a few specific battle-oriented spells e.g. Prayer being cast in the heat of combat by a battle or war cleric.  In fact I have it that one of the "Somatic" components for a war cleric to cast Prayer at all is that she has to either be in or charge in to melee!  The flip side is they can't be interrupted unless completely incapacitated or killed.

Lan-"aim is particularly important (and difficult) with things like rebounding lightning bolts, which 5e is sadly lacking"-efan

EDIT: a p.s. to the last bit: though I post here as Lanefan the Fighter, I should probably point out that nearly all the characters I've played recently - as in, the last 20-odd years - have been casters of one sort or another; so it's not like I'm coming at this from a pre-judged anti-caster angle.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 20, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Someone upthread tossed in what to me seems the simplest idea, which I'll here repeat: the stunned target loses its next action no matter when it would occur.  So, if the orc gets stunned but has already acted this round, it loses next round's action.  If the orc gets stunned and hasn't yet acted this round it doesn't, and is back to normal next round...unless it gets stunned again.




The problem here is that you potentially miss out on a lot of attacks at advantage.

Attacking a stunned creature is at advantage and they automatically fail strength and dexterity saving throws.

A Monk's Stunning Strike should allow all of their allies and themselves a full round of actions against that target until they aren't stunned again.

I suggest having the stun take away the creature's next turn and last until the initiative count on the next round.


----------



## schnee (May 20, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Yes it does, which makes me wonder why Mearls' has suggested this at all... but we are talking about Mearls' idea to bring some realism into initiative, so what you are saying is moot, actually.




I think it definitely adds realism. But I think that's not the whole story.

I think it also mixes things up a bit and make combat less meta-gamey and more frantic. It's six seconds; most people don't decide what their character does in less than 15. Having to declare your actions first, then having a penalty to re-assess and choose another action if that first one is invalidated. 

Since the dice rolls are so low, you still may be able to go before someone else who rolled poorly - and having to draw or sheath a weapon becomes an actual tactical concern. 

It's growing on me.

But I'd only consider it if I could literally write out all the dice needed for each type of action on every character's sheets beforehand. No way I'd ask them to remember that off the top of their heads.


----------



## Lanefan (May 20, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> The problem here is that you potentially miss out on a lot of attacks at advantage.
> 
> Attacking a stunned creature is at advantage and they automatically fail strength and dexterity saving throws.
> 
> ...



True; if they haven't acted this round they lose that action and are considered stunned until their initiative next round.  Sometimes you'll get less than a round to whale on the victim, occasionally it'll be exactly a round, and sometimes you'll get more than a round - it depends on the initiative rolls for all involved; it'll even out in the long run, and a bit of randomness is always fine.


----------



## Lanefan (May 20, 2017)

schnee said:


> But I'd only consider it if I could literally write out all the dice needed for each type of action on every character's sheets beforehand. No way I'd ask them to remember that off the top of their heads.



You could make up little cards - the back of a standard business card would do - with the rolls on, that people could paper-clip to their character sheets...?


----------



## Lanliss (May 20, 2017)

This reminds me of my chaotic system I was trying to work out something like a year ago. Everyone rolls initiative at the start of combat, as normal, but whatever order they go in the initiative starts at 0. Then various actions add to their initiative as they progress, meaning that someone making a lot of fast weak actions would act more often, while slow things push you further up the initiative. 

Way less finicky than MMs system, which I honestly do not like at all.


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 20, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> Explain to me why it is "realistic" for spells to take more than 1-2 syllables and a single quick hand gesture to cast. What is the real-world spell that requires a lengthier casting time?
> 
> Oh, that's right - there isn't one, because there are no real-world spells. Therefore 1-2 syllables and a single hand gesture is as realistic as anything else.




Stop trying to muddy the water with a strawman argument - nobody said magic was real did they?

I clearly said try what RAW spellcasting amounts to _yourself_, you know, in the real world with no magic in it - a hand gesture, a few words and a component all at the same time mid-combat. Any half decent sword wielder will already have hit you 2-3 times and you will probably drop the component etc.

Don't however use a real sword - they DO exist... lol


----------



## Dausuul (May 20, 2017)

Caliburn101 said:


> Stop trying to muddy the water with a strawman argument - nobody said magic was real did they?
> 
> I clearly said try what RAW spellcasting amounts to _yourself_, you know, in the real world with no magic in it - a hand gesture, a few words and a component all at the same time mid-combat. Any half decent sword wielder will already have hit you 2-3 times and you will probably drop the component etc.



I can say a two-syllable word and point my finger in a fraction of a second. It's a clever technique in which I speak and point _at the same time_, instead of one after the other. I can even do it while holding a stick (focus) in the other hand. I'm just really talented, I guess.

Now, if you can find someplace in the rules where it says the verbal component of a 1-action spell is more than a two-syllable word, or that the gesture is more complex than pointing, I'll concede the argument.


----------



## Pauln6 (May 21, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> I can say a two-syllable word and point my finger in a fraction of a second. It's a clever technique in which I speak and point _at the same time_, instead of one after the other. I can even do it while holding a stick (focus) in the other hand. I'm just really talented, I guess.
> 
> Now, if you can find someplace in the rules where it says the verbal component of a 1-action spell is more than a two-syllable word, or that the gesture is more complex than pointing, I'll concede the argument.




You still have to decide when,  in that six second period to start casting and trigger that spell.  There's a sword swinging your way.   Do you try and dodge or gamble that you can get your spell off first?  The dice effectively decide for your character.  They are your character's thought processes mixed up with the ebb and flow of battle. Initiative isn't pure luck to the characters; it's luck, skill, judgment,  and practicality. The dice represent many things and one six second round bleeds into the next.  

Casting a spell takes years of training.   Anybody can swing a sword.   Swing a sword badly, you miss.  Cast a spell badly, it doesn't work.   A poor initiative check could be the caster fluffing the words, or being jostled while waving their wand, or failing to find that spell component on their first attempt.   You are isolating the act of casting the spell itself but a lot can happen either side of that.  If you get hit after casting your spell, why couldn't that pain slow down your casting of your next spell leading to a worse initiative?  What about your damn allergies?


----------



## Ratskinner (May 21, 2017)

Hussar said:


> It's not a bad solution but it is finicky. I have to deal with attacks for every spell cast and then futz about with templates.
> 
> Or I can just make all spell effects square, get the same results and greatly speed things up.
> 
> Yes, I get that the results are less "accurate ". Fair enough. But then again we've already dropped 1-2-1 counting for movement since it's too much of a PITA. I'd just apply the same thing to spells.



I kinda favor the idea of replacing AoEs with die rolls for #of targets while using TotM combat. IIRC, the DMG has suggestions for this. 

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ratskinner (May 21, 2017)

Pauln6 said:


> You are isolating the act of casting the spell itself but a lot can happen either side of that.  If you get hit after casting your spell, why couldn't that pain slow down your casting of your next spell leading to a worse initiative?  What about your damn allergies?




Seems to me you are doing the same with a sword swing. In our world, the swordsman can ignore the wand-wielded entirely, in D&D he can't.

...just saying.


Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Pauln6 (May 21, 2017)

Ratskinner said:


> Seems to me you are doing the same with a sword swing. In our world, the swordsman can ignore the wand-wielded entirely, in D&D he can't.
> 
> ...just saying.
> 
> ...




The sword swinger also has to roll for initiative.   Mearls simply decided that casting a spell in a fight takes more precision than a weapon swing.  A shoddy swing can still cause minor injuries.   A mis-pronounced spell does nothing.

I come at this from a 1e perspective, where magic was rare and powerful and your first level wizard was aged 30 compared to your 15 year old Fighter.   I think younger players may come at it from a computer gaming perspective where sword and spell both take effect at the push of a button.   I can understand how those backgrounds might skew perspectives but I personally have no problem with spells being slower on average.  It gives martial characters a slight edge to offset their more limited versatility.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 21, 2017)

Pauln6 said:


> The sword swinger also has to roll for initiative.   Mearls simply decided that casting a spell in a fight takes more precision than a weapon swing.  A shoddy swing can still cause minor injuries.   A mis-pronounced spell does nothing.
> 
> I come at this from a 1e perspective, where magic was rare and powerful and your first level wizard was aged 30 compared to your 15 year old Fighter.   I think younger players may come at it from a computer gaming perspective where sword and spell both take effect at the push of a button.   I can understand how those backgrounds might skew perspectives but I personally have no problem with spells being slower on average.  It gives martial characters a slight edge to offset their more limited versatility.




Sure. Its adjustable to preference, but D&D has been leaning closer and closer to _expelliarmus!_ for a while now. 

On a side note: I've been playing since 1e as well and I can't say that any of my experiences would support the supposition that magic was somehow "rare and powerful" back in the good old days (especially the rare part). Many of the old adventures are dripping with magic, treasure or otherwise. I mean c'mon, this is the era when using a sphere of annihilation in an obnoxious "gotcha" trap or garbage disposal was regarded as legit. I don't think I've ever met a mid-level Old-school dwarf without the Franklin Mint's Dwarven Heritage Artifact Set. Plenty of those items have "at-will" abilities that can easily rival 5e controls.

It is, however, less-codified and generally opaque to the players. Whether that's good or not is in the eye of the beholder. But it does have the (unintended?) side effect of making magic item "drops" one of the key ways a DM can influence the party, plot, or whatever while simultaneously making him seem like a nice guy. Add a dash of fairness and suddenly every old school party I've ever been a part of glows from orbit when somebody casts _Detect Magic_.

Although I will grant that YMMV, and it does in each campaign. I don't see anything about the old school approach to casters that makes magic "rare and powerful".

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Pauln6 (May 21, 2017)

Ratskinner said:


> Sure. Its adjustable to preference, but D&D has been leaning closer and closer to _expelliarmus!_ for a while now.
> 
> On a side note: I've been playing since 1e as well and I can't say that any of my experiences would support the supposition that magic was somehow "rare and powerful" back in the good old days (especially the rare part). Many of the old adventures are dripping with magic, treasure or otherwise. I mean c'mon, this is the era when using a sphere of annihilation in an obnoxious "gotcha" trap or garbage disposal was regarded as legit. I don't think I've ever met a mid-level Old-school dwarf without the Franklin Mint's Dwarven Heritage Artifact Set. Plenty of those items have "at-will" abilities that can easily rival 5e controls.
> 
> ...




All very true.  They have tried to balance martial and magic more finely in this edition for sure.  The addition of a magical focus to replace materials does point to the shift in concept. 

The clearest example I can think of is Feather Fall.  Raistlin used it a lot and it is cast as a bonus action by uttering a simple word.  Under this system it would be a bonus action,  or 1d6.  That seems to be your high water mark.   Every other spell that takes an action must require a bigger die than that. 

Magic requiring 'the will and the word' still requires the sufficient concentration to maintain the will.  You could even argue that Hogwart's trains its pupils in the combat casting feat,  given what we see on screen, which would reduce the initiative roll somehow. 

Plus, many other spells in Harry Potter take quite a while to take effect.   As I said before,  uttering the words may be quick but that petronus takes its sweet time to do anything useful while it plays around with special effects.  The assumptions this system uses do have a basis in existing fantasy logic as well as game logic.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 21, 2017)

fivepopes said:


> I really like the unpredictability this option introduces. However, having each player roll multiple dice for initiative _each round_ will definitely slow down combat. A detailed initiative subsystem might be up Mearls alley but it's not what my game needs
> 
> While on the topic of alternative initiative rules, Shadow of the Demon Lord (by Robert Schwalb) should be mentioned. Fast/Slow turns and heroes always go first works surprisingly well. It's a nice piece of game design, check it out if you're so inclined.




That works. I've also recently been looking at the idea of just writing down everyone's main combat stat, and using that as their initiative. If they have any advantage to it, that is a +5, being hidden is +5, and being the one whose action initiates combat puts you at the top, automatically. Any ties, players go before enemies, and player ties are resolved with a no-bonus d20 roll. 

If we go back to the normal system, I will probably keep the idea of using your primary stat instead of everyone rolling Dex, and the whole "hidden=advantage" idea.


----------



## Lanefan (May 21, 2017)

Pauln6 said:


> The clearest example I can think of is Feather Fall.  Raistlin used it a lot and it is cast as a bonus action by uttering a simple word.  Under this system it would be a bonus action,  or 1d6.  That seems to be your high water mark.   Every other spell that takes an action must require a bigger die than that.



In 5e wouldn't (in theory anyway) the fastest spell be Counterspell, as in order to counter any other spell it has to resolve before the spell being countered, whatever it may be?



> Magic requiring 'the will and the word' still requires the sufficient concentration to maintain the will.  You could even argue that Hogwart's trains its pupils in the combat casting feat,  given what we see on screen, which would reduce the initiative roll somehow.
> 
> Plus, many other spells in Harry Potter take quite a while to take effect.   As I said before,  uttering the words may be quick but that petronus takes its sweet time to do anything useful while it plays around with special effects.  The assumptions this system uses do have a basis in existing fantasy logic as well as game logic.



_Expecto Patronus_ is almost more like a ritual in D&D terms.  Most of the spells they use in the Potterverse seem to be very fast: one or two words at most and a quick swish and flick.  A few (e.g. _Wingardium Leviosa_) seem to need concentration to keep them going, but even those are in the minority.

Then again, while there's lots of spell-vs.-spell combat in HP there isn't very much of what we'd call melee or even conventional ranged combat, so maybe it's not the best example in the first place to help any of us state our case here...?

Lan-"mischief managed"-efan


----------



## Pauln6 (May 21, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> In 5e wouldn't (in theory anyway) the fastest spell be Counterspell, as in order to counter any other spell it has to resolve before the spell being countered, whatever it may be?
> 
> _Expecto Patronus_ is almost more like a ritual in D&D terms.  Most of the spells they use in the Potterverse seem to be very fast: one or two words at most and a quick swish and flick.  A few (e.g. _Wingardium Leviosa_) seem to need concentration to keep them going, but even those are in the minority.
> 
> ...




Counterspell is an outlier rather than a high water mark as it uses a reaction but so does feather fall so my specific example was poorly made all round!  They do use the patronus in combat against the dementors after powering through a few rounds of failed saving throws,  so not exactly portrayed as rituals but a good example of the initiative roll being partly representative of one combat round bleeding into the next perhaps. 

I think it's true to say that magic,  unlike weapons,  does not have a consistent portrayal in written or visual media,  and in that respect,  DMs have plenty of scope to adjust these dice to their own preference.   Pacing on screen and the plot device that magic occupies has an impact.   Nevertheless,  there has to be a baseline and there is enough logic in placing that baseline where Mearls has placed it, particularly if you allow things like combat casting and inspiration etc to help.  

How would initiative bonuses and improved initiative impact?


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 21, 2017)

Cyclic initiative is a great default. I certainly wouldn't suggest this system be used with newbies just learning the game. As an optional advanced rule set, I could see this as interesting variant rule.  

The DMG already has optional initiative systems including a speed factor. The only real difference between Mearl's system and the one in DMG on page 271 is that bonuses are replaced with dice and you count up and not down. Well that and extra rolls for bonus action and/or movement. 

It's an interesting throw back that I could see some of my grognard players liking in a niche sort of way. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 21, 2017)

Dausuul said:


> I can say a two-syllable word and point my finger in a fraction of a second. It's a clever technique in which I speak and point _at the same time_, instead of one after the other. I can even do it while holding a stick (focus) in the other hand. I'm just really talented, I guess.
> 
> Now, if you can find someplace in the rules where it says the verbal component of a 1-action spell is more than a two-syllable word, or that the gesture is more complex than pointing, I'll concede the argument.




You keep making the same mistake, so I'll point it out again in the hopes you see it.

I made it quite clear spellcasting should be slower in a REVISED initiative system as Mearls' is suggesting such a system might be a future option. I DID NOT suggest the current rules need it - yet every example you give for this 'not being right' demands I show you where in the CURRENT RULES my argument is right.

I hope that makes it abundantly clear you are comparing apples and oranges.

By the way - remember some spells have to be thrown as an attack - are you suggesting a 'finger point' is the entire somatic component of every spell?

... and I see you still won't tackle the component issue, which the current rules say is as fast as a foci.

Tell you what - I'll bring my LARP sword round your house - you can have just ONE component in a pouch _which is already open_, and I'll let you 'draw' first and you won't have to say any words or even point...

... grab the component within 10 feet of me and I'll hit you first EVERY... SINGLE... TIME before that component sees daylight - guaranteed. Do it within 5ft and I'll hit you twice.

Anyway - enough said - the RAW doesn't stop you having insta-spells, so enjoy them.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 22, 2017)

Grazzt said:


> I'd rule the orc is stunned immediately. Otherwise, it seems weird.



Since all actions are declared up front, I'm assuming all action is basically simultaneous. The orc will be stunned at the end of the round but his action takes place before (or during) the action that stuns him. It isn't weird unless you assume the action happens in the order it is resolved rather than in no particular order. The resolution order only exists because coordination of the action resolution requires serial access to the DM.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 22, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> What if the creature is reduced to 0 HP? Does it still get its action this round, dying in the next round?




Yes, he isn't dead until the round ends. All action is simultaneous. Resolution is serial only because people cannot all talk at once and be heard at once.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 22, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> Yes, he isn't dead until the round ends. All action is simultaneous. Resolution is serial only because people cannot all talk at once and be heard at once.




That is a huge house rule and deserves its own thread.

I would never play that way and I don't know of any groups I've been in that would either.


----------



## Grazzt (May 22, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> I would never play that way and I don't know of any groups I've been in that would either.




Same here. It's never worked that way in the game. The only time simultaneous resolution or whatever would be a thing is in the case of tied initiative (and I think this was mentioned in the 1e PHB or DMG).


----------



## akr71 (May 22, 2017)

This has merit, but my players likely won't go for it as they would need to declare what they are going to do at the beginning of the round and not change their mind as the situation unfolds (ie. a companion goes down and needs healing).  I also fear that this system might encourage the characters to act impulsively and independently, rather than a cohesive party.


----------



## Libramarian (May 22, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> Since all actions are declared up front, I'm assuming all action is basically simultaneous. The orc will be stunned at the end of the round but his action takes place before (or during) the action that stuns him. It isn't weird unless you assume the action happens in the order it is resolved rather than in no particular order. The resolution order only exists because coordination of the action resolution requires serial access to the DM.




Yep exactly. If you don't allow any actions to interrupt anything else within the round, you're basically doing away with the concept of initiative entirely. This works fine, and I actually prefer it to most other initiative systems, which I think are too simple and too random.

Mearls' system seems to me a definite improvement over default 5e, but I don't like how any movement has the same time cost. In 1e you divide the character's per-round speed by 10 and divide the distance to be moved by that to find the time cost in segments. Satisfying but a bit of a bear in the heat of battle.

In Mearls' system you could say each square of movement increases your initiative count by 1, but that implies that characters with higher speeds can move farther per round, but are not actually faster, which is a bit weird. Perhaps a reasonable concession.


----------



## Lanefan (May 22, 2017)

akr71 said:


> This has merit, but my players likely won't go for it as they would need to declare what they are going to do at the beginning of the round and not change their mind as the situation unfolds (ie. a companion goes down and needs healing).



You can always allow them to change their action, but it'll cost a few initiative pips to do so.  Which makes sense - the Cleric's declared action was to stand in to battle with mace in hand, thus when Buddy goes down she has to put the mace away and pull out her healing components...which takes a bit of time as reflected by her lowered init.

The one thing I'd almost always allow is for targets to be chosen on resolution, as it were.  Archer declares that her action for the round is to shoot, but I'd have no problem with her choosing her target on her initiative when she actually looses her arrow.  Ditto for melee - if a front-liner is in close-quarters melee with several foes his declared action for the round would obviously be to attack, but he can decide which opponent to swing at on his init.



> I also fear that this system might encourage the characters to act impulsively and independently, rather than a cohesive party.



Personally, I wouldn't mind this at all.  Combat is by its very nature chaotic - the fog of war, and all that - and having this reflected in how the characters act just makes sense.

Lan-"a lawful orderly party is a dull boring party"-efan


----------



## jmucchiello (May 23, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> That is a huge house rule and deserves its own thread.



The whole "Mike Mearls New Initiative" system is a house rule. Simultaneous combat resolution is not a new concept. Nor is it "huge". It really is a minor difference.



> I would never play that way and I don't know of any groups I've been in that would either.



And I know many people who would. Funny that. Different strokes for different folks. Who would have thought such a thing was possible on something as close knit as the Internet?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 23, 2017)

What I like is that it adds interesting trade-offs.  There is a cost to things, but not in an entirely predictable way.


----------



## akr71 (May 23, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> You can always allow them to change their action, but it'll cost a few initiative pips to do so.  Which makes sense - the Cleric's declared action was to stand in to battle with mace in hand, thus when Buddy goes down she has to put the mace away and pull out her healing components...which takes a bit of time as reflected by her lowered init.
> 
> The one thing I'd almost always allow is for targets to be chosen on resolution, as it were.  Archer declares that her action for the round is to shoot, but I'd have no problem with her choosing her target on her initiative when she actually looses her arrow.  Ditto for melee - if a front-liner is in close-quarters melee with several foes his declared action for the round would obviously be to attack, but he can decide which opponent to swing at on his init.
> 
> ...




Good points.  I don't really want the party to discuss tactics_ after_ I ask for initiative rolls... its something that should develop over time as the party learns each others combat preferences.  One other thing that I would alter would be the Bonus Action.  Rather than adding an additional 1d8 or 1d6 to the character's initiative roll, I would allow separate rolls (of the appropriate die), resulting in the DM resolving the character's action and bonus action at different times during the round.

For Example: "I move behind the over-turned table to get partial cover and fire my crossbow at the orcs." Rolls 1d6 (move) + 1d4 (ranged attack).  "Then I cast Healing Word as a Bonus Action on the Rogue." Rolls 1d12 (spell).  The character would act on initiative counts 1d6+1d4 (move and attack) and 1d12 (spell).  Yes, the spell could conceivably happen before the attack.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> The one thing I'd almost always allow is for targets to be chosen on resolution, as it were.  Archer declares that her action for the round is to shoot, but I'd have no problem with her choosing her target on her initiative when she actually looses her arrow.  Ditto for melee - if a front-liner is in close-quarters melee with several foes his declared action for the round would obviously be to attack, but he can decide which opponent to swing at on his init.




This is very interesting. In AD&D melee was deemed a chaotic affair and the target was determined at random from those within reach.


----------



## Lanefan (May 23, 2017)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is very interesting. In AD&D melee was deemed a chaotic affair and the target was determined at random from those within reach.



Just re-read that bit in the DMG and - surprise, surprise - it's open to interpretation.  I think he's assuming more movement and switching of foes and who's fighting who within the combat than generally occurs, which would certainly randomize things.

But if you're surrounded by 4 opponents whose only actions are to keep beating on you I can't see a good reason why you can't decide which particular one you're going to swing at.

Lanefan


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Just re-read that bit in the DMG and - surprise, surprise - it's open to interpretation.  I think he's assuming more movement and switching of foes and who's fighting who within the combat than generally occurs, which would certainly randomize things.
> 
> But if you're surrounded by 4 opponents whose only actions are to keep beating on you I can't see a good reason why you can't decide which particular one you're going to swing at.
> 
> Lanefan




Yeah that was the general consensus. If you were not currently engaged and were able to move then you could enter melee at a place of your choosing. Once engaged it became a more random slugfest. Using the rules like this means gaining initiative and charging to lock down certain enemy combatants becomes very important.


----------



## Krachek (May 23, 2017)

kalil said:


> Puh. Good thing MM does not always get his way. This is awful. Clunky, fiddly and requires a declaration phase. What would be the order of declaration anyway? Pretty big advantage knowing what the enemy is doing before you declare your action. Bleh.




Use passive deception and passive insight score to sort out who declare first to last.
Good deceiver and insighter should declare last.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 23, 2017)

Krachek said:


> Use passive deception and passive insight score to sort out who declare first to last.
> Good deceiver and insighter should declare last.




There really is no need to decide who declares first.

Just have each player declare what they are doing whenever they're ready. Done.

The nice thing about this is that if someone wants to have a discussion then all of the players get to take part since it is still all of their turns.


----------



## discosoc (May 24, 2017)

akr71 said:


> This has merit, but my players likely won't go for it as they would need to declare what they are going to do at the beginning of the round and not change their mind as the situation unfolds (ie. a companion goes down and needs healing).  I also fear that this system might encourage the characters to act impulsively and independently, rather than a cohesive party.




Can't speak for his system, in practice, but game systems where actions (with or without specifics) are declared up front like this usually result in much faster combat once everyone gets in the grove.  This is in no small way related to the the player's not being able to micromanage their turns.  What's interesting is that in the beginning things are often a bit more chaotic, but it doesn't usually take long for the players to settle into a normal routine of sorts.  It also opens up fun options where the barbarian charges into the enemy ranks, throwing their actions out of whack or something.

Anyway, I personally think that the average player group acts too cohesively sometimes, like they are playing a table top game and not in the thick of a chaotic battle.  If this curbs it a little, then maybe that's a good thing.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (May 24, 2017)

I haven't caught up with the whole thread, so apologies if this has been addressed, but what are the implications for the various flavors of "until the end of your next turn" sort of abilities?  A lot of those abilities are designed with the assumption that you or your opponent will get exactly one turn, but with any rules that switch up the order each round that number could become 0 or 2.


----------



## Ristamar (May 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I haven't caught up with the whole thread, so apologies if this has been addressed, but what are the implications for the various flavors of "until the end of your next turn" sort of abilities?  A lot of those abilities are designed with the assumption that you or your opponent will get exactly one turn, but with any rules that switch up the order each round that number could become 0 or 2.




I suggested this a few pages back...



Ristamar said:


> I got around this problem in 3.x by giving ongoing spells/effects/conditions their own place in the initiative track. It's extra bookkeeping, but it does allow for shifting initiative scores through Delayed actions or rerolling every round.




... but it didn't garner any type of response.

It's not a solution I'd personally ever want to go back to, but it did work.


----------



## Derek Tietze (May 24, 2017)

For anyone wanting to try this on Roll20, I made this macro to give to your players to roll with. /roll (1d?{What is your action?|Melee attack,8|Ranged attack,4|Cast a Spell,12|Other,6}+1d?{Are you taking a bonus action?|no,0|yes,8}+1d?{Are you swapping gear?|no,0|yes,8}+1d?{Are you moving?|no,0|yes,6}) &{tracker}


----------



## Hurin88 (May 24, 2017)

KarinsDad said:


> Awesome.
> 
> Personally, I think Mike's initiative seems like a big "time suck" and as a player, I would hate to be locked into a type of action before I find out what is actually going on (nope, you cannot change your action to run away since you declared you were going to cast a spell). I get the realism of it, but meh.
> 
> Old style D&D and Rolemaster and such had init systems like this, and circular initiative was designed to get rid of that waste of time.




Cyclical initiative is a huge timesaver. Rolemaster and DnD were the same IIRC back in the day when everything was cyclical (even AD&D IIRC, though correct me if I am wrong). Rolemaster, being always a bit more detailed system, went through a couple of different evolutions. The companion books offered alternate rules with things like different weapon speeds (a dagger was faster than a Claymore). In the revision that was Rolemaster Standard System (RMSS), you had different speeds of actions in general: snap, normal, and deliberate. So you could try to speed your action up in order to be able to resolve it first. 

The upcoming edition of Rolemaster (RMU) has created a more nuanced action economy which uses Action Points kind of like the old Fallout games. That ensures that faster actions will go first. 

In regards to declarations, you can actually play without them. I don't really think you need them at all, if you give players a reasonable opportunity to react to other players' actions via reactions.


----------



## Hurin88 (May 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I haven't caught up with the whole thread, so apologies if this has been addressed, but what are the implications for the various flavors of "until the end of your next turn" sort of abilities?  A lot of those abilities are designed with the assumption that you or your opponent will get exactly one turn, but with any rules that switch up the order each round that number could become 0 or 2.




That's one of the big reasons why we just use cyclical initiative. It makes everything easier and faster, and cuts down on bookkeeping.


----------



## Corwin (May 24, 2017)

"Roll Every Round" has pros and cons. But I think cyclical has a certain kind of "fairness" I don't think has been addressed yet.

Let's say we have six "entities" in a battle, with the following initiatives: 

21 - Elf Archer
18 - Halfling Rogue
15 - (3) Hobgoblins
12 - Human Cleric
11 - (8) Goblins
09 - Dwarf Fighter

The elf knows in what order the remainder of the combatants are going in. All of them. Regardless of wheither this is cyclical or rolling every round. He knows his rogue buddy will go right after, then some monsters, before his cleric can act. And that his dwarf ally will have to wait til after the goblins to do anything. This informs his choice to act. With cyclical, he also knows that he and the halfling will be doing something right after the dwarf. Which also has an impact on his action decisions.

The human cleric knows that the goblins and the dwarf will be going immediately after him, and in that order. Rolling every round, that's the extent of the knowledge he has with which to base his action decisions on. He has no idea in what order the new round will play out and so there is a great deal of uncertainty which can cause indecision or a degree of consternation. Keeping in cyclical, he has confidence in knowing how the future round(s) will pace out as the combat continues. 

Sure, some people think its appropriate to "punish" low initiatives with less options, or reduce decision certainty. And that's a thing you should do if you like it. But I'd expect less people will be willing to play 8 dex dwarves, and more high dex characters will naturally find their way to the table as players realize the nature of the mechanics in play. And how they impact combat effectiveness.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense and not just a long rambling mess.


----------



## Lanefan (May 25, 2017)

Corwin said:


> "Roll Every Round" has pros and cons. But I think cyclical has a certain kind of "fairness" I don't think has been addressed yet.
> 
> Let's say we have six "entities" in a battle, with the following initiatives:
> 
> ...



And this is exactly the heart of the problem as I see it.  Combat's chaotic nature should completely prevent knowing "who goes next".

As at the table this is somewhat impractical unless everyone hides their dice, we can only look for partial solutions.

One is to re-roll each round, thus even if you know who's going when this round there's no guarantee it'll be that way next round; this force-limits any pre-planning to just the round you're in.
Two is to at least try to play in good faith (yes, DMs too) and NOT use this turn-order knowledge that 99% of the time* your character really doesn't have.

* - in a planned attack a group might pre-determine who does what in what order for the initial sequence (i.e. first round), but this is rare, and subsequent rounds should go back to random.



> With cyclical, he also knows that he and the halfling will be doing something right after the dwarf. Which also has an impact on his action decisions.



It has an impact that it should not be able to have.



> The human cleric knows that the goblins and the dwarf will be going immediately after him, and in that order. Rolling every round, that's the extent of the knowledge he has with which to base his action decisions on.



And ideally he wouldn't even have that much knowledge, but as I said...impractical.



> He has no idea in what order the new round will play out and so there is a great deal of uncertainty which can cause indecision or a degree of consternation. Keeping in cyclical, he has confidence in knowing how the future round(s) will pace out as the combat continues.



There's supposed to be uncertainty!   Most of the time you just do what you do and hope for the best; you can't always gaurantee your given action at any given time is going to be the most "optimal" (and nor should you be able to), and sometimes you'll mess it up.



> Sure, some people think its appropriate to "punish" low initiatives with less options, or reduce decision certainty. And that's a thing you should do if you like it. But I'd expect less people will be willing to play 8 dex dwarves, and more high dex characters will naturally find their way to the table as players realize the nature of the mechanics in play. And how they impact combat effectiveness.



What I'm saying has nothing to do with punishing low initiatives - or any initiatives, for that matter - and everything to do with metagame vs. in-character knowledge.



> Anyway, I hope that makes sense and not just a long rambling mess.



Oh, it makes sense as written...I just happen to greatly disagree with it. 

Lan-"when lawful players meet the chaos of combat, things always get messy"-efan


----------



## Corwin (May 25, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> And this is exactly the heart of the problem as I see it.  Combat's chaotic nature should completely prevent knowing "who goes next".



Given that's your personal take on how combat "is", and you want people to take their action in a blind bubble, that's fine. Do your thing. You aren't actually doing that "thing", though (because you _never _can--that is virtually impossible on any practical level). Which is why I find it odd you are married to such a process. Its not actually achieving your desired goal. At least not for most of the participants. Really only the one who rolled the very lowest initiative. And even then, there was coordination happening with that person, leading up to their round-ending action, because everyone at the table knew they were last and took it into consideration. As well the low roller themselves. It informed their decision making.

Also, your theory, that applying knowledge of when people go in the turn, is information "your character really doesn't have" is not objective fact. It is simply how you choose to see the way the game is played. Many people see it otherwise. Many people play where the PCs work in harmony, talking to each other and using teamwork, to coordinate their efforts as the scene plays out. There are countless examples of this in literature and cinema. So I'm sure you get where they are coming from.



Lanefan said:


> What I'm saying has nothing to do with punishing low initiatives - or any initiatives, for that matter - and everything to do with metagame vs. in-character knowledge.



And yet still being fine with punishing low roles, and/or popular character tropes that do not require being quick to react. Because you are doing it whether you admit to it or not. Its just happening. By nature of how you are doing it. There's no practical way around it.

Also, AFAIC, you are using "metagame" in the least useful way here*. Setting aside the pejorative way in which you intended it, initiative is just one of literally many metagame aspect of this hobby. By its nature.



[*Not that there is a useful application of that word, IMO. But of all the marginally applicable ways to apply that tag, this is one of the least useful.]


----------



## Lanefan (May 25, 2017)

Corwin said:


> Given that's your personal take on how combat "is", and you want people to take their action in a blind bubble, that's fine. Do your thing. You aren't actually doing that "thing", though (because you _never _can--that is virtually impossible on any practical level).



The impracticality of a full solution I'd already noted.


> Which is why I find it odd you are married to such a process. Its not actually achieving your desired goal.



As already noted, full achievement of my goal is - though possible - somewhat impractical.  That said, some steps to bring it closer are both easy and practical.  Re-rolling init. each round is one such.


> At least not for most of the participants. Really only the one who rolled the very lowest initiative. And even then, there was coordination happening with that person, leading up to their round-ending action, because everyone at the table knew they were last and took it into consideration. As well the low roller themselves. It informed their decision making.
> 
> Also, your theory, that applying knowledge of when people go in the turn, is information "your character really doesn't have" is not objective fact. It is simply how you choose to see the way the game is played. Many people see it otherwise. Many people play where the PCs work in harmony, talking to each other and using teamwork, to coordinate their efforts as the scene plays out. There are countless examples of this in literature and cinema. So I'm sure you get where they are coming from.



But the planning - though it can certainly still happen - shouldn't be influenced by the initiative dice.

If I'm a wizard about to chuck a fireball into an enemy-filled room I can still tell my allies to wait till I'm done before they charge in; and they can still choose whether to wait or not.  I don't need to know anyone's initiative to do this, and they don't need to know mine.  Same goes for most other planning; and keep in mind that "planning" doesn't automatically mean "this is how it's gonna go" as no plan survives contact...you know the rest.



> And yet still being fine with punishing low roles, and/or popular character tropes that do not require being quick to react.



Yeah, that's another issue with the RAW: dex modifiers.  Were it up to me, initiative would be an unmodified roll 99% of the time, with the other 1% left open to account for corner-case situations, magic items that bestow speed of action (or remove such), and so forth.



> Because you are doing it whether you admit to it or not. Its just happening. By nature of how you are doing it. There's no practical way around it.



Well, there are ways around it - or at least partway around it - if you're willing to look for them.  I've noted a few above.  Another one is to use a much smaller initiative die (and here Mearls is really on the right track!) and allow simultaneous initiatives.

But the most important aspect is for the players to play through the eyes of their characters whenever possible; and realize (and encourage) that while the players' eyes see a nice orderly sequence of initiative dice the characters do not and cannot, and that what the character sees/knows is what determines what the character does next.



> Also, AFAIC, you are using "metagame" in the least useful way here*. Setting aside the pejorative way in which you intended it, initiative is just one of literally many metagame aspect of this hobby. By its nature.
> 
> [*Not that there is a useful application of that word, IMO. But of all the marginally applicable ways to apply that tag, this is one of the least useful.]



There are many metagame aspects of this hobby, and some are unavoidable in order to allow for a playable game.  But others aren't; and my point is simply that where these aspects can be removed, or mitigated, or even partly mitigated, it's preferable to do so.

Lan-"one day we'll have immersive holographs, and all of this will be moot"-efan


----------



## Corwin (May 25, 2017)

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],

I gotta say, I honestly think your post shoots past the point I originally made. I'm not sure where you drifted from the subject of my earlier observation, but nothing you are saying now really relates to the heart of it. Nor does it really explain why my observation remains acceptable, given your preferences.


----------



## Wiseblood (May 26, 2017)

I don't like MM's initiative. It did provoke a thought though. This is the thought. Stop me if you've heard this. On the first round of combat all players and the DM roll initiative on 1D10 and add any initiative modifiers. The highest result goes first. On the second round and all other rounds you roll an unmodified d10, alternatively you could roll 2d10 if you like a stronger median showing. (or even 3d6)

one player might have an initiative like this over the course of 4 rounds (plus surprise)

Character in question has a Dex of 18
Surprise (nothing to see here surprise is a weak spot of mine)
Round one 1d10+4 result 8
Round two 1d10+0 result 4
Round three 1d10+0 result 10
Round four 1d10+0 result 1

Some spells like Haste might affect initiative in later rounds.

What I feel this would reflect is hightened reflexes in some characters eg High Dexterity. After the initial round these heightened reflexes are displayed by* Armor Class Bonuses*, *Saving Throws* and *Dexterity modifiers to Attack and Damage*. Once the fight is going having greater reflexes doesn't necesarily mean go first it usually means greater success at hitting and avoiding being hit. IMO


----------



## TheSwartz (May 30, 2017)

Herobizkit said:


> Next thing you know, we're going to have Weapon Speed initiative modifiers and then a slippery slope to bonuses/penalties to hit Specific Armor Types...




yup.


----------



## ad_hoc (May 30, 2017)

Tried out a simplified version of it last weekend and it was great. 

The rounds felt like they went much faster, I am not sure how much time, if any, we actually saved but it all felt smoother.

Combat was much more cinematic as the resolution of everyon's turns happened in quick succession.

Finally, there was very little downtime for each player which may be part of why it felt so fast.


----------



## The Old Crow (May 30, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> Tried out a simplified version of it last weekend and it was great.
> 
> The rounds felt like they went much faster, I am not sure how much time, if any, we actually saved but it all felt smoother.
> 
> ...




I would love to hear details. What was your simplified system? How did you handle monsters? Any unusual situations come up?


----------



## ad_hoc (May 30, 2017)

The Old Crow said:


> I would love to hear details. What was your simplified system? How did you handle monsters? Any unusual situations come up?




No modifiers, just actions. So movement and bonus actions didn't cost extra dice.

Monsters were handled like I always do, in groups. I bunch up to 4 or so of a monster together into 1 initiative roll if they are all similar. I actually found it a bit easier because I didn't have to look up their Dex scores.

Well, the PCs were 'ambushed' by some NPCs with crossbows (the PCs had discovered evidence they were nearby so there was no surprise). 3 of the PCs rolled a 1 to get the jump on the NPCs (despite only rolling 1d4) including a PC casting a Sleep spell. It was pretty exciting.

Ties do come up fairly often and for last session I used Dex to break them.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (May 30, 2017)

I'd like an initiative system where you roll 1d6 for both sides, if the PC's when start on the left side of the DM and work your way right.  Much easier.


----------



## Lord Twig (May 30, 2017)

I didn't read this whole thread, but I wanted to get my opinion out there.

First, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way this is faster. I have played RPGs for over 30 years and have used a wide variety of initiative systems, including ones similar to what Mearls is suggesting, and it is not faster.

Current system: Figure out the order. Use that order every turn.
Mearls system: Figure out the order. Use that order for one turn. Figure out the order again.

Having everyone try to decide what they are going to do at the same time doesn't save time either. Currently as soon as you finish your current turn you can start figuring out what to do next turn. Now some players don't do that, but that is not the fault of the initiative system.

It also interrupts the flow of combat by adding an artificial pause to the combat every six seconds. There was some comments about how, when combat starts, the game is put on pause when everyone rolls initiative. Well now the game is put on pause after every round while everyone rolls initiative and has a little planning session. How does that make things smoother? In my games once combat starts it is non-stop action. One turn after another, without pause. How does pausing to re-roll initiative every round and then planning based on the new order make anything smoother?

Mearls also admits it messes with durations. In the game world, rounds don't exist. Your Monk doesn't say, "Well normally I can stun this guy for 6 seconds, but since I'm going last this round he will recover immediately. Guess I'll hope to go faster next round!" But with the Mearls system, that's exactly what happens.

His main complaint seems to be that cyclical initiative is too predictable. But that sounds like a personal preference to me, that is not a universal problem. If you like: "Yee ah! Chaos! Whooo! Anarchy! Aaaahhhh! Yeah!" Then sure, roll dice every round. Heck, roll dice to see what the enemies do. Roll dice for fumbles. Roll dice for random events. Go for it! But that would bug the ever-lovin' crap out of me. 

So now a few words in his defense...

Do your players stop and discuss every characters turn as a group? Then declaring actions in advance might speed things up. Of course you can do that without re-rolling initiative, but still, it's a benefit.

As mentioned above, do you like more randomness in your game? The more rolls, the more random things are. That's a personal preference, but valid if it is what you prefer.

Ummm... Hmmm... I'm having trouble coming up with more benefits. Probably because I already decided it is not for me. So I'll just leave it here.


----------



## Lanefan (May 30, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> Ties do come up fairly often and for last session I used Dex to break them.



Question: why break the ties at all?  Why not just let the actions happen simultaneously?


----------



## ad_hoc (May 30, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Question: why break the ties at all?  Why not just let the actions happen simultaneously?




I'm not against that, it's just what we decided last session.

Ultimately there needs to be an order of resolution at the table. The simple thing to do might just to be to go in clockwise order around the table.

The only really difficult thing will be monsters vs PCs. Who goes first? If they have opposing movement it can be tricky.


----------



## Lanefan (May 30, 2017)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm not against that, it's just what we decided last session.
> 
> Ultimately there needs to be an order of resolution at the table. The simple thing to do might just to be to go in clockwise order around the table.



That's how I do it, with the understanding that it's all happening at the same time in the fiction.



> The only really difficult thing will be monsters vs PCs. Who goes first? If they have opposing movement it can be tricky.



Not as often as you might think.  Movement rates are helpful here, but simple use of logic and judgement is usually all you need (for example, if a monster and a PC are simultaneously charging each other they meet halfway).  

Trickier is when spells are involved.  Sometimes here you do need tiebreaks e.g. did the Hold Person resolve before or after the target got its attack in or its spell away.  Here we just roll what we call sub-initiatives, and it's surprising how infrequently this happens given the number of ties our initiative system produces.

Lanefan


----------



## schnee (May 30, 2017)

Lord Twig said:


> I didn't read this whole thread, but I wanted to get my opinion out there.
> 
> First, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way this is faster. I have played RPGs for over 30 years and have used a wide variety of initiative systems, including ones similar to what Mearls is suggesting, and it is not faster.




You know, there's a saying in the product development / design field:

"One test is worth 50 opinions."

Someone already posted 'I tried it and it actually works'. All due respect (from a fellow graybeard with about as much gaming time) but I think I give their words more weight.

--

Each initiative style rewards certain behaviors and punishes others - and makes some things more efficient and others less. 

And, my bet is, that for *most* groups, saying 'you have a few simple choices of what you can do, declare now before anyone else can do anything, we are _all waiting_' probably forces people who normally get stuck in analysis paralysis just choose NOW. Because they're just not delaying the next player...they're delaying EVERYONE. At the same time. Don't underestimate social pressure.

When making that choice, they can't analyze the entire map, studiously examining positions of figures and hazards, calculating odds - because it will be significantly different when they do finally act. So you're taking away their ability to metagame.

And, when they do get their chance to act, they are forced into a much smaller set of choices: I said hit something, so now I hit something. Or else they forfeit their ability to act now.

If they _do_ change their mind, they roll again, act later, and risk being punished for it by having even more people go before they do. Odds are, when that turn arrives, their new choice isn't better enough to make it worth the wait. So, the more they meta-game and change their mind, the worse off they are. They are incentivized to make their original choice work, even if it's sub-optimal. 

*TLDR*: 
This initiative system is quite interesting to me because it:
a) Causes 'information blindness' that prevents analysis paralysis
b) Structures the communication to peer pressure players into declaring actions quickly
c) Inflicts negative mechanical consequences to people who can't make up their mind

This initiative system is made to change how people behave. I totally see why it _could_ be faster.

I'm going to give it a shot once it's a bit more polished.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Jun 1, 2017)

Lord Twig said:


> First, I don't care what anyone says, there is no way this is faster. I have played RPGs for over 30 years and have used a wide variety of initiative systems, including ones similar to what Mearls is suggesting, and it is not faster.
> 
> Current system: Figure out the order. Use that order every turn.
> Mearls system: Figure out the order. Use that order for one turn. Figure out the order again.



I quite concur. And, when you get down to it, that's the system they ditched from 4e. The 5e system is the one they had in 3e, and before that, it was roll every round going back to OD&D, when there wasn't much guidance as to how to do it. The specific variant Mearls is proposing reminds me of DCC, where they whole system is intentionally fiddly and complex. And it isn't fast.

I don't get why folks are so fiddly with initiative, and I'm a hard-core simulationist. Having cyclical initiative keeps the game from getting confusing, and really, there's no benefit to going first after the first round. Things like ongoing spell effects are much easier to handle with cyclical initiative.

And please, no more editions for awhile.


----------



## Lord Twig (Jun 2, 2017)

schnee said:


> You know, there's a saying in the product development / design field:
> 
> "One test is worth 50 opinions."
> 
> Someone already posted 'I tried it and it actually works'. All due respect (from a fellow graybeard with about as much gaming time) but I think I give their words more weight.




And I said that I have tried similar systems and they work. Just that they work slower. But somehow my play experience is not valid?

The proposed system: Everyone decide on actions. Figure out what dice you need to roll based on your action and roll them. Figure out initiative scores. Start counting at 1 "Anyone go on 1? 2? 3?".

What I played: Everyone decide on actions. Figure out what number you add to a base number (figured from Dex) based on your action. Figure out initiative scores. Start counting at 1 "Anyone go on 1? 2? 3?".

The only difference is that the system I played added two numbers (each less than 5) and the Mearls system rolls dice (because he _really_ loves dice). Other than that they are exactly the same. And it is slower than just figuring out the order once and then going: Dave, your turn! Mike, your up! Sue, your turn!

And I didn't even go into how someone always misses their number and asks you to go back, or forget what their number is this turn because it is different than last turn or is left doing nothing because their action has been invalidated by a previous players turn.

So if you like all that, or the thought of rolling 5 times as many initiative checks really turns you on, go for it! The rest of us just want to get on with our actions.


----------



## Warbringer (Jun 2, 2017)

I like .. 

But then I liked for initiative

spellcaster d4 + segment
hitty person d10 + weapon speed (+5 per incremental attack)
+ 1 per 5' moved

count out round segment. move mini, do action

roll every round

Was never an issue


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Jun 3, 2017)

I liked the clash in early editions that when there was a tie for initiative both sided could possibly kill each other.  Great mechanic.  Loved it.


----------



## Bradley Hindman (Jun 3, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> And this is exactly the heart of the problem as I see it.  Combat's chaotic nature should completely prevent knowing "who goes next".
> 
> As at the table this is somewhat impractical unless everyone hides their dice, we can only look for partial solutions.




Considering the length of this thread, I apologize if someone has already mentioned this. If you truly want no one to be able to predict the upcoming turn order, I suggest ditching the dice. Make up a deck of cards with one card for each combatant.  After a combatant has finished a turn, the DM draws a new card and the combatant associated with that card takes their turn. When all cards have been drawn start a new round and shuffle the deck.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2017)

Bradley Hindman said:


> Considering the length of this thread, I apologize if someone has already mentioned this. If you truly want no one to be able to predict the upcoming turn order, I suggest ditching the dice. Make up a deck of cards with one card for each combatant.  After a combatant has finished a turn, the DM draws a new card and the combatant associated with that card takes their turn. When all cards have been drawn start a new round and shuffle the deck.



That's fine...except it doesn't allow for ties (it's impossible to replicate the cinematic trope where two combatants simultaneously kill each other without ties) and still has everyone in stop-start mode.

Still, better than some ideas I've seen.

Lanefan


----------



## Whithers (Jul 2, 2017)

flametitan said:


> Lars Andersen is a show shooter. He doesn't draw his bow to its full length, and it's likely a low poundage bow to begin with.




There was a bow found in a bog in Denmark that was a highly adapted and modified flatbow from 8k years ago.  It was designed to fire fast and without a full draw.  I used it as the starting point to design a war bow adding recurve from the Persians, horn on the belly, and sinew backing on Orange Wood.  Depending on how much one chooses to thin with the drawknife, such a bow can easily range between 45 to over 100 lbs draw.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jul 3, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> That's fine...except it doesn't allow for ties (it's impossible to replicate the cinematic trope where two combatants simultaneously kill each other without ties) and still has everyone in stop-start mode.
> 
> Still, better than some ideas I've seen.
> 
> Lanefan



Unless damage is only applied at the end of round.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Athinar (Jul 10, 2017)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have radical idea.
> 
> How about everyone declares actions and a simple d6 is rolled each round for each side. Highest roll goes first and initiative is rolled each round.
> 
> Do you think it could work?




I like having Dex adding to the initiative Roll, not some old school AD&D d6,


----------



## Athinar (Jul 10, 2017)

Too much Math, I have people that counts up all the values each round to roll just to hit



jrowland said:


> My 2cp:
> 
> Low initiative goes first allows for additive initiative by round.
> 
> ...


----------



## Staccat0 (Jul 10, 2017)

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Thinking of trying a one shot where player roll imitative like normal, but then AFTER their action they roll a die.
Dodge and other weird actions: 1d10
Melee attack: 1d8
ranged attack: 1d6
Spell: 1d4

They then add their  initiative bonus to the result and move theirself that many spaces forward in initiative equal to the result during the following players turn. They never talk about it or spend extra time dealing with it.

Might be fun.

Anything more granular than that is probably too fussy for my PCs, but this would shake things up and be kinda whacky without me having to monitor their rolls make sure they roles the right dice for a two handed attack or whatever.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 10, 2017)

Not a bad idea but I would be inclined to swap melee and range around.


----------



## Staccat0 (Jul 10, 2017)

Zardnaar said:


> Not a bad idea but I would be inclined to swap melee and range around.




You think bows should be "faster" than melee attacks?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 10, 2017)

Staccat0 said:


> You think bows should be "faster" than melee attacks?




Logically ranged having an advantage makes sense. Game balance melee should go as they made ranged so good.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Jul 10, 2017)

Sorry if someone else has mentioned it, but I think this will be the topic of the UA today:  http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/09/are-we-allowed-a-sneak-preview-for-this-months-unearthed-arcana/


----------



## Recueillir (Jul 10, 2017)

MechaTarrasque said:


> Sorry if someone else has mentioned it, but I think this will be the topic of the UA today:  http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/09/are-we-allowed-a-sneak-preview-for-this-months-unearthed-arcana/




That'd be a waste of a UA.


----------



## Staccat0 (Jul 10, 2017)

Zardnaar said:


> Logically ranged having an advantage makes sense. Game balance melee should go as they made ranged so good.




Ah sure. Makes sense. Yeah, I think I was erring on the game balance side and letting melee attacks bounce further forward on the scale just because I don't want to DM a bunch of fire fights.


----------



## Herb L. Farmer (Sep 14, 2017)

Im going to try Mike Mearls' system with my players tomorrow. I'll create an easy encounter at first just to see how it goes. I'll add an ability check for situations when a player wants to change their move, such as when their target moves or dies before their turn. I like big encounters and the 5e initiatve system gets to be too repetitive. Last game we tried "Seize the initiative" and everybody liked it. I think this will be a success as well.


----------



## Pauln6 (Sep 16, 2017)

Tried it twice now.  Most players like the added tactical options.  Only the cleric player dislikes it as he prefers to stand back and flame strike, firestorm, or cantrip.  I'm fine with that.  He could still use his sling if he wanted to so it's his tactical choice either way.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 16, 2017)

We tried it.

I liked it far better than cyclical initiative, but I like nearly everything better than cyclical initiative ( EW, and 1E being exceptions)

Players did not like it as much as I did. They don't like cyclical either.


----------



## Charles Braden (May 16, 2018)

I don't like it. Rolling every round for Initiative will slow combat down immensely IMHO. In the game I'm starting soon I will be trying the following home-brewed system:

Everyone announces their action. Initiative then works by adding the relative Stat modifier of your action to your Proficiency Bonus. Physical actions will use Dex or Str, Cleric and Druid casting will use Wisdom, Wizards will use Int and Cha-based casters will use Cha. I add the Proficiency Bonus because starting characters will be easier to get the drop on while more experienced characters will tend to go sooner which simulates their years of experience in their chosen fields. So a high-Dex character using a Finesse weapon will have an Initiative Score (or IS for short) or 4 or 5 + their Prof Bonus while a Wizard casting a spell might have the SAME number. This eliminates Dex as the primary Initiative stat.

However, the order in which actions take place is also modified by the action taken. Attacking with bare hands or weapons doing 1D4 conveys a -1 modifier to the IS. 1D6 is a -2, 1D8 -3, 1D10-4 and 1D12 a -5. Moving equates to =1 per 5' moved. Spells have a -1 per spell component so a spell with only a Verbal component is -1 while a grand spell with ALL of the spell components = -3 to the IS. The Alertness Feat conveys the same +5 to the IP that it does now. The following are a few examples of how a combat would work:

Combat begins with all players declaring their actions as well as their intended targets. Lets say a Fighter, a Ranger and a Wizard are encountering 5 Orcs. The Fighter rushes in to attack with his Longsword, the Ranger fires with his Shortbow and the Wizard casts a spell with Verbal and Somatic components. The Fighter adds his Str Modifier to his Prof Bonus for his IP and gets 4+3 = 7. The Ranger Adds his Dex Modifier to his Prof Bonus and gets 3+4=7 (lower Dex but higher level than the Fighter). The Wizard adds his Int Modifier to his Prof Bonus and gets 5+3=8. The DM sees that the Orcs are all wielding Shortswords with +2 modifiers for their stats so their IS is 2+2 (for their approximate Prof Bonus based on their CR) or 4. Now the DM begins applying the modifiers for the actions taken.

The Fighter and the Ranger are moving at the same time except that the Fighter has to move 20' to reach the Orcs while the Ranger can shoot from where he is. The Orcs are also moving to engage so both sides move forward 10' and meet in the middle. The Fighter will swing on his IS of 7 - 3 (for his 1D8 Longsword) -2 (for moving 10') or 1. The Ranger will fire on his IS of 7-3 (1D8 Longbow) or 4. The Wizard's spell goes off on 8-2 (for spell components) -1 (he chose to move 5' as he saw the two sides closing to get a better angle) or 5. The Orcs will attack on 4 -2 (moving 10') -2 (for their 1D6 Shortswords) or 0. So, in order, the following things happen: The Wizard's spell goes off. The Ranger fires his shot. The Fighter attacks with his sword. Surviving Orcs get to act.

I prefer this system because the Fighter who has to race across 30' of open ground to swing his Great Ax is at a disadvantage. However, this also applies to the enemy who wants to do the same thing. The Mage with the phenomenal IQ who wants to stand still and utter a word won't be filled with arrows before having a chance to go. Higher-level characters, who (IMHO) would be harder to startle and catch unprepared act sooner because they've already survived a hundred battles or more. I would also impose negative modifiers to the IS for creature Size with Medium being 0, larger than that being -1 to -3 and smaller being +1.


----------

