1.) "You should always plan on moving . . ." Unless you're ranged.
Ranged weapon characters will always lean towards going first. They don't really need to move (if you are a bow or xbow user), and they roll the smallest dice (d4)... It harms melee characters as they will always have a larger dice (d8) and have to account for moving (d6). This is of course different with the weapon speed variant. Personally I'd just assume people are always moving and either just always have people roll a d6 or never roll it.
2.) Heavily nerfs bonus action users. Rogues, Monks, Two-weapon users, are essentially doubling their dice for these actions whether it is moving or attacking. This takes these characters from some of the fastest, to the slowest. Sorcerer's who cast Quicken spell to cast two spells a turn would be rolling 2d10. It just seems too punitive.
I will give this system props. It does help mitigate Dexterity's power (besides making ranged weapon attacks incredibly fast) and it does help add variety in a combat round. So... Goal achieved?
It seems like a pretty cool way to do initiative, but will make combat go slower, which I don't really want. Sometimes combat seems slow enough for me already.
I'd like to get my group to try it. But I do have some thoughts. First, I think I would use the weapon damage die as the initiative die for attack actions. I'd have bonus actions up the die type a step rather than adding another die. I'd make spells more granular. Maybe cantrips = d4, 1st - 2nd level spells = d6, 3rd - 5th = d8, and 6th-9th = d10. And I would use the optional rule for spell disruption in conjunction with the Concentration mechanic.
Haven't had a chance to read the UA yet (thanks work emails!), however Mike tweeted a whole heap of info a few weeks back and Matt Colville expanded on this in one of his latest videos. Highly recommend the watch.
No. God no. If you need that many pages to make a change to a system that is already simple, then you need to scrap the idea and start over. I understand that some of the UA's are just the developers shitting out ideas onto paper with little to no real thought put into them (like the theurge or lore wizard), but come on. There is no reason to make this game even MORE complex.
I like the idea, it reminds me a bit of speed factors from 2nd edition back in the day. However I have to side on the fact that at my game table I don't think it would be well received by anyone but maybe the Rogue (and that's just because he's down for anything). Especially in play by post I think this would cause a huge slow down. I could see it working fairly well in a VTT however, where macros could be set up by each player for their various action combos they can take in a round.
I also like the idea of separating the spells out by level instead of having all the them all be d12.
There was one idea shared on twitter not long after this initiative variant was announced (a couple months ago), where you roll a die (d6 or d8 iirc) for a spell, and thenon your initiative, you choose your spell and it goes of X initiative later, where X is the level of the spell. I (personally) prefer that to a static d10.
If I use this system (more a matter of when, really), I'll probably implement that change, and use the weapon speed rule as well, since ranged shouldn't be quicker than melee.
One thing that annoys me is that the swashbuckler just reduces the size of the die they roll, rather than something more intuitive like subtracting thier Charisma modifier (And the same for War Mage with Intelligence, as well, I suppose).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do you have difficulty fitting everything you want into your signature? Then check out the Extended Signature thread!
Yeah, but still - it overcomplicates things. While I dont mind a little bit more realism, this sounds waay too much. I wish they reworked more subclasses instead,
Yeah, but still - it overcomplicates things. While I dont mind a little bit more realism, this sounds waay too much. I wish they reworked more subclasses instead,
They were saying that they wanted UA to be more in line with this. Variants on existing things, rather than new options for classes/feats/spells/etc...
I kinda like that they are doing it that way (even if this was a big miss as far as my game is concerned), because I don't want the content creep like with older editions. Like, how many Monster Manuals do we really need? (the answer is all... all the Monster Manuals). But, multiple books per class becomes A LOT to try to keep up with (heck, just the ones we have now are taking up an entire folder on my computer, as well as a folder in my Google Drive).
I hope they do end up doing more like this (wouldn't mind some sort of Stronghold Rule - speaking of Matt Colville...).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
THe current initiative rules work nicely, why over complicate it?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I think, and I believe Mike Merals mentioned this on Twitter, part of the goal is to make combat more tactical and to keep players engaged. I regularly see my players checking out when their turn ends, and the nature of the battle ends up being a bunch of players waiting and ignoring each other round after round. It's a complaint I have about a lot of board games too. I want my players to care what their friends are doing, and adding turn-dynamism and a sort of "planning phase" "acting phase" dynamic means that they are going to need to be more engaged with each other.
To the negative nancies who imidiately say no to this rule because Simple > Complex, I disagree, and frankly, I think that is a statement that needs to be defended. Sure, overly-complex is bad, but so is overly simplified. Roll a d20 at the begining of combat, and that determines turn order for all of combat (and that d20 is essentially just a randomizor, not an abstraction of any actual mechanical concept)... That is honestly lazy game designing. If you are going to bother with initiative at all (and really, you don't NEED to, it's just there to add variety to encounters) then why not have it representative of something?
If a round of combat is an abstraction of (approximately) 6 seconds, then why doesn't it make sense that people who intend to do complicated actions (like disengage, move, change weapons, dip a blade in poison and attack all on the same turn) would probably USE more of that time, and therefore be delayed a little in their action economy? I like the system.
I'm also going to take a moment to stand up for the d10 spell die. When most people see d10, they think "10," but in fact, you should be thinking 5. There is a 50/50 chance that that you will roll a 5 or lower. Most of the time, you don't move when you cast a spell, so a 5 is pretty good. If you are moving while casting (or taking other actions) I do think it is correct that moving and casting a spell (any spell) should take you longer (on average) than moving and attacking (consider holding a lit flame beneath a piece of iron, while saying words of power and also running to cast heat metal as an example). Still, like I said, generally you'll have an 80% Chance of getting below a 8(lets say) whereas a melee fighter doing an attack move (rolling d6+d8) will be at 50/50 odds of doing better than an 8 (because of the way odds work when rolling 2 dice). The only person who will likely be faster than the mage consistently is the archer rolling 1d4 which I do agree might be low for what he is doing. To the people attempting to align the spell-cast time to the power of the spell, I get what you are doing, but I don't really think it works. Level // Casting time. If you wanted, you could align spells by casting time (since casting time is actually listed on the spell), but at the end of the day, like I said, mechanically, I don't think it's necessary.
Also, in response to ArchSeshiro at the beginning of this thread, it actually might not punish the rogue or monk as much as you think. Using a class feature, that does not require an action (Eg attack and move away without provoking an attack of opportunity) does not require you to roll the extra dice, so it's possible (I'd have to look) that it could actually increase the appeal of monks and rogues as they are melee, but 1) have advantage on their initiative dice, and 2) may or may not have to pay the movement costs that a fighter definitely has to pay.
Also, in response to ArchSeshiro at the beginning of this thread, it actually might not punish the rogue or monk as much as you think. Using a class feature, that does not require an action (Eg attack and move away without provoking an attack of opportunity) does not require you to roll the extra dice, so it's possible (I'd have to look) that it could actually increase the appeal of monks and rogues as they are melee, but 1) have advantage on their initiative dice, and 2) may or may not have to pay the movement costs that a fighter definitely has to pay.
A monk or two-weapon fighter uses their bonus action for one additional attack (Monk can have more). This means that if you want to take all your attacks you are going to be rolling at least 2d8 for initiative. A level 20 Fighter rolls a single d8 for their four attacks while a Monk has to roll 2d8. You've effectively defeated the purpose of two-weapon fighting or using bonus actions to attack in this system. At lower levels, it's mechanically superior to just choose Greatsword and hit once than it is to hit twice with two shortswords because I am much more likely to go first rolling a single d8 and we are already doing comparable damage. Not to mention that melee should always consider adding movement dice to their initiative. Any melee combatant that uses their bonus action to attack is punished with rolling 3 dice for initiative (moving is heavily suggested for melee) or at risk to not do nearly as much damage compared to their Greatsword, Longbow, Crossbow companions.
Also I think you are thinking of Swashbuckler's Raskish Audacity which allows them to not be hit from attacks of opportunity by a creature that they made a melee attack against. Swashbucklers, being melee, still have to roll a d8+d6 to move and attack (Technically Swashbuckler is 2d6 because they grant an initiative bonus). Swashbucklers are still in a good spot because Swashbucklers have so much going for them despite being melee. The only class I can think of that can attack and then move is the Vengeance Paladin with their Relentless Assault which is moot because it's reaction based.
I think people looking at this system should do two things:
Allow bonus actions to just happen without extra dice or something like flat d4/d6 regardless of what you do with your bonus action
Have everyone always roll the d6 for movement or just don't count your normal move action when determining initiative.
These don't necessarily need to happen together, but RAW for this system melee is very heavily punished while ranged users are king, and melee Rogues and Monks get shafted especially hard by class reliance on the bonus action for utility or extra damage.
It seems to me that attacking with a great axe would, in fact, be on average slightly faster than attacking with your left, and then right hand. That makes sense to me. Likewise, Standing still, pointing your hand, and summoning a fireball, would be faster (on average) than charging forward 30 feet, and then swinging my greataxe. It just makes sense. All classes and play-styles have some drawbacks, I don't think it is unfair or unwarranted to make weapon-choice (or action economy) one of those considerations. Certainly, it isn't class destroying or game breaking to do so.
Also, nothing you can do can ever do to initiative can ever "defeat the purpose of playing as (a 2h fighter, a monk, a barbarian, rogue...)" It can add a layer of difficulty, sure, but even if you ALWAYS, ALWAYS go last in the order, you still get to do your damage. (it would certainly would defeat the initiative system if it played out like that though.) Still, you are exaggerating... and, of course I don't think the difference in practice is what you make it out to be.
Most importantly though, the enemies are playing by the same rules, so, at the end of the day, the only real thing this does is front-load the range and the spell-casting before the melee, and add a touch of strategy and realism. There are so many ways to finaggle and house-rule this system to preference, also. I just like the concept.
(Question: Doesn't the ranger use their bonus action to "interact with object, load crossbow with ammunition"? So maybe Ranged isn't as OP as we think?)
I really like this system and I'm going to talk to my players to give it a try soon. I think I might switch the ranged and melee die though since melee attackers are generally having to move.(d4 melee d6 for move would be on average slower than just the d8 ranged, but would be a bit quicker when not having to move than the ranged. Which makes sense since it would take less time to swing a sword th and to reload re aim and fire a bow).
I see a lot of negative feedback towards this without anyone really giving it a try and those that have tried it for the most part loved it and said it was much faster in practice. I hope people will be more open to this kinds of variants in the future.
That's a good compromise. D8 for ranged vs a D4+d6 for melee...
I'm still baffled as to why everyone feels so strongly that Rangers, Rogues and bow-fighters going first is so game-breaking. The thing is, to me, when you flip it around so the rangers are rolling D8s and the fighters are rolling D4+D6s what you end up with is simply a compressed version of the d20 system we have now, except with more fiddly rules. The point of the system, imo, is to advantage (bow-wielders) and introduce layers of strategy, so before we compromise into a system where (everyone) on average rolls between a 4-6 on average, it's good to ask yourself why you are using the Greyhawk initiative system in the first place.
For instance, is it simply because you are tired of static battles? Why not simply roll initiative each round?
Is it because you want the initiative system to be more realistic and "simulative?" Then perhaps you ought to use a static formula based on equipment and class, acompanied by a standardized "random factor" Eg, your initiative value is -6, the rogues is -12 and the monk is -10, and everybody rolls a D20 for initiative, same as before.
Is it because you want a game that is easier to run, and adds strategic depth to encounters? Then maybe the stand-and-shoot bow fighters and magic users ought to go first, and the reaction heavy meat-shields should go last, on average... and maybe a system that rewards puzzling out your whole move in advance, but that is still flexible enough that it doesn't punish you for lacking omnicience. Shoot, all it needs is a way to reward players for being ready to go when it's their turn, and it might be perfect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAGreyhawkInitiative.pdf
The Dungeon Life video should be linked too for clarification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSo4wVkwUw
I have two major problems with this.
1.) "You should always plan on moving . . ." Unless you're ranged.
Ranged weapon characters will always lean towards going first. They don't really need to move (if you are a bow or xbow user), and they roll the smallest dice (d4)... It harms melee characters as they will always have a larger dice (d8) and have to account for moving (d6). This is of course different with the weapon speed variant. Personally I'd just assume people are always moving and either just always have people roll a d6 or never roll it.
2.) Heavily nerfs bonus action users. Rogues, Monks, Two-weapon users, are essentially doubling their dice for these actions whether it is moving or attacking. This takes these characters from some of the fastest, to the slowest. Sorcerer's who cast Quicken spell to cast two spells a turn would be rolling 2d10. It just seems too punitive.
I will give this system props. It does help mitigate Dexterity's power (besides making ranged weapon attacks incredibly fast) and it does help add variety in a combat round. So... Goal achieved?
It seems like a pretty cool way to do initiative, but will make combat go slower, which I don't really want. Sometimes combat seems slow enough for me already.
I'd like to get my group to try it. But I do have some thoughts. First, I think I would use the weapon damage die as the initiative die for attack actions. I'd have bonus actions up the die type a step rather than adding another die. I'd make spells more granular. Maybe cantrips = d4, 1st - 2nd level spells = d6, 3rd - 5th = d8, and 6th-9th = d10. And I would use the optional rule for spell disruption in conjunction with the Concentration mechanic.
Haven't had a chance to read the UA yet (thanks work emails!), however Mike tweeted a whole heap of info a few weeks back and Matt Colville expanded on this in one of his latest videos. Highly recommend the watch.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
No. God no. If you need that many pages to make a change to a system that is already simple, then you need to scrap the idea and start over. I understand that some of the UA's are just the developers shitting out ideas onto paper with little to no real thought put into them (like the theurge or lore wizard), but come on. There is no reason to make this game even MORE complex.
Mrfluckoff
I like the idea, it reminds me a bit of speed factors from 2nd edition back in the day. However I have to side on the fact that at my game table I don't think it would be well received by anyone but maybe the Rogue (and that's just because he's down for anything). Especially in play by post I think this would cause a huge slow down. I could see it working fairly well in a VTT however, where macros could be set up by each player for their various action combos they can take in a round.
I also like the idea of separating the spells out by level instead of having all the them all be d12.
Really like it, even more so considering the variant rule, which says melee attack get the initiative dice equal to the damage dice.
I would apply, somehow, the same thinking to the spells, as Stray_cat said.
There was one idea shared on twitter not long after this initiative variant was announced (a couple months ago), where you roll a die (d6 or d8 iirc) for a spell, and thenon your initiative, you choose your spell and it goes of X initiative later, where X is the level of the spell. I (personally) prefer that to a static d10.
If I use this system (more a matter of when, really), I'll probably implement that change, and use the weapon speed rule as well, since ranged shouldn't be quicker than melee.
One thing that annoys me is that the swashbuckler just reduces the size of the die they roll, rather than something more intuitive like subtracting thier Charisma modifier (And the same for War Mage with Intelligence, as well, I suppose).
Do you have difficulty fitting everything you want into your signature? Then check out the Extended Signature thread!
Here's my Extended Signature!
I found it a waste of UA.
THe current initiative rules work nicely, why over complicate it?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Just an average metalhead who plays DnD in his spare time.
PbP Character: Roberta Thalan, Void Beyond the Stars Otherside
PbP Character: Primus Eidolon, Eotha 2
PbP Character: Usmor Illiqai, Tomb of Corrosion
PbP Character: "Templar" Danver, You're the Villains
Homebrew stuff
It is not meant to fix it. It is like a variant rule.
Yeah, but still - it overcomplicates things. While I dont mind a little bit more realism, this sounds waay too much. I wish they reworked more subclasses instead,
Just an average metalhead who plays DnD in his spare time.
PbP Character: Roberta Thalan, Void Beyond the Stars Otherside
PbP Character: Primus Eidolon, Eotha 2
PbP Character: Usmor Illiqai, Tomb of Corrosion
PbP Character: "Templar" Danver, You're the Villains
Homebrew stuff
You wish... tee hee.
I kinda like that they are doing it that way (even if this was a big miss as far as my game is concerned), because I don't want the content creep like with older editions. Like, how many Monster Manuals do we really need? (the answer is all... all the Monster Manuals). But, multiple books per class becomes A LOT to try to keep up with (heck, just the ones we have now are taking up an entire folder on my computer, as well as a folder in my Google Drive).
I hope they do end up doing more like this (wouldn't mind some sort of Stronghold Rule - speaking of Matt Colville...).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Not "broken" is not the same as "best available".
To the negative nancies who imidiately say no to this rule because Simple > Complex, I disagree, and frankly, I think that is a statement that needs to be defended. Sure, overly-complex is bad, but so is overly simplified. Roll a d20 at the begining of combat, and that determines turn order for all of combat (and that d20 is essentially just a randomizor, not an abstraction of any actual mechanical concept)... That is honestly lazy game designing. If you are going to bother with initiative at all (and really, you don't NEED to, it's just there to add variety to encounters) then why not have it representative of something?
If a round of combat is an abstraction of (approximately) 6 seconds, then why doesn't it make sense that people who intend to do complicated actions (like disengage, move, change weapons, dip a blade in poison and attack all on the same turn) would probably USE more of that time, and therefore be delayed a little in their action economy? I like the system.
I'm also going to take a moment to stand up for the d10 spell die. When most people see d10, they think "10," but in fact, you should be thinking 5. There is a 50/50 chance that that you will roll a 5 or lower. Most of the time, you don't move when you cast a spell, so a 5 is pretty good. If you are moving while casting (or taking other actions) I do think it is correct that moving and casting a spell (any spell) should take you longer (on average) than moving and attacking (consider holding a lit flame beneath a piece of iron, while saying words of power and also running to cast heat metal as an example). Still, like I said, generally you'll have an 80% Chance of getting below a 8(lets say) whereas a melee fighter doing an attack move (rolling d6+d8) will be at 50/50 odds of doing better than an 8 (because of the way odds work when rolling 2 dice). The only person who will likely be faster than the mage consistently is the archer rolling 1d4 which I do agree might be low for what he is doing. To the people attempting to align the spell-cast time to the power of the spell, I get what you are doing, but I don't really think it works. Level // Casting time. If you wanted, you could align spells by casting time (since casting time is actually listed on the spell), but at the end of the day, like I said, mechanically, I don't think it's necessary.
Also, in response to ArchSeshiro at the beginning of this thread, it actually might not punish the rogue or monk as much as you think. Using a class feature, that does not require an action (Eg attack and move away without provoking an attack of opportunity) does not require you to roll the extra dice, so it's possible (I'd have to look) that it could actually increase the appeal of monks and rogues as they are melee, but 1) have advantage on their initiative dice, and 2) may or may not have to pay the movement costs that a fighter definitely has to pay.
A monk or two-weapon fighter uses their bonus action for one additional attack (Monk can have more). This means that if you want to take all your attacks you are going to be rolling at least 2d8 for initiative. A level 20 Fighter rolls a single d8 for their four attacks while a Monk has to roll 2d8. You've effectively defeated the purpose of two-weapon fighting or using bonus actions to attack in this system. At lower levels, it's mechanically superior to just choose Greatsword and hit once than it is to hit twice with two shortswords because I am much more likely to go first rolling a single d8 and we are already doing comparable damage. Not to mention that melee should always consider adding movement dice to their initiative. Any melee combatant that uses their bonus action to attack is punished with rolling 3 dice for initiative (moving is heavily suggested for melee) or at risk to not do nearly as much damage compared to their Greatsword, Longbow, Crossbow companions.
Also I think you are thinking of Swashbuckler's Raskish Audacity which allows them to not be hit from attacks of opportunity by a creature that they made a melee attack against. Swashbucklers, being melee, still have to roll a d8+d6 to move and attack (Technically Swashbuckler is 2d6 because they grant an initiative bonus). Swashbucklers are still in a good spot because Swashbucklers have so much going for them despite being melee. The only class I can think of that can attack and then move is the Vengeance Paladin with their Relentless Assault which is moot because it's reaction based.
I think people looking at this system should do two things:
These don't necessarily need to happen together, but RAW for this system melee is very heavily punished while ranged users are king, and melee Rogues and Monks get shafted especially hard by class reliance on the bonus action for utility or extra damage.
It seems to me that attacking with a great axe would, in fact, be on average slightly faster than attacking with your left, and then right hand. That makes sense to me. Likewise, Standing still, pointing your hand, and summoning a fireball, would be faster (on average) than charging forward 30 feet, and then swinging my greataxe. It just makes sense. All classes and play-styles have some drawbacks, I don't think it is unfair or unwarranted to make weapon-choice (or action economy) one of those considerations. Certainly, it isn't class destroying or game breaking to do so.
Also, nothing you can do can ever do to initiative can ever "defeat the purpose of playing as (a 2h fighter, a monk, a barbarian, rogue...)" It can add a layer of difficulty, sure, but even if you ALWAYS, ALWAYS go last in the order, you still get to do your damage. (it would certainly would defeat the initiative system if it played out like that though.) Still, you are exaggerating... and, of course I don't think the difference in practice is what you make it out to be.
Most importantly though, the enemies are playing by the same rules, so, at the end of the day, the only real thing this does is front-load the range and the spell-casting before the melee, and add a touch of strategy and realism. There are so many ways to finaggle and house-rule this system to preference, also. I just like the concept.
(Question: Doesn't the ranger use their bonus action to "interact with object, load crossbow with ammunition"? So maybe Ranged isn't as OP as we think?)
I really like this system and I'm going to talk to my players to give it a try soon. I think I might switch the ranged and melee die though since melee attackers are generally having to move.(d4 melee d6 for move would be on average slower than just the d8 ranged, but would be a bit quicker when not having to move than the ranged. Which makes sense since it would take less time to swing a sword th and to reload re aim and fire a bow).
I see a lot of negative feedback towards this without anyone really giving it a try and those that have tried it for the most part loved it and said it was much faster in practice. I hope people will be more open to this kinds of variants in the future.
That's a good compromise. D8 for ranged vs a D4+d6 for melee...
I'm still baffled as to why everyone feels so strongly that Rangers, Rogues and bow-fighters going first is so game-breaking. The thing is, to me, when you flip it around so the rangers are rolling D8s and the fighters are rolling D4+D6s what you end up with is simply a compressed version of the d20 system we have now, except with more fiddly rules. The point of the system, imo, is to advantage (bow-wielders) and introduce layers of strategy, so before we compromise into a system where (everyone) on average rolls between a 4-6 on average, it's good to ask yourself why you are using the Greyhawk initiative system in the first place.
For instance, is it simply because you are tired of static battles? Why not simply roll initiative each round?
Is it because you want the initiative system to be more realistic and "simulative?" Then perhaps you ought to use a static formula based on equipment and class, acompanied by a standardized "random factor" Eg, your initiative value is -6, the rogues is -12 and the monk is -10, and everybody rolls a D20 for initiative, same as before.
Is it because you want a game that is easier to run, and adds strategic depth to encounters? Then maybe the stand-and-shoot bow fighters and magic users ought to go first, and the reaction heavy meat-shields should go last, on average... and maybe a system that rewards puzzling out your whole move in advance, but that is still flexible enough that it doesn't punish you for lacking omnicience. Shoot, all it needs is a way to reward players for being ready to go when it's their turn, and it might be perfect.