“Who started it?” Initiative order

5ekyu · Aug 12, 2018

Charlaquin said:
This is how I handle it. The way most people run it, rolling initiative is like the D&D equivalent of the screen wipe before combat in a turn-based video game, and I prefer to avoid such jarring changes in gameplay as much as possible, so I prefer to treat Initiative just like any other ability check. That is to say, I only call for it to be rolled when it’s necessary to resolve an action with an uncertain outcome. When the rogue sneaks up on the unsuspecting goblin (assuming he’s passed whatever checks he needs to pass to do that) and says he tries to kill the goblin by stabbing him in the jugular, there’s no uncertainty in the outcome. No need to roll Initiative, because the goblin has no means of preventing that from happening. When the fighter tries to sucker punch the thug, there’s some uncertainty. The thug might or might not have quick enough reflexes and/or be wise enough to the fighter’s hostility to see it coming. So, we turn to the dice to resolve the uncertainty with an opposed Dexterity (Initiative) check.

Question on your example... why wouldn't the fighter example be a deception-v-insight check by the fighter with the thug to see if the gobby noticed the hostillty much like the rogue had to pass his stealth-v-perception check against the gobby?

Not a criticism but curious as to why the rogue situation moves to the skill check to avoid init altogether but the fight case is always gonna go to init and not a character-v-character skill check to bypass init?

Cannot deception-v-insight generate as much "no means of preventing" as stealth-v-perception?

Couldn't it be that the gobby doesn't know the attack is coming but just turns his head to scratch or shoo away a fly thus creating uncertainty in that perfect jugular strike just like maybe the gobby rolls a good roll on his init he keeps against the fighter?

Charlaquin · Aug 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
Question on your example... why wouldn't the fighter example be a deception-v-insight check by the fighter with the thug to see if the gobby noticed the hostillty much like the rogue had to pass his stealth-v-perception check against the gobby?

Not a criticism but curious as to why the rogue situation moves to the skill check to avoid init altogether but the fight case is always gonna go to init and not a character-v-character skill check to bypass init?

Cannot deception-v-insight generate as much "no means of preventing" as stealth-v-perception?

Oh, absolutely. I realized this shortly after my post, I recommend giving it a second look after my edit.

5ekyu said:
Couldn't it be that the gobby doesn't know the attack is coming but just turns his head to scratch or shoo away a fly thus creating uncertainty in that perfect jugular strike just like maybe the gobby rolls a good roll on his init he keeps against the fighter?

Sure, that is a possibility, but not really something I feel the need to model. It would feel kinda cheap telling the rogue player, even though he succeeded whatever stealth checks were needed, the goblin still spotted him at the last moment due to random dumb luck. Kinda like how I don’t model the chance of PCs being randomly struck by lighting, or tripping over uneven stones on a path.

5ekyu · Aug 12, 2018

Charlaquin said:
Oh, absolutely. I realized this shortly after my post, I recommend giving it a second look after my edit.

Sure, that is a possibility, but not really something I feel the need to model. It would feel kinda cheap telling the rogue player, even though he succeeded whatever stealth checks were needed, the goblin still spotted him at the last moment due to random dumb luck. Kinda like how I don’t model the chance of PCs being randomly struck by lighting, or tripping over uneven stones on a path.

But it's ok to model a for a calm cool deceptive fighter to go straight to init rolls without a chance to fool the gobby into not expecting it?

Or is that in the rewrite of how you actually do it?

Not looking for your funny lightning strikes from the blue... just parity based on the different examples of your play you chose to provide.

But if you find it easier to avoid that and drag in lightning strikes... by all means, continue.

I have the info I was after.

Charlaquin · Aug 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
But it's ok to model a for a calm cool deceptive fighter to go straight to init rolls without a chance to fool the gobby into not expecting it?

Or is that in the rewrite of how you actually do it?

It’s in the edit, yes.

Hriston · Aug 12, 2018

Morrus said:
Sometimes a PC initiates combat and then the DM asks for initiative. That player then argues they should go first.

The DM then explains to that player that while their PC does indeed begin taking whatever action they have chosen to initiate combat, the way we find out whether the PC completes its action uninterrupted or the action is interrupted by the action(s) of one or more characters or monsters is by making an opposed Dexterity check called Initiative.

Surprise rounds etc. have been (IMO) inelegantly used in these situations over various editions.

I agree. Not only is it inelegant to use surprise in such situations, but in 5th Ed. it also requires a tortured reading of the phrase “notice a threat “.

I’m toying with a minor house rule — if somebody unexpectedly starts the fight, they don’t roll initiative. Everybody else does, then the person who started it goes first, with their initiative one point ahead of the first person to react.

Might try that next game session! .

So your reaction to that player is to just let them go first. I imagine that with this houserule, you’ll have a lot of players declaring actions that initiate combat. It gives them an enormous advantage.

Oofta · Aug 13, 2018

I generally apply rules to PCs and NPCs evenly as much as possible. So if the PCs can do it, so can the NPCs. So I'd be a little leery of "whoever starts the fight wins initiative" unless there's something else going on.

So if someone wants to start a fight and get in the first shot, I'd probably call for a deception or sleight of hand check to either distract the opponents or pull weapons surreptitiously. In general starting a fight means reaching for weapons, changing your stance and getting into position to strike, all things visible to other people not paying attention.

So pull that dagger without your opponent seeing it or say something that make them look elsewhere momentarily.

Some of it depends on how alert the others are and whether they have reason to expect a fight. If your average party walks up to a group of orcs, the orcs are going to be on edge and watching for aggression. If you're at a party with everyone getting along, relaxed and having a good time and someone pulls a knife there may even be a surprise round for the individual as someone mentioned up thread.

But I'd be concerned that if it's too simple, you'll have that guy that wants to start every fight.

Greenstone.Walker · Aug 13, 2018

Morrus said:
Sometimes a PC initiates combat and then the DM asks for initiative. That player then argues they should go first.

And the next encounter, when the people talking to the party suddenly attack them, the same player cries "Why are they going first? Why don't I get to roll initiative?"

What is wrong with the surprise rule?

pming · Aug 13, 2018

HEY! Don't make me come back there! I don't care WHO started it...I'm gonna END it! Got it?!

Good. Now let me finish writing this down and then I'll tell you when combat starts.

...sheesh... Players, amiright? Don't get me wrong, I love the little guys, but sometimes...man-o-man!...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Rya.Reisender · Aug 13, 2018

I'm fine with initiative is handled. I mean my players have some trouble understanding that they can't just tell me they attack someone, they need to tell me their intent to attack and then I roll initiative and once it's their turn they tell me what they do. That's mainly because before it's their turn the situation might have changed so they rather would attack someone else or not attack at all and instead run for it.

A rule like "Whoever wants to attack first goes first" kinda turns it into "DM vs. Player". The DM might be nice and never intent to attack before a players does, but he could also easily argue that those monsters wanted to attack the moment they spotted the PCs, so they always go first.

Also I feel it would force players to act more aggressively. Like my players right now ALWAYS try to solve things by talking first, so basically every single time the NPCs have the intent to attack before them. If I punish them for that by letting the NPCs act first by default, then they'll probably be a lot more eager to attack right away. That can be a good or a bad thing I guess.

Coroc · Aug 13, 2018

Even a sucker punch has a chance to be countered by someone with quick reflexes, and an attack action in D&D does not mean you strike once and that's it, but it is a time segment of around 6 seconds, during which you do all sorts of combat stuff but get #number of attacks chances to actually hit and do damage.
Therefore, at first I did like [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] thought, but the more I think about it, the normal initiative system is more balanced and fair.

“Who started it?” Initiative order

5ekyu

Hero

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

5ekyu

Hero

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Oofta

Legend

Greenstone.Walker

Adventurer

pming

Legend

Rya.Reisender

Explorer

Coroc

Hero

Similar Threads