D&D 5E Initiative and Delay

[MarkB]

pming, that seems like a very long-winded way of saying "I handwave initiative". Which is fine, but not totally useful in a thread about handling problems within a non-handwaved initiative system.

 

[transtemporal]

Delay always felt cheesy and artificial that someone could wait, and then superspeed enter in before anyone else's normal reactions. I like the fact that they removed it both for simplicity sake, and for plausibility reasons.

Makes a lot of sense when you put it like that.

 

[Paraxis]

Most games I have played in or run it is something like this.

Player 1: "I move over here to engage this orc, I use my attack action to swing at him with my shortsword (insert description based on attack roll), I move over behind cover and use a bonus action to attack with my my dagger (insert description based on attack roll).
Player 2: "I delay until after the bard goes so he can buff me."
Player 3:" I cast bane on that group of enemies, and use bardic inspiration on Player 2. Then I move over here to get cover. (description of him casting the spell and the words of encouragement may or may not be tossed out depending on the player)
Player 2: "Now that I have the inspiration I move to engage that group of orcs, attacking the strongest looking guy".

It is a game, game terms need to be used. You can fluff stuff up, and decorate your actions with a bunch of extra adjectives but things like Delay, Attack Action, Bonus Action, Prone, Shove, Concentration, Ready, etc...are all game terms and need to be used consistently and regularly for everyone to know what is going on.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

pming, that seems like a very long-winded way of saying "I handwave initiative". Which is fine, but not totally useful in a thread about handling problems within a non-handwaved initiative system.

But we don't "handwave" initiative. We use it. I'm just failing to see a "problem" with how Initiative works and why a player saying "I'll wait to see what they do before I decide". Besides, wouldn't the "delay" basically fall under 5e's Ready or the little blue boxed text on PHB pg 193 (the one that basically says "you can do anything, your DM will decide how to handle it").

As I said, I'm still confused. How is "I'll wait to see what they are going to do" not a valid option for a player who won initiative?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[thalmin]

I think I will allow anyone to choose to go after an ally who is lower on the initiative count, not interrupt a tied initiative (that's too precise). Decisions will be made before finding out opponents initiative (that goes for the DM as well). This is only allowed first round, otherwise ready the action.

 

[pming]

Hiya.
[MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: "It is a game, game terms need to be used. You can fluff stuff up, and decorate your actions with a bunch of extra adjectives but things like Delay, Attack Action, Bonus Action, Prone, Shove, Concentration, Ready, etc...are all game terms and need to be used consistently and regularly for everyone to know what is going on."

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. While the DM needs to know what rules may be able to be used for some particular outcome, a player never really has to use any of the "game terms" as "game terms". I mean, simply saying "I attack the orc" is using a game term, but it's also a common description. Saying "I wait until the orc moves near the edge of the pit" is the same as saying "I Delay until the orc is near the pit". It is the DM who then decides what rule is used for any dice rolling that may need to come up.

I've never played in a game where your experience has happened...well, not really. Once I vaguely remember playing in a 3.5e game session where the DM insisted on game-specific wording for pretty much everything. Thankfully I think I've blocked out most of that experience!

Player 1: "I move over here to engage this orc, I use my attack action to swing at him with my shortsword (insert description based on attack roll), I move over behind cover and use a bonus action to attack with my my dagger (insert description based on attack roll).
Player 2: "I delay until after the bard goes so he can buff me."
Player 3:" I cast bane on that group of enemies, and use bardic inspiration on Player 2. Then I move over here to get cover. (description of him casting the spell and the words of encouragement may or may not be tossed out depending on the player)
Player 2: "Now that I have the inspiration I move to engage that group of orcs, attacking the strongest looking guy".

Player 1: "I move up to attack the orc with my short sword, then dodge around the fire pit so it's between me and the orc. I'll attack again by throwing my dagger at him".
Player 2: "I wait for the bard to start his inspirational singing".
Player 3: "I cast Bane on that group, then start singing to inspire Player 2. I'll quickly duck to over here to try and get cover".
Player 2: "Ah-ha! You! Yeah, you! You look like the toughest orc here...lets find out! ...I attack the toughest looking orc".

With that, I think the only thing as a DM I'd ask about is how Player 1 gets an extra dagger throw. Once I knew that was one of his "things" he could do, it wouldn't come up again unless I forgot. In my re-worded example of your example, at no time did a player need to use "game action lingo", and I'm pretty sure that everyone at the table knows exactly what's going on. Maybe it's just my experience at playing this "non-lingo" way for the last 3+ decades, but I actually found your example harder to follow. I think its because of my lack of experience at playing that way. *shrug*

All in all, however, I still don't see the whole "Delay is gone and now I don't know what to do" scenario...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Blackbrrd]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] I hope you got the answers you wanted here, I found a lot of the suggestions and thoughts to be good.

I think that allowing delaying in a surprise round makes perfect sense. Delaying in a the first round probably works ok, but feels a bit funny, while delaying in later rounds really stretches the imagination.

I think 5e did a good job of getting a bit of the simulation back into the game, and delaying does feel a bit weird. If it can't be done as a ready action, it doesn't really make too much sense. Now, I don't remember, but does readying change your initiative? I think it should and I wonder if it did so in any earlier editions?

I think readying an action makes a bit more sense since it's often a very short action, like shooting an arrow, not like a delayed action that can be to move 10', take two swings with the sword, move 5' more, take another two swings then run 10' more.

Regarding it slowing down combat or not, that really depends on how you track initiative. When I did it on paper/excel it was a hazzle, when I changed to initiative triangles set in initiative order in front of me (I am not using a DM screen), it was not a problem. Sometimes, I just skip a player if he/she is slow, effectively delaying them. Kinda goes against the arguements I made above.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Ok. Well, even though I don't really see it yet, if I had to have a game term for this I guess I'd keep calling it Delay. I'd say that when Initiative is determined, you can act from your Initiative on down. If you choose to Delay (re: wait), and then act later in the round, your Initiative sets to that initiative number. It would be equal to the initiative in which you chose to act.

Example: PC1 has an Initiative of 14. He is at the back of the room when the other PC's rush in to engage a group of goblins. PC1 doesn't want to cast a spell yet because he's running a bit low. So the DM moves down to Initiative 13, then 12, 11, 10. At those numbers other PC's who ran in to fight do their attacks and whatnot. Initiative 9 comes up, and the goblins go. Then, the DM says that a secret door opens up and it looks like something large is coming through. PC1 says "I don't know what it is, but I don't want it in here. I'll try and cast a Web spell at the secret door". The DM picks up a d8 (because there are only 8 "initiative counts" left in the round, and gets a 4. PC1's spell goes off as the ogre gets the door half-way open. The new Initiative score for PC1 is 4.

There. You can now "use Delay" to act later in the round, but at a cost of resetting your initiative to a lower value, without having to "ready" an action you don't know you may need.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tzarevitch]

Example:

Player of PC Cleric: "I delay".

NPC 1 knocks Fighter unconscious.

Before NPC 2 whose turn comes up immediately after NPC 1 can coup de grace the fighter, the Cleric steps in.

Cleric heals fighter.

Coup De Grace can no longer be done.

NPC 2's turn.


Delay can be used to prevent a PC death in this example. What a player uses Delay for is irrelevant, it's still this supernatural ability to force your PC's (or NPC's) actions in at any time before the next creature's turn and the ability to react to the most recent set of events. It's totally game mechanics driven and implausible, hence, cheesy. It doesn't make logical sense.

The Cleric PC isn't preparing an action like with Ready (which makes sense, "when an ally falls, I cast cure wounds", the cleric is prepping a specific action). The player of the Cleric is reacting to NPC 1's turn before NPC 2 gets to act. If NPC 1 had cast Hold Person on the fighter instead of knocking him unconscious, the Cleric PC can cast Dispel Magic instead of Cure Wounds.

I might not be describing the issue well here, but this is what I dislike about the Delay action. It's totally metagamey.

Your scenario actually encompasses 2 possible scenarios. Let's use precise initiative rolls and assume PC cleric's original initiative was 25, NPC1 was 20, NPC2 was 15.

Cleric delays on 25 because nothing has happened yet. NPC1 downs the fighter on 20. Cleric then decides to act on 19. That is a proper use of delay. He's not metagaming or using any knowledge he would not have had had he rolled 19. The only difference is the luck of the roll. High rolls are supposed to be beneficial. There is no reason to penalize him by forcing him to go at that point.

If the above happens and Cleric wants to act once he sees NPC2 go over to coup de gras the fighter, that is not a proper use of delay. NPC2 started acting and the cleric is effectively trying to take his full suite of actions in the middle of NPC2's turn after he learns NPC2's nefarious plan. That is metagaming. The player is trying to learn what NPC2 is doing and interrupt it during NPC2's turn and still get a full allotment of actions. The only way you can interrupt an action like this is to guess the fighter is in danger ahead of time and declare a readied action. If NPC2 does not attack the fighter again, the cleric wastes the readied action, but that is the risk he assumed when he readied. In this scenario, if the cleric delayed, once NPC2 starts his turn the cleric can't act until after NPC2 is done.

 

[Tzarevitch]

If acting too early is problematic, then exactly what advantage do you gain by Delaying that you couldn't gain by skipping your turn? Functionally, there's no difference between acting first in round 2 and acting last in round 1.

1. I agree. There probably isn't any difference between going last in round 1 or first in round 2 unless there is some sort of mechanic that operates only in the surprise round (which would have to be round 1.)

2. Your analogy is apples and oranges. There is a big difference between skipping a whole turn and moving from last in round 1 to first in round 2. Skipping a turn gives your opponents each a full round of actions before you can act. Delaying from last in round 1 to first in round 2 probably doesn't do anything at all. Initiative is cyclical after the first round.