D&D 5E Initiative and Delay

[KarinsDad]

This is what is bizarre to me. That power exists in the game already, for all players. If you happen to roll where you'd prefer to go, the ability works. So, it can't be balanced around that concept - you can't assume where the player will be going and they might well be going after their ally takes a turn.

The concept of First Strike already exists in RPG lexicon, so I suppose the concept I am talking about here is Last Strike, or Later Strike. The ability to move your initiative count down one time, and only in the first round. It doesn't delay things, it doesn't cause a hideous amount of more tactical play in the game, and I really don't see how it's unbalancing given it can already work out that way so it can't be for balance reasons that the current rules are written that way.

Using the term "Delay" implies 3E or 4E Delay as written, so when you use that term, do not be surprise if people actually start talking about Delay and not "only first round Delay" or even "only when dice are first rolled declare your lower init number Delay". These are different things as well with normal Delay being more useful/potent than Delay in Round One, and Delay in Round One being more useful/potent than Lower Init Pre-Combat.

Also when talking about normal Delay (which he was talking about), there's a difference. In the one case, the player cannot just take his turn when it is most optimal to do so. He is forced to deal (or not deal) with the scenario as is. In the other case, the player can take his turn when it is most optimal to do so. The latter is not just a case of performing actions when it is most optimal to do so, but it is also a case of performing the perfect action at the perfect time and can easily interrupt enemy plans that the former cannot. If the NPCs plan is to drop a PC unconscious followed by the next NPC in init doing a coup de grace, that plan can easily be thwarted with Delay.

The former is less potent with less utility, the latter is more potent with more utility, but at a slight cost.

Some people find the latter to be unbalanced because it is not the same. It's really not that bizarre of a concept.


And quite frankly, if Delay or Delay Round One or Lower Init Pre-Combat works for your group, go for it. Just because some people find the first two of these to be a bit more implausible and potent doesn't mean that you should not use them for your game.

 

[Lerysh]

I've had no problem just incorporating Delay into the rules. We use Init cards so the turn order is pretty easily fluid. If you delay your turn you get your card, and if something comes up that you want to act, you go into the Init order BEHIND the current card. They finish their turn, delaying character starts his. None of this interrupt malarky, interrupts are gone for good reason. The party has a vested interest in letting certain things happen in certain order, like the fighter with his Plate and Shield going into the dungeon first. It's punitive to make characters who roll well waste an action on something like Dodge when really they just want to follow the fighter into the breech. It winds out working out the same anyway, just with fast characters missing an action, so why not allow delay?

Here's an interesting idea I just thought of: It's possible to use your Reaction on your own turn (See Shield spell and drawing OA's). Maybe to delay you use your reaction in order to take an action later in the round. More complicated than natural delay tho, so why bother.

 

[Mistwell]

Using the term "Delay" implies 3E or 4E Delay

I'm talking about a different game, and explaining what I mean, and that it does not mean the 3e or 4e delay. If people are stuck on prior versions of the game, all I can do is repeat over and over again (as I have done) what I mean.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm talking about a different game, and explaining what I mean, and that it does not mean the 3e or 4e delay. If people are stuck on prior versions of the game, all I can do is repeat over and over again (as I have done) what I mean.

Then use different terms than Delay. If you have to explain it over and over again, then use terms that people automatically understand.

Do not assume that people are on the same page as you, or that they read every post in the thread, or that they are not talking a side conversation somewhat off topic from the original post.

Also, I don't think that anyone has stated that "Lower Init Pre-Combat" or "Allow Delay in Round One" is that unbalanced or as implausible, it's more the 3E or 4E version where it starts getting a bit much.

 

[Mistwell]

Then use different terms than Delay.

You mean like the post you were replying to? You know, where I said, "The concept of First Strike already exists in RPG lexicon, so I suppose the concept I am talking about here is Last Strike, or Later Strike. The ability to move your initiative count down one time, and only in the first round."

If you have to explain it over and over again, then use terms that people automatically understand.

You mean like I did, and then you again moved it back to the old term and told me I was doing it wrong?

Do not assume that people are on the same page as you

I promise you, I have never once made this assumption with you. Ever.

 

[Piratecat]

Mistwell, I look forward to the day when you don't try to turn a thread into a personal argument. Cut it out.

 

[Tzarevitch]

Except that the Ready action handles the scenario you just described and the Ready action emulate real world "if x, than y" much better than the Delay action emulates "waiting".

I totally get what you are saying, but the difference is that the Delaying character can react instantaneously (between turns) to any event, he does not just get to do it when it's his turn. Sure, every player gets to do this (move, attack, move) every single round, but they do not get to decide "when" to do this.

There's nothing about delaying that allows anyone to act simultaneously. Ready interrupts an action in progress. Delay just lets you drop your initiative count lower. It doesn't preempt anything or allow you to do anything you couldn't have done if you had rolled that number. Ready allows you to wait for a specific designated event. Delay allows you to wait for a certain time. That's the difference.

 

[KarinsDad]

There's nothing about delaying that allows anyone to act simultaneously. Ready interrupts an action in progress. Delay just lets you drop your initiative count lower. It doesn't preempt anything or allow you to do anything you couldn't have done if you had rolled that number. Ready allows you to wait for a specific designated event. Delay allows you to wait for a certain time. That's the difference.

You keep reading my words "between turns", ignoring it, and keep talking about why delay does not allow anyone to act simultaneously. Nobody ever said that, we all understand how delay works, and you still keep misinterpreting what I write to mean something that I do not mean. I explained my POV several times. I won't do it again. Please just read what I wrote carefully. It's all there. I do not disagree with you on how delay works mechanically.

 

[vermilion]

In the brief time I've played 5e, I've found one particular situation in which not being able to delay my place in the initiative is incredibly annoying. I'm playing a Rogue|Arcane Trickster with an Owl familiar. The intent is for my familiar to use the Help action to grant me advantage on my attacks. With the Owl's flyby ability, it can move 30', use the action to grant advantage and fly back out 30' without drawing an OA. Pretty cool when it works, as it very reliably sets up sneak attack at just 3rd level.

However, in combats where initiative rolls split us up, it often doesn't work at all. The worst case is when the Owl rolls initiative shortly after me. Because I go first, I make my attack without advantage. The Owl follows, granting advantage on the next ally attack against the target. That can leave as many as four party members to follow up, one of whom is pretty likely to take a shot at my target, and also the enemy itself, which might simply move out of range before I come back around in the initiative sequence.

Granting advantage to a teammate is hardly the worst thing that can happen, but it's generally better for me to have it than anyone else since I get to apply extra damage on the hit. And it also kind of sucks that my familiar, which I'm in constant mental contact with, can't be better coordinated with my own actions.

RAW, the only thing I can do to guarantee I get advantage in those cases is to take a Ready action, but that's an awful option as it costs me both my Cunning Action to Disengage/Hide after an attack as well as any Reaction I might need to take on defense (Uncanny Dodge, etc.)

TL;DR: It'd be swell if I could make sure I go after my own familiar in the initiative order, but the rules really don't take that into account.

 

[skotothalamos]

So, in the "good old days" of AD&D we had declared intentions before initiative, initiative rolls every round, and "simultaneous" action. I agree: that way lies madness.

Has anyone out there come up with a happy medium between the madness and "stop action animation" of turn-based initiative?

I really like how X-Wing Miniatures Game handles this: everybody moves in initiative order, worst-to-best, so the best-initiative pilots have the best view of where everyone is going and can make their decisions accordingly. Once everyone moves, attacks go in the opposite order, from best pilot to worst.

It's a great system for ship-to-ship dogfighting. Since everyone moves before anyone fires, you don't have as much weird time-warping. I'm not sure it's great for adventure gaming, but I'd love to give it a try sometime.