D&D 5E Initiative and Saves

[bganon]

I think it's not so much about the Wizard readying, as that the other party members should ready their attacks to trigger immediately after the Wizard casts Hold Person. Characters don't know about turns, but they can understand "Hold your attacks until I render this foe paralyzed by my mighty magic!" Hold Person had this same issue in 3e.

That said, requiring ready actions for spells to be effective is painful. One way to fix things like this is rule that saves happen on the caster's turn. The cost is complex out-of-turn stuff in big combats. Another similar way is to go back to how Hold Person worked in early editions, which is to have one initial save after which it lasts for a set duration.

 

[Joe Liker]

This situation is exactly the reason the Ready action exists -- to mitigate unfavorable initiative timing.

If you don't like Ready and refuse to use it, that's your business, but the game works just fine for people who are willing to use all the tools at their disposal.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The OP's point makes sense, but it is overstating the problem. A chance to deny the most dangerous enemy in the room an action right now is a bird in the hand. Sometimes that is less valuable than the two in the bush.

The solution is to Ready if you want the two in the bush.

 

[BryonD]

Initiative really doesn't matter. Setting aside the Ready conversation, if I am a mage and cast Hold Person on an orc, he will get 2 saves before the start of my next turn. If I won initiative it goes as described above. If the orc won initiative then he does something then when my turn comes around it still happens as described above.

Has there been any clarity provided to intent of "Ready"? It certainly (and fairly) implies a reasonably specific trigger. But in this specific case "I will Ready to cast Hold Person as soon as the orc does anything" seems reasonable. It is outside of the larger general concept of Ready, but it doesn't seem to be against the spirit. From a pure concept the idea that I'm paying attention to this specific character with intent to lock him down, is reasonable. So it isn't an exploit to apply a broad interpretation here as an exception. (IMO AKA "good DMing").

 

[PeelSeel2]

Initiative really doesn't matter. Setting aside the Ready conversation, if I am a mage and cast Hold Person on an orc, he will get 2 saves before the start of my next turn. If I won initiative it goes as described above. If the orc won initiative then he does something then when my turn comes around it still happens as described above.

Has there been any clarity provided to intent of "Ready"? It certainly (and fairly) implies a reasonably specific trigger. But in this specific case "I will Ready to cast Hold Person as soon as the orc does anything" seems reasonable. It is outside of the larger general concept of Ready, but it doesn't seem to be against the spirit. From a pure concept the idea that I'm paying attention to this specific character with intent to lock him down, is reasonable. So it isn't an exploit to apply a broad interpretation here as an exception. (IMO AKA "good DMing").

This.

Also, the ready action costs you your reaction. Steep cost. I use my action to ready an action. When the trigger occurs, I use my reaction to enact the action. Their goes my shield if I need it.....

 

[Dausuul]

Initiative really doesn't matter. Setting aside the Ready conversation, if I am a mage and cast Hold Person on an orc, he will get 2 saves before the start of my next turn. If I won initiative it goes as described above. If the orc won initiative then he does something then when my turn comes around it still happens as described above.

It matters because there are other PCs in the party. It's not your initiative relative to the orc that matters, but your initiative relative to your rogue and fighter comrades.

Let's assume the orc fails its first save and makes its second save. Here's one possible initiative sequence:

Fighter: Attacks the orc normally.
Rogue: Attacks the orc normally.
Wizard: Casts hold person. Orc fails its first save and is paralyzed.
Orc: Loses its action, makes its second save. Orc is no longer paralyzed.
Fighter: [combat continues]

Compare to:

Wizard: Casts hold person. Orc fails its first save and is paralyzed.
Fighter: Attacks the orc with advantage for an automatic crit.
Rogue: Attacks the orc with advantage for an automatic crit, including double Sneak Attack damage.
Orc: Loses its action, makes its second save. Orc is no longer paralyzed, but is probably dead anyhow.
Wizard: [combat continues]

The fighter and rogue get a big damage boost in scenario #2 compared to scenario #1. It's to the wizard's advantage to arrange things so the fighter and rogue get a chance to strike before the orc has a second chance to save. This can be done either by the wizard readying till after the orc has acted, or by the fighter and rogue readying till after the wizard casts.

Both of these have tradeoffs, of course. If the wizard readies, the spell could be disrupted, the orc gets a round of attacks in before the paralysis hits, and the wizard gives up the ability to cast shield for a round. If the fighter and rogue ready, they sacrifice their ability to make OAs for a round. (Overall, I would say it's almost always better to have the fighter and rogue be the ones to ready attacks. However, it can be hard to coordinate that kind of thing.)

Has there been any clarity provided to intent of "Ready"? It certainly (and fairly) implies a reasonably specific trigger. But in this specific case "I will Ready to cast Hold Person as soon as the orc does anything" seems reasonable. It is outside of the larger general concept of Ready, but it doesn't seem to be against the spirit. From a pure concept the idea that I'm paying attention to this specific character with intent to lock him down, is reasonable. So it isn't an exploit to apply a broad interpretation here as an exception. (IMO AKA "good DMing").

As with so many things in 5E, the wording leaves it pretty open to interpretation. However, readying for "when the fighter attacks" is indisputably a valid trigger, and would also achieve the goal.

 

[keterys]

Clearly, we just need a return to side by side initiative. Or perhaps entirely simultaneous resolution. Theater of the mind does help there.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It matters because there are other PCs in the party. It's not your initiative relative to the orc that matters, but your initiative relative to your rogue and fighter comrades.

Right. In the bigger picture, the Wizard is denied the hyper-optimal choice of tactics because he rolled low for initiative. Having rolled low for initiative, using the better initiative as a comparison point exaggerates the issue. Rolling low on initiative has a natural cost that is intended to shape the decision space of the player. The question what a PC does once s/he is stuck choosing from less than hyper-optimal choices.

And, as you point out, it is not just what the wizard decides to do. The rogue and fighter have choices, too, regarding how closely they decide to coordinate their tactics with the wizard. They could have Readied actions, at the cost of their Reaction; not paying this price to have a better chance of attacking a hapless target is their choice to make.

 

[BryonD]

It matters because there are other PCs in the party. It's not your initiative relative to the orc that matters, but your initiative relative to your rogue and fighter comrades.

Ah. Yeah.
Strictly speaking, the "Ready" answer seems to be the only solution short of significant house rules (which I have no negative opinion of)

For myself, I'm not a huge fan of the save at the end of every turn mechanic anyway. At a minimum I'd say anything that allows an every round save skips the first round. (save every round starting at the end of the second turn you miss). But I realize my house-rule suggestion is of limited value to others.

As with so many things in 5E, the wording leaves it pretty open to interpretation. However, readying for "when the fighter attacks" is indisputably a valid trigger, and would also achieve the goal.

Sure. And I'm more than good with that. Humorously, it is the conversations online that require the nit-picking. At the table, this is a good thing.

 

[Dausuul]

Right. In the bigger picture, the Wizard is denied the hyper-optimal choice of tactics because he rolled low for initiative. Having rolled low for initiative, using the better initiative as a comparison point exaggerates the issue. Rolling low on initiative has a natural cost that is intended to shape the decision space of the player. The question what a PC does once s/he is stuck choosing from less than hyper-optimal choices.

And, as you point out, it is not just what the wizard decides to do. The rogue and fighter have choices, too, regarding how closely they decide to coordinate their tactics with the wizard. They could have Readied actions, at the cost of their Reaction; not paying this price to have a better chance of attacking a hapless target is their choice to make.

Well said. I should also point out that even in 3E, when Delaying was an option, it still involved a significant tradeoff--a permanent drop in your initiative count, in exchange for optimizing the party's combat sequence. The same was true for Readying.

5E Readying costs you a reaction, which was not the case in 3E, but it doesn't cause a permanent initiative hit. As long as you're confident of not having your concentration disrupted, you can take advantage of this to double-tap a foe; for example, Otto's irresistible dance to impose disadvantage on Dex saves, followed by disintegrate before the target has a chance to break the effect.

As in every edition, mastery of the initiative rules is a powerful thing.