D&D 5E Declarations that start combat vs. initiative

[Arilyn]

I seem to be greatly in the minority here (a familiar position!) but IMO if someone sets off the powderkeg without warning it is - or should be - that act of setting it off that starts proceedings. This means that either the setter-off should act first if most or all others are surprised*, or should get a whacking big bonus on initiative if they are not.

I've had this argument with my DM numerous times, when I've in theory been the setter-off but by the time my initiative comes around my intended action would be nearly pointless.

* - don't get me started on 5e's garbage surprise rules as those are a whole other issue.

I am agreeing with this.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I seem to be greatly in the minority here (a familiar position!) but IMO if someone sets off the powderkeg without warning it is - or should be - that act of setting it off that starts proceedings. This means that either the setter-off should act first if most or all others are surprised*, or should get a whacking big bonus on initiative if they are not.

I fully understand the logic of this, and if I'm imagining a scene in a book or a movie then I completely agree with you.

However, in talking about a game I care for the playability of the game as much (or more so) than the realism. And, as I and others have explained, if you start allowing narration to supersede rules, there's no clear boundary of where it ends.

And, in terms of resolving the disconnect between the rules and the narration, one simply has to allow that sometimes things unfold in unpredictable ways.

Player: "I pull the trigger on my crossbow."
DM: "Ok, everybody roll initiative."
Player: "Wait! All I did was move my finger a centimeter! I should get that attack for free."
DM: "Well, that's what you wanted to do. Let's see what actually unfolds..."
(everybody rolls, player with crossbow rolls poorly)
DM: "Ok, what just happened?"
Player: "Arrrggghh! My crossbow jammed!" Or, "In my excitement, I forgot to put a bolt in place."*



*Alternately: "My suit didn't come back from the cleaners! A friend came in from out of town! My car broke down on the way to church! IT WASN'T MY FAULT!"

 

[Maxperson]

Not sure I'm following. If the goblins are ambushing the players, and everybody is making attribute checks, then there are rules for that. The rule I'm proposing only applies to the one character (PC or NPC) that tries to act suddenly when both parties are aware of each other.

I don't see a functional difference between, "I go a lot faster than you do."(guy with dagger ready vs. fighter) and "I go a lot faster than you do.(due to surprise). With the former, at least the fighter can still act in that round. With surprise they can't even do that much. If one situation warrants advantage on the attack if initiative is won, it seems to me that the other one does as well.

Hopefully that explains it better.

 

[Mort]

I seem to be greatly in the minority here (a familiar position!) but IMO if someone sets off the powderkeg without warning it is - or should be - that act of setting it off that starts proceedings. This means that either the setter-off should act first if most or all others are surprised*, or should get a whacking big bonus on initiative if they are not.

I've had this argument with my DM numerous times, when I've in theory been the setter-off but by the time my initiative comes around my intended action would be nearly pointless.

It's all about context.

If no one suspects you of taking hostile action, then you take the hostile action it resolves, then initiative (if appropriate) is rolled.

But just because you think you're being sneaky/sly and unobserved, doesn't mean it's actually so! If people are on the lookout for hostilities, and you start hostilities, someone may well get the drop on you because they were ready and faster/luckier.

* - don't get me started on 5e's garbage surprise rules as those are a whole other issue.

I think it's more that they are not presented/explained well. It's another instance where the DMG could use a once over with better explanation and a good example of the play loop.

Frankly, once implemented and utilized, they seem to work pretty well.

 

[Blue]

Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative - do you consider the instigating declaration binding?

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

Or a twist - it's a parley with observers. Who is observed to break the peace - the person who attacked first or the declarer? (And if the declarer is not locked in, could they change to a non-aggressive action be really be the attacked party?)

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't see a functional difference between, "I go a lot faster than you do."(guy with dagger ready vs. fighter) and "I go a lot faster than you do.(due to surprise). With the former, at least the fighter can still act in that round. With surprise they can't even do that much. If one situation warrants advantage on the attack if initiative is won, it seems to me that the other one does as well.

Hopefully that explains it better.

Then in that case I'd have a contested roll, such as Deception vs. Insight, or straight Sleight of Hand vs. Perception, or something, depending on circumstances, with everybody (on both teams) rolling to anticipate the attack. Everybody who fails is surprised.

Which means your own teammates might be surprised, which could turn out poorly.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative - do you consider the instigating declaration binding?

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

Yeah that was basically my option A above.

 

[Mort]

Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative - do you consider the instigating declaration binding?

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

If initiative is triggered (the person drawing the weapon was observed, for example) then the action would be changed to intend to "draw your rapier and stab the baron." You can change it if the action no longer makes sense - it's not a ready action, which might be useless.

Or a twist - it's a parley with observers. Who is observed to break the peace - the person who attacked first or the declarer? (And if the declarer is not locked in, could they change to a non-aggressive action be really be the attacked party?)

It would be exactly what it is - a jumbled mess. Particularly observant folk would see the declarer move to take hostile action and the attacker stopping him. Less observant folk, might just see the attacker. Some might see neither and just see that suddenly hostilities have opened.

Eye witnesses are not nearly as reliable as many people think!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Here's another attempt at my philosophy here:

1. The attacking player has a goal ("get off a surprise attack") and an approach ("act so suddenly that nobody can react").

2. The DM is, of course, free to simply grant automatic success. I'm not a fan of this because I feel like it rewards trying to circumvent rules with narration. Or the DM can rule that it fails. Which I also don't like because it squashes player enthusiasm. Or...middle ground...that the outcome is uncertain, and there is a consequence to failure, and thus ask for some kind of ability check.

3. If successful, the reward can be determined. Probably surprise.

4. If unsuccessful, there needs to be a consequence. (And I don't ascribe to "failing a roll is itself a consequence". For it to count, the player needs to somehow be worse off than if they hadn't tried.) The nature of that consequence will vary with the circumstances.

5. Roll, reward and consequence should all be explained before the player commits to the action.

 

[Maxperson]

Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative - do you consider the instigating declaration binding?

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

Or a twist - it's a parley with observers. Who is observed to break the peace - the person who attacked first or the declarer? (And if the declarer is not locked in, could they change to a non-aggressive action be really be the attacked party?)

The action is not completely binding. In the above instance the rapier would be drawn and then the PC could do whatever since the baron is no longer in range. It's not like a readied action.

With the twist it would still be the declarer. Let's say the parley is with the baron and the PC drew the rapier with the intent to attack. That breaks the peace. Suddenly drawing a sword is pretty peace breaking, even if he never gets the chance to use it.