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

[Bacon Bits]

Surprise rounds dont exist in 5E.

And what would you call the round in which characters are surprised?

You know what is meant. To pretend like you don't is disingenous. It's just bad faith. This a discussion, not a game of "gotcha".

 

[Lyxen]

Dude. ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS SHOW A PARAGRAPH. That's it. Your entire initiative argument is based on a paragraph. Why is your paragraph okay, but mine using the same language is not.

Because my interpretation covers all the paragraphs whereas yours ignores part of the rules. Yes, it's an ability check your paragraph is OK, but my interpretation covers that AND the paragraph where it tells you, specifically, to ROLL.

Yours ignores half of the RAW, as usual.

Ability check = roll.

If that is your stance, you lose even more, because it says that initiative = roll, since it's an ability check.

No uncertainty, no ability check and no die roll determining the results.

And once more, you are stuck, prove to me that, at the start of combat, there is anything else than the step 3, ROLL.

The RAW do not allow for certainty here, because it's combat and chancy, and they tell you explicitly to roll. More general rules are irrelevant when a specific rule tells you something that applies to specific situations.

It's a specific rule on ability checks. And there is no contradiction in initiative rolls. It uses the same "mandated" language that the ability checks I quoted use. And despite your incorrect argument, since ability check = roll as I proved above, those skills "mandate" rolls every bit as much as initiative does.

And on this you are wrong as well, again showing your ignorance of the RAW. Many examples in the rules, for example, under ability checks: "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls." or in the DMG: "One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations."

All of that is perfectly RAW, but you will notice that initiative is not covered in there, because initiative is not only for combat, but is mandated as a roll, with the paragraph that you refuse to understand is part of the RAW.

 

[Mort]

And what would you call the round in which characters are surprised?

You know what is meant. To pretend like you don't is disingenous. It's just bad faith. This a discussion, not a game of "gotcha".

It's not always easy to discern meaning from text - hence this continuing discussion!

The surprise round is a term of art that existed in 3e. Where only those that were not surprised got to act (with some restrictions).

That has been eliminated in 5e, so the round where characters are surprised is simply the 1st round of combat. It's just that those surprised don't get to act in it (with some exceptions like a high enough level barbarian getting to shake off surprise if they choose to rage).

 

[Lanefan]

The thing is that once more (and as usual more the source of disagreement than the ruleset itself) it is hugely circumstances dependent. There is a whole gradation of possibilities from "having a casual dinner with a relaxed king who is basically trusting the people at the table" and "An extremely tense dinner where the possibility of treachery is all but certain and everyone is watching everyone, on full alert".

As there are differences between doing something that might be expected like drawing a weapon, jumping at the king's throat or casting a spell, and doing something totally unexpected (but for me the table flip would not qualify, and would also be circumstance dependent for example if it's a massive table, it would be unlikely to succeed but all the more surprising if it was, etc.).

And my point of view is that 5e sort of caters for all of these. Surprise occurs when some people are not aware of other aggressors. The standard rule is that it usually is because the aggressors have not been detected. In the case above, and if the situation is tense, it's obvious that the (potential) aggressors are in plain sight, so there would be no surprise. But if the situation is very relaxed, someone doing something out of the blue might qualify as an "unnoticed aggressor" as all other people (not in on the secret aggression) are not aware of the possibility of violence.

Fair enough; but see below.

In all cases, it's not the act itself that starts the initiative, being an act that stats a combat it means that it's only the declaration by the player that he wants his character to commit the act, the act will be one of the actions of combat, and that is the 5e rule, plainly.

However, in the second case, the DM might rule that because the atmosphere was relaxed, aggression was not expected and the declared act is "out of the blue", surprise happens, and that act is indeed the only one happening in the first round as everyone is surprised that there is an aggressor present.

I think this would cater for your case fairly nicely.

Pretty much, yes, hence the 'like' on the quoted post.

The thing is that it should not be abused, once more, by players who think themselves clever there. The NPCs are as clever as they are, they can be as or even more aware (adventurers have a reputation for violence, and some of them might have it in particular), and they can be watching for especially that kind of behaviour. So the player cannot expect automatic surprise just because he thinks it's clever to attack in the middle of a discussion. It's not, in a dangerous world, people will expect that and will not be surprised.

And in any case, turnabout is fair play, if he pulls this, the next assassin will surprise him for exactly the same reasons...

Exactly, and this makes sense.

I would not do this in the game, not only is it not my preferred method of play, but it's not the principle of 5e as written, but it might be used to point out exactly that to the player, fairness cuts both ways.

As a side note, this is for me one of the great benefits of 5e and its principles of Passive Perception being always on and protecting characters (including NPCs) against that kind of surprise, because in a dangerous world, characters are aware of their surroundings and watching for danger.

While I get the idea behind passive perception and think it certainly has its uses, I'm not sold on it as being an always-on fail-safe - particularly in non-threatening situations - as that's just too beneficial to both the PCs and their foes especially in a war-not-sport game. It also plays hard (too hard, IMO) against stealth-based or surprise-based classes such as Thieves and Assassins.

It avoids players thinking that they are clever and declaring all the time "I watch my surroundings, I'm looking for threats" and whining when they are surprised "but I was watching for threats".

Where I'd rather have them proactively declare when they're watching for threats if only because someone watching for threats is often discernable in doing so, which might change how others react and-or perceive this person. And if someone says "My character is always watching for threats", well, that character might not be surprised as much but at the same time will probably have a tougher time interacting with a lot of the locals.

It wastes time and energy for basically nothing, and it leaves everyone open to stupid "gotcha" which annoys everyone. The default is that the passives (in particular perception) are on, there is no need for these declarations.

One big difference between us, I think, is that I have no problem at all with "gotcha" situations - both for and against the PCs - as long as they make sense in the fiction. I mean, from my perspective the whole point of Thieves and Assassins is to be "gotcha" characters; otherwise what's the point?

 

[Lanefan]

By "that attack", do you allow the attacker their entire 6-second combat turn before anyone else starts reacting?
Or is this only in situations where the attacker already has a weapon out and in position to stab the target?

Situationally dependent. I usually wouldn't allow the whole 6-second action array, just that first initial stab. Or, in the example of the table-flipping Barbarian, I'd allow the table flip as a freebie but drawing his weapon and attacking or anyhting else would be subject to normal initiative.

 

[Mort]

One big difference between us, I think, is that I have no problem at all with "gotcha" situations - both for and against the PCs - as long as they make sense in the fiction. I mean, from my perspective the whole point of Thieves and Assassins is to be "gotcha" characters; otherwise what's the point?

This is one place where mechanical differences between editions really matter in D&D because the substantive discussion is different based on edition.

In 5e, for example, rogues. especially Assassin rogues have specific methods to gotcha their opponents. The assassin version, when executed is very nasty.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes! You're always aware of the potential for violence. In the rules you just need to be aware of the other side, not their intentions.

See further below...

A PC and NPC are talking at 20 feet apart. One declares an attack, and at that stage (the declaration) initiative is determined, and actions then occur in turn order.

This makes perfect sense (unless the attack is with an up-till-now-concealed missile weapon) as the attacker has to cover the intervening distance and in so doing gives the target time to react.

There are no attacks 'outside' of initiative, and there is no surprise when both sides are aware of each other when the DM calls for initiative.

This is where I say the 5e surprise rules are crap. To me, just being aware of someone else's presence in a peaceful situation isn't enough: you also need to be able to read their intentions ahead of time, and that's what the surprise roll is for. An attacker whose intent is to catch you off guard should at the very least have a chance of doing so even if said attacker is standing right in front of you shaking your hand. You're saying that by 5e RAW such an attacker has no chance of catching you off guard, and that just doesn't feel right.

 

[Flamestrike]

And what would you call the round in which characters are surprised?

The first round of combat. It often features some creatures that are surprised, and others that are not.

 

[Lanefan]

Because otherwise it becomes a chaos where everyone is trying to act before initiative gets called up.

If more than one person in the scene tries to "move first" then some sort of sub-initiative would make sense, just between those actors, to see who really did move first.

Initiative represents just that, acting order where each take a turn when time becomes critical and everyone wants to jump in, this is when a mechanic to determine first to last becomes handy for the following 6 seconds.

Agreed, to a point. Yes it helps to sort out order of actions - but only when everyone is (or could be) acting. If only a few are acting right at the start, nobody else should get an initiative in that mini-round.

I'm also very highly in favour of somehow re-rolling or otherwise randomizing the initiative order each round, both to reflect the fog-of-war chaos and so as to negate the idea of players planning their actions based only on the metagame turn order.

It also indicate who cannot react to a given action when surprised.

Yeah, were it me I'd have surprise as a separate roll disconnected from initiative.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is where I say the 5e surprise rules are crap. To me, just being aware of someone else's presence in a peaceful situation isn't enough: you also need to be able to read their intentions ahead of time, and that's what the surprise roll is for.

No, you don't have to 'read some ones intentions' simply to be on an even par re initiative and avoiding surprise.

Actions over a round are taking place over the period of 6 seconds. The sorts of fraction of a second differences you're referring to here for resolution of those six second actions dont matter, and even if they do matter, and reaction time is important, that's why we have the combatants roll an opposed Dexterity check (initiative) to determine that sort of thing.

Remember, in 5E the assumption is everyone is alert to danger all the time. Everyone defaults to automatically spotting hidden targets that come out from hiding spots, and sufficiently anticipating hostilities at any given time to not be caught with their pants down all the time, standing there slack jawed and surprised when someone attacks them.