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

[GMforPowergamers]

In 1e heavy crossbows have a slower attack rate than thrown daggers and that's reflective of reality. There was no need for 5e (or whichever edition first did so) to simplify it, as it didn't need simplifying!

I know this may side trek... but I miss those rules...

throw 2 darts (we used to refluf as razor cards) or more when specilized....
we HAD fighter throwing daggers as a main attack this way.

 

[Lanefan]

If anything, a quick draw gunfight should involve both sides making secret decisions about what they do, having the DM make hidden checks to see if they accurately determine what their opponent is doing, and then having the results play out with the chance of a simultaneous kill.

Absolutely!

And this points out yet another problem with how turn-based initiative works in D&D: ties - and thus simultaneous actions - are impossible.

 

[Plaguescarred]

If more than one person in the scene tries to "move first" then some sort of sub-initiative would make sense,

There is no such thing as sub initiative. There is just 1 way to resolve this and its through initiative. I would not overcomplicate things to try to reproduce what is already in the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

OK, makes sense; but getting the drop on someone is something that I think everyone should be able to at least try, with Thieves and Assassins simply being better at it.

 

[Mort]

OK, makes sense; but getting the drop on someone is something that I think everyone should be able to at least try, with Thieves and Assassins simply being better at it.

But you can, that's the point.

Generally speaking if both sides are aware of each other there is no surprise. But the DM adjudicates. Relevant text is:

Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.

There's a bit of wiggle room there.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Six seconds is a long time to stand there with a dagger in hand while someone charges across the room at you; especially if you're the one who provoked the charge and thus cannot be surprised.

Remember, in 5E the assumption is everyone is alert to danger all the time.

Faulty and very unrealistic assumption when not in the field; and even when in the field it realistically might not apply at every waking moment.

The rules - in any edition - serve me, not the other way around; and I don't accept that as a default assumption.

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.

Sometimes you surprise the foe, sometimes the foe surprises you. Most times, neither happens.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, makes sense; but getting the drop on someone is something that I think everyone should be able to at least try, with Thieves and Assassins simply being better at it.

yhea back a few years ago I got called out as a bad DM on this board cause I had 2 PC assassins (and several NPC ones) and we ruled that the word surprise in assassin was common use not game mechanic... so when a assassin wanted to use the auto crit they had to ask "did you see that coming" that lead to hidden weapons, non weapons, and hiding for multi rounds of combat cause they wanted to alpha strike at a later round.

 

[Lanefan]

Because in the examples being described it leaves the players uncertain what the rules are because the DM is making arbitrary decisions.

If you want to codify it in a consistent house rule that players can understand and plan around, that’s a different matter.

There's no way to codify every possible situation into house rules; thus the (more philosophy than) house rule more or less amounts to "Where realism and the rules are in conflict and going either way is practical at the table, realism will win."

Beyond that, it's my job as DM to sometimes make arbitrary decisions. I just have to keep them consistent with precedent, and try to ensure I'm being fair to both the players/PCs and their opponents.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There's no way to codify every possible situation into house rules; thus the (more philosophy than) house rule more or less amounts to "Where realism and the rules are in conflict and going either way is practical at the table, realism will win."

Beyond that, it's my job as DM to sometimes make arbitrary decisions. I just have to keep them consistent with precedent, and try to ensure I'm being fair to both the players/PCs and their opponents.

Isn’t it perfectly realistic for somebody to try to “get the drop” on somebody else, and discover they are not as crafty or quick as they imagined?

Straight up initiative rolls, with higher Dex tending to win, already model this to some extent. Opposed ability checks with rules for surprise cover most other cases. I don’t really see an absence of realism. If the hoped for outcome doesn’t occur, it’s a great opportunity to narrate why, and find out what happens next.

What I see is a desire to label one possibility the only “realistic” one, and then the suspension of perfectly workable rules to ensure that outcome.

 

[Arilyn]

Isn’t it perfectly realistic for somebody to try to “get the drop” on somebody else, and discover they are not as crafty or quick as they imagined?

Straight up initiative rolls, with higher Dex tending to win, already model this to some extent. Opposed ability checks with rules for surprise cover most other cases. I don’t really see an absence of realism. If the hoped for outcome doesn’t occur, it’s a great opportunity to narrate why, and find out what happens next.

What I see is a desire to label one possibility the only “realistic” one, and then the suspension of perfectly workable rules to ensure that outcome.

And most of the time the initiative rules are fine. But if the evil baron is feeling perfectly secure telling the player characters that of course he is not responsible for all those awful atrocities, and one of the players says, to hell with this and attacks, catching everyone off guard, that player goes first. It's only for the first round of combat. Everyone still rolls initiative, but regardless of the instigating player's roll they get bumped to the front, first round only. It feels right narratively. A player who decides to leap in unexpectedly deserves the minor advantage of being first, or very big disadvantage of taking the blame if it all goes sideways.

If there are two sides bristling at each other and combat is moments away, then normal initiative.