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

[Lanefan]

And this sentence explains nicely why you're in error here.

No-one is standing there for six seconds, frozen in time, while other creatures act. around them, one at a time.

Yet that's how it feels in play.

The round by round, turn based, cyclical nature of combat rounds are an abstraction, and not a reflection of some in game objective reality.

Too much of an abstraction in this case, IMO.

Assume an Orc and PC are standing off in melee combat. On the Orcs turn he takes the Withdraw action, and heads towards an open doorway at the other end of the room, ending his turn 30' away from the PC. On the PCs turn he then moves 30' towards that Orc, finishing that move adjacent to that Orc, and then makes an attack against the Orc.

While to us (at the table) it looks like the PC is frozen in time, while the Orc moves 30' away (ending his turn 30' away from the PC), from the perspective of the PC all in game observers of that combat, the PC and the Orc both (at the same time) raced towards the open doorway, the Orc backing off and with the PC in hot pursuit, swinging away as he does so, and never more than a few feet away from the Orc.

OK, a scenario:

Orc init 19
PC Alpha init 16
PC Beta init 14
PC Charlie init 11

The Orc and PC Charlie start the round in melee with each other, in a big room. PC Alpha is across the room to the west, loaded bow in hand. PC Beta is also across the room next to Alpha, ready to lay down an AoE spell.

On its turn the Orc attacks PC Charlie then moves 30' north to the door. PC Alpha's turn comes up and she shoots at the Orc. PC Beta's turn comes up and he drops a fireball on the Orc. PC Charlie then moves his own 30' and attacks the Orc (let's for these purposes assume it survives what A and B did to it and there's still something left to attack ).

Now if as you suggest Charlie and the Orc in fact move across the room together in the fiction, then why doesn't Alpha's shot suffer penalties for shooting into melee and why doesn't Beta's fireball also hit Charlie? Because sure as shootin' neither of those things will happen at 98+% of tables; instead the Orc will in effect be counted as being on its own between init 19 and init 11 because movement is treated as a mini-teleport, while Charlie is still where he started.

I agree that the Orc and Charlie would realistically move together in the fiction as their fight moves north toward the door. But that has to be reflected in how everything else is handled during the round, right? Yet how often is it?

All the actions taken in a combat round, are all happening more or less simultaneously, over the space of approximately 6 seconds. Your 'initiative' check simply determines when your action gets to be resolved.

'Surprise' in 5E (or an attack 'outside of combat') is effectively rendering a creature deaf, mute and dumb, and unable to move or react for an entire 6 seconds worth of actions by an attacker.

If one allows surprise to take up a whole 6-second round, yes. But it shouldn't; and this is why surprise needs its own subsystem such that the surprised target has no active defenses only for the very first attack - for example if someone with three attacks in a round catches a target by surprise, IMO only the first of those attacks should be against passive defense only and if it's the very first thing to happen in the combat it happens before initiative is even rolled (among many other things, this is one reason I always have people with multiple attacks or shots roll a separate initiative for each one)

As soon as there are imminent hostilities (such as a declared attack) the DM stops narrative time, provides a quick explanation why ('Suddenly as you talk to the King, the King reaches for a concealed knife, with murder in his eyes') and asks everyone to roll initiative, transitioning to combat time, to see what they do over the next six whole seconds.

This assumes anyone notices the King go for the knife and-or realizes what he's about to try to do with it. I make no such assumption; instead it's handled by die roll - are you caught off guard or not, and if you are you only get your passive defenses agains tthe King's first attack.

The problem is not with the rules here; it's with your inability to see the abstraction of combat and turns for what it is.

If problem there is, it's with the abstraction level being too far removed from the in-fiction reality.

 

[Maxperson]

Now if as you suggest Charlie and the Orc in fact move across the room together in the fiction, then why doesn't Alpha's shot suffer penalties for shooting into melee and why doesn't Beta's fireball also hit Charlie? Because sure as shootin' neither of those things will happen at 98+% of tables; instead the Orc will in effect be counted as being on its own between init 19 and init 11 because movement is treated as a mini-teleport, while Charlie is still where he started.

It's not that moves are like mini-teleports. It's that despite the lack of sense it makes, turns are by RAW sequential in D&D and not simultaneous. That's why, despite moving slower than a teleport, Alpha's shot doesn't suffer the penalty and Beta's fireball doesn't hit Charlie.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not that moves are like mini-teleports. It's that despite the lack of sense it makes, turns are by RAW sequential in D&D and not simultaneous. That's why, despite moving slower than a teleport, Alpha's shot doesn't suffer the penalty and Beta's fireball doesn't hit Charlie.

Yet at the same time we're being told that in the fiction Charlie and the Orc are fighting each other all the way across the room.

You can't have it both ways; and IMO if the mechanics don't (or in this case can't) properly reflect what's happening in the fiction then it's the mechanics that have to be fixed, not the fiction.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't know Mr. Strawman. Why are you saying I argued something that I didn't say?

I didn't say it doesn't apply.

Oh, so then it applies, and it has to be rolled all the time, you finally agree ?

I said that it's subject to the ability check section like any other ability check.

And again NO, it's not, sorry, not in the areas where, being more SPECIFIC, it OVERRIDES the more general rules of ability checks.

Honestly, are you still arguing that the general rule of ability checks is not modified by the more specific rule about initiative, that you have, just above, agreed applied all the time ?

Not one ability check is exempt

Of course some are exempt, you really should read again the section on specific beating general: " For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game." Does the general rule about longbows needing proficiency apply ? No, it does not to wood elves.

Does the general rule of a dexterity check being subject to an outcome being in doubt apply ROLLING initiative ? No, in this case, initiative specifically mentions rolling TWICE in the same sentence, so the specific overrides the general.

You can point to imagined "mandates" and assumptions, but you have nothing that says initiative ability dex checks are exempt from the ability check rules. Letter A applies whenever the ability check rules that it's subject to determine that the outcome is in doubt.

And then the specific rule of initiative tells you to ROLL initiative, overriding the rule of ability checks. Notice how specific that sentence is, compared to all the other examples in the book that simply tell you to make an ability check.

 

[Lyxen]

Yet at the same time we're being told that in the fiction Charlie and the Orc are fighting each other all the way across the room.

You can't have it both ways; and IMO if the mechanics don't (or in this case can't) properly reflect what's happening in the fiction then it's the mechanics that have to be fixed, not the fiction.

And the mechanics don't need to be fixed because most people understand that the actions are perfectly simultaneous in general - although some are sequential, it's, as usual, circumstantial - and that only the resolution is purely sequential.

It's obvious what the narration is if A runs, B fireballs and C runs after A. It's not A teleports, B Fireballs and C teleports to A, it's C is running after A and the fireball just catches A with C just out at the edge. And whether A makes his save will provide further narration about what happens. etc.

 

[Flamestrike]

I agree that the Orc and Charlie would realistically move together in the fiction as their fight moves north toward the door. But that has to be reflected in how everything else is handled during the round, right?

No, that's not right. What you do is accept the abstraction exists, and get on with things. Like we do with Hit Points, or any other abstraction.

You ruling some insane 'attacks outside of combat' rule is literally allowing someone an entire rounds (6 seconds) worth of activity where no-one else can do anything. It's clearly not the RAW, and its clearly not the RAI as expressed by the video from the Devs in this thread, and (going by the responses in this thread, and the survey posted) is not something that nearly anyone actually does.

Literally everyone in this thread is telling you you're looking at things wrong. Maybe (just maybe) pause for a second and consider the fact that they may be right.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yet at the same time we're being told that in the fiction Charlie and the Orc are fighting each other all the way across the room.

You can't have it both ways; and IMO if the mechanics don't (or in this case can't) properly reflect what's happening in the fiction then it's the mechanics that have to be fixed, not the fiction.

I haven't chimed in yet, but I fundamentally disagree with you here. While I'm in no way suggesting that the mechanics are perfect (they are what they are), they don't need to be fixed if one understands that the mechanics and the fiction only loosely line up. Or to look at it anther way, they line up fine if you don't try to force them to a rigid connection.

Charlie and the Orc fight their way across the room. At some point there's a gap big enough for Alpha to shoot an arrow (without penalty) and Beta to blow up a fireball (as Charlie heroically rushes into the backdraft, perhaps getting a little singed, but not enough for any damage).

I would argue that we know these things happen this way because that's what the mechanics tell us happens. I would never want to accuse anyone who plays D&D of lacking imagination, but I swear, when I hear the argument that some scenario or another doesn't seem "realistic" (or whatever), I always feel like someone is lacking imagination. (I am not accusing you of this here).

TO my original position, not on. I've been in two different conversations. One with the dagger in hand and one without. So I got mixed up once. Sue me.

While I'm at it, I'll chime in on your scenario. If you go for your strictest corner-case version where the guy somehow has a dagger, in hand, ready to throw it, and no one saw him get it out or act in any way hostile while doing it, somehow (I'd like to assume some checks were involved to get to this perfect for-him-and-no-one-else scenario) then it seems to me like he's either got surprise on everyone (including his own people, who weren't ready to act either), or he "readied an action" to throw a dagger (though I'm not sure what the trigger would be beyond "when I feel like it").

Otherwise, in almost all other scenarios (not as strict as yours), his drawing of the dagger provokes combat. Without checks involved, there's nothing subtle about that move. If a guy beats him in initiative and rushes across the room to bash his brains in, then yes, that guy was on the move toward him as soon as he started reaching for the dagger. We know this, because that's what happens.

* * *

We can make up any story we like! Why would we chose to make one that doesn't make sense? If the game is showing something to be happening, then that's what's happening! We should all describe it (and imagine it) in whatever way makes it work. Most of the time, it's easy enough to do, sometimes the abstractions make it more difficult, but I don't think they ever make it impossible. Not if you don't force it.

 

[Lyxen]

I haven't chimed in yet, but I fundamentally disagree with you here. While I'm in no way suggesting that the mechanics are perfect (they are what they are), they don't need to be fixed if one understands that the mechanics and the fiction only loosely line up. Or to look at it anther way, they line up fine if you don't try to force them to a rigid connection.

To be fair, although (see below) I 1000% agree with your post, I will defend @Lanefan on this because I think I understand him. He is not saying that the mechanics are fundamentally flawed, just that, in that specific head case, they just need to be adjusted - and this is a basic 5e concept - to the circumstances, and people have been making suggestions right and left, some might be better for some combinations of play styles and circumstances and others better for others, that's all.

Charlie and the Orc fight their way across the room. At some point there's a gap big enough for Alpha to shoot an arrow (without penalty) and Beta to blow up a fireball (as Charlie heroically rushes into the backdraft, perhaps getting a little singed, but not enough for any damage).

Exactly my perspective.

While I'm at it, I'll chime in on your scenario. If you go for your strictest corner-case version where the guy somehow has a dagger, in hand, ready to throw it, and no one saw him get it out or act in any way hostile while doing it, somehow (I'd like to assume some checks were involved to get to this perfect for-him-and-no-one-else scenario) then it seems to me like he's either got surprise on everyone (including his own people, who weren't ready to act either), or he "readied an action" to throw a dagger (though I'm not sure what the trigger would be beyond "when I feel like it").

Both of these cases have been explained before as being mostly supported by the rules with the necessary local rulings for the specific circumstances, without breaking the system at all or saying that there is a fundamental flaw. For example, your point about a readied action is in line with my proposal, with the trigger potentially being "when there I see an opening" or "when the bodyguard is looking the other way" or whatever, as you point out imagination is key there.

In a slightly parallel direction is @Lanefan saying that the surprise rules are flawed because, as written, surprise can only be achieved by someone whom noone on the opposing side is aware of, but as I've discussed with him, this is very easily fixed by adding "aware of as an adversary (rather than "as a bystander/neutral"), so the system actually works well with minor rulings.

Otherwise, in almost all other scenarios (not as strict as yours), his drawing of the dagger provokes combat. Without checks involved, there's nothing subtle about that move. If a guy beats him in initiative and rushes across the room to bash his brains in, then yes, that guy was on the move toward him as soon as he started reaching for the dagger. We know this, because that's what happens.

Yep !

We can make up any story we like! Why would we chose to make one that doesn't make sense? If the game is showing something to be happening, then that's what's happening! We should all describe it (and imagine it) in whatever way makes it work. Most of the time, it's easy enough to do, sometimes the abstractions make it more difficult, but I don't think they ever make it impossible. Not if you don't force it.

The problem is that some people really want to find faults in the system, but in the end they mostly end up showing faults in their reasoning and they way they apply the rules. Everyone's view about "realism" are different, but in the end, one of the strength of the 5e rules is that they are flexible enough to support many kinds of fiction. It's only when you forcefully try to introduce many personal constraints that you see inconsistencies, but these are not between 5e and the fiction, they are about those constraints.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet at the same time we're being told that in the fiction Charlie and the Orc are fighting each other all the way across the room.

You can't have it both ways; and IMO if the mechanics don't (or in this case can't) properly reflect what's happening in the fiction then it's the mechanics that have to be fixed, not the fiction.

The mechanics can't be fixed to match the fiction, which is why I just ignore that part of it the best that I can. In order to have simultaneous combat, everyone in the combat would have to make micro actions. 30 orcs and 6 PCs all move 5 feet and then can react to what everyone else is doing. Then they move 5 more feet or start to attack somehow, and everyone can react to what everyone else is doing. Then they do some other very small part of their actions and more reactions. And so on. Combats would take 10 hours or more.

 

[Maxperson]

While I'm at it, I'll chime in on your scenario. If you go for your strictest corner-case version where the guy somehow has a dagger, in hand, ready to throw it, and no one saw him get it out or act in any way hostile while doing it, somehow (I'd like to assume some checks were involved to get to this perfect for-him-and-no-one-else scenario) then it seems to me like he's either got surprise on everyone (including his own people, who weren't ready to act either), or he "readied an action" to throw a dagger (though I'm not sure what the trigger would be beyond "when I feel like it").

It's not a matter of it being hidden. Imagine a scenario where two sides are talking and one guy has a dagger out and is say cleaning his nails with it. No overt hostility to start a combat, but the dagger is out. Later on during the conversation he gets tired of what the diplomat is saying and suddenly throws his dagger at the diplomat's guard that has been giving him stink eye the whole time.

Even though people knew about the dagger, there's just not going to be time for that guard to react to the motion of his arm, move 30 feet and then attack the dagger thrower before that throw completes. It's not surprise, but the dagger thrower should top the initiative count and go first.

Otherwise, in almost all other scenarios (not as strict as yours), his drawing of the dagger provokes combat. Without checks involved, there's nothing subtle about that move. If a guy beats him in initiative and rushes across the room to bash his brains in, then yes, that guy was on the move toward him as soon as he started reaching for the dagger. We know this, because that's what happens.

* * *

We can make up any story we like! Why would we chose to make one that doesn't make sense? If the game is showing something to be happening, then that's what's happening! We should all describe it (and imagine it) in whatever way makes it work. Most of the time, it's easy enough to do, sometimes the abstractions make it more difficult, but I don't think they ever make it impossible. Not if you don't force it.

There have been many times over the years where the PCs have been talking to a group of thugs or something and I've said something along the lines of, "While you are talking to the leader of the thugs, one of his men pulls out a dagger and starts tossing it and catching it." If the players don't interrupt me when I say "pulls out a dagger" and attack, then the rest of my sentence happens and there is no initiative or combat. Not all weapons pulled mean you are in combat.