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

[GMforPowergamers]

So you think the fighter can run 30 feet and attack in 1 second? Remember, there is no "draw" here. The dagger thrower already had the dagger in his hand.

I think the faster (higher initiative) character can react to the intent.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the faster (higher initiative) character can react to the intent.

I think the rules make no sense from a realism point of view, but somehow in my imagination I have zero problem turning them into a believable fiction anyway.

 

[Flamestrike]

I refuse to accept that level of unreality in abstraction.

Exactly. Like I said, the problem lies with your inability to accept abstraction, and need to try and have the plastic men on a grid on the table in front of you be an absolute objective representation of an imaginary elf reality.

 

[Arilyn]

Exactly. Like I said, the problem lies with your inability to accept abstraction, and need to try and have the plastic men on a grid on the table in front of you be an absolute objective representation of an imaginary elf reality.

This seems like an unfair representation. In a game that has always touted "make it your own" and 5e constantly boasting rulings over rules, it's perfectly fine for GMs to interpret and tweak rules to suit their image. We're not even talking major house rules here.

 

[Bill Zebub]

We're not even talking major house rules here.

No, but...

I refuse to accept that level of unreality in abstraction.

...seems a rather difficult standard to uphold when playing D&D.

 

[Lyxen]

This seems like an unfair representation. In a game that has always touted "make it your own" and 5e constantly boasting rulings over rules, it's perfectly fine for GMs to interpret and tweak rules to suit their image. We're not even talking major house rules here.

Actually we are, some people must have combat be only an abstract minigame because they want it so much to model reality that it breaks down the model, to the point where they need to have combattants whose turn it's not freeze into place, which means that they are completely confused about the length of a round: is it 6 seconds or is it six seconds per turn, meaning that in a fight with 10 combattants, a round is one minute long with people being "frozen" 90% of the time.

This is not at all the way the system has been designed, from the very first editions to 5e. No explanations where provided before AD&D, but these were very clear, although the round was much longer at the time (which is really unrealistic as well, by the way, anyone having done some fighting knows that it's impossible for bouts to last that long): "During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. [...] So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when an opening in the enemy’s guard presents itself."

This is echoed in 5e: "In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand." So basically, thinking that characters freeze stupidly in mid-air to support an abstract completely sequential activity is totally opposed to the design of the game, and causes havok and many further inconsistencies with things like durations (spells now have durations that depend on the number of participants in the fight, how silly is that ?).

While there are some sequences in the resolution, most of the fights across the field are independent, for once, and second the system never says how long it takes to perform any action for a given character. In one round, making an attack might take all 6 seconds because of circumstances whereas it might be done in a wink in another round, again just because of circumstances.

Wisely, the game system, who thinks that narration of epic fights is more important than having a combat minigame, leaves a huge amount of flexibility on all these elements, leaving the DM and the players free to weave their narrative over the technical resolution of the actions. It's only people who insist on "realism" and codifying the actions on their own beyond what the system does who end up with contradictions that they cannot resolve. But it does not reflect badly on the system, all these additional constraints are not inherent to the system anyway.

 

[Lyxen]

If everything is to be simultaneous then the only way to make it work is for everyone to commit to their actions before anything gets resolved and then resolve 'em all at once.

Again, the problem only comes from people who think that things need to be either all simultaneous or all sequential. There is nothing of the kind in the system. Most things are simultaneous, but some are sequential, and how many, and for how long is totally circumstantial depending on the fight. The system is infinitely flexible and will adapt to any narrative that you want to have.

Thing is, D&D - any edition - very much can handle simultaneous actions with only minimal kitbashing and a willingness among players to accept that even though things are sorted out one character/player at a time at the table these things are happening simultaneously in the fiction meaning there is no chance to react until at least the next initiative pip.

And this has always been fine, especially in editions where rounds got much shorter. I admit that no reactions for one minute was a long time, but with 6 seconds, it's much less of a problem. Moreover, you have to remember that the system never says how long a turn is. So let's say that a monster opens a door and is revealed. Actually, everyone might react almost instantaneously to the event, because although the actual actions they are taking might occur in parallel even though their resolution is sequenced - so some people react faster than others due to initiative order, it's a bit arbitrary but it works fine in a huge majority of cases. Even if the monster makes an attack after opening the door, it's not a problem, that attack can be described in the fiction as happening in a flash, it's just that no-one in the room has time to react because it's so sudden, again something that you see very often in the genre.

When you don't impose arbitrary constraints of length of actions and turns (which, again, the game NEVER does), it works out fine, the narration is almost always spot on and does not violate what the system does to support it. You just need to be a bit creative, but this is what the game is about: "The second thing you need is a lively imagination or, more importantly, the willingness to use whatever imagination you have. You don’t need to be a master storyteller or a brilliant artist. You just need to aspire to create, to have the courage of someone who is willing to build something and share it with others."

 

[Flamestrike]

This seems like an unfair representation. In a game that has always touted "make it your own" and 5e constantly boasting rulings over rules, it's perfectly fine for GMs to interpret and tweak rules to suit their image. We're not even talking major house rules here.

Imagine you were playing a game where you were at 20 paces from an NPC you had just met, and the DM stated 'suddenly he attacks you' and proceeded to roll a few attacks against you.

You can't use any reactions because you're surprised.

Then he asks for initiative. And tells you thanks to the rules for surprise you can't do anything on your first turn or take reactions till afterwards.

The NPC wins initiative.

He attacks you again rolling a few attacks.

Your turn and you do nothing.

His turn 2 and he attacks you again. Twice.

That happened to me. Do you honestly think that DM would have let it work in reverse?

The clear and unambiguous rules there are as soon as hostilities are ABOUT to break out, the DM gives a narration 'why' and what is triggering initiative, and you roll and actions happen in initiative order.

If you want to be quicker on the draw take the Alert feat. Get yourself a plus 5 to initiative. Take levels in Swashbuckler, War Wizard, Gloomstalker or a clas that grants a bonus to initiative. Have a high Dex.

Your table is your own of course, but I'd get up and walk away from a table that did 'attacks outside of initiative'. I know because I have.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, but then it's not really like simultaneous combat would be. In combat, soldiers can react to what happens around them. They aren't forced to keep going for 6 seconds with what they last thought they would do. It would really suck if 2 seconds in they saw a landmine in front of them and couldn't stop.

Different perspectives, I guess. I'm used to 30-second rounds (houseruled down from 1e's 1-minute rounds) so to me six-second rounds are lightning fast.

If that works for you, great. I'm not going to really change much on this front. My group is fine with combats as they are written. Consecutive turns.

My biggest peeve with separated consecutive turns is there's no possibility of a mutual kill.

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly. Like I said, the problem lies with your inability to accept abstraction,

I accept some abstraction. I have to.

I don't accept it to the degree 5e wants to push it, however.

and need to try and have the plastic men on a grid on the table in front of you be an absolute objective representation of an imaginary elf reality.

Absolute? No. As close as practical? Why not.