D&D 5E (2024) How do you handle surprised but won initiative?

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that’s a fair summation. I also think that modern D&D players are looking for specifically more heroic encounters that exercise the breadth of their abilities, rather than repeating a tactic that works over and over but also results in non-heroic or even boring gameplay in some cases.

Right. Cinematic combat, where the PCs are challenged, because it is fun for the players when the PCs are challenged.

The idea that this means the PCs are "striking dramatic poses" is so laughably silly. LIke, no, very very obviously not.

I mean, okay, there are those players about, but they have always been in the game. Patrick Rothfuss wasn't the first guy to swing down a rope going, "Ha-HA!" before stabbing the dracolich. He was just the first guy to do it in front of a crowd at a live play game at a convention.

 

[Maxperson]

In reality it would be pretty much impossible too.

Exactly. This is a clear example of when the rules - in several ways - need to take a seat in favour of what makes sense.

Rolling group init for the Orcs is dumb. They don't operate in lockstep any more than the PCs do. Individual inits all the way, thanks, and tell the rules to pound sand.

Allowing the Orcs (or anyone) to move without that movement taking some time within the round, almost like a mini-teleport, is also dumb. Sure they can shoot or throw things from where they are, and fair play to that, but there's no way in hell any of 'em can cover 50 feet before the unsurprised intruder can turn and flee,

I think a better term might be "fluid", where it's understood that combatants aren't acting in robotic sequence while everyone else stands still. The current rules suck at this, as did 3e.

The best solution is to bloody fix it, even if it means chucking some of WotC's rules in the lake.

There isn't a fix. A truly simultaneous system would bog down a simple 5 on 5 combat into something that would take several sessions to complete. There are too many variables that everyone would be able to react to in real time.

Since there isn't a fix, the best you can do is to move the needle in the direction of simultaneous combat, but every bit of movement slows down the combat. At some point you are going to have to hold your nose at the point where the slog becomes less enjoyable than just sucking up the lack of realism at that particular spot.

In short, you are going to have to hold your nose and accept the lack of realism at some point.

 

[Smackpixi]

There isn't a fix

I mean, there’s always a fix. RAW and/or homebrew RAW will make this situation be weird, so we do something else that makes sense.

 

[saviirkad]

This is a paradox, and therefore cannot be true.

I wouldn't say it can't be true, that's just the risk of performing the fiction before the dice roll.

I'd say that I've seen three broad approaches to this kind of "contradiction," or rather two extreme ends and a compromise.

The extreme end that favors the fiction would be disregarding the dice or not even rolling the dice where it would be otherwise appropriate. Like I'd said earlier, I think that's not uncommon to see with how surprise is handled. Like ehhhh, you're not first in initiative but you've already described yourself attacking first, just go on ahead. Less so when it comes to things like an attack roll. Yeah you described your mace crushing that skeleton's skull, but you'll still roll the dice anyway and if it's a miss, we'll ignore that description.

A compromise, where the fiction changes to incorporate the dice roll but without greatly modifying the fiction already presented. Like yes, that was a very limp speech you barely stumbled through, but with that high roll, the court finds it oddly disarming in its honest charm.

And the other extreme end, just don't give the fiction first at all when dice are involved; wait for the dice roll and then proceed. If Player A wants to initiate combat, don't describe that yet, let's all roll initiative. If Monster 1 rolls highest initiative, then the fiction that follows can take that into account better than if it had already been given with the wrong assumption of Player A going first.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

D&D 2024 tried to correct an "unfun" rule wherein one side could be severely damaged or wiped out without having touched a die. While perhaps realistic, it wasn't fun being on the receiving end. Even so, it does stretch the imagination when, every single time, this occurs if you follow the rules to a literal fault:

Setup #1: 1 mile away, the invisible archmage looks out the window of one of the many houses in town at the mercenaries who ruined his plans and prepares to cast meteor swarm (range 1 mile).

DM: (to the party that is haggling at the market). Something seems amiss. Roll for initiative.

This begs whether a Stealth check should be compared to Perception if the party has its back to the caster, who is invisible and a mile away behind a window of one of thousands of windows. Anyhoo, the party wins initiative, surprised or not. They leap to action, taking cover, casting defensive spells, and summoning monstrous allies. The merchants scatter. They've seen this 6th sense crazy stuff before. The archmage, realizing the party has somehow, some way, sensed his invisible presence is a threat from over a mile away, aborts his attack. The DM announces the battle is over.

Sounds like the DM is too caught up in the rules to think about what is actually happening.

The party sees "blazing orbs of fire plummeting to the ground". That sounds like something people could react to.

Setup #2: the enemy scout is soundly sleeping. The party has been watching him for an hour, making sure he's in deep sleep before their rogue, "Syl the Silent," legendary purloiner of the Gem of Ardun, moves in for the kill. The Stealth check is DC 30, impossible we say. The scout will never see it coming.

DM: (who wouldn't allow an enemy to coup de grace a sleeping character without an initiative roll). Something seems amiss in the guard's dreams. Roll for initiative.

The party has terrible rolls. The guard, despite never hearing the impossibly stealthy thief and in a deep sleep, improbably wakes up at a time they otherwise would have slept through the night. The scout sounds the alarm, and the entire enemy camp is awoken.

Firstly, there is only a need to roll if there is uncertainty in the resolution of an action.
Rolling a Dex check at disadvantage and beating a high-tier rogue who was rolling at advantage sounds quite improbable. So the reason why the scout gets to react to the rogue about to stab them can be improbable: They have to make a call of nature, they have insomnia, they are at the point in the sleep cycle where your brain is processing sensory information that you don't remember, etc.

The same goes for loaded crossbows pointed straight at an unarmed character, and so on. It can seem sometimes that extreme preparation or impossible-to-detect threats (like a guy a mile away when you're shopping in town) should be treated differently. Otherwise, what's the point?

My ultimate point is that all D&D rules, no matter what edition, aren't meant to be inflexible when application of the rule won't make any sense, and you should do what makes the most sense and fun for your group.

Indeed. If you decide that there is no way to detect or react to an attack before it actually lands, then there is no need to roll initiative to see if it is detected or reacted to.
If you don't feel that a person could react to an arrow in flight, or someone starting to chant a spell, then don't let them react to it.

Personally I would just require the initiator, while they get to roll initiative with advantage and their opponents roll with disadvantage, to actually follow through with their stated action, or something equivalent.

That just creates a different dissonance, though.

When the leopard jumps from the tree on the mage, why is the rest of the party even involved at all? Either they should have seen the leopard in the tree, completely negating the surprise, or they shouldn't know anything is even happening until the leopard has pounced.

There is a middle ground between those extremes: They don't see the Leopard in the tree, they see it as it pounces.
Again, I think that people are stuck on the idea that just because all of a creatures actions are resolved in a single turn, that must mean that they happen instantaneously and don't take any time to perform, rather than remembering that this is six seconds of activity occurring.

The rest of the party is involved because the whole party is close enough together for the scene

The leopard beat the best passive perception in the party, he is hidden from them all.

Initiative determines the order of combat and the party is surprised by combat starting. They all roll initiative with disadvantage.

That all seems clear RAW for 5e 24.

The big question is what happens for anybody who beat the leopard's initiative when their first turn comes up. I now see three main options.

1 They do not know anything is going on so they take no actions on their turn in the round. Initiative just determines order and as a DM I go to then skip everyone with a better roll and just start at the leopard's initiative then go from there. Narratively they did not notice the leopard until it does something. Getting a good roll might actually mean going after someone who gets a worse roll.

2 They sense something is up but do not know about the leopard specifically. They might dodge or whatever. I start with the highest initiative person and say what do you do? giving no indication about the leopard until it goes. Narratively they notice something on some level. Game level at the table they get some advantage from rolling high and there could be some neat tension from what do we do and the uncertainty of what is coming but knowing something is coming imminently.

3 They are in combat and won initiative, I lay down the combat mat and if they ask about the mini for the leopard I say it is the leopard they did not spot. If they attack the hidden leopard and I as DM think of it they get disadvantage on any such attack rolls because successfully hidden means invisible condition which imposes disadvantage on attacks against the invisible target RAW. Narratively they notice something specifically about the leopard, though it is still mechanically hidden.

4 You lay out the battle map, place the Leopard mini and state that the characters who beat it in initiative see it break cover and leap.

 

[Lanefan]

You’re absolutely right, I was responding to his phrasing of other people’s game play as “sad”.

Thing is, you weren't just speaking about your own game play in the post to which I replied, you were speaking of modern gaming trends - some of which I find very sad indeed - as a whole.

And while I've no right to criticize your own game play, I think (or at least bloody well hope) I'm free to criticize overall trends and developments.

 

[Lanefan]

The heck you on about?

It is a decision at the "what rules are we using to play the game" level, not the in character during play level. No one is talking about the PCs deciding anything. The PCs don't make decisions about what the rules of the game are, or how the GM makes encounters, or what abilities the enemy has, etc.

Like it or not, though, the rules to a large extent determine the types of decisions the PCs (and by extension, their players) are allowed and-or expected to make.

Okay? Who said it did?

The point is literally that the game as it is run these days is about cooperative storytelling first, simulation a thousand years behind that, and player skill in varying positions along the spectrum between the two.

And because it is about cooperative storytelling and not that old school vibe, people expect the game to present interesting encounters rather than cakewalks. People find original 5e ambushes boring because it might as well just be narrated as a success without them doing anything.

Until and unless the DM turns that around and ambushes the PCs; and IMO anything the PCs can do is fair game to do against them.

And literally when I run the game, if the PCs get the drop on someone so completely that there is no chance of any outcome other than a cakewalk, I don't call for initiative, I just ask them how they take out the poor sods and then carry on with the scene.

Which in my books puts you in position to TPK your group without a die being rolled by simply reversing the situation, and I rather suspect most players wouldn't be too keen on that.

That, and any combat - no matter how seemingly trivial - has the chance of going sideways and causing major consequences.

Neither. It's a game. It isn't simulating anything, we are playing a game.

A game that at its very root involves the DM presenting a fictional world or setting of which the PCs are residents and in which they function. To the PCs, that's the reality they live in; and that's what you're simulating with every word you narrate.

If you insist on any roleplaying game action to be some sort of simulation of something, then still neither. It is cinematic combat. The stakes are "real" within the fiction and in the sense that PCs can die, death isn't messy unless everyone at the table actually likes their action scenes gory, no one is striking dramatic poses (what an exceptionally weird thing to suggest), and there are often stakes much bigger and more important than individual survival because the PCs are quite often (possibly most of the time) heroes.

The "striking dramatic poses" piece is mild hyperbole, I admit, but it nicely evokes the stereotype that some posts here bring to mind.

Lets take Terminator 2: Judgement Day as an example. ...

Sorry, never seen it, so the example is lost on me.

 

[Lanefan]

Right. Cinematic combat, where the PCs are challenged, because it is fun for the players when the PCs are challenged.

The idea that this means the PCs are "striking dramatic poses" is so laughably silly. LIke, no, very very obviously not.

There's a surprisingly short distance between the two bolded bits here, at least in my eyes. The very term"cinematic combat" brings to mind images of the characters striking dramatic poses and spouting badly-written lines as they wade through their foes.

Fine for cinema. Not what I want to see in a game where we're at least in theory trying to roleplay somewhat-real people (though in the past as DM I have thrown in the occasional NPC - usually a knight in shining armour - to intentionally parody the idea, to amusing results).

I mean, okay, there are those players about, but they have always been in the game. Patrick Rothfuss wasn't the first guy to swing down a rope going, "Ha-HA!" before stabbing the dracolich. He was just the first guy to do it in front of a crowd at a live play game at a convention.

Sounds cinematic from here, even including that there's an audience for him to play to.

 

[Lanefan]

There isn't a fix. A truly simultaneous system would bog down a simple 5 on 5 combat into something that would take several sessions to complete. There are too many variables that everyone would be able to react to in real time.

Since there isn't a fix, the best you can do is to move the needle in the direction of simultaneous combat, but every bit of movement slows down the combat. At some point you are going to have to hold your nose at the point where the slog becomes less enjoyable than just sucking up the lack of realism at that particular spot.

In short, you are going to have to hold your nose and accept the lack of realism at some point.

When something can be done to move that needle without slowing things down, do it - even if it goes against RAW.

And sometimes if moving the needle does slow things down a bit, it's more than worth it. Individual initiatives rerolled each round on an unmodified d6 allowing ties is one such fix.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally I would just require the initiator, while they get to roll initiative with advantage and their opponents roll with disadvantage, to actually follow through with their stated action, or something equivalent.

I would have thought the bolded was a non-negotiable fact of life. You declare it, you do it. No take-backs.

There is a middle ground between those extremes: They don't see the Leopard in the tree, they see it as it pounces.
Again, I think that people are stuck on the idea that just because all of a creatures actions are resolved in a single turn, that must mean that they happen instantaneously and don't take any time to perform, rather than remembering that this is six seconds of activity occurring.

Even more so in older editions with longer rounds. That said, even if you see the leopard coming as it pounces you're still not going to have time to get a weapon out, a shield up, and chop at it before it lands on you (or someone else) and starts shredding.