D&D 5E Actions and When to Enter Initiative

[Umbran]

If anyone starts to cast a spell or attack initiative is rolled.

Small variation - the first person who announces an action gets that action off, then initiative is rolled for the rest. Beating out someone who's got the jump on you isn't really a thing. This creates a bias toward action, as it gives a slight advantage to anyone who actually wants to do something, rather than stand around staring at each other hedging their bets.

If you want to interrupt an action, then be the one who announces, "I ready an action for when that guy over there tries anything funny."

major variation (not used in a D&D game, but is really interesting): Whoever announces an action goes first. That player (or the GM, if the NPC acts first), chooses the next person to go. You continue this until all characters in the scene have gone once. The last person in the first round chooses the first person in the second, and we continue around. This makes initiative a thing that can be tactically manipulated to set up events and manuvers the way you want.

Note, for example, that if the PCs choose to all go before the bad guys, the bad guys finish the first round, and then can choose themselves to start the second round - effectively going twice in a row without the PCs being able to respond. This is not a good strategy if you expect a conflict to go several rounds, but can be devastating if the encounter is only expected to go a couple of rounds.

Yes, this pretty much eliminates the high-dex "I always get first initiative" thing. For some who feel Dex is overpowered, this is a feature, not a bug. You can introduce a class power or feat for high-dex people that allows them to overrule the first action declaration, to reintroduce that if you want.

 

[Maestrino]

Hmmm. Back to the OP, in the case of an NPC trying to cast invisibility to escape a non-combat situation, I wouldn't roll initiative. I'd ask the PCs for a perception check, and roll sleight-of-hand for the NPC. If they don't see it, NPC goes poof. PCs still have a chance (at disadvantage) to try to grab the invisible NPC before they can move too far.

If they do notice the NPC starting to cast, then the PCs can react with counterspell or by grabbing the NPC before the spell goes off.

No initiative necessary.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Only, in my experience, when the DM allows them to choose what to actually do in the moment anyone does anything they decide they don't want them to do. Saw that a lot with 3E.

"I ready to attack".

Okay, do you ready to attack with a sword or your bow? Can't do both. Pick one. Do you ready to attack if the enemy casts a spell or if he pulls out a wand? Can't do both. Pick one. Choose a specific action to perform; choose a specific trigger for that action. THAT is readying. It has limited usefulness. If players want to constantly ready actions then others who actually ACT should constantly leave them standing about looking dumb. Certainly while combat is taking place, 99% of the time readying an action should be a waste of time. Waiting for an opponents turn and for their actions to trigger yours is ridiculous if you can just act against that enemy NOW.

First of all, we're not talking about what occurs while combat is taking place. We're talking about what occurs at the beginning of combat, when acting against an enemy "NOW" may be impossible or impolitic.

Secondly, your attempt to add nuance just adds fiddliness to the adjudication, takes up even more time, and generally adds an adversarial element to the exchange between player and DM. "I move down the hallway and ready an attack if there is a hostile creature." "Okay, do you ready to attack with a sword or your bow? What action are you readying against? How far do you move? Etc." "Fine: I move 30 feet down the hallway and ready my bow to shoot the first hostile creature who appears within range of me." Do you want your players doing that every 30 feet of every hall? Because that's the optimal play you're incentivizing. The alternative I humbly propose is to assume in good faith that competent adventurers are behaving this way, offload the burden of determining who draws first onto the game system that was designed for precisely this purpose, and get on with exploring the dungeon.

 

[Oofta]

I generally don't allow readied actions outside of combat, but there are times when things are obviously tense. For all practical purposes everybody has a readied action triggered on whether anyone does anything that might be construed as aggressive.

For example in a recent game the PCs encountered a bad guy and were negotiating to see if they could settle things peacefully. The cleric started casting a spell so I called for initiative ... everybody was on edge and looking for the slightest hint of combat. What I envisioned was the typical standoff scene where someone suddenly reaches for a gun (or in this case, holy symbol) and suddenly everybody is pulling their guns.

In that particular scenario the cleric was going to cast something fairly benign, similar to someone in a standoff starting the fight because they reached for their wallet.

In a more relaxed scenario, most people could easily be surprised when combat starts. At the market and the demon that shape changed into something innocuous decides to attack? Insight checks with a pretty high DC to not be surprised on the first round.

After reading other suggestions I am considering giving advantage to the person who instigates the action, possibly substituting a different ability for dexterity or a completely different ability/proficiency. For example if the rogue draws weapons, give them a sleight of hand in place of initiative? The wizard starts casting a spell, arcana? Still debating.

 

[Hriston]

I'm curious how other DMs handle the situation where you're in free roleplay, not combat initiative, and then someone does something that someone else might want to stop.

Recent situations that got me thinking about this:

1. In a game where I was a player, my character was trying to infiltrate a secure area. When her bluff attempt failed, she was placed in a room with guards while the guy who caught her went to get the boss. She used a spell that allowed her to turn into shadow* and escaped.

2. In another game where I was the DM, the PCs had tracked down a suspicious spellcaster and were threatening him. The NPC wanted to get out of the situation, so he started to cast greater invisibility on himself. The players instantly asked if they could interrupt the spell, and so I had them all roll for initiative. (The spellcaster wound up going last, so by the time his turn rolled around, there was basically no way he could escape.)

It seems like these are very much the same situation, but flipped around. The DM could easily have made my PC roll for initiative in the first instance, but didn't.

So how do other people handle these situations? Do you always go with what makes things easier for the PCs? Is there a more graceful way of handling situation #2? Is there any way of having NPCs take PCs by surprise that won't leave the players shouting "That was cheap"?

*custom spell for the setting.

It depends on the situation and the declared actions of the PC(s) and the DM’s monster(s). If there’s uncertainty about the outcome, it might come down to an opposed check of some kind, and while they may be opposed DEX checks, I wouldn’t necessarily call it Initiative unless it were actual combat, but that’s just a semantic distinction.

 

[Umbran]

I generally don't allow readied actions outside of combat, but there are times when things are obviously tense. For all practical purposes everybody has a readied action triggered on whether anyone does anything that might be construed as aggressive.

Well, yeah. The point of this system is to explicitly not have that, as that actually gives advantage (general meaning, not the D&D advantage mechanic) to the side least willing to act - if some person on one side acts, the entire other side gets a chance to beat their initiative and screw their plan. The result is bias to inaction, and standoffs where nobody is willing to go first. Some may feel it is realistic, but it ain't particularly heroic.

Plus, as a held action, that's a little too broad for my tastes. "When anyone does anything that might be construed..?" Held actions should have more precise triggers than that.

In that particular scenario the cleric was going to cast something fairly benign, similar to someone in a standoff starting the fight because they reached for their wallet.

That may be fine for a particular scenario, occasionally. But the "first declared action and everyone rolls initiative" makes that the standard scenario, which is not what I'd consider ideal, for the above-stated reasons.

After reading other suggestions I am considering giving advantage to the person who instigates the action, possibly substituting a different ability for dexterity or a completely different ability/proficiency. For example if the rogue draws weapons, give them a sleight of hand in place of initiative? The wizard starts casting a spell, arcana? Still debating.

Yes, there are other ways to bias toward action.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well, yeah. The point of this system is to explicitly not have that, as that actually gives advantage (general meaning, not the D&D advantage mechanic) to the side least willing to act - if some person on one side acts, the entire other side gets a chance to beat their initiative and screw their plan.

I don't follow. Assuming the sides are equal in numbers and initiative modifiers (if they aren't, there's where the advantage lies), it's not as if you're rolling one person's initiative vs. the whole other side's. You may not go first, but somebody on your side has an even chance of doing so. That's not a bias against being the first to act. It's not a bias towards them, either, but if you want that -- and I hate to sound like a broken record here -- that's what the surprise rule is for.

 

[Oofta]

Well, yeah. The point of this system is to explicitly not have that, as that actually gives advantage (general meaning, not the D&D advantage mechanic) to the side least willing to act - if some person on one side acts, the entire other side gets a chance to beat their initiative and screw their plan. The result is bias to inaction, and standoffs where nobody is willing to go first. Some may feel it is realistic, but it ain't particularly heroic.

Plus, as a held action, that's a little too broad for my tastes. "When anyone does anything that might be construed..?" Held actions should have more precise triggers than that.



That may be fine for a particular scenario, occasionally. But the "first declared action and everyone rolls initiative" makes that the standard scenario, which is not what I'd consider ideal, for the above-stated reasons.



Yes, there are other ways to bias toward action.

Fair enough. I guess the question is: how much do you want to bias towards action? Because my players already seem to be ready to jump to combat with the bad guys, I don't think I need to encourage it any more than I need to!

Well, that and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Anything my players can do I can do for my PCs as well.

In any case, food for thought.

 

[Umbran]

I don't follow. Assuming the sides are equal in numbers and initiative modifiers (if they aren't, there's where the advantage lies), it's not as if you're rolling one person's initiative vs. the whole other side's.

There's advantage in the information. One person has to reveal their intended action before the initiative roll, nobody else does.

This becomes most obvious (and powerful) when the sides are small. When you have two armies facing off, and one goblin waggles his sword, and suddenly a chaotic melee breaks out, it doesn't matter. But, say, one elf and one orc are facing off. The orc declares he will attack with his axe, and then we roll initiative. The elf now knows the orc's intended action, and can choose their own action accordingly. In deciding to go first, the orc gives up information, but gets no advantage for doing so.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There is inherent advantage to deciding if and when the fight starts. If the elf hasn't already started it, it may be that he doesn't want to, and therefore the orc by starting it is forcing the elf into a situation he would prefer not to be in.

Furthermore, the orc only has to decide her specific action when her turn comes around. So although the orc player can certainly say "I attack with my axe" if she wants to, she only has to say something like "I'm starting this fight". And even if she does say "I attack with my axe", if she then loses initiative and gets hit by the elf she could then append, "When I see how quick the elf is, I check my swing and try to grapple him instead".

But more broadly, concerns about information flow seem a little bit beside the point in a game as asymmetrical and noncompetitive as D&D is. This ain't exactly poker. The DM has access to vastly more information than the players, and already has to compartmentalize that information so the NPCs act only according to what they know. Heck, if the DM wants to know the orc player's intended next action, he can always just ask.