D&D 5E Conversation with NPCs turns into combat

[Harzel]

I'm envisioning a situation in my PotA campaign session tonight where the PCs are talking to Shoalar Quanderil in the Womford Rats encounter. I've kind of decided that Shoalar will probably get bored of the conversation quite quickly and will cast Tidal Wave at the PCs standing on the dockside.

I'm just wondering how to handle it - I know there's no 'surprise' because they all know each other are there, but I don't really want to open the conversation by saying we roll for initiative, because that hints that combat is imminent.

Should I say something like, "He starts to mutter an incantation", and give the PCs a chance to have a reaction? Perhaps the save that they get against Tidal Wave is their chance to react. And from that point, we roll for initiative.

I want to be fair.. I'm not one of those DMs who seeks to kill the party in every battle.

I think others have posted a variety of good answers. I will just add that I would take the PCs' attitude (as evinced by their statements or declared actions) into account. If they are extremely wary/suspicious, I would just narrate the NPC starting to act, then roll initiative; if they are somewhat wary, give them advantage on an insight check (vs NPC deception if he's trying, or a low DC if not) for being surprised; if they are blase, then they make the check straight.

On a different front, I know you didn't ask for advice on this but this was the first thing that popped into my head when reading the OP. I don't have PotA, so I don't know the NPC or his motivations, and I don't know what your PCs know about him. That said, it seems like you might be steering things toward one particular outcome before knowing what the PCs do. Preparing for a likely course of events is wise; deciding in advance that is what is going to happen unconditionally, not so much, IMO. But then, I might be assigning you thoughts that you didn't have, in which case, ignore this and carry on.

 

[Nailen]

Ok, so we played this encounter tonight.
The party hid behind the wharf/dock buildings to watch the boat. They saw Quanderil on deck and discussed what to do. They considered an all out attack but weren't sure that it wouldn't result in them getting in trouble with 'the law'.
So, one went up to talk to him while the others stayed hidden.
The conversation didn't last too long before he started to cast Tidal Wave. We then rolled initiative, because I ended up thinking it was easier. However, Quanderil rolled a 6!! So by the time he finished casting the spell he'd been hit by a wand of magic missiles and an arrow fired by a ranger with hunters mark and Colossus slayer!!
The spell was pretty effective, but before he could cast again he was such within a Silence spell and was then down to 5hp. He jumped off the side of the boat and attempted to swim away.
Another use of the wand of MM killed him off.

Good battle, the players enjoyed it. They are now sailing up river with one of the crew they Slept in the battle. He was willing to swap sides as they pay more. Plus they have recruited another deckhand.
The plan is to sail in, with Quanderil appearing briefly via an illusion. They will then request to join up in order to be taken to Jolliver....

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using EN World mobile app

 

[Harzel]

One of the nice things about running a concurrent initiative variant ...

I have been intrigued by this idea since you posted about it, and I periodically think about using it, but when I think through scenarios it seems like much more often than not, there are enough dependencies that everyone would end up rolling initiative anyway. So if you don't mind, since you brought it up in this thread, take the situation as described in the OP and for simplicity assume that no one is surprised. The NPC is casting an AoE that will potentially affect all the PCs and if he has a lick of sense he will try to move to cover after casting. I find it hard to imagine any reasonable actions on the PCs part that would not have me wanting pretty much a total ordering for resolving actions. If you are willing to indulge me, would you sketch out how this scenario could play out without the need for the NPC and all the PCs to make initiative rolls? Choose whatever actions for the PCs you would like or assume a couple try to close to melee and a couple make ranged attacks and then move to cover. This seems like a bit of an ask, but if your willing to spend a few minutes on it, I would be appreciative.

 

[Shiroiken]

The simplest is to say "he suddenly begins muttering an incantation. Roll for initiative." This is the most common method I've seen, because as soon as anyone begins a hostile act, initiative is called for. This does not allow for surprise, but gets things going quickly once you decide to start the combat.

Another method I like, assuming the NPC is trying to lull the party into a sense of security, is to call for Wisdom/Insight against his Charisma/Deception. Anyone who fails to match his result is surprised when he quickly starts a spell. This gives a bit more nuance, but due to the additional check, may take a bit to figure out who's surprised before you begin the combat.

In no situation do I suggest allowing the NPC to get off the spell without a chance of the party being ready. It's not out of a sense of fairness, but because once you set the precedence, the party will try to do the same (over, and over, and over again).

 

[clearstream]

Well, yes it is initiative. But would you start a conversation with NPCs by asking the party to roll for initiative?
It quite clearly signals that I'm expecting it to turn into combat.
I don't get them to roll initiative when they pop into the tavern to gather rumours...

if I did say that he starts to mutter an incantation and then we roll for initiative, what do I do for all the PCs who come before the NPC? They shouldn't react to the spellcasting, because it hasn't happened yet...
Maybe I am overthinking it.

I ran into similar conundrums and indeed the answer is you (and I) were over-thinking it. Don't call for initiative and run things naturally until the NPC starts the combat. Then you have two scenarios

At least one PC goes first
NPC goes

or

NPC goes first
PCs go

Either is fine. Shape your narrative to fit the whim of the dice. In the first case, the NPC starts to mutter their incantation and at least one PC is swift-witted enough to act before the NPC can finish. In the second case, the NPC carried out their intention of casting first. If you think surprise should be involved, remember that surprise is determined before combat starts, and the results of surprise are only about the results of surprise (no action or reaction until after first turn in combat).

 

[transtemporal]

In no situation do I suggest allowing the NPC to get off the spell without a chance of the party being ready. It's not out of a sense of fairness, but because once you set the precedence, the party will try to do the same (over, and over, and over again).

Exactly, anything you use on the PCs will be used on your NPCs so be careful when setting this kind of precedent, especially because they'll pull it out at the most unpredictable moment. Like talking to the king...

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Honestly? I tend to these situations as conversations as normal and only ask for initiative when the npcs or first player decides to strike. At that point I will have them all roll, and the action happens on the person's turn who declared their hostile intent. I give anyone a turn ahead of this person if they roll well higher in initiative. Basically in this case it would represent them spotting the gesture and just having faster reflexes. Keep in mind though that there can be all sorts of roleplaying behind striking first though. Are they at a diplomatic meeting for example? Unless the rogue can prove beyond a doubt the npcs was going to cast a spell and strike first, perhaps striking the evil ambassador first *isn't* a good thing? Maybe take the Dodge, hide, or ready action instead? Situations like that reinforce the idea that *why* you are swinging your sword is often far more important than how, and tends to be more rewarding a play experience, though it depends on your group, and tends to help reduce signs of murder-hobo in your game.

In the case here? If you wish to give this npc a chance to cast a spell with a deception check, feel free, though realize that opens the door for players to do it. Also, keep in mind the concept that magic with somatic and verbal components is *supposed* to be loud and obvious. It's why the sorcerer metamagic Subtle Spell exists, and is a balancing factor. Were I to want an npc to "go first" because it makes ssnse, I'd just do advantage on initiative for them, and would do the same for any player in a similar "striking first" type scenario.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Honestly? I tend to these situations as conversations as normal and only ask for initiative when the npcs or first player decides to strike. At that point I will have them all roll, and the action happens on the person's turn who declared their hostile intent. I give anyone a turn ahead of this person if they roll well higher in initiative. Basically in this case it would represent them spotting the gesture and just having faster reflexes. Keep in mind though that there can be all sorts of roleplaying behind striking first though. Are they at a diplomatic meeting for example? Unless the rogue can prove beyond a doubt the npcs was going to cast a spell and strike first, perhaps striking the evil ambassador first *isn't* a good thing? Maybe take the Dodge, hide, or ready action instead? Situations like that reinforce the idea that *why* you are swinging your sword is often far more important than how, and tends to be more rewarding a play experience, though it depends on your group, and tends to help reduce signs of murder-hobo in your game.

In the case here? If you wish to give this npc a chance to cast a spell with a deception check, feel free, though realize that opens the door for players to do it. Also, keep in mind the concept that magic with somatic and verbal components is *supposed* to be loud and obvious. It's why the sorcerer metamagic Subtle Spell exists, and is a balancing factor. Were I to want an npc to "go first" because it makes ssnse, I'd just do advantage on initiative for them, and would do the same for any player in a similar "striking first" type scenario.

I get what you're saying about consequences for striking first, but, over time, I've come to the realization that this, in effect, punishes players for rolling better on initiative and taking decisive action. I don't want to do that. If I call for initiative, it's clear to everyone why -- including bystanders. The aggressive action that triggers things is obvious and any action taken because of it is clearly in response. Yes, this does limit some kinds of storytelling, but those kinds of storytelling aren't in line with how the game part plays. What I mean by that is that there are not rules in the game for disrupting instead of attacking, or catching the hand pulling the dagger, or any other trope seen in shows and movies and books. The game rules are blunt, and so trying to model those kinds of story within the game rules doesn't work well. You either need to heavily rule or accept that you need to abandon those storytelling goals. I've chosen the latter option -- I choose to have the story be very clear when combat starts, even if it means I have to have villains yell 'I'll kill you' out loud so everyone's got the clue. It's blunt, and inelegant, but then I'm not writing a novel, I'm running a game. I focus my story on the other parts.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I get what you're saying about consequences for striking first, but, over time, I've come to the realization that this, in effect, punishes players for rolling better on initiative and taking decisive action. I don't want to do that. If I call for initiative, it's clear to everyone why -- including bystanders. The aggressive action that triggers things is obvious and any action taken because of it is clearly in response. Yes, this does limit some kinds of storytelling, but those kinds of storytelling aren't in line with how the game part plays. What I mean by that is that there are not rules in the game for disrupting instead of attacking, or catching the hand pulling the dagger, or any other trope seen in shows and movies and books. The game rules are blunt, and so trying to model those kinds of story within the game rules doesn't work well. You either need to heavily rule or accept that you need to abandon those storytelling goals. I've chosen the latter option -- I choose to have the story be very clear when combat starts, even if it means I have to have villains yell 'I'll kill you' out loud so everyone's got the clue. It's blunt, and inelegant, but then I'm not writing a novel, I'm running a game. I focus my story on the other parts.

To each their own then. It tends to work for my games, partially because my players are aware that one lost turn in combat isn't the end of the world, and partially because my group is the sort that tends to avoid combat like the plague. They find the actual sword swinging bit to be quite tedious and much prefer the social and exploration pillars of the game. We certainly have fun in conbat, but I do the best I can to make things cinematic and don't sweat much on the rules of the game so much.

My players have also gotten both quite good at justifying their actions if they strike first and in practice I would argue it rewards the players who roll well much of the time, as it let's them feel a bit of a quick drawing gunslinger vibe. I've a rogue who wields crossbows with the observant feat who really enjoys basically being immune to being ambushed quite a lot who enjoys this sort of ruling as well, especially when the vast majority of combats do allow them to act. Hell, I had him take down a mage with a lucky sneak attack crit before they even finished their spell once and thus avoid the entire combat entirely. Some gms would cry that is anticlimatic, I merely roll with it and reward the player for his "quick thinking".

 

[Ovinomancer]

To each their own then. It tends to work for my games, partially because my players are aware that one lost turn in combat isn't the end of the world, and partially because my group is the sort that tends to avoid combat like the plague. They find the actual sword swinging bit to be quite tedious and much prefer the social and exploration pillars of the game. We certainly have fun in conbat, but I do the best I can to make things cinematic and don't sweat much on the rules of the game so much.

My players have also gotten both quite good at justifying their actions if they strike first and in practice I would argue it rewards the players who roll well much of the time, as it let's them feel a bit of a quick drawing gunslinger vibe. I've a rogue who wields crossbows with the observant feat who really enjoys basically being immune to being ambushed quite a lot who enjoys this sort of ruling as well, especially when the vast majority of combats do allow them to act. Hell, I had him take down a mage with a lucky sneak attack crit before they even finished their spell once and thus avoid the entire combat entirely. Some gms would cry that is anticlimatic, I merely roll with it and reward the player for his "quick thinking".

You've mistaken me. I strongly advocate for allowing players to beat the initiator to the punch, as it were. I'm narrowly addressing the issue of having to justify why you took action when the initiating action did not resolve, ie, the 'why did you hit first?' question. I find that the system doesn't support that narration, and so change my narration so that they're no question about who 'started it' even if someone else gets in the first punch. It also works the other way, my players know that if they start the ball, it will be known they started the ball.