Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7183316" data-attributes="member: 4937">[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]: Now you are reduced to quibbling.  Arguing that in this particular case the 4d8 damage wasn't deadly so the rule is fair in this particular case, neither makes it fair in this case (it just makes it less blatantly unfair) nor proves its fairness in the general case.The ability of characters to take broad precautions against ambush and sudden attack doesn't make this rule any more fair either, nor does it make it more in accord with the plain reading of the rules.  Surely all of those precautions are still available when following the plain rules as well, and they are all surely at least as effective if not much more so.Nothing you have said explains why you'd ever privilege this procedure over the ordinary rules or why you would want to make this default case.   Just roll for initiative as the rules declare.  If you are going to run a round by round negotiation, then allow the players to actually declare what they are doing rather than implicitly assuming Delay.   And if your motivation for not running it round by round is because you know if you do, they'll be on their toes and explicitly take more reasonable actions, then your motives in your procedure are far from pure and fair.Oh this is rich.  First, notice that you never actually give any justification for your thesis statement.  You just say, "They are not giving up their action", and then you go on to provide no evidence of that assertion at all.   In fact, by delaying they are giving up their action.  Only after the NPC completes a full action do they then get a chance to act.  They are letting the NPC go first.  That's giving up there action.  The fact that they can act later in the same round doesn't change the fact that they decline to act initially.  They are letting the NPC have a free go at them.  Greedo, by not shooting immediately, under your procedure of 'implicit delay' is now waiting to be shot.And the crazy thing is that you know that that is true, because instead of offering evidence for your assertion, "They are not giving up their action.", you proceed to defend that it does not matter that they have given up their action, because the combat is going to take 10 or 11 rounds anyway by which time the advantage of going first is lost.   This would be nonsense even if it were true, since the Tidal Wave knocks targets prone, thereby potentially stealing actions in the action economy, increasing the advantage of having gone first and potentially putting the loser of initiative on 'the back foot' the whole combat (especially assuming it was somewhat easily matched).   And for the most part, D&D combats - even those in 5e - are not so grindy that they normally go 10 or 11 rounds anyway, as you also admit when you say, "If Rath, Rupert, and Delsenora are around 5th level, it simply doesn't matter to whether they take 4d8 bludgeoning damage before or after hitting the other guy back for 60ish HP of damage."  In this case, it may not matter to the PC's that much if they take 4d8 damage twice before making their second action, but it surely matters to the NPC if they take 60ish damage twice before their second action.   This combat is not going 10 or 11 rounds anyway, and even in 5e - though it might not be as deadly as some prior editions - we will be able to find situations where it surely matters who goes first and in particular where having the whole party automatically lose initiative the BBEG is a massive advantage to the BBEG compared to the normal procedures of the game.  When I first did the mathematical modelling on going first versus going second by running combats in D&D back in like 10th grade (simple computer programs on a C64 to run thousands of combats) I was blown away by the size of the advantage in going first.   See also hitting twice as hard but attacking half as fast - the two aren't balanced.  What this looks like is an DM adopting procedures to ensure NPC antagonists - who normally are the ones to initiate violence in your games - don't go down like chumps. Then let them declare actions, otherwise you are robbing them.  Don't adopt implicit Delay actions, ever.   If it isn't clear what actions they were taking, just follow the darn rules and roll initiative.   Don't force them to Delay in order to talk - they can talk while taking any action that doesn't otherwise employ their mouth.</blockquote>

Verification