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

[amethal]

Why would the DM let it get out of hand like that? I made the ruling that he went first. If he was using sleight of hand to hide it, it would be sleight of hand and not deception which is purely social. End of story. If the players want to have a discussion about it after the game, they are welcome to, but disruptions like that should not be tolerated.

"Sleight of Hand. Whenever you attempt an act of legerdemain or manual trickery, such as planting something on someone else or concealing an object on your person,"

I'm not sure that's really the crux of the matter, but it is a social encounter until the combat starts. You might have ruled differently.

The DM in this case ruled that since the dagger couldn't be concealed in Player 1's hand (the dagger is too big / hand too small) he wasn't concealing it on his person. He was either trying to draw attention away from the dagger in his hand, or draw attention away from the fact one hand was holding something out of sight (up his sleeve, alongside his leg, behind his back or something), hence the Deception check.

Again, you might have ruled differently, but probably not since we know you prefer that the situations to make sense, and concealing a dagger in your hand doesn't make sense.

If you, as the DM, have made a ruling that Player 1 goes first, because he is throwing the dagger, would you then refuse to listen to arguments from Player 2 and Player 3 that their intended actions were equally as quick? (There's a reason why the characters involved are all PCs, not NPCs.)

 

[Lyxen]

No it doesn't. I quoted you the absolute language that you are using for initiative. Here's a DIFFERENT example.

No, you did not. You used another paragraph, doing as bad ruleslawyers do, ignoring the part of the rules that does not suit you. DO you deny that that specific sentence does not contradict the other one and specifically asks you to ROLL ?

"Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard."

It does not tell you to ROLL, just to make a check.

There's nothing circumstantial or optional there.

Yes, there is, it does not tell you SPECIFICALLY to ROLL.

And here's another example.

"Investigation. When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check."

Nothing circumstantial or optional there, either. And a fourth example.

And indeed, it is less specific as it does not ask you to ROLL/

"Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move."

All of those examples use your "mandated" terminology.

Nope, they don't tell you, that as part of the SPECIFIC process of combat, you need to ROLL.

No. You don't get to declare it a subset of ability check when the rules don't say that. It's an ability check plain and simple, and as such falls under the ability check rules like any other ability check.

And then, again, it's only, as for your other examples, one specific use of an ability check, it has a specific wording that you don't find elsewhere, it tells you to ROLL that one. It is therefore more specific, therefore beats the general case.

You are wrong here, because you are arguing that the general rule on ability check overides everything whereas the game specifically tells you the contrary: "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

Now, please deny that the rule that your ar referencing is for ALL ABILITY CHECKS and is therefore general, whereas the rule for ROLLING INITIATIVE in combat only affects ONE VERY SPECIFIC ABILITY CHECK and is therefore more specific ?

 

[Maxperson]

But you just made statements about “realism” in regard to the speed of throwing daggers vs. moving 30 feet. Do you only assert realism before normal combat begins, or do you continue to bend rules to fit your concept of realism throughout the fight?

You've been in conversations with me here and I'm sure seen others. I like more realism that D&D offers by default, but I'm not trying to mirror reality. So the dagger throw being faster than a moving fighter is clear and I'd grant initiative, but I don't need to figure out if he can throw 3 daggers in 6 seconds or 2.5 or whatever.

If he has the extra attack feature, then he can throw 1-8 daggers in 6 seconds depending on class, level and whether he used Action Surge.

I’m being somewhat facetious, of course. Just trying to make the point that all of D&D combat is abstract and unrealistic. It’s a game, not a simulation. So I find it a bit odd to pick this one thing and insist it be realistic.

Oh, I get it.

When it comes to realism, I think all of use here have lines drawn somewhere that when crossed we scratch our heads and say no. Those lines are probably drawn like a gerrymandered voting district, though, and while they make sense to the DM or player talking, might not make complete sense to someone else.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you did not. You used another paragraph, doing as bad ruleslawyers do, ignoring the part of the rules that does not suit you. DO you deny that that specific sentence does not contradict the other one and specifically asks you to ROLL ?

Dude. ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS SHOW A PARAGRAPH. That's it. Your entire initiative argument is based on a paragraph. Why is your paragraph okay, but mine using the same language is not.

It does not tell you to ROLL, just to make a check.

Ability check = roll.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

No uncertainty, no ability check and no die roll determining the results.

You are wrong here, because you are arguing that the general rule on ability check overides everything whereas the game specifically tells you the contrary: "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

It's a specific rule on ability checks. And there is no contradiction in initiative rolls. It uses the same "mandated" language that the ability checks I quoted use. And despite your incorrect argument, since ability check = roll as I proved above, those skills "mandate" rolls every bit as much as initiative does.

 

[Mort]

When it comes to realism, I think all of use here have lines drawn somewhere that when crossed we scratch our heads and say no. Those lines are probably drawn like a gerrymandered voting district, though, and while they make sense to the DM or player talking, might not make complete sense to someone else.

That's right. The key is to be able to accept the differences and move on. Just like if I was in your campaign I wouldn't complain about the dagger/initiative ruling. I might take characters that favor thrown/ranged weapons though

 

[Irlo]

When it comes to realism, I think all of use here have lines drawn somewhere that when crossed we scratch our heads and say no.

This. I was in the middle of typing this very response. You saved me some time!

 

[Flamestrike]

If your players just want to kill the other guys, why didn't they just sneak in and get a full suprise round?

Surprise rounds dont exist in 5E.

 

[Flamestrike]

Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative - do you consider the instigating declaration binding?

As a general rule, yes.

This stops the Assassin who declares an attack when hidden, but then is beaten on initiative by his target (thwarting his insta-crit), from not firing the shot on his turn.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I was referring to when there is no surprise.

For me, this falls in the area of 5e suprise, just slightly modified for not being aware that one of the guy is actually a combattant. So you run combat as usual, but the sheriff is surprised during the first round.

Then I'm not sure how the scenario in the original question applies to a gunfight at all. That is to say, I'm not sure why the scenario in the original question isn't going to fall under surprise if the weapons involved are handguns. Not unless the GM has already called for initiative.

If anything, a quick draw gunfight should involve both sides making secret decisions about what they do, having the DM make hidden checks to see if they accurately determine what their opponent is doing, and then having the results play out with the chance of a simultaneous kill. And speed should be just as important as intuition in it, so that a kind-of fast character with great intuition could win against a very fast character who chooses to draw. Because, yes, a quick draw gunfight should mostly feel like rock-paper-scissors. Wait > Sense > Draw > Wait. This doesn't fit into D&D at all.

But that's not the scenario. The scenario is a conversation where one side just chooses to make an attack. I'm not sure that it matters if it's drawing an throwing a knife, casting charm person, rushing with a sword, or whatever.

In D&D -- so, to be clear, I'm setting the gunfight scenario aside -- initiative exists to determine who acts first, right? Well, in this scenario, we already know who acted first and we already know that the other party wasn't planning to take any combat actions. So what is the die roll for? Unless the two sides are too far away to reach each other, I don't really understand why nobody can do anything until you stop and roll initiative to determine who acts first after someone has already acted first.

You got jumped. It's not supposed to be fair.

Thinking about it more the ways I can imagine handling it:

1. Roll initative. Barring some kind of pre-planning via telepathy or planning to jump them before the encounter, only the acting character is not surprised.

2. Roll initiative. Nobody is surprised, but the acting character automatically acts at the top of initaitive order.

 

[Mort]

Then I'm not sure how the scenario in the original question applies to a gunfight at all. That is to say, I'm not sure why the scenario in the original question isn't going to fall under surprise if the weapons involved are handguns. Not unless the GM has already called for initiative.

If anything, a quick draw gunfight should involve both sides making secret decisions about what they do, having the DM make hidden checks to see if they accurately determine what their opponent is doing, and then having the results play out with the chance of a simultaneous kill. And speed should be just as important as intuition in it, so that a kind-of fast character with great intuition could win against a very fast character who chooses to draw. Because, yes, a quick draw gunfight should mostly feel like rock-paper-scissors. Wait > Sense > Draw > Wait. This doesn't fit into D&D at all.

But that's not the scenario. The scenario is a conversation where one side just chooses to make an attack. I'm not sure that it matters if it's drawing an throwing a knife, casting charm person, rushing with a sword, or whatever.

In D&D -- so, to be clear, I'm setting the gunfight scenario aside -- initiative exists to determine who acts first, right? Well, in this scenario, we already know who acted first and we already know that the other party wasn't planning to take any combat actions. So what is the die roll for? Unless the two sides are too far away to reach each other, I don't really understand why nobody can do anything until you stop and roll initiative to determine who acts first after someone has already acted first.

You got jumped. It's not supposed to be fair.

Thinking about it more the ways I can imagine handling it:

1. Roll initative. Barring some kind of pre-planning via telepathy or planning to jump them before the encounter, only the acting character is not surprised.

2. Roll initiative. Nobody is surprised, but the acting character automatically acts at the top of initaitive order.

But, the OP specified that the guy drawing the rapier is not trying to be subtle or otherwise conceal his action.

He goes for the rapier but someone may beat him to the draw - that's a standard initiative roll.

If the guy was being somehow sneaky, or the DM determines that surprise really is warranted (for whatever reason) THEN he will likely act first regardless of initiative rolled (but not guaranteed, someone might have the alert feat, or there may be a high enough level barbarian, or someone has a weapon of warning etc...).

Point being 5e rules adequately cover this.