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

[Bill Zebub]

I haven't chimed in yet, but I fundamentally disagree with you here. While I'm in no way suggesting that the mechanics are perfect (they are what they are), they don't need to be fixed if one understands that the mechanics and the fiction only loosely line up. Or to look at it anther way, they line up fine if you don't try to force them to a rigid connection.

Yeah, this. Nicely said.

 

[Maxperson]

OAnd again NO, it's not, sorry, not in the areas where, being more SPECIFIC, it OVERRIDES the more general rules of ability checks.

You show a fundamental lack of understanding of what specific means. The rules has to specifically override some other rule for specific to beat general to kick in. There is no such specificity in anything that you've shown. All you have quoted are the GENERAL initiative rules, none of which specifically say that they ignore the ability check rules or prevent the DM from declaring auto success of failure.

Of course some are exempt, you really should read again the section on specific beating general: " For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait.

Because it specifically says, "They all get longbow proficiency." What you are claiming is that every wood elf has it because you saw a picture in the wood elf section of a wood elf with a longbow.

You are assuming that the ability check rules don't apply, because of a general and non-specific mention of rolling in the initiative section. Nothing there says you always roll, or that it ignores other ability check rules. It just generally says that you roll for initiative, which is true. Specific vs. general does not apply. And to get there, you have to ignore the language in several skills that also say you roll for the ability skill checks.

Does the general rule of a dexterity check being subject to an outcome being in doubt apply ROLLING initiative ? No, in this case, initiative specifically mentions rolling TWICE in the same sentence, so the specific overrides the general.

And the skills section specifically mentions rolling for ability checks more than that, yet you ignore that to try and be right here. All while ignoring that none of those skills OR initiative ever say that they ignore the other rules. You are ASSUMING something that is incorrect.

 

[Dausuul]

Literally everyone in this thread is telling you you're looking at things wrong. Maybe (just maybe) pause for a second and consider the fact that they may be right.

You don't get to speak for "everyone in this thread," thank you very much.

And I might add that the poll has just over 50% using the standard initiative rules without surprise, and just under 50% using some variation.

 

[Lyxen]

You show a fundamental lack of understanding of what specific means. The rules has to specifically override some other rule for specific to beat general to kick in. There is no such specificity in anything that you've shown.

Look, I will make it extremely simple, the order of combat tells you specifically: "Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative."

Are you applying this rule or not ? If you are not rolling, then you are not applying the rule, and are not following the RAW. It's as simple as that, because that extremely specific rule for THAT ability check (it's only that one dexterity check to determine initiative, not any other sort of ability check) is not countermanded by anything in the rules and certainly general ruls about ability checks applying to ALL ability checks,

All you have quoted are the GENERAL initiative rules, none of which specifically say that they ignore the ability check rules or prevent the DM from declaring auto success of failure.

So you are calling the initiative rule "general" ? It's a single ability check for a very specific circumstance and you think it's more general for ability checks than every other rule about ability checks ?

Honestly, this is pure BS.

You are assuming that the ability check rules don't apply, because of a general and non-specific mention of rolling in the initiative section. Nothing there says you always roll

Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative

Can you please read that sentence for me, and point out the cases where you don't roll ? It specifically says everyone.

, or that it ignores other ability check rules. It just generally says that you roll for initiative, which is true. Specific vs. general does not apply. And to get there, you have to ignore the language in several skills that also say you roll for the ability skill checks.

No, actually, as you've pointed out, they don't say to roll, and this is where you are trapped, they just say to "make an ability check"...

And the skills section specifically mentions rolling for ability checks more than that, yet you ignore that to try and be right here. All while ignoring that none of those skills OR initiative ever say that they ignore the other rules. You are ASSUMING something that is incorrect.

The rule about the elf does NOT say that it ignores the other rule, so you are totally wrong about that requirement as well.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You don't get to speak for "everyone in this thread," thank you very much.

agreed

And I might add that the poll has just over 50% using the standard initiative rules without surprise, and just under 50% using some variation.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that a non-zero number of people who selected one of the “chances of surprise” options missed this key part of the first post:

“there's no question that the other group is there and there is a general wariness that combat may occur but it's not definite.”

IMO, I don’t see how, using the rules of 5e, one can justify surprise as a possibility given this detail.

 

[Maxperson]

Look, I will make it extremely simple, the order of combat tells you specifically: "Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative."

And the ability check rules SPECIFICALLY say the DM can choose to make a roll, which initiative is, an auto success without rolling. That is MORE SPECIFIC than your initiative rule. More specific beats less specific, otherwise known as specific beats general.

Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative

Can you please read that sentence for me, and point out the cases where you don't roll ? It specifically says everyone.

Everyone rolls ability checks, too. Unless the more specific rule allowing the DM to get rid of a roll and make it an auto success or failure is enacted.

No, actually, as you've pointed out, they don't say to roll, and this is where you are trapped, they just say to "make an ability check"...

And I showed you were check = roll. Your attempt to negate that by bringing up the specific passive check rules don't even contradict what I said. Passive checks represent the average roll of repeated actions, so those checks = rolls as well.

 

[Lyxen]

IMO, I don’t see how, using the rules of 5e, one can justify surprise as a possibility given this detail.

For me, it hinges around this sentence: "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

I know that the "noticing" in question is linked to the previous sentence about the DM comparing "the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side."

But the first sentence can certainly be interpreted as "noticing that someone is there and not categorising him as a threat, or maybe not an immediate one."

 

[Dausuul]

“there's no question that the other group is there and there is a general wariness that combat may occur but it's not definite.”

IMO, I don’t see how, using the rules of 5e, one can justify surprise as a possibility given this detail.

By the book, no, surprise clearly does not apply. But if you don't like the way the book handles it, adapting the surprise rules is one solution. (Myself, I think it's veering too far the other way--I want the instigator to get the first blow, but I don't want to give them a whole free turn, and I certainly don't want assassin rogues to turn every negotiation into a slaughter in search of that sweet autocrit.)

 

[Lyxen]

And the ability check rules SPECIFICALLY say the DM can choose to make a roll, which initiative is, an auto success without rolling.

No, actually they don't. I know where that section is and it's not in the ability check, and it's not a rule. And it also actually does not apply to initiative because of the way it's formulated, unless you can explain to me what a "success" is with initiative, which is such a specific check that it does not give success or failure against a DC or another roll, it just gives the ordering of the turn.

But please, do show us your mastery of the rules by providing that rule if you think it exists, I'll be waiting.

That is MORE SPECIFIC than your initiative rule. More specific beats less specific, otherwise known as specific beats general.

First, not, it's not specific at all, it's a general rule about ability checks, much less specific that the very specific dexterity check used for initiative that does not even provide success or failure.

Everyone rolls ability checks, too. Unless the more specific rule allowing the DM to get rid of a roll and make it an auto success or failure is enacted.

And that has no meaning for initiative, which is why the system mandates a roll, not a check (yes, the wording is specific and I've noticed the fact that you have not even responded to that, showing that you know you were wrong about it).

And I showed you were check = roll. Your attempt to negate that by bringing up the specific passive check rules don't even contradict what I said. Passive checks represent the average roll of repeated actions, so those checks = rolls as well.

And once more, you are rewriting what the rules say instead of reading them: "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls" So the rules tell you expressly that it's not a die roll. Your interpretation has, as usual, no value since you don't even read the rules.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's not a matter of it being hidden. Imagine a scenario where two sides are talking and one guy has a dagger out and is say cleaning his nails with it. No overt hostility to start a combat, but the dagger is out. Later on during the conversation he gets tired of what the diplomat is saying and suddenly throws his dagger at the diplomat's guard that has been giving him stink eye the whole time.

Even though people knew about the dagger, there's just not going to be time for that guard to react to the motion of his arm, move 30 feet and then attack the dagger thrower before that throw completes. It's not surprise, but the dagger thrower should top the initiative count and go first.

There have been many times over the years where the PCs have been talking to a group of thugs or something and I've said something along the lines of, "While you are talking to the leader of the thugs, one of his men pulls out a dagger and starts tossing it and catching it." If the players don't interrupt me when I say "pulls out a dagger" and attack, then the rest of my sentence happens and there is no initiative or combat. Not all weapons pulled mean you are in combat.

Sounds like you have come up with a very clever corner case to game initiative. Sure, if it bothers you that he might lose initiative (anyone throwing a dagger, probably has a decent dex and will go first most times anyhow) then by all means, just make them go first. Most people are almost never going to encounter this "problem" or will shrug it off when/if the quick-rushing guy gets to knife-thrower first as one of many perfectly possible scenarios (I can think of quite a few. You've been given several examples) that would make it possible.

Still, if it makes your table happy, just do it. I might myself if it came down to that particular rare scene.