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

[FitzTheRuke]

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.)

Yeah, one of the problems with using Surprise in Maxperson's scenario would be that there is a good chance that knife-thrower would go twice before charge-guy, which would be at least as bad. (I would argue worse).

Sometimes it's best to just let the basic rules cover things and suck up the little inconsistencies.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Dude. This is a rule.

"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."

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.

It specifically allows the DM to override rolls that are dictated, like those I pointed out in multiple skills AND in the initiative section.

And that has no meaning for initiative, which is why the system mandates a roll, not a check

It's no more a mandate than the skills that also use absolute language when talking about rolling.

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.

You quoted the wrong section.

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."

Instead of having the player roll, passive scores assume a roll of 10. No roll happens, but it still represents a roll, unlike the rule I quoted above where there is no roll at all, passive or otherwise.

 

[Lyxen]

Dude. This is a rule.

"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."

It specifically allows the DM to override rolls that are dictated, like those I pointed out in multiple skills AND in the initiative section.

No, it does not. You have a very particular way of reading sentences if you find words like "override rolls that are dictated" in the sentence above.

So, just as I thought, you have no such rule, just your personal feelings, and you don't even know where the actual "rule" is. Hint, there is something in the DMG, but to find it, one need to actually read the rules...

You quoted the wrong section.

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."

Instead of having the player roll, passive scores assume a roll of 10. No roll happens, but it still represents a roll, unlike the rule I quoted above where there is no roll at all, passive or otherwise.

"Instead of having the player roll", which just means EXACTLY the section that I quoted (which is of course totally applicable, just because you don't like it does not mean that it's not part of the RAW) saying that it "doesn’t involve any die rolls". So, contrary to what you stated in this post, there is no die roll involved, "those checks = rolls as well" is a pure invention on your part, as usual.

One day, you might realise how much of the rules that you think are RAW do not exist anywhere else than in your imagination, and how many actual rules you are missing in that very personal vision of yours...

 

[Maxperson]

No, it does not. You have a very particular way of reading sentences if you find words like "override rolls that are dictated" in the sentence above.

So, just as I thought, you have no such rule, just your personal feelings, and you don't even know where the actual "rule" is. Hint, there is something in the DMG, but to find it, one need to actually read the rules...

Ignore the rules or not man. Up to you. Me, I'm going to continue following that one as it's one of the best in 5e.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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."

Sure, lots of takes can be justified by ignoring context.

 

[Irlo]

Sure, lots of takes can be justified by ignoring context.

With these rules, we can justify lots of takes even accounting for context!

 

[Lyxen]

Ignore the rules or not man. Up to you.

That's really rich coming from you, who don't know the rules and interpret even simple sentences completely countrary to the way they are written...

Me, I'm going to continue following that one as it's one of the best in 5e.

You mean, the one that you know so well that you can't even find it in the rulebook, for the simple reason that it does not exist in the form that you think (otherwise you would certainly have put it there)? Interesting concept...

 

[Lanefan]

And the mechanics don't need to be fixed because most people understand that the actions are perfectly simultaneous in general - although some are sequential, it's, as usual, circumstantial - and that only the resolution is purely sequential.

It's obvious what the narration is if A runs, B fireballs and C runs after A. It's not A teleports, B Fireballs and C teleports to A, it's C is running after A and the fireball just catches A with C just out at the edge. And whether A makes his save will provide further narration about what happens. etc.

A fireball is 20' across; meaning that takes some pretty specific (or lucky) aiming to hit the Orc but not Charlie who is within melee reach. (pet peeve: spells like this should ALWAYS require a roll to aim IMO)

Change the scene to a dead-end passage the Orc ran down by mistake. Now there's nowhere for a fireball to miss Charlie if he's following closely, but in play it'd still miss him anyway. Bleah.

 

[Lanefan]

No, that's not right. What you do is accept the abstraction exists, and get on with things.

I refuse to accept that level of unreality in abstraction.

Like we do with Hit Points, or any other abstraction.

You ruling some insane 'attacks outside of combat' rule is literally allowing someone an entire rounds (6 seconds) worth of activity where no-one else can do anything.

I've already posted more than once that out-of-combat actions wouldn't take up a whole 6-second round, and hence a subsystem is required. You seem stuck on the idea that a single strike represents all six seconds.

Never mind that there's room for malleability in round duration. In ship-v-ship naval combat, for instance, each round might be several minutes in length while the ships reload their artillery (which can be ballistae, in a non-gunpowder setting) and maneuver for another broadside. Contrast that with an all-psionic combat which happens at the speed of thought, where setting the round length to one second might still be too long.

It's clearly not the RAW, and its clearly not the RAI as expressed by the video from the Devs in this thread, and (going by the responses in this thread, and the survey posted) is not something that nearly anyone actually does.

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.

IMO it's 5e that, in its quest for oversimplfication, has got it wrong here. Both the RAW and RAI are simply not good enough.

 

[Maxperson]

A fireball is 20' across; meaning that takes some pretty specific (or lucky) aiming to hit the Orc but not Charlie who is within melee reach. (pet peeve: spells like this should ALWAYS require a roll to aim IMO)

Change the scene to a dead-end passage the Orc ran down by mistake. Now there's nowhere for a fireball to miss Charlie if he's following closely, but in play it'd still miss him anyway. Bleah.

A fireball is 40 feet across. 20 foot radius.