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

[Ralif Redhammer]

Hah! While D&D combat is ever going to be an abstraction, I think giving more time to each turn makes a lot of sense.

On a less slight tangent: And don't get me started on stablizing a dying character as an action. You wouldn't even have time to check the pulse.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that goes on in a fight - while, sure, serious fights don't last all that long, I think that making it more than a slow blink in length would make more sense.

They should've included "resting" in the during-round description. I mean, boxers spend three minutes fighting and one minute resting, and they're still exhausted in round three. Just think if they were wearing more than shorts.

So every bard is essentially playing the first few notes of Eye of the Tiger?

Six seconds of my favorite song is all it takes to get me excited. AC/DC knows about this. If a bard with quasi-magical abilities were performing, I think that would do the trick.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

Or a twist - it's a parley with observers. Who is observed to break the peace - the person who attacked first or the declarer? (And if the declarer is not locked in, could they change to a non-aggressive action be really be the attacked party?)

The part of that declaration that initiated combat: Pulling your sword and going for the Baron is "binding" in the sense that the character would have completed it before their turn comes around. The baron reacted to the person going for their sword and lunging towards him with death in their eyes by misty-stepping away (i.e wasn't surprised and won initiative).
The player can choose what they want to do on their round. They might choose to stab the Baron's wife instead, jump the chair and chase the baron, or even just angrily slam their rapier back into its sheath and raise their hands.
Even if the initiating character won initiative, I would allow a change to their action like stabbing the chair next to the Baron's head for example.

In a parley with observers, the character drawing their sword and going for the other party is probably going to be regarded as the one who broke the peace, even if another party reacted fast enough to step up and deck them before the attacker actually reached their target.

There are always going to be the really edge cases. The invisible, silenced sniper or subtle spellcaster. The guy with the dagger out and in throwing position within range of someone with a greatsword who is unaware of him. In those cases the surprise rules already exists, and if I don't think that they cover it, I can make ad hoc rulings where necessary.

 

[GMMichael]

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

Yes, I consider it "binding" when a PC says "I want to do this." The PC doesn't get much accomplished otherwise.

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

I won't make a PC wait around for other actions if that PC announces an action when she's free to do so. If someone else is acting or has priority, then "I draw my rapier and stab the baron" gets met with "hang on, so-and-so is acting first."

Or a twist - it's a parley with observers. Who is observed to break the peace - the person who attacked first or the declarer? (And if the declarer is not locked in, could they change to a non-aggressive action be really be the attacked party?)

Declaring an action is acting first. How can you break the peace if you haven't done anything?

Let's go back: the DM announces combat. Not the PC. If a PC says, "I break the peace," then the DM says, "got it. Here's what happens. Now roll initiative." There's some weird WotC group-think going on in this thread. Let's focus on this a bit and clear our heads:

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, I consider it "binding" when a PC says "I want to do this." The PC doesn't get much accomplished otherwise.

I don’t. If I say, “Ok, but you’ll have to roll X, and if you fail Y will happen” I’m giving the player a chance to change their mind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's some weird WotC group-think going on in this thread.

Mod Note:

That’s unnecessarily provocative. Dial it back a bit, please.

 

[Blue]

Yes, I consider it "binding" when a PC says "I want to do this." The PC doesn't get much accomplished otherwise.

Except that no declarations before initiative are binding on anyone else, so why would this one be binding? You are hugely penalizing a player for being proactive instead of reactive if you force them and only them to declare an action prior to initiative, an action that may not even be possible to do when their action comes up.

I won't make a PC wait around for other actions if that PC announces an action when she's free to do so. If someone else is acting or has priority, then "I draw my rapier and stab the baron" gets met with "hang on, so-and-so is acting first."

Now I'm confused - my question was prefixed with "Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative". If you aren't rolling normal initiative then why are you answering. And if you are rolling normal initiative then why are you letting someone go first without note if they won initiative or not.

Declaring an action is acting first. How can you break the peace if you haven't done anything?

Let's go back: the DM announces combat. Not the PC. If a PC says, "I break the peace," then the DM says, "got it. Here's what happens. Now roll initiative." There's some weird WotC group-think going on in this thread. Let's focus on this a bit and clear our heads:

Okay, so it sounds like you aren't for standard initiative, you're for the declarer acting first. Well, now your first response makes sense. But the question wasn't directed at people doing what you are doing and doesn't make sense except in a different situation.

 

[Lyxen]

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

"I draw my rapier and stab the baron" - if by the time that PC/NPC is the PC locked into this action? Even if it doesn't make sense anymore (the baron has misty step'd away then moved out of range.)

Or a twist - it's a parley with observers. Who is observed to break the peace - the person who attacked first or the declarer? (And if the declarer is not locked in, could they change to a non-aggressive action be really be the attacked party?)

It's binding in the sense that the declarer has made a hostile "gesture" that was correctly interpreted by everyone present as starting the hostilities, so he bears the responsibility for this in case it matters who started the fight.

After that it's not binding in the sense that, by the time he actually has his turn, the situation might have evolved to a point where his action is not relevant at all, so of course he is not committed to doing anything stupid or ridiculous. But if he ends up at the top of the initiative list, as he will have given the impression that he wants to break the peace by doing something specific, the player would have to come by with a very good explanation for wanting to do something different. Otherwise, it's just playing in bad faith and tinkering with the system, not playing his character.

 

[GMMichael]

Now I'm confused - my question was prefixed with "Question for everyone suggesting normal initiative". . .
Okay, so it sounds like you aren't for standard initiative, you're for the declarer acting first. Well, now your first response makes sense. But the question wasn't directed at people doing what you are doing and doesn't make sense except in a different situation.

No no, given the example, I'd use normal initiative:

One of the people involved declares something that will start combat. "When he insults my family I draw my rapier and stab him." There isn't anything particularly sneaky about it, like a subtle spell.

The problem, it seems, is that the "declarer" will be expecting his entire interpretive dance quintet to be completed before anyone else gets to act. My answer to this PC would be, "you drew your rapier, so it's ready at the start of combat. If you want to change your mind about stabbing the baron - now that your turn has finally rolled around, be my guest."

This is direct role-play-leads-to-combat without toying with surprise or initiative, i.e. option 1.

 

[robus]

The party is in full view of an opposed group. Maybe they are talking, but 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. Very important - it is not definite that combat will occur.

One of the people involved declares something that will start combat. "When he insults my family I draw my rapier and stab him." There isn't anything particularly sneaky about it, like a subtle spell.

Do you roll initiative and that person goes where they go? Do you roll initiative but put them at the top? Do you treat it as possible surprise that combat is breaking out "right this second" and do something like roll insight or perception to see which combatants (on both sides) are surprised and not going in a first round? Or something else?

To avoid all this, I roll initiative at the end of the previous encounter in order to smoothly transition into combat rounds when things get dangerous.

 

[jasper]

Other Crack pSST. " I am taking the last beer DM."
But it varies with the group, the scene, how fun was the role playing, what makes sense. And If you did take my last beer.