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

[Maxperson]

Isn’t it perfectly realistic for somebody to try to “get the drop” on somebody else, and discover they are not as crafty or quick as they imagined?

Sure. Said dagger thrower aims at the fighter only to discover that the diplomat the fighter is guarding is a sorcerer who quickens a nasty spell and wins initiative since throwing a dagger isn't automatically successful against a quickened spell. He's just not going to discover that against a lumbering fighter who has to cross 30 feet and then attack AND who could only start moving after the dagger throwers arm started moving.

 

[Lyxen]

No. I'm saying that the act is the PC reaching for the weapon.

So he has NOT started to throw the weapon. End of discussion, because, since he has not even started the throw, your complete argument of "no one can intervene" is valueless. Moreover, I'm feeling too lazy to go looking for it now, but this is NOT what you wrote at the start, in your initial example, you argued from the point that he had his weapon in hand and now it's "reaching for the weapon". You are wiggling around, but it does not change the fact that your logic contradicts itself. The throw is the attack action, so it can ONLY be taken in combat, so it has NOT started combat.

 

[Lyxen]

Um, no, my stance does not fail in that case. Clearly you fail yet again to understand what I am saying. I'm beginning to wonder if you are even trying.

You are right, I have stopped trying to understand your logic, since every single time these days, you end up with positions that contradict yourself, whether it's on the length of a round (with the silliness of having characters freeze in time for 6 seconds multiplied by the number of other combattants) to now the action of throwing a dagger being both what starts combat and something that happens during combat itself. You end up in impossible positions every single time because you create rules that are purely your own based on your personal view of realism. Once more, the RAW do nothing of the kind and other DMs don't have the same views.

I have. Your sticking your head in the sand and yelling lalalalalala in order to not understand that initiative as an ability check is subject to the ability check rules, though. I can't help you with that.

Look, it's not difficult, the RAW says three things:

• A: Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative
• B: When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order.
• C: 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.

The problem with your position is that you only include B and C in your reasoning, so it's simply WRONG.

My position includes all the RAW, it's a dexterity check, it's called for because there is an uncertain outcome, the dice determine the result, which is why the order of combat asks you to roll.

There is NO WAY your interpretation of "the outcome of initiative is certain" fits with C (as invoked by B), and even less A.

You bolded the wrong portion. I corrected it. Specific beats general. It's specifically different, because it represents an average roll. Even so, the DM can just skip the passive check and say it auto succeeds or auto fails.

And yet, it shows that there are specific kinds of ability check. Initiative is such a one, because the specific combat rule TELLS YOU TO ROLL. So you roll, it's uncertain.

 

[Maxperson]

So he has NOT started to throw the weapon. End of discussion, because, since he has not even started the throw, your complete argument of "no one can intervene" is valueless.

If he has not started to throw, nothing has prompted an initiative roll. No hostile action has been taken.

Moreover, I'm feeling too lazy to go looking for it now, but this is NOT what you wrote at the start, in your initial example, you argued from the point that he had his weapon in hand and now it's "reaching for the weapon". You are wiggling around, but it does not change the fact that your logic contradicts itself. The throw is the attack action, so it can ONLY be taken in combat, so it has NOT started combat.

Reaching for the weapon or beginning to move his arm. It's all the same. The act is not the action no matter how badly you want it to be.

 

[Maxperson]

You are right, I have stopped trying to understand your logic, since every single time these days, you end up with positions that contradict yourself, whether it's on the length of a round (with the silliness of having characters freeze in time for 6 seconds multiplied by the number of other combattants) to now the action of throwing a dagger being both what starts combat and something that happens during combat itself. You end up in impossible positions every single time because you create rules that are purely your own based on your personal view of realism. Once more, the RAW do nothing of the kind and other DMs don't have the same views.



Look, it's not difficult, the RAW says three things:

• A: Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative
• B: When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order.
• C: 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.

Letter A only applies when the outcome is in doubt, per the ability check rules that the initiative rules are subject to. The real problem is that you want to look at the initiative rules in isolation when they are in fact not isolated.

 

[Lyxen]

While I get the idea behind passive perception and think it certainly has its uses, I'm not sold on it as being an always-on fail-safe - particularly in non-threatening situations - as that's just too beneficial to both the PCs and their foes especially in a war-not-sport game. It also plays hard (too hard, IMO) against stealth-based or surprise-based classes such as Thieves and Assassins.

Note that, as usual, the game is nuanced. For example, the rules on stealth say that people trying to use it have to beat the passive perception, so in a sense it's always on, but at the same time, the rules say that characters are aware of threats approaching them in combat, not all the time. In the podcast on stealth, while emphasizing that PP is always on, JC also shows examples of characters being distracted, by a show or a fire, and therefore being "approachable in the open", sometimes even without a check.

So it's hugely circumstantial, as everything should be - and is in 5e.

Where I'd rather have them proactively declare when they're watching for threats if only because someone watching for threats is often discernable in doing so, which might change how others react and-or perceive this person. And if someone says "My character is always watching for threats", well, that character might not be surprised as much but at the same time will probably have a tougher time interacting with a lot of the locals.

I have no problem with that, but for me that is more a specific action to get an active perception check, which would take one's action in combat and which you apply out of combat as taking time away from interacting with the locals.

One big difference between us, I think, is that I have no problem at all with "gotcha" situations - both for and against the PCs - as long as they make sense in the fiction. I mean, from my perspective the whole point of Thieves and Assassins is to be "gotcha" characters; otherwise what's the point?

As pointed out by someone else, thieves and assassins have their gotcha in the classes, in particular with expertise on stealth which grants then a huge chance of beating PP, plus a few other tricks.

But it's also the reason for us carrying readied action into combat as a house rule, because they are really helpful for assassination situations

 

[Lyxen]

Letter A only applies when the outcome is in doubt, per the ability check rules that the initiative rules are subject to.

Letter A applies to ALL COMBATS for ALL involved characters. It's interesting that you think it does not apply, why should it not apply ?

So basically, in a thread about combat and initiative, you want to discuss RAW but IGNORE the ONE RULE in the book that tells you how to do it ? Great example of reading the book...

My interpretation takes ALL the rules into account, including the one that you continue to ignore about specific beating general, whereas you continue to insist, against all logic, that the general rule about ability checks overrides the specific one about rolling the dexterity check for initiative.

The real problem is that you want to look at the initiative rules in isolation when they are in fact not isolated.

They are not isolated, and as demonstrated, even only using rules B and C show that there needs to be a roll, but once more, specific (Rule A) beats general (Rules C).

What is the title of this thread, remind us ?

 

[Lyxen]

If he has not started to throw, nothing has prompted an initiative roll. No hostile action has been taken.

In a tense situation, you are reaching for a weapon, it's clearly hostile.

Reaching for the weapon or beginning to move his arm. It's all the same. The act is not the action no matter how badly you want it to be.

And once more you are wriggling about, in this case just showing that you have backtracked on your original position, but still not provided any justification that nothing can happen between reaching for a weapon and [targetting and throwing the weapon].

 

[Maxperson]

Letter A applies to ALL COMBATS for ALL involved characters. It's interesting that you think it does not apply, why should it not apply ?

I don't know Mr. Strawman. Why are you saying I argued something that I didn't say?

I didn't say it doesn't apply. I said that it's subject to the ability check section like any other ability check. Not one ability check is exempt. You can point to imagined "mandates" and assumptions, but you have nothing that says initiative ability dex checks are exempt from the ability check rules. Letter A applies whenever the ability check rules that it's subject to determine that the outcome is in doubt.

 

[Maxperson]

In a tense situation, you are reaching for a weapon, it's clearly hostile.



And once more you are wriggling about, in this case just showing that you have backtracked on your original position, but still not provided any justification that nothing can happen between reaching for a weapon and [targetting and throwing the weapon].

TO my original position, not on. I've been in two different conversations. One with the dagger in hand and one without. So I got mixed up once. Sue me.