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

[Lanefan]

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.

At what point or degree of such disconnection does the whole thing become farcical, though.

Charlie and the Orc fight their way across the room. At some point there's a gap big enough for Alpha to shoot an arrow (without penalty) and Beta to blow up a fireball (as Charlie heroically rushes into the backdraft, perhaps getting a little singed, but not enough for any damage).

I would argue that we know these things happen this way because that's what the mechanics tell us happens. I would never want to accuse anyone who plays D&D of lacking imagination, but I swear, when I hear the argument that some scenario or another doesn't seem "realistic" (or whatever), I always feel like someone is lacking imagination. (I am not accusing you of this here).

Where I'm arguing, I suppose, almost the opposite: that those who rely on mechanics first are the ones perhaps lacking in imagination, in that they're not visualizing the scene completely and seeing how the mechanics and the fiction disagree.

Yes, these has to be some abstraction. But when that abstraction goes too far, there's no point left in trying to imagine anything because the abstraction won't agree.

We can make up any story we like! Why would we chose to make one that doesn't make sense?

Exactly my point! Why would we allow the mechanics to force us into nonsensical narration?

 

[Lanefan]

A fireball is 40 feet across. 20 foot radius.

Thanks - that even further makes my point.

 

[Lanefan]

The mechanics can't be fixed to match the fiction, which is why I just ignore that part of it the best that I can. In order to have simultaneous combat, everyone in the combat would have to make micro actions. 30 orcs and 6 PCs all move 5 feet and then can react to what everyone else is doing. Then they move 5 more feet or start to attack somehow, and everyone can react to what everyone else is doing. Then they do some other very small part of their actions and more reactions. And so on. Combats would take 10 hours or more.

Not necessarily.

In-combat movement is the one thing that kind of needs to be tracked segment by segment - easy if using minis or a VTT - such that it's clear exactly who is where when in case of AoE effects or questions of reach or range.

In the case of Charlie and the Orc all it takes is to move both minis or tokens together, maybe a square per initiative pip, until the movement is complete and regardless of Charlie's lower initiative. And if Charlie knows Beta is dropping a fireball into the situation he should be forced to choose whether to continue pursuit and get fried or bail out and hope the fireball finishes off the Orc.

It comes under "give the monsters an even break", I think.

 

[Maxperson]

Not necessarily.

In-combat movement is the one thing that kind of needs to be tracked segment by segment - easy if using minis or a VTT - such that it's clear exactly who is where when in case of AoE effects or questions of reach or range.

In the case of Charlie and the Orc all it takes is to move both minis or tokens together, maybe a square per initiative pip, until the movement is complete and regardless of Charlie's lower initiative. And if Charlie knows Beta is dropping a fireball into the situation he should be forced to choose whether to continue pursuit and get fried or bail out and hope the fireball finishes off the Orc.

It comes under "give the monsters an even break", I think.

It's more than that. Suppose halfway through the orc moving, Jerry the Elven Archer starts taking aim at the Orc. The Orc sees this and adjusts and stops moving after Charlie, ducking behind a boulder he as about to pass. If combat is simultaneous, you have to be able to react and adjust for everything you notice, as does everyone else in the combat.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

I don't see that as a bad thing in any situation, which is why I prefer re-doing initiative each round.

Here, the dagger-chucker could use that surprise action to throw and then - if lucky - his high initiative to attempt to flee the scene before anyone gets to him; which suits a whole lot of strike-and-run tropes to a T.

 

[Lanefan]

It's more than that. Suppose halfway through the orc moving, Jerry the Elven Archer starts taking aim at the Orc. The Orc sees this and adjusts and stops moving after Charlie, ducking behind a boulder he as about to pass. If combat is simultaneous, you have to be able to react and adjust for everything you notice, as does everyone else in the combat.

First off, the Orc is the one retreating here; Charlie is following.

Second, in my example scenario there's already a character - PC Alpha - across the room with a loaded bow; that and the spellcaster are why the Orc is trying to get out the door but with only 30' movement available he can only get to it, not through it, thus Alpha gets her shot(s) in.

Were it me, and let's say for just a moment the Orc is a PC so I can describe how the interaction would go, on his initiative the exchange might go like this:

Me-as-DM: "Orcley, you're up. What are you doing?"
Player: "Attacking Charlie then moving to the door."
Me: "You know there's an archer ready to shoot you, right?"
Player (answer A): "Yep, but the table and chairs don't give me enough cover and I'd still be stuck in the room - door it is."
Player (answer B): "Oh, yeah; I'll move to take cover behind the table and chairs instead."

What I'm doing here is getting the player to commit to a destination before resolving the move. As in the example the Orc is an NPC I-as-DM have to make the same commitment in my own mind and not change my move-action halfway through.

 

[Irlo]

At what point or degree of such disconnection does the whole thing become farcical, though.

it’s not a disconnection, though. It’s a flexible connection.

And I realize that statement requires a lot of explanation to make any sense at all, but I’ll leave that here to come back to when I gave time and energy.

I’m seeing two ways to navigate the mechanics-fiction interface — differences in approach which are perhaps at the heart of some of these disagreements.

 

[Maxperson]

First off, the Orc is the one retreating here; Charlie is following.

Second, in my example scenario there's already a character - PC Alpha - across the room with a loaded bow; that and the spellcaster are why the Orc is trying to get out the door but with only 30' movement available he can only get to it, not through it, thus Alpha gets her shot(s) in.

Were it me, and let's say for just a moment the Orc is a PC so I can describe how the interaction would go, on his initiative the exchange might go like this:

Me-as-DM: "Orcley, you're up. What are you doing?"
Player: "Attacking Charlie then moving to the door."
Me: "You know there's an archer ready to shoot you, right?"
Player (answer A): "Yep, but the table and chairs don't give me enough cover and I'd still be stuck in the room - door it is."
Player (answer B): "Oh, yeah; I'll move to take cover behind the table and chairs instead."

What I'm doing here is getting the player to commit to a destination before resolving the move. As in the example the Orc is an NPC I-as-DM have to make the same commitment in my own mind and not change my move-action halfway through.

I get it. What I am saying is that such commitment doesn't work in a simultaneous combat. Take the above example. Now Orcley is moving with cover towards the door. The archer seeing that Orcley has cover and now doesn't have a good shot can react to what Orcley is doing by drawing his sword and moving towards the door to intercept. Orcley seeing former archer and now sword guy moving to intercept might now alter what he is doing. That's how simultaneous combat works, and when you add in 20 more Orcleys and 4 or 5 more PCs, combat of that nature would take 10+ hours to complete.

D&D just fails to be able to do simultaneous combat either in actuality or in the abstract. That's why I just suck up the absurdity as a necessity to play just ignore that combat is both sequential and everyone's turns still only happen in 6 seconds.

 

[Lanefan]

I get it. What I am saying is that such commitment doesn't work in a simultaneous combat. Take the above example. Now Orcley is moving with cover towards the door. The archer seeing that Orcley has cover and now doesn't have a good shot can react to what Orcley is doing by drawing his sword and moving towards the door to intercept. Orcley seeing former archer and now sword guy moving to intercept might now alter what he is doing. That's how simultaneous combat works, and when you add in 20 more Orcleys and 4 or 5 more PCs, combat of that nature would take 10+ hours to complete.

If everything is to be simultaneous then the only way to make it work is for everyone to commit to their actions before anything gets resolved and then resolve 'em all at once. No mid-round reactions, kind of like RAW 1e in that way. Not always satisfactory, I'll be the first to admit, but perhaps a step up from the current 5e model.

I hit this all the time to a lesser degree, in that the initiative system I use (which only has six 'pips', or segments, per round) produces ties between a few combatants almost every segment. It's rarely if ever a problem, and in cases where finer-tuned timing matters (e.g. does someone get frozen by a Hold Person spell before or after their melee swing in the same segment) we just quickly roll sub-initiatives between those two things.

D&D just fails to be able to do simultaneous combat either in actuality or in the abstract. That's why I just suck up the absurdity as a necessity to play just ignore that combat is both sequential and everyone's turns still only happen in 6 seconds.

Thing is, D&D - any edition - very much can handle simultaneous actions with only minimal kitbashing and a willingness among players to accept that even though things are sorted out one character/player at a time at the table these things are happening simultaneously in the fiction meaning there is no chance to react until at least the next initiative pip.

 

[Maxperson]

If everything is to be simultaneous then the only way to make it work is for everyone to commit to their actions before anything gets resolved and then resolve 'em all at once. No mid-round reactions, kind of like RAW 1e in that way. Not always satisfactory, I'll be the first to admit, but perhaps a step up from the current 5e model.

Sure, but then it's not really like simultaneous combat would be. In combat, soldiers can react to what happens around them. They aren't forced to keep going for 6 seconds with what they last thought they would do. It would really suck if 2 seconds in they saw a landmine in front of them and couldn't stop.

If we aren't going to really model simultaneous combat, we might as well just go with what we have. It's more functional and saves time on combats.

I hit this all the time to a lesser degree, in that the initiative system I use (which only has six 'pips', or segments, per round) produces ties between a few combatants almost every segment. It's rarely if ever a problem, and in cases where finer-tuned timing matters (e.g. does someone get frozen by a Hold Person spell before or after their melee swing in the same segment) we just quickly roll sub-initiatives between those two things.

Thing is, D&D - any edition - very much can handle simultaneous actions with only minimal kitbashing and a willingness among players to accept that even though things are sorted out one character/player at a time at the table these things are happening simultaneously in the fiction meaning there is no chance to react until at least the next initiative pip.

If that works for you, great. I'm not going to really change much on this front. My group is fine with combats as they are written. Consecutive turns.