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

[Lanefan]

Again, the problem only comes from people who think that things need to be either all simultaneous or all sequential. There is nothing of the kind in the system. Most things are simultaneous, but some are sequential, and how many, and for how long is totally circumstantial depending on the fight. The system is infinitely flexible and will adapt to any narrative that you want to have.

And this has always been fine, especially in editions where rounds got much shorter. I admit that no reactions for one minute was a long time, but with 6 seconds, it's much less of a problem. Moreover, you have to remember that the system never says how long a turn is. So let's say that a monster opens a door and is revealed. Actually, everyone might react almost instantaneously to the event, because although the actual actions they are taking might occur in parallel even though their resolution is sequenced - so some people react faster than others due to initiative order, it's a bit arbitrary but it works fine in a huge majority of cases. Even if the monster makes an attack after opening the door, it's not a problem, that attack can be described in the fiction as happening in a flash, it's just that no-one in the room has time to react because it's so sudden, again something that you see very often in the genre.

This comes back to the point I raised a bit upthread about malleable round length. Not every round has to be exactly six seconds long if the fiction wants it otherwise.

When you don't impose arbitrary constraints of length of actions and turns (which, again, the game NEVER does),

Though IMO it very much should impose a length-of-action onto any spellcasting. Removal of casting times from a lot of spells in 3e is a big part of why casters came to dominate the game; 4e and 5e IMO went about fixing this the wrong way, by nerfing the spells instead of just making them take time (and thus be more difficult) to cast.

it works out fine, the narration is almost always spot on and does not violate what the system does to support it. You just need to be a bit creative, but this is what the game is about: "The second thing you need is a lively imagination or, more importantly, the willingness to use whatever imagination you have. You don’t need to be a master storyteller or a brilliant artist. You just need to aspire to create, to have the courage of someone who is willing to build something and share it with others."

I agree with the quote, but it doesn't clarify whether we're supposed to use that imagination before or after the mechanics have their say. Personally I'd rather use it beforehand and force the mechanics to try to keep up if they can; and if they can't, the mechanics need fixing before my imagination does.

 

[Lanefan]

Imagine you were playing a game where you were at 20 paces from an NPC you had just met, and the DM stated 'suddenly he attacks you' and proceeded to roll a few attacks against you.

If those were melee attacks, that's not good at all. Missile attacks? Well, I could see getting one quick shot in before you can react but nothing more than that (barring unusual effects e.g. you are Slowed or the attacker is Hasted).

This is a misconception some seem to have with my position: the combat-triggering "action" that should happen before anything else against a surprised foe isn't a whole round's worth of stuff. It's one shot or one swing or one other quick move done before the target sees it coming, after which regular initiative is rolled.

You can't use any reactions because you're surprised.

Then he asks for initiative. And tells you thanks to the rules for surprise you can't do anything on your first turn or take reactions till afterwards.

The NPC wins initiative.

He attacks you again rolling a few attacks.

Your turn and you do nothing.

His turn 2 and he attacks you again. Twice.

That happened to me. Do you honestly think that DM would have let it work in reverse?

Ideally the DM should let it work in reverse: if that's how he runs it for someone attacking you by surprise then that's how he should run it for you doing likewise to an NPC. If he doesn't, that's a bad DM.

The clear and unambiguous rules there are as soon as hostilities are ABOUT to break out, the DM gives a narration 'why' and what is triggering initiative, and you roll and actions happen in initiative order.

If you want to be quicker on the draw take the Alert feat. Get yourself a plus 5 to initiative. Take levels in Swashbuckler, War Wizard, Gloomstalker or a clas that grants a bonus to initiative. Have a high Dex.

'Alert' assumes the table uses feats; for those that do, this is a valid idea. Taking dip levels like that isn't something I'd ever allow, for many reasons beyond just this. And Dex bonus to initiative is something I've never been a fan of, in that it makes an already-very-useful stat even more powerful.

 

[Flamestrike]

If those were melee attacks, that's not good at all. Missile attacks? Well, I could see getting one quick shot in

Draw a bow and then an arrow, nock it, take aim, and shoot, while I just stand there?

Literally the instant that dude went for his Bow, MY PC WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. Youre unilaterally taking that agency away.

And if he has a bow in hand, with arrow nocked, and pointed at me, how the hell can it be said that I am 'unaware he poses me a threat' sufficient for surprise?

 

[Lyxen]

This comes back to the point I raised a bit upthread about malleable round length. Not every round has to be exactly six seconds long if the fiction wants it otherwise.

And again, this is exactly what 5e says: "A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. " (It was only 3e which was strict "Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world", even 4e used the word "about")

The flexibility is built in the system, it's only people wanting to introduce heavy constraints that make it fixed and end up in a totally inconsistent position.

Though IMO it very much should impose a length-of-action onto any spellcasting. Removal of casting times from a lot of spells in 3e is a big part of why casters came to dominate the game; 4e and 5e IMO went about fixing this the wrong way, by nerfing the spells instead of just making them take time (and thus be more difficult) to cast.

It's certainly a way to nerf casters, but it makes the game unfun for players, because that means that they basically skip turns. It's by the way completely contrary to the philosophy of 5e where everything has been designed so that people can play every turn (whack-a-mole healing, combat cantrips, etc.).

It might not be "realistic", it's less balanced than 4e, but honestly, when I can run my combats in 15 minutes because it's streamlined and simply fun, everyone is happy around the table. That way we can have many more things in one evening than just a fight, we can have the two other pillars taking preponderance and multiple fun and varied combat....

I agree with the quote, but it doesn't clarify whether we're supposed to use that imagination before or after the mechanics have their say.

Why does it have to be specific ? It's both, all the time, I'd say.

Personally I'd rather use it beforehand and force the mechanics to try to keep up if they can; and if they can't, the mechanics need fixing before my imagination does.

As mentioned before, I've played inductive games where, in all actions, it's roll first and interpret later (and with very simple mechanics, high level resolution), and I think it has influenced the way we play at our tables.

 

[Lyxen]

Draw a bow and then an arrow, nock it, take aim, and shoot, while I just stand there?

Legolas does this to orcs all the time, you know, it's just that you're not aware that you are the orc.

Literally the instant that dude went for his Bow, MY PC WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. Youre unilaterally taking that agency away.

And then, in the fiction, characters are not aware of the guy, facing the wrong direction, or too slow, or focussing on something else, etc. and this is realistic too. People usually don't understand that the 360 vision of characters represents the fact that, over a round, they will probably have the time to look in all directions, but it does not mean that, at the time an adversary does something, you are facing him and are ready to react, especially if you already haver 3 orcs in your face.

And honestly, that is realistic (not necessarily a quality in itself, but it reinforces the genre fiction), I've been in LARP melees with hundreds of people, and I can guarantee that the one thing that you strain first is your neck, and you STILL are incapable of taking into account threats from all around. The only tactic that works well is coordinating with one or two friends to fight back to back, and that gives you a huge superiority, but it does not guarantee that you will be able to do something about someone with a bow 30 feet away.

And if you are specifically watching someone and expecting him to do something and want to be ready to interrupt him, ready an action.

And if he has a bow in hand, with arrow nocked, and pointed at me, how the hell can it be said that I am 'unaware he poses me a threat' sufficient for surprise?

That I completely agree with, on the other hand.

 

[Umbran]

Exactly. Like I said, the problem lies with your inability to accept abstraction, and need to try and have the plastic men on a grid on the table in front of you be an absolute objective representation of an imaginary elf reality.

Mod Note:
Well, no, that is not "the problem."

Because, whatever else is going on, you making this personal is a problem. It makes the argument into an emotional ego conflict, rather than about the subject matter. Please consider removing arguments of the form, "The reason you don't agree with me is a personal fault of yours," from your lexicon.

And, for here and now, stop making it insulting and personal.

 

[Maxperson]

Different perspectives, I guess. I'm used to 30-second rounds (houseruled down from 1e's 1-minute rounds) so to me six-second rounds are lightning fast.

My biggest peeve with separated consecutive turns is there's no possibility of a mutual kill.

There is in my game. We've made a house rule that if initiative is tied, which is rare since it requires a tied initiative roll AND the same dex number as higher dex goes first, both get turns even if one dies. So a mutual death is possible, but I don't think has ever happened.

 

[Maxperson]

This comes back to the point I raised a bit upthread about malleable round length. Not every round has to be exactly six seconds long if the fiction wants it otherwise.

The problem with malleable rounds is spell length. Suppose your rounds are 30 seconds, but are malleable and you occasionally alter how long the round is. One day the party is on a ship and you decide that a round is going to be 5 minutes. Does a 5 round spell end in half a round or does it get an in credibly extended duration, lasting for 25 minutes instead of the normal 2.5?

 

[Maxperson]

And again, this is exactly what 5e says: "A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. " (It was only 3e which was strict "Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world", even 4e used the word "about")

That still leaves you in the 5-7 range. Any further than that and it's no longer "about" 6 seconds.

 

[Lyxen]

That still leaves you in the 5-7 range. Any further than that and it's no longer "about" 6 seconds.

5-7 is already a really good range for flexibility, when combined with the fact that no rule says how long turns, actions and moves actually take and how they mesh together.