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

[Maxperson]

I can save you some time and let you know now not to bother playing at my table.

As a GM I never narrate a character into any sort of game changing actions, however minor narration of any character (including PCs) is a tool in my belt to paint the setting.

Example: I may let the PCs know a lair is full of giant owl pellets by narrating how they sidestep to avoid stepping on a juicy one. I'm not going to announce they notice a pile and ask if they want to step around it. No point.

I'd just describe the lair as having oil pellets all over the floor prior to them entering, as it would be a blatantly obvious visual before they go inside. My proactive players would jump in at that point and tell me that they are trying to avoid the pellets, don't care if they step on one and just walk in, or tell me that they walk in without letting me know either way. If they do the last one, they've left the detail of stepping on one or not up to me. That's not playing their character. It's simply narrating a detail of the walk across the floor.

Playing the PC is what @Lyxen did when he played the example PC as getting distracted and paying attention to everything else except his target AFTER the PC began throwing the knife.

 

[Lanefan]

I’m not opposed to interrupts, I just don’t want to have to track cast time.

It's easy. The players, obviously, track their own cast times; and you can track for the opposition.

I’d love to add some kind of reaction that can interrupt spell casting. It could be as simple as making casting draw an OA, with concentration rules determining if it was interrupted. And/or maybe the attacker could Hold Action, which would let ranged attackers in on the fun.

Sounds good.

Personally, I'd outright ban casting while in melee; on the basis that the caster will automatically be interrupted. If you're using wild magic surges on interruption, though, I'd rule that any casting in melee just automatically generates a wild surge - which some chaos mages would love and everyone else around would probably come to despise!

EDIT: And maybe the caster could, if aware of the OA, voluntarily stop casting (and maybe switch to Dodge action?), costing them their turn but saving the spell slot.

Only if the casting is stopped before it has begun, which makes it a simple change of action.

 

[Maxperson]

okay... about is not a mathematical term, we are not rounding to the nearest 10's...
But if we round to the nearest minute we are rounding down and 6 seconds is 'none'
if we round to the nearest WHOLE minute then it is a minute.
If we round 6 days to the nearest week it is 1 week, if we round it to the nearest month it is 0 time again or 1 month depending on if you count 0 as an option.

This is another Red Herring. It's a complete distraction argument since there is no rounding going on..................................at all.

29 seconds is about 30 seconds. 1 minute is about 1 minute, not about 30 seconds.

if 0 isn't an option and we round to the nearest half minute then it is about 30 seconds...

No. 6 seconds still isn't about 30 seconds. You've just rounded up to 30 seconds for some strange reason. That doesn't make time work differently. 6 seconds will never be about 30 seconds no matter what you do or how you try to twist time. You can argue that 6 seconds and 30 seconds are essentially the same when looking at million year scale, but that still doesn't make 6 seconds "about" 30 seconds.

I plain don't believe you... no one ever in your life said "about a minute" and it took less then ten seconds... never?

Of course they have. And every time they were wrong about their estimate. 10 seconds doesn't become "about" a minute just because someone incorrectly estimated how long something will take.

show me where 'about' says it can't be withing 24 of something... or even within 100 of something

"about" means very close to. You are estimating to a very close degree. It's common English. That's how the term is used. It's not used to mean something that isn't close. A minute is not close to 30 seconds. It's close to a minute. 6 seconds is not close to 30 seconds. It's close to 5 and 7 seconds. Maaaaaybe you can stretch it to being close to 4 and 8 seconds, but at that point 8 seconds is just as close to 10 seconds. 9 seconds is definitely about 10 seconds.

 

[Lanefan]

To answer my own question. My understanding of the rules is that unless hidden or obscured, a declaration of hostile intent is known by both sides. Then, players and orcs who are acting earlier in initiative are aware that a hostile action is about to be initiated, and may act with that knowledge.

This makes a declared hostile action a declaration of intent. Players who act before the hostile action are reacting to the intent, and possibly the action as it begins to happen.

I'm thinking through what I would consider a hidden or obscured action. I don't have an answer for that yet.

In your example, it would be one of the orcs shooting a missile from under the bridge before the PCs are even aware there's anything down there.

That players (and orcs) can act earlier is a consequence of the initiative and of sequential actions. I admit that absurd results can occur. These are a consequence of the rules, that one just has to learn to deal with.

That's just it - I'd rather not allow those absurd results to occur in the first place, and instead kitbash the mechanics such that they cannot.

Another category of actions might be "swift" or "quick" actions, which cannot be perceived before they happen. That brings up interesting questions. However, I don't think the initiative rules, as written, deal with such cases.

So out come the kitbashin' tools...

This is actually a better-worded version of what I was getting at upthread: that the triggering action should have its own timing mechanics separate from normal initiative.

One can easily get into very strange cases, for example, what if the trigger was a trap discharging, where the trap triggers and discharges very very quickly.

A problem that I have is that if characters who act before the hostile action occurs don't have an opportunity to preempt the action is that it seems that they are being penalized for their better initiative.

Unless they somehow see the hostile action coming they shouldn't be able to pre-empt it, which is my point. If they don't know there's an orc under the bridge about to shoot at them they shouldn't be able to prevent that shot.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is another Red Herring. It's a complete distraction argument since there is no rounding going on..................................at all.

I dont think you understand that a red herring isn't the same as not aggreeing... you seem to take 'not agreeing' to mean alot more then it is...

No. 6 seconds still isn't about 30 seconds.

why? it's close to the same... if you test 100 people some % will not even be able to tell the two apart... we suck at time tracking

That doesn't make time work differently.

I'm not asking it to work diffrently... it's an estimate... it's about X....
24 seconds is no time at all, so anything that is 'about X' where X is 24 seconds off is still about X

6 seconds will never be about 30 seconds no matter what you do or how you try to twist time.

6 seconds isn't 30 seconds... who said they = each other?!?!? it's about the same not the exact same.

You can argue that 6 seconds and 30 seconds are essentially the same when looking at million year scale, but that still doesn't make 6 seconds "about" 30 seconds.

except it does... as long as we are mesureing less then 2 minutes I would argue ANY amount of seconds you said (that was less then 120) are about right.

Of course they have. And every time they were wrong about their estimate.

no they etimated.... estimates aren't wrong by not being exact.... estimates are NOT exact.

10 seconds doesn't become "about" a minute just because someone incorrectly estimated how long something will take.

if it is only ment to be an estimate then they aren't wrong... it's an estimate.

"about" means very close to.

thank you and 24 seconds is such a short time that being off by 24 seconds with an estimate is "ABOUT" right.

You are estimating to a very close degree. It's common English. That's how the term is used. It's not used to mean something that isn't close.

no tell me how 24 seconds off isn't close?

A minute is not close to 30 seconds.

yes it is... they are so close that without a device to measure time with most people will not be able to pin point one over the other.

6 seconds is not close to 30 seconds.

sure it is... How often do YOU tell time down to 24 seconds worth of 'correctness'

It's close to 5 and 7 seconds. Maaaaaybe you can stretch it to being close to 4 and 8 seconds, but at that point 8 seconds is just as close to 10 seconds. 9 seconds is definitely about 10 seconds.

dude... if I tell you I will be somewhere at 11:32 and I show up 24 seconds late you wont notice... if I show up 6 seconds late you wont notice... most people would not notice if I showed up at 11:35... and NOBODY could tell if I was late or not without a clock... nobody has such a perfect time sense that they can without device help tell the difference between 11:35 and 11:40. Time even speeds ups and slows down by your perception "A watched pot never boils"

How can you HOPE to messure something to within 24 seconds of itself without aid of a machine?

 

[Maxperson]

I dont think you understand that a red herring isn't the same as not aggreeing... you seem to take 'not agreeing' to mean alot more then it is...

You aren't simply disagreeing. You're providing entirely irrelevant arguments that are literally not happening in the game at all. There is no rounding going on, so it's a complete distraction argument to put forth, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

why? it's close to the same... if you test 100 people some % will not even be able to tell the two apart... we suck at time tracking

That doesn't matter. Our ability or inability to track time has nothing to do with the definition of "about."

if it is only ment to be an estimate then they aren't wrong... it's an estimate.

They are wrong. If they said about a minute and finished in 10 seconds, the definition of "about" doesn't shift to meet their mistake. It just makes them wrong in using that word.

thank you and 24 seconds is such a short time that being off by 24 seconds with an estimate is "ABOUT" right.

no tell me how 24 seconds off isn't close?

It's literally 5 times as long. You're argument says that 600 miles is close to 3000 miles, which is patently ridiculous.

yes it is... they are so close that without a device to measure time with most people will not be able to pin point one over the other.

sure it is... How often do YOU tell time down to 24 seconds worth of 'correctness'

None of that matters. The ability or inability of a person doesn't alter a definition.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You aren't simply disagreeing. You're providing entirely irrelevant arguments that are literally not happening in the game at all. There is no rounding going on, so it's a complete distraction argument to put forth, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

That doesn't matter. Our ability or inability to track time has nothing to do with the definition of "about."

it has to do with how close it is... it is close enough to not be measurable by most people... hence ABOUT

They are wrong. If they said about a minute and finished in 10 seconds, the definition of "about" doesn't shift to meet their mistake. It just makes them wrong in using that word.

wrong again About is an estimate, and estimates aren't proven wrong when they are completed quicker or slower...

It's literally 5 times as long. You're argument says that 600 miles is close to 3000 miles, which is patently ridiculous.

None of that matters. The ability or inability of a person doesn't alter a definition.

when you messure in game time NOT in combat rounds if something is said to be 'about 5 minutes' can it be 4 minutes or 7 minutes and still be 'about 5 minutes... cause that is 3 minute spread.... so 180 seconds... so yeah 180 seconds seems to me to be 'about 5 minutes' and 27 seconds can be 'about 6 seconds' especially if we spend 12 combat rounds in a night and 1 is 44 seconds, 1 is 3 seconds, 1 is 1 second, 1 is 11 seconds and the other 8 are 6 seconds... I would say they are all 'about 6 seconds'

the average of the above is actually 8.91 seconds...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can save you some time and let you know now not to bother playing at my table.

As a GM I never narrate a character into any sort of game changing actions, however minor narration of any character (including PCs) is a tool in my belt to paint the setting.

Example: I may let the PCs know a lair is full of giant owl pellets by narrating how they sidestep to avoid stepping on a juicy one. I'm not going to announce they notice a pile and ask if they want to step around it. No point.

just FYI most player/DMs I know in real life are fine with this...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

just to try to break the cycle here... How precise is 'about' supposed to be? is 30 seconds too much time for such precision? is 25 seconds? is 20 seconds? is 10 seconds? and if measuring time how often are you in your privet life precise down to less then 30 seconds?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Only if the casting is stopped before it has begun, which makes it a simple change of action.

5e doesn’t distinguish between start and end time of casting, so I’m not sure what you mean here.