D&D 5E Initiative and Delay

[Lanefan]

So, in the "good old days" of AD&D we had declared intentions before initiative, initiative rolls every round, and "simultaneous" action. I agree: that way lies madness.

The only madness-inducing thing here is declared actions before initiative; it makes sense that someone with a lower init. should be able to react to what has already happened within that round. Other than this, rerolling every round* and simultaneous actions are the road to realism, not madness.

* - I cannot recommend highly enough using an initiative die much smaller than a d20 and tweaking initiative bonuses to suit; we use a d6.

The root cause of the problem is turn-based cyclical initiative, and players (and DMs) trying to game that system.

Lan-"the only time turn-based cyclical makes realistic sense is when the PCs are all Warforged and the enemies are all robots"-efan

 

[Lerysh]

Discussions of realism in a fantasy game where even the laws of gravity can be circumvented by magic make my brain hurt. Combat systems don't need realism, especially if that realism slows the game down. They need action and high adventure. I am not slowing the pacing of my game down just to add some jumble to the init count. Once a fight is enough, and let anyone who wants to wait, wait.

 

[Tormyr]

I really like how X-Wing Miniatures Game handles this: everybody moves in initiative order, worst-to-best, so the best-initiative pilots have the best view of where everyone is going and can make their decisions accordingly. Once everyone moves, attacks go in the opposite order, from best pilot to worst.

It's a great system for ship-to-ship dogfighting. Since everyone moves before anyone fires, you don't have as much weird time-warping. I'm not sure it's great for adventure gaming, but I'd love to give it a try sometime.

Where it does not work well for D&D is that a creature can use its movement before, between, and after attacks.

 

[skotothalamos]

Where it does not work well for D&D is that a creature can use its movement before, between, and after attacks.

well, yeah, under the current system.

this would be a different system, so it would work... differently...

 

[Sunseeker]

The players are a party. I don't care if "Delay" is officially in the game or not. The players are an organized group and as such have the ability to organize the order in which they act. The end.

 

[Kaychsea]

The players are a party. I don't care if "Delay" is officially in the game or not. The players are an organized group and as such have the ability to organize the order in which they act. The end.

Even if surprised?

 

[Sunseeker]

Even if surprised?

Yes. They would only have to wait to organize their turns until after the surprise round.

I still have my players roll initiative, the option to rearrange turn order is there if they want to.

 

[sithramir]

This is what is bizarre to me. That power exists in the game already, for all players. If you happen to roll where you'd prefer to go, the ability works. So, it can't be balanced around that concept - you can't assume where the player will be going and they might well be going after their ally takes a turn.

The concept of First Strike already exists in RPG lexicon, so I suppose the concept I am talking about here is Last Strike, or Later Strike. The ability to move your initiative count down one time, and only in the first round. It doesn't delay things, it doesn't cause a hideous amount of more tactical play in the game, and I really don't see how it's unbalancing given it can already work out that way so it can't be for balance reasons that the current rules are written that way.

I'm generally ok with it on the first round of combat just not as an every round thing. I still think the rogue readying an action to attack the first creature he has the ability to get sneak attack on would be ok as an example.

I guess i'm thinking that if Rogue goes first and delays, NPC 1 attacks and kills another PC, NPC 2 decides to attack the body to ensure he dies, NPC 3 also attacks the body also because all three were really doing it "at the same time" but their initiatives were one off or some such and they just want that PC dead. The rogue could have killed a goblin (or tried to) beforehand, he could have readied and potentially hurt/killed a goblin but with the delay he instead after NPC 1 can suddenly move in and attack before NPC 2 before the NPC 2's swing actually hits the PC? I know we're just trying to mechanically show a way for each person to act but it seems wrong.

I think I just put more realism in initiative in my head and thus don't like those kind of scenarios. Perhaps if delay was instead "you drop 5 in the initiative" or insteps of 5 or something then it would be ok? The rogue might not attack until after all the NPC's did and thus was almost to "round 2 anyways" or might have randomly went in between but otherwise it feels a bit too meta-gamey to be that "precise?".

I had 0 problem with delay until this thread actually. Now I think I might not allow it in my games or do something slightly different on first rounds. I just feel "use your action" because you get another action in round 2 anyways.

Also: I allow sneak attack from a rogue if he's the first to act as a house rule. Sort of the flat footed idea of 3.x. That is how I prefer to reward them with high initiative. No advantage (unless hidden). Just how I try to balance it

 

[Lanefan]

The players are a party. I don't care if "Delay" is officially in the game or not. The players are an organized group and as such have the ability to organize the order in which they act. The end.

Does this mean you also allow your more intelligent and-or organized and-or lawful-aligned opponents the same consideration; that you-as-DM can set the order in which they act when not surprised? I ask because if you don't you're perhaps unintentionally giving the adventurers a rather significant advantage.

Also, is every character in the party lawful enough to always want to go along with such military-style sequencing?

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

Does this mean you also allow your more intelligent and-or organized and-or lawful-aligned opponents the same consideration; that you-as-DM can set the order in which they act when not surprised? I ask because if you don't you're perhaps unintentionally giving the adventurers a rather significant advantage.

Also, is every character in the party lawful enough to always want to go along with such military-style sequencing?

Lanefan

Yes, my intelligent and trained foes are more organized. This is partly why I allow my players the option, because I'm already using it. There's no reason why a military commander and his trained combat squad should not act as a coordinated strike team. That's precisely what makes them so deadly.