D&D 5E Initiative and Delay

[Mistwell]

Then that is not delaying (nor is delaying just in the first round what you initially asked about, I brought that to the conversation).

It is delaying. I never said it needed some definition from a prior game - I said I am talking about the first round, and all my examples were the first round. Are you saying you also see no issue with it happening in the first round only?

The player who rolls early init already has advantage. He gets to go first. The problem is not the game mechanics, it's your player's expectations.

If you say so. Personally, I think that the surprise round is already huge and to make it stronger, unbalances the game even move. There is a big difference between making the surprise round stronger and making a round where the NPCs get to act stronger.

Again, your player wants his cake and to eat it too. This is not a problem at all at many other tables. You do not see a lot of threads in this. Our PC rogue has never brought this up.

I don't know about other tables - hence I asked. I know I've been playing for a year and a half and it comes up a lot, and not just from one player but from all my players. My players don't have unreasonable expectations - they expect that rolling high on a d20 for initiative should not be a bad thing. That's not an unreasonable expectation, as everything else in the game reinforces that expectation.

So, Ready to throw a dagger at the first foe that the Fighter goes up next to. Problem solved. Not seeing a problem here except for players used to earlier edition game mechanics.

It's a core ability from both the game and his Cunning Action to be able to move-attack-move (better than anyone else) and that ability is harmed by going first - though the rogue is in every other way encouraged by the rules to have a high Dex.

If the PCs really have surprise, how come the Rogue does not attack from hiding with a ranged weapon and surprise and advantage and sneak attack damage?

I never introduced surprise into this. I think you did? I was just talking about going first in initiative versus opting to go later on the first round of combat - regardless of surprise or no surprise.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's a core ability from both the game and his Cunning Action to be able to move-attack-move (better than anyone else) and that ability is harmed by going first - though the rogue is in every other way encouraged by the rules to have a high Dex.

Casting Burning Hands is often harmed by going first (foes spread out too much).

Casting Fireball is often helped by going first (PCs too far from foes).

The point that you appear to be missing (or maybe ignoring) is that the situation is never perfect for all PCs.

Where in the rules does it state that a rogue should be able to use sneak attack damage in the first round every time? Or alternatively, why is readying in the first round to throw a dagger such a subpar option? Is it because the Rogue cannot then go hide behind cover afterwards? Welcome to the world of the rest of the PCs. They too cannot do every single thing they want to do, every single round.

Your argument that this is a core feature of the rogue and he sometimes cannot use it during the first round seems fairly weak. Every PC has core features that they cannot necessarily use in either the first round, or some subsequent round.

Deal.

Houserule, or give your rogue PC a Ring of Invisibility (so that he can do what he wants to do the first round every time), or explain to your players why Delay changes the balance of the current game system.

It really sounds like your rogue player wants to be able to move, sneak attack, move, and hide whenever he wants; and your wizard player wants to move, cast, and move behind cover whenever he wants. Readying is not an option. Again, player expectations.

I'd like a magic item for my PC, but I deal with the game as it comes.

 

[Thank Dog]

Ok, so, I said before that if you want to delay you just don't do anything in that round but the OP seems to have overlooked that simple aspect of the rules in favour of arguing with KarinsDad. So I'll try and go a little more in depth in the hopes of it sticking.

Don't look at rounds as an encapsulated, stand-alone system. Instead, view them as a continuous flow of movement and action. In this respect, doing nothing on your initiative isn't any different to Delay as it worked in previous editions. You're simply "delaying" until a more opportune moment in the flow of battle, which is your next turn in initiative. I think people are viewing it as a punishment because they feel as if they "miss" a turn however this isn't really the case since with the old Delay rule, your initiative changes to a lower score which affects all future turns in the combat, which is in effect much the same as missing a turn at the start of combat if you view rounds as a continuous flow rather than a block of action. If you choose to do nothing on a turn in 5e, well, you still retain your initiative and thus go sooner on the next round than you would had you Delayed as though in previous editions.

 

[Paraxis]

I don't think delaying on the first turn could possibly have any unintended negative consequences at all.

 

[Piratecat]

I let my players delay, with the explicit understanding they can't do so if it messes with a spell effect or death save. Heck, they suggested that condition. It's been great and hasn't messed anything up.

I'll also note that for us, Delay wastes virtually no time at all. Maybe 3 seconds, and it makes my players happy and makes the game more fun for me (my monsters delay, too.) I'll take that tradeoff.

 

[Scorpio616]

Rolling high on initiative should never be punishment, yet that is exactly what it is without a way to reduce your initiative number. Players should be fighting their opponents, not the initiative system

I can't believe so many folks seem to want to punish teamwork. Having to give up your action or possibly whole round so your caster can throw an area effect before tanks can close in followed by the rogue is poor game design in a game about working together.

Ready is hardly the answer either as taking the Ready heavily punishes the taker by not only eating up the player's Action, it requiring a specific trigger and takes up the player's Reaction as well. That can be worth it to interrupt a foes actual action, but is just overly punitive what they players are just trying to act like the team they are supposed to be.

 

[KarinsDad]

I let my players delay, with the explicit understanding they can't do so if it messes with a spell effect or death save. Heck, they suggested that condition. It's been great and hasn't messed anything up.

I'll also note that for us, Delay wastes virtually no time at all. Maybe 3 seconds, and it makes my players happy and makes the game more fun for me (my monsters delay, too.) I'll take that tradeoff.

We use a magnetic board, so Delay was rarely a problem for us time-wise. Just slide the creature's magnetic nametag to the right. This can also work well with 3x5 cards. But if people write down inits on a sheet of paper or on dry erase, I could see where it might eventually start getting messy.

Interestingly enough, 4 of our 7 players hadn't played D&D since the 2E days with the exception of a 6 month stint into 4E. So, they do not miss Delay in 5E because they rarely used it in the first place.

 

[Mistwell]

Casting Burning Hands is often harmed by going first (foes spread out too much).

Casting Fireball is often helped by going first (PCs too far from foes).

The point that you appear to be missing (or maybe ignoring) is that the situation is never perfect for all PCs.

Where in the rules does it state that a rogue should be able to use sneak attack damage in the first round every time?

Anymore strawmen you want to slay? Cause none of that appears to be a reply to any position I've taken.

Or alternatively, why is readying in the first round to throw a dagger such a subpar option? Is it because the Rogue cannot then go hide behind cover afterwards? Welcome to the world of the rest of the PCs. They too cannot do every single thing they want to do, every single round.

Again with the strawmen?

I am talking about a minor change to the first round of combat on occasion, with a couple of examples to demonstrate some of the reasons for the change. I am not talking about anyone getting every single thing they want to do every single round.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anymore strawmen you want to slay? Cause none of that appears to be a reply to any position I've taken.



Again with the strawmen?

I am talking about a minor change to the first round of combat on occasion, with a couple of examples to demonstrate some of the reasons for the change. I am not talking about anyone getting every single thing they want to do every single round.

You know, you sure use the phrase "strawmen" quite a bit when people disagree with you. As if your particular narrow points are worthy of discussion, but other people's points are not.

You cannot just discuss the actual subject? You have to jump to declaring fallacies in an attempt to down play the opposing POV in order to support your POV (which is actually called Argument from Fallacy)?

You ask for advice. People give it. You don't like it, so you go into heavy debate mode.

Sorry, this isn't a debating club and I'm not going to reply based on your rules. You "win" this one with your unwillingness to listen to other people's POVs and yet again pulling out the "strawmen" card.

Have fun in your game.

 

[Mistwell]

You know, you sure use the phrase "strawmen" quite a bit when people disagree with you. As if your particular narrow points are worthy of discussion, but other people's points are not.

You repeatedly claimed I was saying that everyone should get everything they want every round. It was a false claim, really unhelpful, rude and aggressive. Strawman was the most generous way I could think of to put it. If you consider the other words I could use to describe that tactic you used, I think you will find the others are less polite.

You cannot just discuss the actual subject? You have to jump to declaring fallacies in an attempt to down play the opposing POV in order to support your POV (which is actually called Argument from Fallacy)?

I was discussing the topic, and then you made claims about every player getting everything they want every round. It was you who jumped to that other topic that nobody else in this thread was discussing.