Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[Maxperson]

There is nothing magical about initiative; it doesn't activate the combat mini-game, or empower character abilities. It's very simple, really. When you need to know who goes first, use initiative. If everything happens at more-or-less the same time, you don't need it.

You seem to be getting hung up on pedantic nonsense instead of just understanding how the game works.

Exactly. Initiative just is. It's not some sort of ability contest.

 

[5ekyu]

There is nothing magical about initiative; it doesn't activate the combat mini-game, or empower character abilities. It's very simple, really. When you need to know who goes first, use initiative. If everything happens at more-or-less the same time, you don't need it.

You seem to be getting hung up on pedantic nonsense instead of just understanding how the game works.

But really this is about understanding how the game works.

RAW - initiative *is* an ability check, not just something else entirely. that means guidance and a host of other effects can be applied to adjust your initiative check. Also, since it is just an ability check, it can have either advantage or disadvantage applied due to the reasons that allow advantage and disadvantage to be applied. That alone should be HUGE in terms of several of the key providers of advantage and disadvantage -
Do circumstances, environmental factors, particular cunning or previous actions give the character an edge - allowing advantage on the DEX check for initiative?

Do circumstantial aspect, environmental factors not already factored in or some aspect of the plan/actions place the character at a diasadvantage or make it more likely they would not go first? if so, disadvantage on the DEX check for initiative.

If it were some separate thing all its on, not an ability check, there would be no such clarity that advantage could be applied.

i think that for instance a number of the "but we should get surprise" that dont quite really qualify for surprise are very well handled by advantage or disadvantage on init rolls to reflect those "circumstances" or "plans".

As an ability check, its also entirely possible for the Gm to invoke the "some progress with setback" as well (theoretically if one was third or lower on the init list) but i for one do not choose to invoke "some progress with setback" on GM called for skill checks usually (some exceptions.)

 

[epithet]

Exactly. Initiative just is. It's not some sort of ability contest.

Well, it is, sort of. It is a contest to see who goes first. It is an opposed ability check, but you're right that it isn't like the typical check. For most ability checks, you say "I want the thing to happen" and then if you win the check, it happens. In this case, it's just an issue of who has the highest combined score, then who's in second place, etc. It is an opposed ability check that doesn't return a binary result.

But--and here's I think the big point of all this--it doesn't really matter. You know it's an ability check, so the Jack of All Trades feature applies, but beyond that you can call it what you want.

 

[epithet]

...initiative *is* an ability check, not just something else entirely. that means guidance and a host of other effects can be applied to adjust your initiative check. Also, since it is just an ability check, it can have either advantage or disadvantage applied due to the reasons that allow advantage and disadvantage to be applied. That alone should be HUGE in terms of several of the key providers of advantage and disadvantage - ...

Absolutely. I think everyone agrees that it it an ability check. That's important, too, for the reasons you mention.

The debate seems to be, for whatever reason, whether it is an ability contest. I don't really get that part. I mean, I roll a dex check, you roll a dex check, and we compare them to see who has the highest score. Seems like a contest to me, but as I said above: it doesn't matter. It's not a typical opposed check, so call it what you want.

 

[Hriston]

The declaration is by the player. The signaling is occurring in the game.

What about my post makes you think I don't already know this?

The merchant in my example did nothing. He's a weak NPC putz. That's why he has guards. The action was over before he realized that he came close to death.

Nevertheless, I'm sure he's opposed to someone trying to kill him.

That moment doesn't exist by RAW.

Of course it does. The rules don’t say there’s no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact. It’s a moment that “exists” in the fiction just as it would if the same situation happened in the real world.

You don't get to attack until after initiative. It's okay for you to do it that way in your games of course, but I'm discussing the rules as they are written. Not the rules as they are changed. By RAW, there is never a point in which a character can be attacking until after initiative is rolled.

This is incorrect. There's nothing in the rules that requires initiative to be rolled before a player makes an action declaration for his/her character to attack. In fact, for combat to be happening in the first place, someone needs to have made such a declaration, otherwise there’s no combat to resolve.

And the arm can move. It just can't attack. The PC draws back to punch and ends up knocked out because he loses initiative to the 5 friends of the guy he was about to punch. He pulled back his arm to launch the attack, but the attack never came. Or alternatively, he does manage to attack AFTER initiative is rolled.

This seems like a ridiculous amount of parsing of the action in an effort to separate out an "attack proper" from the overall action. You establish that a character has assumed a defensive stance or has wound-up a punch but not thrown it before you roll initiative, but even those actions imply fighting between opposed sides. Combat is already happening before anyone gets hit.

Sides opposing one another does not make initiative an opposed ability check. I've already demonstrated several things that you can do while sides are opposed to one another that don't involve opposition of any kind.

Perhaps the rest of the group has it easily in hand and I don't want to waste resources. Perhaps there is simply no gain in it or me personally. Perhaps we are being attacked by a group we know to be innocent or allies, but which aren't aware that we are with them and I don't want to harm them. Perhaps hundreds of other reasons. Use your imagination a bit. It's not hard to see many reasons why you would do nothing that don't involved boredom.

Sure, you can do things in combat that don't involve opposing your enemies, but if that was all that was going on there would be no need to roll initiative or resort to any other combat mechanics. It's the opposition between sides that initiative and the rest of the combat mechanics are called in to represent.

 

[Hussar]

Well, from what I understand, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that as per RAW, a contest in 5e D&D can only be between two actors. That any time you have more or less than 2 actors, it cannot be a contest. It requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what's written there, but, from what I understand, that's the issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, it is, sort of. It is a contest to see who goes first. It is an opposed ability check, but you're right that it isn't like the typical check. For most ability checks, you say "I want the thing to happen" and then if you win the check, it happens. In this case, it's just an issue of who has the highest combined score, then who's in second place, etc. It is an opposed ability check that doesn't return a binary result.

It doesn't count as an ability contest, though. It is an ability check, but it's only kinda sorta opposed, since those who win don't have to do anything to oppose anyone with their turn. Even when it is opposed, it's not direct opposition like you have when you arm wrestle or try to beat someone to a ring.

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely. I think everyone agrees that it it an ability check. That's important, too, for the reasons you mention.

The debate seems to be, for whatever reason, whether it is an ability contest. I don't really get that part. I mean, I roll a dex check, you roll a dex check, and we compare them to see who has the highest score. Seems like a contest to me, but as I said above: it doesn't matter. It's not a typical opposed check, so call it what you want.

An ability contest requires direct opposition, and initiative isn't direct at all. Everyone is just moving to do stuff and the roll is to see who goes first, second, third, etc.

 

[epithet]

Well, from what I understand, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that as per RAW, a contest in 5e D&D can only be between two actors. That any time you have more or less than 2 actors, it cannot be a contest. It requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what's written there, but, from what I understand, that's the issue.

Well, that's clearly not the case. If the Orc on the other side of the door is trying to push it open and the paladin is opposing that strength check, at the very least the ranger can use the help action to participate. It's not difficult to imagine that same paladin and ranger teaming up to push a hill giant over a cliff: "Let the warlock hex his strength, then you take the left leg and I'll take the right leg." A contest happens whenever an ability check is opposed. It's ultimately flexible.

If you want an example of an ability contest that's more like initiative than, for example, a grapple check, consider the following: the party makes an uneasy alliance with a hobgoblin to overcome the threat of the drow slavers who have captured them all. The group manages to overwhelm the drow that has the key to the prison, but that drow throws the key to an accomplice on the other side of the room. The pass is incomplete, and there is a scrum to see who comes up with the key among the drow accomplice, the hobgoblin who will betray you if he can, and your party rogue. All three make an ability check, with the high score getting the key in hand. Now, Max loves initiative, so for the sake of argument we'll say that it was obvious to everyone a round ago that the first drow intended to throw the key to his accomplice, and the accomplice, the hobgoblin, and the rogue all readied actions to catch or intercept it, and we're on the first drow's turn when the key is thrown. These ability checks are all reactions, all simultaneous. It's a three-way ability contest.

Bam.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, from what I understand, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that as per RAW, a contest in 5e D&D can only be between two actors. That any time you have more or less than 2 actors, it cannot be a contest. It requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what's written there, but, from what I understand, that's the issue.

No. It requires exactly what is written there. It specifies two.