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]

My summary is perhaps biased because I think [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is right.

The questions are:

Is rolling initiative an aspect of combat resolution?

Is rolling initiative a type of stat-check contest?​

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] answers yes to both questions, along the following lines:

If a player (for a PC) or the GM (for a NPC) declares a combat-ish action (attacking with a weapon, fireballing, etc) then (i) the combat rules are activated, and (ii) two sides (in the typical case, at least) are in opposition in respect of the just-commenced battle.

The fact of (i) refers us to the combat rules, which say to do various stuff at the start of combat including determining initiative for each participant. The fact of (ii) helps us understand how and why determining initiative is a type of stat-check contest: we have these opposed entities, each trying (literally) to get and retain the initiative in the battle that has just commenced, and so we use DEX for this (because it's the quickness/reaction time stat) and we compare results to work out who wins (because that's how contests work); and, because there are (often) more than two participants, we rank the non-winners by result (which is a logical extrapolation from the simple case of only two opponents).​

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answers no to both questions, along the following lines:

A contest depends upon opposition. (He also has views about direct opposition, but I think they can be set aside for economy.) Combat involves opposition; but combat doesn't commence until one entity attacks another; and an attack is not commenced/made until an attack action is declared; and an attack action cannot be declared until a character's turn comes up; and no one's turn can come up until an initiative order is established; and establishing such an order depends upon making initiative checks; hence initiative checks happen prior to combat commencing and prior to any opposition arising; hence initiative checks are not a stat-check contest, even though they might superficially look like it.​

An apparent consequence of Maxperson's approach is that the GM has to call for initiative checks based on some sort of intuition, or an apprehension of the possibility that an attack might be declared once the initiative sequence is established and hence characters start taking turns.

Hriston points to this consequence as one that divorces the call for initiative from that mechanic's place in the combat chapter; and adduces this as evidence in favour of the alternative view!

As I said, I think Hriston is right. But as per my post just upthread, I also think it's no surprise that this is contentious.

Not quite. Initiative is an aspect of combat resolution as combat cannot resolve without it. It just doesn't doesn't involve opposition as actions it allows don't have to oppose anyone or anything. The resulting actions are where opposition comes into play.

 

[Jester David]

Can someone please summarize this for me? I've totally lost track of this.

Two factions are having an extremely pedantic argument over the exact nature of initiative that in no way affects how the game is played or how initiative is used or defined.
It's basically fifty pages of internet forum discussing rules with the intensity of arguing over what defines a sandwich.

 

[cmad1977]

Two factions are having an extremely pedantic argument over the exact nature of initiative that in no way affects how the game is played or how initiative is used or defined.
It's basically fifty pages of internet forum discussing rules with the intensity of arguing over what defines a sandwich.

Yes. The list of people who’s input regarding the game I discard out of hand has gone up by at least two after going through this thread.

 

[SkidAce]

Can someone please summarize this for me? I've totally lost track of this.

Voila...

View attachment 102430

 

[Hriston]

No. It's simply false that a declaration to attack is an attack. It's a declaration and nothing more.

An action declaration to attack someone is something a player says at the table. An attack is a fictional event established in the fiction by said declaration. I haven't said those were the same thing, so if that's what you mean you must have misread something, but what I think you mean to say instead is that the only thing the player's action declaration establishes in the fiction is that his/her PC intends to attack. To me, that doesn't give the DM much to work with in resolving the actions of the PCs because it doesn't establish any actions. If all the players are allowed to say is the intent of their PCs then it would seem it's up to the DM to say what the PCs actually do in the fiction, at which point s/he's basically playing the players' characters for them. On the other hand, perhaps this distinction is mostly semantic.

A body language shift and/or he's reaching for his sword. What those things aren't, though, is an attack. The attack can't happen until after initiative.

I'm surprised that you're admitting "reaching for his sword" into the fiction before initiative. I would think, given your approach, that was something that couldn't happen until the PC's turn. Nevertheless, it seems to establish opposition before initiative.

In the process does not equal an attack, though. It's not an attack until the person actually, you know, attacks.

If I swing a punch at someone but haven't yet made contact (nor have I missed them), would you say I'm attacking them or not?

So what. That doesn't make initiative opposition. Does the combat section as a whole presume opposition? Yes. Does every combat rule involve opposition? Not even close.

It presents the initiative rules in the context of opposition.

LOL

If you don't think doing nothing on your turn is a valid strategy for opposing your foes, then why did you do it?

Great! Since I never once claimed that. We can agree to disagree about something I never said or agreed with in the first place.

Well, you're saying that opponents in combat aren't in opposition to each other when they roll initiative, aren't you? I don't agree that they stop opposing each other to roll initiative.

 

[Maxperson]

what I think you mean to say instead is that the only thing the player's action declaration establishes in the fiction is that his/her PC intends to attack. To me, that doesn't give the DM much to work with in resolving the actions of the PCs because it doesn't establish any actions. If all the players are allowed to say is the intent of their PCs then it would seem it's up to the DM to say what the PCs actually do in the fiction, at which point s/he's basically playing the players' characters for them.

This is untrue. They declare their action, which includes signaling that the other side can pick up. Initiative is rolled. When the player gets his turn, he tells me what they do in the fiction, which doesn't have to be what they declared initially as things may have changed. At no point am I dictating what the PCs do. It's astounding that you could actually end up there from what I said.

I'm surprised that you're admitting "reaching for his sword" into the fiction before initiative. I would think, given your approach, that was something that couldn't happen until the PC's turn. Nevertheless, it seems to establish opposition before initiative.

Opposition to what? He's just reaching for a sword.

If I swing a punch at someone but haven't yet made contact (nor have I missed them), would you say I'm attacking them or not?

If it's after initiative, yes. If it's before, you haven't taken a swing. You can't take the attack action, which is what a punch is, until after initiative is rolled.

It presents the initiative rules in the context of opposition.

No it doesn't. It presents them in the context of determining order of turns. It explicitly says this. It's the first line for God's sake, "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat."

If you don't think doing nothing on your turn is a valid strategy for opposing your foes, then why did you do it?

Nothing to do. Conservation of resources. I don't agree with attacking these people. Other reasons. Opposing the enemy hasn't ever been a consideration when I decide to do nothing.

Well, you're saying that opponents in combat aren't in opposition to each other when they roll initiative, aren't you? I don't agree that they stop opposing each other to roll initiative.

Opposition doesn't happen(and then only possibly) until someone takes the first action. Before that, when one or both sides do something to cause the perception if imminent combat, you determine surprise, then establish positions, then roll initiative. It's a pretty lame order as far as I'm concerned. If you don't know the positions, you can't really determine surprise, but whatever. That's the order they pick. Once initiative has been rolled and people start taking actions, they can opt to take actions that pull them into opposition, like attacking or grappling. Or they can take an action that doesn't involve opposition, like searching for an object, drinking a potion, casting a spell that doesn't oppose anything, moving and stopping and much much more!!

 

[Lanefan]

My summary is perhaps biased because I think [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is right.

The questions are:

Is rolling initiative an aspect of combat resolution?

Is rolling initiative a type of stat-check contest?​

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] answers yes to both questions, along the following lines:

If a player (for a PC) or the GM (for a NPC) declares a combat-ish action (attacking with a weapon, fireballing, etc) then (i) the combat rules are activated, and (ii) two sides (in the typical case, at least) are in opposition in respect of the just-commenced battle.

The fact of (i) refers us to the combat rules, which say to do various stuff at the start of combat including determining initiative for each participant. The fact of (ii) helps us understand how and why determining initiative is a type of stat-check contest: we have these opposed entities, each trying (literally) to get and retain the initiative in the battle that has just commenced, and so we use DEX for this (because it's the quickness/reaction time stat) and we compare results to work out who wins (because that's how contests work); and, because there are (often) more than two participants, we rank the non-winners by result (which is a logical extrapolation from the simple case of only two opponents).​

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answers no to both questions, along the following lines:

A contest depends upon opposition. (He also has views about direct opposition, but I think they can be set aside for economy.) Combat involves opposition; but combat doesn't commence until one entity attacks another; and an attack is not commenced/made until an attack action is declared; and an attack action cannot be declared until a character's turn comes up; and no one's turn can come up until an initiative order is established; and establishing such an order depends upon making initiative checks; hence initiative checks happen prior to combat commencing and prior to any opposition arising; hence initiative checks are not a stat-check contest, even though they might superficially look like it.​

An apparent consequence of Maxperson's approach is that the GM has to call for initiative checks based on some sort of intuition, or an apprehension of the possibility that an attack might be declared once the initiative sequence is established and hence characters start taking turns.

Hriston points to this consequence as one that divorces the call for initiative from that mechanic's place in the combat chapter; and adduces this as evidence in favour of the alternative view!

As I said, I think Hriston is right. But as per my post just upthread, I also think it's no surprise that this is contentious.

And all of this presupposes turn-based cyclical play where initiative isn't re-rolled or otherwise redetermined each round or at some other regular interval during the combat.

If re-rolling is in play then initiative most certainly does become an integral part of combat resolution...after the first round.

The difference in the first round is that someone (or a number of someones) might be able to act before anyone else is aware of it - as in Max's example of suddenly pulling a sword and attacking. Here some other mechanic - be it surprise or flat-footed or whatever else - is required to determine who gets to act right away vs. who is caught off guard. Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all! Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all! Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.

Me too. Some reasonable solutions include:

Max rolls Deception vs target Sense Motive to achieve Surprise. Then roll initiative. But what about Max's allies?
Max has Surprise, everyone else is Surprised, roll initiative.
Max gets Advantage on his Initiative check.
Max gets a free attack outside the combat round system. Then roll initiative.

I've probably used all of these depending on the circumstances, but for 5e I think simply giving Max advantage on the init check is the most elegant solution.

 

[Sadras]

I've probably used all of these depending on the circumstances, but for 5e I think simply giving Max advantage on the init check is the most elegant solution.

We have used this or with Max rolling but having a minimum 10 + Initiative Modifier.

 

[pemerton]

And all of this presupposes turn-based cyclical play where initiative isn't re-rolled or otherwise redetermined each round or at some other regular interval during the combat.

Of course! It's a discussion about the nature of 5e's intitiative rules, and 5e uses turn-by-turn combat resolution very similar to 3E and 4e.

The difference in the first round is that someone (or a number of someones) might be able to act before anyone else is aware of it - as in Max's example of suddenly pulling a sword and attacking. Here some other mechanic - be it surprise or flat-footed or whatever else - is required to determine who gets to act right away vs. who is caught off guard. Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all! Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has already discussed this - if Max loses initiative, then (among other things) we learn that he is not very quick on the draw! It's certainly not unheard of in genre fiction for the villains to try and get the drop on the hero, only for the latter to react unexpectedly quickly and turn the tables!

In 4e, Max might well get surprise if the others involved don't succeed on an appropriate Insight or Perception check. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] has given some suggestions for how 5e would deal with this.