November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!

November's Sage Advice column by WotC's Jeremy Crawford is up. This month deals with lightfoot halfing and wood elf hiding racial traits, some class features, backgrounds (you can have only one!), muticlassing, surprise rounds in combat, and more. Check out this month's Sage Advice here. The advice here has been added to the Sage Advice Compendium.

 

[MoutonRustique]

You don't have to make the right ruling. You have to make the ruling that results in the most fun at your table. Blindly following the Sage Advice is quite possibly going to mean you fail to make a ruling that results in the most fun.

I'd argue that is the right ruling (the one that results in most fun) - and how much fun it results in is very table/day/people/weather dependent.

For instance, things that bother me are not the same as for those who can watch CSI: Miami and enjoy it (and there are plenty that can, and plenty that do and find it great entertainment - which is excellent for them.*)

*IMPORTANT note: I do not subscribe to the idea that not liking something makes you in any form better than those that do like it (with regards to such things as TV shows - liking genocide makes you a lesser person than I, that I do believe.)

I'm not sure where I was going with this... but, my point has been stated and my feet are cold and the socks are way over there - so, talk to you guys later.

 

[Pauln6]

When you dash you move your speed (again). Rogues have always been able to move + (use action to dash and move again) + cunning action (bonus action to dash and move speed again).

Rogues can move 90' per round if they do nothing else (using all their movement, thier action to move another 30' and their bonus action to move another 30'). Running 90' in six seconds is far from cheesy. Thats a 20 second 100 yard dash which is hardly even a fast jog. Fighters can move this fast for a single round with action surge. Monks also (uses Ki, but they can eventually move much faster via increases to base speed).

All a wizard has to do is cast expeditious retreat.

How is it cheesy?

I'm not suggesting that it's unrealistic. I can run over 100 feet per round for a few rounds and I'm not even that fast or that fit. The real question might be why can't every class do that? However, they can't.

The rogue can do it every round indefinitely and there is no iconic reason why rogues should be fast sprinters or fast long distance runners unlike the iconic throwing a cart full of melons in your pursuing enemies' path. The fast movement is a side effect of the rules not the implementation of a classic rogue trope.

The fighter can double dash once per rest at the expense of an extra round of multiple attacks and that that seems like a reasonable trade off.

The mobile wood elf monk/rogue/fighter can double dash 165 feet every round and once per short rest they can move 220 feet. So yeah, it can get cheesy. Few things move faster than 40' per round. The fleeing rogue is essentially uncatchable unless being pursued by another rogue.

Having the opportunity to do a full move AND something cool is good enough for a 2 level dip. There should be only one dash per round for rogues IMO.

 

[brehobit]

But it isn't up to the DM. It has been the rule all along. And has even now just been clarified for you.

And the character is not reacting before something has happened they just gain the ability to have reactions.

Even if you can't understand the difference the rule should still be clear.

Na, the DM gets to decide when to roll initiative. As I DM I generally do it _after_ the thing that starts the fight. If you shoot, _that_ starts things going. Shot resolved, initiative rolled. I've seen DMs do that but put the person who shot at the top of the initiative round. I've seen it done all sorts of ways. But I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone, in 5e or otherwise, roll initiative after that attack is defined and then wait for the person who started things to actually _go_. I mean if an ally gets a higher initative than the person who started the whole thing off, do they get to take an action before the person who shot? If not, they are being penalized for having a high init. If so, then things get really weird.

The whole thing leads to a really weird set of outcomes.

Edit: I've now played with 6 different 5e DMs. And none have done this. It doesn't much matter unless you've got an assassin, but still...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you need to analyse the English language to this degree to ensure no-one is confused by unarmed strikes not being a weapon, chances are there's something wonky going on. Barring a compelling reason, I don't see the benefit in forcing people to have to go to such an in-depth analysis and would instead say melee weapon attacks are in fact weapons. See how much easier that is?

I went to that depth only because, had I not done so, I would have said little beyond, "Those aren't verbs, they're nouns," which would have invited a "you're just bickering" or "says who?" retort. I was heading that off at the pass by being thorough, and as I said at the start of the post, it had nothing really to do with my position on whether "unarmed strike" being an "attack," and a "weapon attack," but not a "weapon" is confusing.

There are really two simple approaches, if you feel a change is necessary. One: As you have done, allow that if something is referred to as a weapon in a specific/modified sense (natural weapon, melee weapon attack), it is a weapon. This has the advantage of requiring effectively no real change, other than broadening the reference of the term "weapon," but has the disadvantage of potentially allowing unforeseen, and unwanted, synergy now or in the future. The other: Eliminate the terms "melee weapon attack" and "natural weapon," as they are confusing (because they include, to varying degree, things that aren't weapons), and replace them with terms that do not invite such confusion, like "melee physical attack" or "melee object attack"/"natural offense(s)" or "natural armaments." This has the advantage of restoring the natural-ness of the language used and avoiding unwanted synergies (potential or actual), but requires post-release jargon changes and the introduction of perhaps-overly-technical-sounding terms.

(There is a third option but it's probably beyond the pale for most people: stop using the word "weapon" to refer solely to manufactured implements of violence, and instead define those things to be "arms" or the like, and having "weapon" be a higher order abstraction; then "melee weapon attack" would become "melee armament attack," and certain non-armament weapons would be allowed to qualify as a "melee armament attack" even though they are not, strictly speaking, "armaments." But this is so highly technical-sounding as to be possibly worse than the current situation, so I don't really think it's a valid option.)

The whole surprise attack rules also seem equally perplexing, but there is a (supposed, I haven't seen anyone math it out) balance reason there so I would say that is a compelling reason. Unarmed strikes seem to be lacking that compelling reason.

I think "preventing accidental synergies" is a valid reason to want to silo things into their own categories. I just strongly dislike the tortured logic required to make sense of the mandated synergies, when 5e supposedly values "natural language" over precise terms.

 

[abirdcall]

Na, the DM gets to decide when to roll initiative. As I DM I generally do it _after_ the thing that starts the fight. If you shoot, _that_ starts things going. Shot resolved, initiative rolled. I've seen DMs do that but put the person who shot at the top of the initiative round. I've seen it done all sorts of ways. But I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone, in 5e or otherwise, roll initiative after that attack is defined and then wait for the person who started things to actually _go_. I mean if an ally gets a higher initative than the person who started the whole thing off, do they get to take an action before the person who shot? If not, they are being penalized for having a high init. If so, then things get really weird.

The whole thing leads to a really weird set of outcomes.

Edit: I've now played with 6 different 5e DMs. And none have done this. It doesn't much matter unless you've got an assassin, but still...

Of course DMs are free to houserules however they want. That can be said about any rule. I don't see what is so special here.

I just don't get your confusion. I would have said it was clear before the Sage Advice on it. But now it has even been specifically clarified for you.

Initiative resolves who is able to act first in a scenario. Presumably everyone who is aware of each other wants that opportunity. In the case of the ally holding back for their friend to shoot that is represented by the ready action. This is a mundane thing that is well covered in the rules. I don't see how they are penalized, they can ready their action to act right after their friend then act on their regular initiative count.

I think you are making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. That may be where you are running into trouble. 5e is simple.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm not suggesting that it's unrealistic. I can run over 100 feet per round for a few rounds and I'm not even that fast or that fit. The real question might be why can't every class do that? However, they can't.

This is combat speed dude. Not flat out max runing speed. DnD combat movement doesnt model sprint races. A 20th level wood elf monk with the mobile feat using Ki to double dash + move each round doesnt come close to the top speed of Usain Bolt. If he dipped fighter he could match Usain over the 100m.

The rogue can do it every round indefinitely and there is no iconic reason why rogues should be fast sprinters or fast long distance runners unlike the iconic throwing a cart full of melons in your pursuing enemies' path.

Um yeah there is. Move in 30' (strike as your action) take dash action as a bonus action and move out 30'. It perfectly fits the rogues schtick as mobile strikers.

They can also dash and take any other action, like firing a wand behind them as they run off, or throwing melonds down.

Having the opportunity to do a full move AND something cool is good enough for a 2 level dip. There should be only one dash per round for rogues IMO.

Really? Your table going to see a sudden dip into Rogue for 2 levels for the ability to dash as a bonus action? I doubt it.

Let rogues be the mobile strikers theyre designed to be, and move on.

 

[Flamestrike]

Na, the DM gets to decide when to roll initiative. As I DM I generally do it _after_ the thing that starts the fight. If you shoot, _that_ starts things going. Shot resolved, initiative rolled.

Great. But thats a house rule.

If I declare I am shooting at you outside of combat then that starts combat and initiative is rolled. Anyone that beat me on initiative, sees me going for my bow, nocking an arrow and has a spit second chance to react before the shot is fired.

Its really not hard to narrate or to picture.

I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone, in 5e or otherwise, roll initiative after that attack is defined and then wait for the person who started things to actually _go_. I mean if an ally gets a higher initative than the person who started the whole thing off, do they get to take an action before the person who shot?

Yes, they do.

DnD initiative isnt about who can scream out 'I ATTACK!' the quickest at the table, with the first such person to blurt it out getting an automatic free round of combat, and automatic infinite initiative score.

The scream of I ATTACK! simply indicates its time to roll initiative and commence combat.

 

[brehobit]

Great. But thats a house rule.

If I declare I am shooting at you outside of combat then that starts combat and initiative is rolled. Anyone that beat me on initiative, sees me going for my bow, nocking an arrow and has a spit second chance to react before the shot is fired.

Its really not hard to narrate or to picture.



Yes, they do.

DnD initiative isnt about who can scream out 'I ATTACK!' the quickest at the table, with the first such person to blurt it out getting an automatic free round of combat, and automatic infinite initiative score.

The scream of I ATTACK! simply indicates its time to roll initiative and commence combat.

Wow. I really don't think you get my point. The party waits and starts the fight from hiding with a bowshot from "Bob". So initiative gets rolled. Bob rolls poorly. So in fact the fight starts with "Mary" throwing a fireball. Why? Hell if I know. It wasn't the plan. There was nothing in the story that would cause Mary to go first. But Mary does because she rolled higher and apparently _before_ the people with surprise even do anything, their _decision_ that they are going to do X (shoot a bow) causes something weird to happen and now the enemies may not be suprised. And so they do "Y" instead (shoot the fireball). Why? How does that make sense? No clue. But it's what happens.

Yes, I can easily play it that way. But no, I don't think it make sense--it violates my sense of causality (X causes Y to happen, but Y happens first).

And I don't think that allowing an attack outside of initiative is a house rule. It's one of the things the DM specifically gets to decide. And while it's probably only come up with 3 DMs in 5e, all have done it that way.

 

[Flamestrike]

Wow. I really don't think you get my point. The party waits and starts the fight from hiding with a bowshot from "Bob". So initiative gets rolled. Bob rolls poorly. So in fact the fight starts with "Mary" throwing a fireball. Why?

Because Mary jumped the gun and didnt ready a Fireball when her initiative result came up (triggered to go after Bob shoots his bow) like she was supposed to.

There was nothing in the story that would cause Mary to go first. But Mary does because she rolled higher and apparently _before_ the people with surprise even do anything, their _decision_ that they are going to do X (shoot a bow) causes something weird to happen and now the enemies may not be suprised. And so they do "Y" instead (shoot the fireball). Why?

Because Mary didnt wait. She acted before Bob shot. Fractionally before, perhaps imperceptively before . But before. She doesnt have to lob it first, if she beats Bobs inititive score, she can ready a fireball instead if she wants. She could also take the dodge action or the hide action while she waits for Bob to act (keeping her head down).

And I don't think that allowing an attack outside of initiative is a house rule

The rules for making attacks are clear as day in the book man. Allowing attacks outside of initiative order is a house rule (not that there is anything wrong with that). Attacking = combat.

If your character and my character are standing 30' away from each other and you suddenly decide to draw a gun and shoot me, you dont get a free round of combat or an infinite initiative score simply on account of you declaring it first.

Instead we roll initiative. An opposed Dex check to test our reflexes. I may even be quick enough to notice you go for your gun, and be able to draw and shoot you before you get to pull the trigger on yours.

 

[Pauln6]

A 20th level wood elf monk with the mobile feat using Ki to double dash + move each round doesnt come close to the top speed of Usain Bolt. If he dipped fighter he could match Usain over the 100m.

Um yeah there is. Move in 30' (strike as your action) take dash action as a bonus action and move out 30'. It perfectly fits the rogues schtick as mobile strikers.

They can also dash and take any other action, like firing a wand behind them as they run off, or throwing melonds down.

Let rogues be the mobile strikers theyre designed to be, and move on.

As I said, I understand that D&D speed limitations are not realistic. Using ki and action surge is using a limited resource for a temporary burst of speed. I'm fine with that. Move-attack-dash is what rogues are about, I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with a mobile rogue keeping up with a mounted horseman indefinitely or, if a wood elf, outpacing said horse. That's what I find cheesy. A burst of speed once per short rest or on spending inspiration I'm fine with. It's the ability to outpace pursuers or fleeing enemies at-will that I have an issue with. That's not particularly rogue-like. It's a cheesy side-effect.