D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Lanefan]

For the most part, I agree- the rules are overly harsh.

But as to counterspell interaction - I do rule that you can either identify the spell (usually no check unless it's some odd or unique spell) OR counterspell it, no time to do both.

I have it that counterspell simply stops any casting in its tracks by disrupting the flow of magic, meaning you don't need to know what specific spell it is you're countering.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When one is trying to present the fictional world as a place where the characters actually live and breathe

Yeah, that's mistake one, IMO.

After the game ignite itself for the umpteenth time trying to marry whoever's flawed view of how reality on Earth works to a game that has to be playable representing a fantasy world, it's so not worth it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm unsure how you could be uncertain of who was being discussed I think that should make things more clear.

It was unclear because at another point in the conversation, how aware thecharacters would be of their surroundings and what other people were up to was called into question. So your point about humans not being great at mutltitasking could have also applied to that.

5e shovels a ton of stuff onto the GM in order to avoid creating rules to carry that load so it can present a crunchy system as a flexible rules light thing to players. Sure individual bits offloaded from the rules to the gm might not be too big of a load on their own but they all add up to excess

I wouldn’t disagree with you that 5E and many other games tend to expect too much of the GM, but I don’t think that reactions are where we meed to draw the line. They’re easily managed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"Responding once it happens" is the key phrase here; when trying to respond to something that's already happening at reaction speed, by the time your response takes place the reaction you're trying to respond to has already occurred.

That's simply not true. How many examples do you need?

OK, then, how do you make it so the last person to act (i.e. in the metagame, the last player to declare their reaction) doesn't always win?

Three things here.

First, I don't worry about someone getting a win. A reaction and the spell slot are the player's resource to use, and I let them decide how they use it. It's an expected part of the game, and so I let it play out as expected.

Second, an instance of a counterspell being counterspelled isn't all that common. Nor is it all that big a deal. If one spell going off instead of being countered is that big a deal, then I have other things to worry about.

Third, I try to create situations where reactions matter. Where deciding to use it on one thing means it won't be available for another. This way there are potential consequences for the player's decision. It's definitely not always possible, in which case, I rely on points 1 and 2 to do most of the work here.

When initative rules don't apply (as is the case with chain reactions) the choice is that one can rule things happen in FIFO or LIFO order. LIFO gives too much advantage to the last player to speak up, and FIFO also makes more logical sense in the fiction.

I don't agree with this. The initiative order determines who goes when, it's not about who speaks up first.

Also, what makes sense in the fiction should be what happens. In my opinion, you are creating the problem by wanting the fiction to match the turn order of the game. Which is odd because you're making the gamist element paramount in the fiction, which goes against what you say below:

Yep. When one is trying to present the fictional world as a place where the characters actually live and breathe, gamist concerns all too often get in the way. Sure, there's places where those concerns are valid and can't be avoided; but there's many instances where there's a clear choice between the gamist option and the realistic option, and I try to take the realistic option where possible.

I would think that not adhering so strictly to the turn order when it comes to the fiction... accepting that the turn order may limit and restrict the players more than it does the characters... would pretty much resolve the problem you have.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's simply not true. How many examples do you need?

There was a species in deepspace9 that experienced time nonlinearly & even a pretty good episode about sisko explaining the concept of linear time to them. If not linearly... how do you experience time?

 

[hawkeyefan]

There was a species in deepspace9 that experienced time nonlinearly & even a pretty good episode about sisko explaining the concept of linear time to them. If not linearly... how do you experience time?

As a flat circle, obviously.

 

[Voadam]

There was a species in deepspace9 that experienced time nonlinearly & even a pretty good episode about sisko explaining the concept of linear time to them. If not linearly... how do you experience time?

In 5e D&D combat? Each person's perspective sequentially one at a time including possible interrupts for a six second period. Then repeat.

With the understanding that it is sort of happening sequentially, sort of simultaneously.

 

[tetrasodium]

In 5e D&D combat? Each person's perspective sequentially one at a time

That's linear time

including possible interrupts

These exist nonlinear by reaching back in time LIFOin ways that create a paradox that needs to be ignored.

for a six second period. Then repeat.

This would be linear too since the events of each round are sequential.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't agree with this. The initiative order determines who goes when, it's not about who speaks up first.

Reread what I wrote: I was specifically referring to times when the initiative order does not apply. Multiple reactions within the same initiative pip are one such case.

Also, what makes sense in the fiction should be what happens. In my opinion, you are creating the problem by wanting the fiction to match the turn order of the game.

I want the characters' actions in the fiction to reflect the declaration sequence at the table, in situations where initiative order doesn't apply.

 

[pemerton]

Reread what I wrote: I was specifically referring to times when the initiative order does not apply. Multiple reactions within the same initiative pip are one such case.

5e has no concept of an "initiative pip". To the best of my knowledge, that has not been part of any D&D initiative system except the one set out (somewhat obscurely) in Gygax's DMG.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Reread what I wrote: I was specifically referring to times when the initiative order does not apply. Multiple reactions within the same initiative pip are one such case.

But that’s how reactions work. They don’t take place outside of the initiative order, they take place within it. I take a reaction on someone else’s turn.

Reactions interrupt the triggering action.

I want the characters' actions in the fiction to reflect the declaration sequence at the table, in situations where initiative order doesn't apply.

Right and that’s the problem. Or at least, that’s what’s causing the conflict. You want the game to work differently than it does. Which is fine! But there’s no need for it to go beyond your preference. No need to claim others are doing things wrong, or twisting the fiction and so on.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There was a species in deepspace9 that experienced time nonlinearly & even a pretty good episode about sisko explaining the concept of linear time to them. If not linearly... how do you experience time?

After reading your link it made me want to watch it for a 3rd time.

 

[AnotherGuy]

OK, then, how do you make it so the last person to act (i.e. in the metagame, the last player to declare their reaction) doesn't always win?

Shield is an automatic fixed bonus to AC for the round. Additional attacks against the Shielded target may indeed bypass the now improved AC.
With Counterspell, it is automatic if the spell being countered is of a certain level, otherwise a roll is required.
In both instances resources are utilised, first in the use of their Reaction and second in expenditure of using a spell slot.
In a game which appears to value resource attrition (sometimes over fun)*, it is a reasonable cost for the so-called "win"

When initative rules don't apply (as is the case with chain reactions) the choice is that one can rule things happen in FIFO or LIFO order. LIFO gives too much advantage to the last player to speak up, and FIFO also makes more logical sense in the fiction.

I would say the fiction is only set in stone once the effects of the action have been resolved.
In our game, Reactions occur during that phase and not at the end allowing for the narrated fiction to be adjusted.


* Encounters/Day = results in unnecessary grind.

 

[Lanefan]

5e has no concept of an "initiative pip". To the best of my knowledge, that has not been part of any D&D initiative system except the one set out (somewhat obscurely) in Gygax's DMG.

You still know what I mean, though: if someone with initiative 15 starts an action that triggers a series of reactions, all those reactions take place within initiative 15 and they, plus the triggering action, all have to be sorted before the game can move on to initiative 14.

There's no term for an initiative count or initiative step so 'pip' will have to do until there is.

 

[Lanefan]

But that’s how reactions work. They don’t take place outside of the initiative order, they take place within it. I take a reaction on someone else’s turn.

Sigh.

When a series of reactions is triggered by one action, that series of reactions doesn't use initiative order to resolve. They're happening outside of initiative, as my immediate-previous post points out.

Right and that’s the problem. Or at least, that’s what’s causing the conflict. You want the game to work differently than it does. Which is fine! But there’s no need for it to go beyond your preference. No need to claim others are doing things wrong, or twisting the fiction and so on.

Oh, I'll gladly claim the game does this wrong and won't apologize for doing so, because the game does do this wrong.

 

[pemerton]

You still know what I mean, though: if someone with initiative 15 starts an action that triggers a series of reactions, all those reactions take place within initiative 15 and they, plus the triggering action, all have to be sorted before the game can move on to initiative 14.

There's no term for an initiative count or initiative step so 'pip' will have to do until there is.

I don't know what you mean by "all those reactions take place within initiative 15".

All those reactions are resolved at that point. This is a thing that happens in the real world. In the fiction, they are occurring more-or-less simultaneously with everything else that is happening in the round. This is a marked difference from Gygax's AD&D, which envisages that there is some sort of correlation between initiative numbers as a thing at the table, and moments in the fictional time when events occur.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know what you mean by "all those reactions take place within initiative 15".

Exactly what I say. If on initiative 15 I start a spell and you (and some others) all react to it, the person with initiative 14 doesn't get to use that initiative until all the stuff triggered on 15, plus the triggering action, gets sorted. Hence, it's logical to say all those reactions are taking place within initiative 15.

All those reactions are resolved at that point. This is a thing that happens in the real world. In the fiction, they are occurring more-or-less simultaneously with everything else that is happening in the round. This is a marked difference from Gygax's AD&D, which envisages that there is some sort of correlation between initiative numbers as a thing at the table, and moments in the fictional time when events occur.

Initiative count is a timekeeper. If I swing on init 18 and you swing on init 12 there's no doubt in anyone's mind, either at the table or in the fiction, that I swung first. Now in 5e the amount of actual in-game time between the two swings is indeed fairly trivial - each pip represents about 0.3 of a second if not less - but it's still enough to suggest your swing came slightly less than two seconds after mine.

And if initiative count isn't a timekeeper then what's the point of it?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sigh.

When a series of reactions is triggered by one action, that series of reactions doesn't use initiative order to resolve. They're happening outside of initiative, as my immediate-previous post points out.

So in the history of various editions and I even think within 5e you can ready an action or hold your action until a specific trigger occurs. Your "initiative pip" then moves to when the triggering action occurs. That is using one's initiative order.

If the above is possible why would other reactions be considered "outside of initiative"?

How do you view Attacks of Opportunity since they are effectively reactions?

 

[Lanefan]

So in the history of various editions and I even think within 5e you can ready an action or hold your action until a specific trigger occurs. Your "initiative pip" then moves to when the triggering action occurs. That is using one's initiative order.

If the above is possible why would other reactions be considered "outside of initiative"?

How do you view Attacks of Opportunity since they are effectively reactions?

They happen within the same 'pip' as whatever triggered them.

 

[pemerton]

Initiative count is a timekeeper. If I swing on init 18 and you swing on init 12 there's no doubt in anyone's mind, either at the table or in the fiction, that I swung first.

<snip>

And if initiative count isn't a timekeeper then what's the point of it?

I don't think the first quoted paragraph is true in 3E, 4e or 5e. If you were to read Gygax's description in his DMG of the combat round, and ignore the half-baked initiative stuff, it wouldn't apply there either. The melee combat round is full of "swings" and back-and-forth and so on.

The initiative count dictates the order in which actions are declared, and so those who go first have a chance to dictate the action (within the constraints set by the rules). What that means in the fiction is pretty wide-open, though.

Now in 5e the amount of actual in-game time between the two swings is indeed fairly trivial - each pip represents about 0.3 of a second if not less - but it's still enough to suggest your swing came slightly less than two seconds after mine.

Nothing in the 3E, 4e or 5e rules says anything about pips of initiative representing any amount of time. There are not 20 segments, of 0.3 seconds each, in the 6 second round. This is an importation from Gygax's initiative rules that has no basis in the rules text of those systems, nor the game play that they support.

EDIT: Here's sufficient proof of the point that doesn't even need to point to the broader issue of rules text - suppose three characters, A with initiative 20, B with initiative 2, and C with initiative 1. Each of A, B and C can resolve 30' of movement on their turn before the next character's movement is resolved. So are you really saying that A - the most quickly-reacting of these characters who gets to have the most influence over the shape of events (by having their actions declared and resolved first) takes 5.4 seconds to move their 30 feet (just over 5' per second), while the low-DEX B moves 30 feet in 0.3 seconds (ie a speed of 100' per second)?

It makes no sense. Which reinforces the point that initiative is a way of sequencing the declaration and resolution of actions. It's not a measure of anything.