D&D 5E Transitioning to Combat

[Lyxen]

So, I'm glad, because I find part of the objection to this to be... torturous rules-mongering, no matter what Jeremy Crawford thinks.

I think they tried to keep things simple, but like stealth (to which it's partially linked), it's an area with so many edge cases that it probably has to be specific rulings in many cases.

In the rules Ready appears in the "actions in combat" section. However, Cast Spells, Help, Hide, Search, and Use Objects are all things characters can clearly do outside of combat, so merely appearing on the Actions in Combat list doesn't mean you can't do it other times! While Crawford has his take on it, the rules a written don't explicitly prohibit it.

I use the same reasoning here.

The stronger argument, though, is that, "I ready to pull the lever as soon as the Evil Duke enters the room," should be a perfectly cromulent declaration for your character's action. Any rules interpretation that does not allow for such needs to go into the ashcan.

Indeed.

If that's not enough, we can note that in the case of ambush, the Readied action won't happen outside of combat. Bob says that he intends to start combat. Jill readies to go after Bob. John readies to go after Jill. Sarah readies to go after John. None of the readied actions will happen before Bob starts the fight! It's fine!

This is exactly the way I reason as well, it's the right way to synchronise, and for me the cherry on the cake is that it rewards players who actually plan for their ambush in a coordinated manner, while at the same time allowing it for their adversaries if the PCs are not careful.

For those who are supremely picky, we can note that this can all backfire spectacularly if Bob doesn't get surprise.

Yes, I think that's one of the beauties of the readied actions if they are used properly, they need to be specific, and because they need to be based on something perceivable by the character, it avoids a lot of shenanigans and metagaming about triggering them on technical game elements like "when it's his turn" or "when initiative is rolled".

 

[Lyxen]

If you are sufficiently prepared, and your opponent is sufficiently unprepared, they will be "Surprised" and will not be able to do anything in the first turn of combat regardless of the initial initiative role, so there is still a benefit for setting up an ambush or whatever.

This is absolutely true and something that is very useful, my problem was more when both sides can be prepared, but not in the same way, as I like to incite everyone around the table to think and project themselves into the situation, and this induced preparedness. Readied actions help in keeping the bookkeeping to a minimum and not granting too much of an advantage like some of the suggestions did (although some of them totally make sense depending on the situation).

 

[Charlaquin]

Hi guys, thanks for all the replies, and my apologies for taking so long to respond. I see that a lot of suggestions have been made, here are my comments:

• @commandercrud, @DemoMonkey, @Charlaquin, @Bill Zebub, @Umbran, @Blue, @Northern Phoenix, @Steampunkette : when someone declares an action that initiates combat, roll initiative, initiative is king, everyone wants to be ready for combat.
  • While I agree that everyone would like to be ready for combat, some are not entitled to whereas others are, have prepared for it and are ready. Therefore, for me, it's a bit harsh to ignore the preparation, and I don't like the fact that combat suddenly wipes out everything that has gone on before. We've had many discussions with the DMs at our tables, and barring one exception, we all feel that it's a bit too much like a computer game switching to combat mode.

Huh? If someone involved in a combat isn’t prepared when initiative is rolled, they’re surprised. They still roll initiative but they can’t take actions or reactions until the end of their first turn in the combat.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is absolutely true and something that is very useful, my problem was more when both sides can be prepared, but not in the same way, as I like to incite everyone around the table to think and project themselves into the situation, and this induced preparedness. Readied actions help in keeping the bookkeeping to a minimum and not granting too much of an advantage like some of the suggestions did (although some of them totally make sense depending on the situation).

Ok, but you didn’t ask if it’s possible to ready an action before combat. You asked “how would you handle these situations?” to which I answered “I don’t have enough information. I need to know what actions the characters involved are actually taking.” If you had said someone was preparing to do something in response to something else, I might have suggested the Ready action.

 

[Lyxen]

Huh? If someone involved in a combat isn’t prepared when initiative is rolled, they’re surprised. They still roll initiative but they can’t take actions or reactions until the end of their first turn in the combat.

I think the game is far less subtle than this, basically, you are only surprised if you are not even aware that there are adversaries. But the game then makes no difference as to whether you are just aware of them or if you had actively prepared for a specific occurence.

Ok, but you didn’t ask if it’s possible to ready an action before combat. You asked “how would you handle these situations?” to which I answered “I don’t have enough information. I need to know what actions the characters involved are actually taking.” If you had said someone was preparing to do something in response to something else, I might have suggested the Ready action.

You are right, I didn't, because I wanted to have a look at a panel of solutions rather than to restrict the discussion around readied actions out of combat. But I'm glad that you would have mentioned it if I had provided more details, as, as you can see, I indeed think it's the right thing to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are right, I didn't, because I wanted to have a look at a panel of solutions rather than to restrict the discussion around readied actions out of combat. But I'm glad that you would have mentioned it if I had provided more details, as, as you can see, I indeed think it's the right thing to do.

I mean, I might have suggested it. I might not have. It depends on the specifics of what the characters are doing to try and accomplish their goals. That was my point: one can’t know what “the right thing to do” is without knowing what the actions are that they’re resolving. I wasn’t saying “initiative is king,” I was literally saying “I can’t give you an answer without more information.”

 

[Blue]

Hi guys, thanks for all the replies, and my apologies for taking so long to respond. I see that a lot of suggestions have been made, here are my comments:

• @commandercrud, @DemoMonkey, @Charlaquin, @Bill Zebub, @Umbran, @Blue, @Northern Phoenix, @Steampunkette : when someone declares an action that initiates combat, roll initiative, initiative is king, everyone wants to be ready for combat.
  • While I agree that everyone would like to be ready for combat, some are not entitled to whereas others are, have prepared for it and are ready. Therefore, for me, it's a bit harsh to ignore the preparation, and I don't like the fact that combat suddenly wipes out everything that has gone on before. We've had many discussions with the DMs at our tables, and barring one exception, we all feel that it's a bit too much like a computer game switching to combat mode.

Since I explicitly gave examples with potential surprise on either and both sides, as well as an example where the starting character is arbitrarily placed at the start of initiative, I don't think you have grasped my full response. Lots to read in this thread and I wasn't short in my response so it's understandable. It is significantly more nuanced.

That said, switching to a more granular timing does NOT require that everyone start fighting. I've had one person shoot an arrow and others stay talking trying to de-escalate. NOTHING in combat prevents every possible option -- it just presents more time granularity because some things are happening fast.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hi guys, thanks for all the replies, and my apologies for taking so long to respond. I see that a lot of suggestions have been made, here are my comments:

• @commandercrud, @DemoMonkey, @Charlaquin, @Bill Zebub, @Umbran, @Blue, @Northern Phoenix, @Steampunkette : when someone declares an action that initiates combat, roll initiative, initiative is king, everyone wants to be ready for combat.
  • While I agree that everyone would like to be ready for combat, some are not entitled to whereas others are, have prepared for it and are ready. Therefore, for me, it's a bit harsh to ignore the preparation, and I don't like the fact that combat suddenly wipes out everything that has gone on before. We've had many discussions with the DMs at our tables, and barring one exception, we all feel that it's a bit too much like a computer game switching to combat mode.
• @el-remmen : Roll initiative before combat so that even discussion can be timed and done in order and last minute actions before combat can be taken into combat.
  • I honestly really like that one, and we have been using it now and then in particular because it also controls those situations when everyone wants to speak at the same time, some to inflame the situation, others to calm it down. My main criticism of it is that it makes the discussions a but unnatural and combat becomes almost impossible to avoid, but the structure is good.
• @el-remmen : Advantage on initiative for assassin.
  • This one is a bit complicated for me, the assassin already has so many advantages linked to winning initiative, it becomes really overkill, and hard to tailor, why for him, under which condition, etc.
• @Steampunkette : Roll initiative against Insight check of bodyguard, assign Inititiative of 1 to clueless
  • Again, a good suggestions, just some that are hard to assess as to their applicability, whether it's a very local ruling or something that can happen often, and the circumstances in which it is allowed.
• @el-remmen : Making the (first) attack out of initiative
  • This is something that I have tried before, but it's slightly unsatisfactory, because it completely removes the effect of initiative, as well as being (as above) hard to assess what is the rationale for doing it sometimes and not all the time.
• @Quickleaf, @Ovinomancer, @Blue, @Steampunkette : lots of good suggestions about problem solving in general and playing smart, which are excellent, but less about the actual transitioning to combat.
• @GMMichael : Just a point, you don't need both sides to want combat, for me one side is sufficient...
• @Umbran: Hold (Ready, I think) Actions
  • This is the closest to the solution that I'm using. The only thing is that, theoretically, Ready actions are only combat actions, so combat must have started for them to be used.
  • So this is one of my very few departure from the RAW, I allow characters to ready actions outside of combat.
  • Some advantages: It's part of the game system, it's not a new mechanic, and it's easy to put in place, as well as easy to know when it's allowed.
  • It's also limited just like ready actions are, because you need to be specific about the trigger, and that trigger actually has to happen otherwise the action is lost. And you can ready a single action, which is a further limitation.
  • In turn this requires everyone to be clever about what they are looking for and about their response. It's also reasonably linked to roleplaying.
  • And of course, I allow it for NPCs too.
  • For me, it really solves each of the five examples in a fairly elegant way, assuming of course that whoever is playing in these situations thinks clearly and projects himself in the game world to imagine what could happen and how they would react.

I hope I have not forgotten or misrepresented anyone. In any case, thanks for all the really good solutions, would be happy to continue the discussion of course.

Yes, you're right, my response has very little actual transition to combat because, as I noted, you haven't sufficiently established the situation for any such transition. I said, quite often, that the examples given aren't at the combat whoosh (the term applied to the sudden stop and shift from more free play to combat rules) point. They are incomplete, and I will generally not fill in blanks in another's example.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, you're right, my response has very little actual transition to combat because, as I noted, you haven't sufficiently established the situation for any such transition. I said, quite often, that the examples given aren't at the combat whoosh (the term applied to the sudden stop and shift from more free play to combat rules) point. They are incomplete, and I will generally not fill in blanks in another's example.

This

 

[Lyxen]

I mean, I might have suggested it. I might not have. It depends on the specifics of what the characters are doing to try and accomplish their goals. That was my point: one can’t know what “the right thing to do” is without knowing what the actions are that they’re resolving. I wasn’t saying “initiative is king,” I was literally saying “I can’t give you an answer without more information.”

No worries.

Since I explicitly gave examples with potential surprise on either and both sides, as well as an example where the starting character is arbitrarily placed at the start of initiative, I don't think you have grasped my full response. Lots to read in this thread and I wasn't short in my response so it's understandable. It is significantly more nuanced.

I know, it's part of the charm of 5e, every situation sort of deserves its local ruling anyway.

That said, switching to a more granular timing does NOT require that everyone start fighting. I've had one person shoot an arrow and others stay talking trying to de-escalate. NOTHING in combat prevents every possible option -- it just presents more time granularity because some things are happening fast.

As I've mentioned, I do this sometimes, however, for verisimilitude as well as speeding up combat, I limit communication during fights to what the PH advocates: "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn." This is for free, and characters can also use their reaction to signal something that is happening outside their turn. Finally, this is supposing that they use their action to fight or something, if all they do are talking, I am more generous, but still, combat happens so fast that it would be really hard to manage a real negotiation in parallel. I don't think this has ever happened in our campaigns.