D&D 5E Voluntarily taking lower Initiative?

[Li Shenron]

Is there any RAW way to move your turn further down the Initiative order?

IIRC the designers explained that a "Delay" rule would have complicated the description and handling of round-based effects and features, and thinking that it would be useful only in corner cases (like yours), they decided to avoid having a Delay rule at all.

It's clearly possible to add it back to the game as a house rule. But I suggest you to allow it only for use in such corner case at first, before allowing it generally.

Possible exploitations might include someone delaying while under a certain effect that applies on her turn, just enough to wait for an ally to "heal" her from the spell and therefore evade the effect.

 

[delericho]

Your turn involves several decisions, including where to move and what action to take. If you could delay your turn, your decision-making would possibly become slower, since you would have to consider whether you wanted to take your turn at all. Multiply that extra analysis by the number of characters and monsters in a combat, and you have the potential for many slow-downs in play.

Ironically, the lack of a Delay action is a major cause of slow-down in my game.

I have a player who suffers from severe analysis paralysis, such that every turn is an agony of him deciding just how best to use his action. Trying to get him to speed up just doesn't work, and is sometimes counter-productive as he panics and takes even longer to decide.

With a Delay action, it's simple - he just says "Delay", and I say, "okay, tell me when you're ready", and move on. No big deal. Without that, I'm left with two unpleasant choices - either accept the slow-down and wait for him, or put a time limit and see him miss out on turn, after turn, after turn.

 

[happyhermit]

Hiya.

I'm always amazed (and a bit confused) when I hear of tables that have players that specifically state "I use the Ready Action", "I use the Attack Action", "I use the Dash Action", etc. To me that sounds exactly like those folks are trying desperately to emulate a turn-based computer game. ... ... ... huh...

This phenomenon isn't relegated to just Combat stuff. I hear of tables wherein the players also say things like "I use my Perception skill", "I'll roll my Diplomacy to get the captain to agree with me", "I rolled a 17 on Sense Motive, is he lying?".

It would be very rare for me to hear anything like that as well, usually it is much more along the lines of "I ATTACK!" or on occasion "I wait until X, then I want to Y", the players say what they want to do, then it gets resolved. I have seen some tables where the players just roll a skill without the GM calling for one... that is another topic.

The OP was specifically asking about RAW though, so that has been mostly what was discussed. I think we mostly agree that bending initiative has some issues, like with spells, but is not the hardest thing to tinker with, especially in rare circumstances. I find the RAW makes the GM's job pretty easy though, compared to some alternatives.

I believe it is a problem in the sense that, if because you cant ready your full action, fighters etc with multiple attacks are oddly penalized in any situation where they need to ready action to respond, eg enemy rogue moving in and our from behind cover, firing off SA arrows. The rogue is doing full damage, the fighter is doing reduced damage due to losing any additional attacks. This is the same problem fighters have with OA's, incidentally.

In my view this is a flaw. I see no reason why you would want to restrict OAs or ready action to a single attack. It simply penalizes multi attack classes for no good reason (as far as I can tell).

It really is a valid point, it definitely doesn't give an advantage to the fighter for the most part.

To put it into perspective though what we are mostly talking about is that; a level 5+ fighter, facing a ranged enemy that is moving in and out of cover, who chooses to use their ready action to interrupt the enemies turn (which means they are choosing to not take OAs), MAY do less damage than a character of another class who takes the same action. In the overall picture of D&D, this is a pretty rare situation and a small difference, the fighters I have seen at the table haven't been bothered by this, there often something else for them to attack anyways or they run up and kill it. Also, action surge, lets them do something on their turn, and then still take a shot at that sneaky archer.

 

[S'mon]

I think it's definitely a reasonable house rule to let characters voluntarily lower their init roll when it's rolled. If a character has minions I think it'd even be reasonable to let them all go on his/her init, I do that for NPCs sometimes & turnabout is fair play.

But as the design team said, there are good reasons for not having a Delay action per se that can be used in combat to change the init board, and I like how Ready no longer changes your init count. It definitely helps things run faster.

 

[Guest 6801328]

See if the DM will allow you to create a feat that gives you + or - 2 on your initiative, chosen after all initiatives are rolled.

Adventurer's League. Strict RAW. Nor would I spend an ASI to improve Shield Master; it's already pretty darned good.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ironically, the lack of a Delay action is a major cause of slow-down in my game.

I have a player who suffers from severe analysis paralysis, such that every turn is an agony of him deciding just how best to use his action. Trying to get him to speed up just doesn't work, and is sometimes counter-productive as he panics and takes even longer to decide.

With a Delay action, it's simple - he just says "Delay", and I say, "okay, tell me when you're ready", and move on. No big deal. Without that, I'm left with two unpleasant choices - either accept the slow-down and wait for him, or put a time limit and see him miss out on turn, after turn, after turn.

Let him (and your other players) know that once their turn comes up, they have 3 seconds to announce an action, or else they take the dodge action.

Sooner or later they'll catch on.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[delericho]

Let him (and your other players) know that once their turn comes up, they have 3 seconds to announce an action, or else they take the dodge action.

Sooner or later they'll catch on.

Yeah, normally I'd do that. But in this instance, that ruling would mean that PC taking no action for entire combats, which is unacceptably draconian.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Hiya.

I'm always amazed (and a bit confused) when I hear of tables that have players that specifically state "I use the Ready Action", "I use the Attack Action", "I use the Dash Action", etc. To me that sounds exactly like those folks are trying desperately to emulate a turn-based computer game. ... ... ... huh...

This phenomenon isn't relegated to just Combat stuff. I hear of tables wherein the players also say things like "I use my Perception skill", "I'll roll my Diplomacy to get the captain to agree with me", "I rolled a 17 on Sense Motive, is he lying?".

I find this method of play...perplexing.

Maybe I'm in the minority (I hope not!), but how my games play out are by players saying things like "I'll wait to see if the Shield Mater pushes the orc down...and when/if he does, I'll stab the stinky green-skin with my spear!", "I'll attack the orc with my spear", or "Hell no! I'll run as fast as I can back down the hall to where the cleric is!". Or, not in combat, I hear things like "I'll keep an eye out for folks that seem to be eye-balling us...in particular, anyone that looks like an elf", "I ask the captain if he is adverse to a compromise...I propose that Black Dougal stay here, in custody, while he gives us time to find the true culprit...say, one day? If we don't succeed by then, Black Dougal and the rest of us will throw ourselves at his judgment and mercy", Or "That doesn't sound anywhere near true. Is he avoiding eye contact or anything? Is he fidgeting and stuff...I don't believe him".

Then, I, as DM, look at the rules of the game and decide if something fits what the player want's his character to do. Then I use those rules as is, modify based on the situation, or ignore them and come up with something on my own. We make some die rolls and play on.

So...to the OP... I can't see anything that wouldn't let you "Shove" the guy, and then bash him with your mace (or whatever). I also don't see any reason why the barbarian with a 2-h sword can't just stand next you you/him and wait for the opportunity to also get in on the "smash/stab/slice the guy on the ground" action. I mean, the player doesn't have to "pick" an action. That's not his job. His job is to role-play his character...the DM is there to then apply whatever rule fits best to help tell the story or adjudicate the situation.

Is my DM'ing so far out there nowadays? I mean, back when I was learning to DM (about 1981 I started to DM), sure, I tried to stick "to the rules"...but that only lasted a handful of sessions because most of the time the players were trying to do such crazy and outlandishly heroic (or dastardly!) things that the rules often didn't cover it much at all. Nowadays I can see that some may think that in order to have a character do something, his "choice of action" has to actually be an "Approved Action as Listed in The Book"...because that's what 3e fostered (if there isn't a rule...go buy another book...don't make it up on your own for the love of the gawds!...that's MADNESS!...you aren't a published professional RPG designer...you'll hurt yourself!...don't do it man!...you don't know what you're doing!... ).

Anyway..sorry for the little diversion. I just don't see how anyone could justifiably tell a player "No, you can't wait until he attacks you first" when that's, to me, the equivalent of saying "No, you can't pull the string to pour the bucket of water over the doorway when someone walks into the room". Same thing in my book.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I see both behaviors...heck I *use* both. Sometimes I say "I'll take the Dodge action this turn" and sometimes I narrate what I'm doing. In general I don't bother with the narration unless I have something novel and interesting to say. I especially look for ways to narrate such that it develops my character's personality, without being repetitive.

Just think how awful our favorite fantasy fiction would be if the authors narrated every single thrust and parry from every single character for an entire fight. They don't...they narrate the key moments. Unfortunately, in RPGs we can't just ignore the uninteresting ones; we still have to roll the dice and determine the results. So my view is that if you can expedite the mundane bits, perhaps by saying, "I use the X Action", it leaves you more table time for the really good parts.

Not I everyone I play with in AL agrees with me; there's always one or two players who use their turn to launch into elaborate narration, little of which I can remember 15 minutes later.

And maybe that's what I'm looking for: roleplaying that you remember not only 15 minutes later but 10 years later. "Remember the time...?" Describing my Dodge action is unlikely to achieve that.

P.S. As for the part about describing what you want to do and then having the DM determine what rule applies; that works great with novice players but for players who know the game I think it's simpler to have the player just say, "I'll use the Ready action and..." etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Ironically, the lack of a Delay action is a major cause of slow-down in my game.

I have a player who suffers from severe analysis paralysis, such that every turn is an agony of him deciding just how best to use his action. Trying to get him to speed up just doesn't work, and is sometimes counter-productive as he panics and takes even longer to decide.

With a Delay action, it's simple - he just says "Delay", and I say, "okay, tell me when you're ready", and move on. No big deal. Without that, I'm left with two unpleasant choices - either accept the slow-down and wait for him, or put a time limit and see him miss out on turn, after turn, after turn.

You could also talk to him in-between games and set up some sort of default attack action if he doesn't decide on an action in the time limit.

This is also one of the reasons that I dislike that the game has made every class complicated. Several types of players, yours being one of them, were very suited to AD&D fighters and rogues due to the small amount of options available to them in combat.

There is a need for classes like that, but you will invariably get people who want to play that class, but be unhappy with the limitations and then come complaining that fighters can't have nice things.