D&D 5E Voluntarily taking lower Initiative?

[Mercule]

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.

We definitely call out the Ready action. In part, this is because it has a definite impact on the flow of initiative -- the DM (me) appreciates the cue that the next combatant can go. We've periodically called out stuff like the Attack action only because the economy of actions is different in 5E than it was in 3E, so breaking it down explicitly can help with things like TWF and other bonus actions. For example the Fighter kept forgetting that she couldn't do both an off-hand attack and Second Wind, or that Action Surge didn't also give her an extra off-hand attack; breaking down the actions explicitly helped her, since she played a similar character in 3E (first time through 5E, everyone intentionally played a "comparison" character).

As far as calling out the skills, I (as DM) generally say things like "roll Intuition, or equivalent" so the players can make suggestions based on how they envisioned their character when building it. As DM, I appreciate them telling me what skill they want to use because it can prompt shared understanding of the rules and/or because it gives me the option to allow a "related" skill with penalty. As far as just "letting the skills fade into the background", I've played RPGs long enough to have witnessed some really painful things like a charmless player of the party face or "captain obvious" playing the subtle investigator. If it works out to have roleplaying moments just "flow", great, but the skill rolls are the insurance to let people play against their own type.

 

[Dausuul]

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

The specific case I'm thinking of is using Shield Master to Shove action to knock an enemy prone. If you are right before the enemy in the Initiative order then it's practically useless; if you can take your Shove action after the enemy's turn it could be invaluable.

(Because it's a bonus action with Shield Master, using Ready Action isn't really a very satisfactory solution.)

Not that I'm aware of. As DM, I use side-based initiative and let the players act in whatever order they wish, but that's a house rule. By the book, you go when you go.

In this particular case, though, you might get around the limitation by having the other PCs ready actions. If the other PCs get positioned and then ready their attacks, you can use the Shield Master knockdown on your regular initiative; then they all unload.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Under those circumstances I'd just let him Delay as a house rule. Or maybe more of a jumbo-sized Ready: it doesn't seem necessary to change the initiative order or do any of the other fiddly bookkeeping stuff Delay used to do. He's clearly not trying to game the system.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I think your "kids these days" ramble is being unfair and unkind to everyone else here, and it is certainly based on a misunderstanding of the issue under discussion.
***SNIP***

So please, read more carefully. Your post really comes across as a knee-jerk response, a rush to judgment that carries you off in the wrong direction entirely.

I didn't mean to seem unfair/unkind...and I can definitely see that I misunderstood the core of the OP. Dealing strickly with RAW, however, especially in 5e is...hmmm. Lets say it seems like only reading the Cliff Notes of an RPG system. The way an RPG works, from my perspective, is "Here, lets play make-believe!". Now, to avoid the 3rd grade arguments of who shot who first, we have rules/guidelines. However, the core of the game is "lets play make believe". To me, that is the bedrock, the defining factor that seperates a table-top RPG with a computer one (for example). So when a RPG'er starts listing off 'actions' they "can" or "can't" have their character do, regardless of the whole "lets play make believe", that's where I get the disconnect.

To me, the ability to choose whatever action you want your character to try to do is the defining trait of an RPG. The RAW is there for when the "I shot you first!" arguments may pop up. "I wait for him to hit me first...then I'll go" is the "make believe" part of RPG's, and, to me, trump the RAW every single time.

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.
***SNIP***

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.

Yup, I'm with ya on this. I can and do hear "I'll just Dodge this round", or "Can I make a Perception check to notice anything unusual?", etc. However, those are usually not the answers I get when I ask "So, what do you do?". For some players I'm sure this is easier (e.g., ones who grew up with 3.x/PF/4e, or via computer games)...having an in-game "choice" makes them feel more comfortable. However, after a while they all (IME) eventually break out of those narrow definitions and embrace the "This is what I want to do..." type of play.

We definitely call out the Ready action. In part, this is because it has a definite impact on the flow of initiative -- the DM (me) appreciates the cue that the next combatant can go. We've periodically called out stuff like the Attack action only because the economy of actions is different in 5E than it was in 3E, so breaking it down explicitly can help with things like TWF and other bonus actions. For example the Fighter kept forgetting that she couldn't do both an off-hand attack and Second Wind, or that Action Surge didn't also give her an extra off-hand attack; breaking down the actions explicitly helped her, since she played a similar character in 3E (first time through 5E, everyone intentionally played a "comparison" character).

As far as calling out the skills, I (as DM) generally say things like "roll Intuition, or equivalent" so the players can make suggestions based on how they envisioned their character when building it. As DM, I appreciate them telling me what skill they want to use because it can prompt shared understanding of the rules and/or because it gives me the option to allow a "related" skill with penalty. As far as just "letting the skills fade into the background", I've played RPGs long enough to have witnessed some really painful things like a charmless player of the party face or "captain obvious" playing the subtle investigator. If it works out to have roleplaying moments just "flow", great, but the skill rolls are the insurance to let people play against their own type.

Yup, I can see that. I do ask for Initiative, most of the time...it's a good start for a combat!

As for the OP...playing in AL doesn't preclude that you have to state "I use the X Action". You can just say "I try and do X"...and leave it up to the DM to figure out the details (which, as I've stated, is how I believe the game is intended to be played....hell, any RPG for that matter). If the DM at the table says "No, that doesn't fit in to the RAW", then you just have to accept it. Hopefully your DM isn't that rigid and can say "Nothing really fits what you want to do, but This Action is closest. Lets do it like this...". You probably have to make a roll on something or give up something (e.g., "If you get hit, however, you lose your turn")...but, IMHO, a DM shouldn't say "No" to anything other than the truly absurd (e.g. "My fighter jumps off the cliff and wills himself to fly!").

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For some players I'm sure this is easier (e.g., ones who grew up with 3.x/PF/4e, or via computer games)...having an in-game "choice" makes them feel more comfortable.

Let's not turn this into an edition war, or patronize newer players. I've known 4E greenhorns who might as well be improv theater actors, and 1E grognards who couldn't step outside the framework of the rules if their life depended on it.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Let's not turn this into an edition war, or patronize newer players. I've known 4E greenhorns who might as well be improv theater actors, and 1E grognards who couldn't step outside the framework of the rules if their life depended on it.

Oh, I'm not suggesting "all"...not by a long shot. However, it has been my personal experience that those who learned RPG'ing (D&D in particular) with one of those editions tend (as in the majority of them that' I've met and talked to) to have the idea that The Rules are what you go to FIRST when virtually anything comes up in the game. A minority of those folks are the outliers that then jump to "No, can't be done", with the rest turning to the DM. The problem comes when it is the DM that is the outliers. In extreme cases (which I have seen first hand...not a pretty sight, lemmetellya!), that outlier DM would "break the physics of his game" to conform to the rules; such as, oh, saying that a halfling actually falls slower through the air than a human because of their movement rate. Nowhere in the books did it cover "how fast you actually fall"...so he decided that rather than say "No, gravity doesn't exist" (which would have been a stretch even for him), he went with the rules that were there.

Yes, extreme case, I know. But as I said...I'm not suggesting "all" 3.x/PF/4e folks were like this. However, IME, I can only remember ONE person (a DM who DM'ed with this "Rules First & Only!") who fit into my "circle of wtf?". Everyone else I can think of fell into the 3.x/PF/4e.

Again, IME and not "everyone who learned with those games".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[S'mon]

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.

It sounds like you're sacrificing the fun of the group for that of this one indecisive player.
Or are the other players happy with the long waits while this player decides what to do?

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

As far as adjusting your initiative position, the only things I can think of which would work RAW to give you some control would be the lucky feat or two levels in divination wizard to get the portent feature. Either approach would require you to choose which die to use before the initiative order is set, but depending on how things work at your table, you might at least have some information about the order in which your allies will go.

 

[delericho]

It sounds like you're sacrificing the fun of the group for that of this one indecisive player.
Or are the other players happy with the long waits while this player decides what to do?

'Happy' isn't quite the word. But we're not going to eject the guy over this - the positives that he brings to the table outweigh this one negative.

I honestly wasn't asking for a fix to this issue; my table is mostly running fine. I was just noting that the argument that "removing Delay speeds up combat" isn't universally true.

 

[delericho]

It sounds like you're sacrificing the fun of the group for that of this one indecisive player.
Or are the other players happy with the long waits while this player decides what to do?

'Happy' isn't quite the word. But we're not going to eject the guy over this - the positives that he brings to the table outweigh this one negative.

I honestly wasn't asking for a fix to this issue; my table is mostly running fine. I was just noting that the argument that "removing Delay speeds up combat" isn't universally true.