D&D 5E (2014) Voluntarily taking lower Initiative?

[spectacle]

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.

The champion fighter is the class you're looking for, no need to make decisions just roll to hit with every action.

However, my experience is that players who are best suited for a simple character are just as likely to pick a more complicated class. Just because they have problems deciding on actions in combat doesn't mean they don't want to have options. So the benefits of having a simple class in the game seems to be mostly theoretical.

 

[S'mon]

'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.

I wouldn't eject the player, but given that their behaviour is reducing fun for everyone else I would be ok with negative reinforcement - "OK, you make a standard attack/cantrip/take the Dodge Action" - until
they stepped on up. Having them make an at-will attack seems the kindest solution to me.

In 3e always used to require players to decide action within 6 seconds, as you say after that I could just go "OK you Delay", but if the monsters are up next that might as well be 'lose your turn'. I haven't seen this sort of indecision with 5e - you can always weapon attack/cantrip - or even 4e for some reason, mabe the clearly enumerated Powers help.

 

[delericho]

I wouldn't eject the player, but given that their behaviour is reducing fun for everyone else I would be ok with negative reinforcement - "OK, you make a standard attack/cantrip/take the Dodge Action" - until
they stepped on up.

I'm sorry, I appreciate the advice, but it's really not helpful. This player isn't trying to be a problem, and if he could correct the issue he would - as far as I can see, he just isn't able to "step on up".

 

[spectacle]

I'm sorry, I appreciate the advice, but it's really not helpful. This player isn't trying to be a problem, and if he could correct the issue he would - as far as I can see, he just isn't able to "step on up".

Have you considered letting him play a character who simply doesn't take part in combat?

 

[Maxperson]

Have you considered letting him play a character who simply doesn't take part in combat?

If everyone is playing such a game, that's fine. Otherwise it's a disruption as that player is trying to play a different game than anyone else at the table.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

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.

Not to be too mean to this player (whom I know nothing about), but I don't think delaying helps them. In fact, I think it makes the problem worse.

If they can't decide what to do in the time between their turn in one round and their turn in another round, then having them go later in the second round just gives them even less time to think about their action in the third round. What do you do then? Delay them further? Once they are going last in the round, they can't delay any more, and they still have the same problem.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

I disagree that its draconian. No player should be taking more than 3-6 seconds to declare an action in 5E.

Count down from 3 (6 if you want to be generous). If you reach 0, he takes the dodge action due to indecision.

He's not struggling to decide what to do, he's using the extra time to 'decide on the most optimal thing to do'.

There is no way known I would let a player slow down the game in such a manner for everyone else while he decides on the most optimal thing to do. His character doesnt have that luxury (nor does he have the omniscience that the PC does of the battlefield). The player gets a few seconds to decide and declare an action in the chaos of combat, then if no other action is declared I declare the dodge action for him and we move to the next player.

Trust me, you only have to do this once (with a fair warning before you implement it of course) and youll see players being very attentive when its not their turn, and combat will become a lot snappier and more dramatic.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's silly that this edition says "well, if A happened to roll initative lower than B, then he gets 4 attacks this round, otherwise he only gets 1". It's silly that this edition lets an archer pop up from behind cover and loose off 3 arrows, but if a wizard waits for him to do that, then he can no longer concentrate on polymorph.

The ready rules make the abstraction of initiative into a concrete thing that characters can see and abuse, as long as they are ranged combatants.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's silly that this edition says "well, if A happened to roll initative lower than B, then he gets 4 attacks this round, otherwise he only gets 1". It's silly that this edition lets an archer pop up from behind cover and loose off 3 arrows, but if a wizard waits for him to do that, then he can no longer concentrate on polymorph.

The ready rules make the abstraction of initiative into a concrete thing that characters can see and abuse, as long as they are ranged combatants.

Are you actually seeing this in your games? Im certainly not.

I find the advantages of removing the delay action (simpler, faster, quicker, less boopkeeping and avoids initiative shennanigans) outweight disadvantages.

That said, IMO if you ready the attack action, you should get all your attacks. I certainly rule this at my table.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Are you actually seeing this in your games? Im certainly not.

I find the advantages of removing the delay action (simpler, faster, quicker, less boopkeeping and avoids initiative shennanigans) outweight disadvantages.

That said, IMO if you ready the attack action, you should get all your attacks. I certainly rule this at my table.

The first time one of my players wanted to wait until his foe got close enough to charge, then charge him, I changed the ready action to allow you to reserve any and all actions and movement from your round, because to do otherwise was ridiculous. The alternative was him moving to a spot and hoping that his foe decided to come stand next to him.

The first time one of my players wanted to wait and see, I reinstituted the delay action, because forcing him to wait through the turns of multiple creatures to react to something when he had won initiative was ridiculous.

The bookkeeping is trivial. The shenanigans that do exist are not problematic, and are much less significant than those that occur otherwise. And most importantly, not having those options makes the existence of the initiative count intrusive to the fiction of the game.