D&D 5E Voluntarily taking lower Initiative?

[Flamestrike]

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.

I disagree. I prefer the simplicity personally (but its a matter of taste). I dont begrudge you for implementing this rule, but its not a deal breaker for mine (and again, it has its own advantages). In my games you only get a couple of seconds to declare an action on your turn also. If you dont, you take the dodge action.

I find this works well. I wasnt a hige fan of the 3.P system of delaying actions, as it invariably resulted in some pretty acute metagaming of the initiative sequence.

 

[delericho]

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.

In a cyclic initiative system, being last in one round is equivalent to being first in the next.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

In a cyclic initiative system, being last in one round is equivalent to being first in the next.

That doesn't matter here. If there are, for example, five players at the table, then there are six turns going on. If player P cannot make up their mind as to their action in the time taken by five other turns, then it doesn't matter where in the initiative order you place them.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The bookkeeping is trivial. The shenanigans that do exist are not problematic,

Is this from experience?

I ask because every time I've seen those sort of rules played, problematic shenanigans occur.

If Zed casts a 5 round duration spell in round one, when they happened to go first in initiative, then when does the spell end in round five, when Zed delays their action to go last? If you take the simple route and say "it ends at the start of Zed's turn in round 5" then (in my experience) Zed's player will always delay in round 5, so as to get the maximum duration.

Additionally, how do you resolve deadlocks? What happens when both Zed and Zod "wait and see"?

There are answers to these issues, of course, but I wouldn't call them trivial.

 

[delericho]

That doesn't matter here. If there are, for example, five players at the table, then there are six turns going on. If player P cannot make up their mind as to their action in the time taken by five other turns, then it doesn't matter where in the initiative order you place them.

If you say so. I thought I knew how things worked at my table, but I'll obviously bow to your superior experience.

 

[Ristamar]

Is this from experience?

I ask because every time I've seen those sort of rules played, problematic shenanigans occur.

If Zed casts a 5 round duration spell in round one, when they happened to go first in initiative, then when does the spell end in round five, when Zed delays their action to go last? If you take the simple route and say "it ends at the start of Zed's turn in round 5" then (in my experience) Zed's player will always delay in round 5, so as to get the maximum duration.

Additionally, how do you resolve deadlocks? What happens when both Zed and Zod "wait and see"?

There are answers to these issues, of course, but I wouldn't call them trivial.

When I was DM'ing 3.5, I used separate Initiative Cards for ongoing effects, slotted in with the rest of the PC's and enemies' cards when needed. If someone suffering an effect changed their spot in the cycle via a readied or delayed action, their initiative was divorced from the timing of the respective effect.

It sounds so trivial as I type it out, but it was actually a huge PITA, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it anymore.

 

[happyhermit]

It sounds so trivial as I type it out, but it was actually a huge PITA, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it anymore.

It doesn't sound trivial to me, it sounds like a PITA and for me it is, with extremely little benefit. I used to have a lot more patience for overhead than I seem to these days. Granted there are a few less effects going on in 5e, but I am really fine with it RAW at this point.

My initial thoughts were not so kind on the subject, I thought the split movement and ranged attacks were going to cause some problems for me to solve and I almost house-ruled, but nope, turned out to be one of the things some players liked and made for some fun situations on both sides.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If you say so. I thought I knew how things worked at my table, but I'll obviously bow to your superior experience.

Huh? How do things go at your table?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is this from experience?

I ask because every time I've seen those sort of rules played, problematic shenanigans occur.

If Zed casts a 5 round duration spell in round one, when they happened to go first in initiative, then when does the spell end in round five, when Zed delays their action to go last? If you take the simple route and say "it ends at the start of Zed's turn in round 5" then (in my experience) Zed's player will always delay in round 5, so as to get the maximum duration.

End it when Zed says "I delay" on the round that it ends. For one round spells, that leaves them as 1 round exactly. The next increment of duration is 6 rounds for tsunami and 10 round long spells. At that point I don't care if the caster delays somewhere in between. If the spell lasted that long, then adding some fraction of a round to it's duration is fairly irrelevant.

 

[Flamestrike]

End it when Zed says "I delay" on the round that it ends. For one round spells, that leaves them as 1 round exactly. The next increment of duration is 6 rounds for tsunami and 10 round long spells. At that point I don't care if the caster delays somewhere in between. If the spell lasted that long, then adding some fraction of a round to it's duration is fairly irrelevant.

So in addition to tracking individual creature initiative, you also now have to track individual spell initiative. Presumably this also means you have to also track individual condition initiative and effect initiative (so no delaying your way out of having to make death saves or saves against other effects, conditions or spells for example).

Seeing as most 5E combats last around 5 rounds and rarely longer than ten rounds, I fail to see how this extra bookeeping is really worth what small advantages it might bring in exchange.

I use the houserule that when you ready an attack action, you get your attack action. So if you're capable of multiple attacks with the attack action, you get them. Thats strikes a fair compromise for mine.