D&D 5E Voluntarily taking lower Initiative?

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Ready an action to shove the enemy as a response to it starting its turn.

I'm sure there is a reason behind it but the lack of delay seems like a oversight to me. To answer, as far as I know, no there isn't. In your particular example, adding a grapple in to keep them down might help.

RAW, there's not many ways to pull Initiative Shenanigans like this, and it's a decision I certainly appreciate personally. In the narrative, there's no such thing as turns or initiative, everyone's just going as fast as they can.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would let any player who wanted to voluntarily take disadvantage on their initiative rolls do so.

That's tricky for the situation I'm describing, though, because I don't *always* want lower Initiative. It's only in those cases where the enemies are going immediately after me that I want to adjust it.

The fact that the DM rolls for the enemies in a group make it truly suck when I roll x and they roll x-1.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ready an action to shove the enemy as a response to it starting its turn.

As noted, that means I'm not using Shield Master I'm just using the Shove Action, which sort of isn't the point. I mean, in some situations that might be a good idea, but not as something I'm going to do every round.

RAW, there's not many ways to pull Initiative Shenanigans like this, and it's a decision I certainly appreciate personally. In the narrative, there's no such thing as turns or initiative, everyone's just going as fast as they can.

Agreed. Honestly I'm glad there isn't a way to do it because I'd be abusing the hell out of it. But if it were RAW I wouldn't be able to resist, either...

 

[Psikerlord#]

Nope, but not an oversight rather a design decision;



http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium.pdf

I think the third point is probably fair enough, although you could easily caveat that - you can delay but spells don't get extended as a result.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would let anyone take a 1 on initiative when first rolled if they so wished. But I would not let them delay, a tactic that I appreciate being removed in this edition.

The amount of table talk and analysis that would occur in our Pathfinder games was frustrating. Combat would grind to a halt as my player agonized over every decision possible, and would always be delaying their initiative to maximize their efforts, wreaking havoc with our initiative tracker. I used to call it going into "combat computer mode". just way too much analysis going on when we're trying to simulate a fast paced combat, where decisons have to be made instantly and without knowledge of game mechanics such as initiative order and delaying and so on.

Rant aside, if someone wanted to start combat with a low initiative, I don't really see the problem.

 

[Sunseeker]

The Ready action flat out sucks in 5E. This point cannot be argued. It is particularly detrimental to classes that make heavy use of the Bonus Action (such as Shield Master Fighters/Paladins, exactly what this thread it about) since you don't even get a Bonus Action when it's not your turn. Worse, it limits it to single attacks, so you cannot ready your Action and take the Attack Action at a different point, you just get one attack. Since grapple, shove and many combat maneuvers are attack-replacements, this is an even worse burden on those classes, since by limiting them to one attack, they are, like 3X, forced to choose between the only thing they can do that's contribution: IE: attack, and something that is interesting or fun.

The fact that this was a design decision only demonstrates poor foresight and the all-so typical lack of concern for the well-being of non-casters.

 

[happyhermit]

The Ready action flat out sucks in 5E. This point cannot be argued. ...

The fact that this was a design decision only demonstrates poor foresight and the all-so typical lack of concern for the well-being of non-casters.

It can certainly be argued that the ready action doesn't "suck", it just has a rather narrow use-case.

I don't think it was ever a design decision to have the "ready" action to be a replacement for "delaying action" though, it just handles some of the same functions.

They chose to go to a more solidified initiative order for the reasons mentioned and IMO it works well. Of course there are going to be situations like the O.P where it might not be ideal RAW, but that is going to be the case with any initiative system especially one that is a mixture of simultaneous and instantaneous actions.

Messing around with initiative can easily spiral into the whole party constantly discussing strategies and it can really slow the game down, and it increases overhead. I would add that it can also lead to a bit more predictability when certain players always want their "best" spot in the order.

 

[Sunseeker]

Messing around with initiative can easily spiral into the whole party constantly discussing strategies and it can really slow the game down, and it increases overhead. I would add that it can also lead to a bit more predictability when certain players always want their "best" spot in the order.

I've never experienced any sort of initiative system affecting this. Either your party is the type to discuss strategy, or it isn't. If it is, they'll discuss the best strategy they can with the initiative they have, if they're not, they won't.

The only solution I've ever found to this is an sand-timer.

 

[Rune]

The Ready action flat out sucks in 5E. This point cannot be argued. It is particularly detrimental to classes that make heavy use of the Bonus Action (such as Shield Master Fighters/Paladins, exactly what this thread it about) since you don't even get a Bonus Action when it's not your turn. Worse, it limits it to single attacks, so you cannot ready your Action and take the Attack Action at a different point, you just get one attack. Since grapple, shove and many combat maneuvers are attack-replacements, this is an even worse burden on those classes, since by limiting them to one attack, they are, like 3X, forced to choose between the only thing they can do that's contribution: IE: attack, and something that is interesting or fun.

The fact that this was a design decision only demonstrates poor foresight and the all-so typical lack of concern for the well-being of non-casters.

I think you are discounting that the true utility of attack-replacement options (such as shove and grapple) is in setting up tactical options for the whole party. In that light, giving up an attack, or even readying an action, can be a very good trade-off. Not so much if the player only cares about optimizing their own tactics.

 

[Rune]

To the matter of the OP:

Things you can do with Shield Master against an enemy who goes next in the initiative cycle:

• Push them down and take up half their move on their next turn.
  
• Push them over to an ally (or more) and move next to them so they trigger two (or more) opportunity attacks if they move away or past on their turn.
  
• Push them into hazardous terrain/spell effect area.
  
• If you have Extra Attack, make an attack, shove prone, drop weapon, grapple prone opponent to keep them from getting up on their turn. Not necessarily in that order.
  
• At the very least, shove prone and get Advantage on your own attack.

Still a strong option.