D&D 5E Voluntarily taking lower Initiative?

[Sunseeker]

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.

There's a reason that attack-replacement options are attack replacement options and not Action replacement options. If your options are: Make 1-3 attacks, or make 1-3 maneuver attempts, or any combination thereof as an Action or make 1 maneuver attempt or 1 attack as an action, but at some later point, the option wherein you get to make multiple attempts is clearly superior. There's a reason the fighter gets a lot of attacks and there's a reason they're attack replacement options.

 

[Rune]

There's a reason that attack-replacement options are attack replacement options and not Action replacement options. If your options are: Make 1-3 attacks, or make 1-3 maneuver attempts, or any combination thereof as an Action or make 1 maneuver attempt or 1 attack as an action, but at some later point, the option wherein you get to make multiple attempts is clearly superior. There's a reason the fighter gets a lot of attacks and there's a reason they're attack replacement options.

I certainly don't disagree with any of that. But it seems as if you are driving at some other, unspoken, point. Perhaps your original assertion that the Ready action sucks?

To which I would reply: the Ready action is good for the situations that it is good for. It isn't meant to be used often. Why bother getting rid of Delay if you're just going to clutter the initiative cycle with a bunch of Readied actions?

 

[Psikerlord#]

I certainly don't disagree with any of that. But it seems as if you are driving at some other, unspoken, point. Perhaps your original assertion that the Ready action sucks?

To which I would reply: the Ready action is good for the situations that it is good for. It isn't meant to be used often. Why bother getting rid of Delay if you're just going to clutter the initiative cycle with a bunch of Readied actions?

Indeed the ready action sucking is a design flaw. It means silly things like a monster moving out from behind a wall, shooting, then moving back behind a wall, cannot be properly dealt with.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I certainly don't disagree with any of that. But it seems as if you are driving at some other, unspoken, point. Perhaps your original assertion that the Ready action sucks?

To which I would reply: the Ready action is good for the situations that it is good for. It isn't meant to be used often. Why bother getting rid of Delay if you're just going to clutter the initiative cycle with a bunch of Readied actions?

Indeed the ready action sucking is a design flaw. It means silly things like a monster moving out from behind a wall, shooting, then moving back behind a wall, cannot be properly dealt with.

 

[happyhermit]

Indeed the ready action sucking is a design flaw. It means silly things like a monster moving out from behind a wall, shooting, then moving back behind a wall, cannot be properly dealt with.

That's a "problem" inherent in the combat system, or more accurately; the way the combat system works in 5e. It works for players too, often better than for monsters. Whether or not that is a problem or not is purely subjective, but that is the way the system works.

The fact that the ready action doesn't "fix" this "problem", doesn't mean anything unless it was intended to "properly deal with" that issue. It works fine for a whole lot of people as is, but can easily be ruled differently if that is an issue for some table. Splitting movement and using cover is one of the things my players love about 5e and it works great IME from both sides.

 

[Rune]

Indeed the ready action sucking is a design flaw. It means silly things like a monster moving out from behind a wall, shooting, then moving back behind a wall, cannot be properly dealt with.

Sure, it can.

Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn. First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.”
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger. Remember that you can take only one reaction per round.

Note that the trigger is a circumstance, not an action. This means you can ready an action to attack (or move next to someone) as soon as someone moves into sight from behind their cover. And the rule clearly intends for you to be able to respond to movement in such a way (rather than waiting for the whole movement to be concluded), or else the trapdoor example makes no sense. You take your action (or move) after the triggering circumstance has occurred, not after the triggering creature's action, movement, or turn concludes. If you can't deal with archers using that kind of leeway, you need to come up with better triggers.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That's a "problem" inherent in the combat system, or more accurately; the way the combat system works in 5e. It works for players too, often better than for monsters. Whether or not that is a problem or not is purely subjective, but that is the way the system works.

The fact that the ready action doesn't "fix" this "problem", doesn't mean anything unless it was intended to "properly deal with" that issue. It works fine for a whole lot of people as is, but can easily be ruled differently if that is an issue for some table. Splitting movement and using cover is one of the things my players love about 5e and it works great IME from both sides.

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).

 

[pming]

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

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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 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. Nobody is saying that the rules of the game disallow a character from waiting to attack. That's Readying, it is an "Approved Action as Listed in The Book" (p. 193 to be precise), and if you read the thread you'll note that, although there is some disagreement about its effectiveness, everybody acknowledges that characters are allowed to do it.

What is under discussion is different, and more abstract: whether a character can alter their place in the initiative order. Initiative is a construct of which the characters themselves know nothing, an artifact of the game system dividing up real-time combat into turns. It makes sense for the barbarian to say he's waiting to attack the orc; it does not make sense for the barbarian to say he wishes to move down to after the orc in the turn order. Furthermore, a common purpose of such alteration, as again you can see if you read the thread, is to manipulate the duration of spells that end "at the end of your turn" and other turn-based effects of that nature. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given the sensibilities towards roleplaying you've displayed so far, I have a very hard time imagining that this sort of gamist system (ab)use would sit well with you.

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.