D&D 5E When to Roll Initiative

[Hriston]

We had a ton of issues with this in 5E -- more than any other edition, and I've been playing with at least a couple of these folks since 1E. Here's what I finally wrote up to add as much clarity as I could:

Perhaps a good rule of thumb for the "trigger" might be the declaration of an action (including any movement, of course) that would be opposed by anyone on the other side, given that timing is important for the resolution of the conflict.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm a little torn here, because this makes sense to me. This sounds like what I was talking about as far as using the occurrence of an encounter itself as the trigger for rolling initiative. As described, there's no hostile action taking place here, unless it's holding drawn weapons, which I assume the PCs are doing much of the time. There's nothing that tells me that combat's about to begin other than I'm looking at some ugly dudes, and the DM just said, "Roll initiative." What happens next is up to the players and the DM. There still might not be a fight.

Yeah, this is why in situations like this, I'll make it clear that there IS a fight if my intention is to have the "ugly dudes" attack. If they come around the corner and no one takes any violent actions, I'll just describe it as "You see a group of ugly looking guys. They have weapons in their hands but they don't immediately move to attack you. What do you do?"

If one of the PCs says "I attack them" then I say "Roll for initiative". If I decide that any of the ugly guys changes his mind and decides to attack I'll say "One of them seems tired of this conversation and starts to lunge towards you, ready to attack." then roll for initiative.

To me, this is better handled by just launching into the first round with an initiative roll right after the first person declares they are going to attack. Since everyone's ready to fight, it seems kind of arbitrary to resolve their attacks in Dexterity order rather than initiative. If the first person rolls low on initiative that just means she was slow to complete her attack. Why would those with a higher initiative wait for her to finish attacking once they knew a fight was going to erupt?

I agree. That's what initiative is for: Determining who goes first when a battle breaks out. The PCs might not WANT to fight, but the enemy isn't giving them a choice. Initiative tells you if the PCs managed to react before the actual attack takes place. Even if the allies of the Ugly Guy who started the fight don't want to attack, they don't have to during their turn.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I actually like to have everyone declare their actions at the beginning of the round anyway, so it shouldn't be that different to declare at least one first round action, the hostile one, before iniative is rolled.

I'm not a fan of declaring actions at the beginning of the round(though, that's how 2e worked and we ran it that was during that edition) because I like the dynamic feeling created when each person is able to adapt and react to the things around them. Often in our 2e games where we forced everyone to declare in advance there were constant incidents of "Alright, you finish your fireball but there are no enemies around to hit. All your allies ARE now standing where the enemies are so you hit them all with your fireball."

That definitely created a more chaotic battlefield where everything felt like it was happening simultaneously. But I found it wasn't very much fun for the players.

Now, obviously, you don't have to force to PCs to target their spells at the beginning of the round and you can allow them to cancel their actions if they no longer make sense and this solves a large number of problems.

It's just a little dissonant for me at that point to stop everything and go back in time, possibly allowing others to take actions that happen before the initial attack,

Yeah, just keep in mind that there is a difference between declaring an action and actually succeeding on it. When someone tells me "I draw my sword, run over attack one of the enemies" I'll just say "Alright, you draw your sword and then the enemies react by attacking you. Roll for initiative."

For the most part, I'll allow a simple non-action to be done before combat starts. Especially if it is drawing a weapon.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, just keep in mind that there is a difference between declaring an action and actually succeeding on it. When someone tells me "I draw my sword, run over attack one of the enemies" I'll just say "Alright, you draw your sword and then the enemies react by attacking you. Roll for initiative."

For the most part, I'll allow a simple non-action to be done before combat starts. Especially if it is drawing a weapon.

I'd actually rule that drawing a weapon counts as your one object interaction that you take on your turn as part of your attack, but I admit that's a relatively minor point.

 

[aramis erak]

I require the roll for initiative right after the declaration of the first weapon drawn, or the first attack, whichever comes first. I resolve the precipitous attack, then go to rounds. Not exactly by the rules, but close enough.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If two groups are together (party and NPCs) and are not expecting a fight, then the first person to say "I attack X" normally gets to resolve that before I even do initiative.... and it's the assassin with a good lucky shot could end the fight before it even starts.

 

[MG.0]

If two groups are together (party and NPCs) and are not expecting a fight, then the first person to say "I attack X" normally gets to resolve that before I even do initiative.... and it's the assassin with a good lucky shot could end the fight before it even starts.

I don't do that. Even assuming the attack was unexpected, the reaction time of the opponent ought to be considered. I like the idea of a contested deception vs insight check in that case to determine surprise in cases like that. A loss for the attacker means he gave away his intention before actually attacking. Perhaps the look on his face or his stance gave it away.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't do that. Even assuming the attack was unexpected, the reaction time of the opponent ought to be considered. I like the idea of a contested deception vs insight check in that case to determine surprise in cases like that. A loss for the attacker means he gave away his intention before actually attacking. Perhaps the look on his face or his stance gave it away.

We used to do it that way when we were in school, but simplistic fun won out over mechanics

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm using a simple house rule. I'd prefer not to, and just go with the rules as I understand them, but that leaves you with the oddity of the assassinate nerf.

Before I get to the house rule, my general ruling is that everyone rolls initiative as soon as someone declares an obviously hostile action (or an action that others might perceive of as hostile and decide to act before). That seems to fit the book fairly well.

The only real problem is ambushes. If nobody even knows your party is there, why should they get to react to you in a way that will nerf assassinate some of the time and not others?

So the house rule: If the party is undetected by their opponents, and they want one character to go first (maybe the assassin, or the caster with a fireball, etc), that character goes at the beginning of the round. In the remaining rounds of the battle they act on their normal initiative.

 

[Hriston]

If nobody even knows your party is there, why should they get to react to you in a way that will nerf assassinate some of the time and not others?

By the time they react, they do know your party is there. As per Shield, you take the reaction when you are hit (or targeted by Magic Missile, which sets off your Spidey-senses). If you get them while they're still surprised they can't do that.