D&D 5E When to Roll Initiative

[GMforPowergamers]

1) If both parties are planning on attacking each other, even if that choise is made 100% out of game...

so, if a PC says "I attack the dragon," but as the DM I decide the dragon just wont fight back (trying to talk or just gonna run) then no initiative, just resolve your attack.

2) weather combat or not, if order matters...

so if my PCs are in three driffent rooms both have traps but no monsters, I will have everyone roll initative and just keep track that way...

 

[Water Bob]

1) If both parties are planning on attacking each other, even if that choise is made 100% out of game...

so, if a PC says "I attack the dragon," but as the DM I decide the dragon just wont fight back (trying to talk or just gonna run) then no initiative, just resolve your attack.

2) weather combat or not, if order matters...

so if my PCs are in three driffent rooms both have traps but no monsters, I will have everyone roll initative and just keep track that way...

Yes, it takes two to Tango.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Easy for me. I roll Initiative when someone decides to do something that would actually require knowing if they can do that before someone who would oppose them.

If the PC's see orcs 200' away, and the orcs see them, and the orcs start to charge...then the wizard says "I'll cast Wall of Fire in front of them". Do I roll initiative? Nope. Why? The orcs can't do anything to oppose this action. Oh, wait...there's a half-dozen orcs with longbows who are drawing arrows to shoot? OK then...roll initiative.

The KEY thing to remember with the Initiative system is this: It's only useful when it's needed. If you and your group see someone or something as happening "before" or "after" something else going on in the scene...then the DM should just put on his big-boy pants and just say "The orcs can shoot first, sorry. They saw you first because it's night time and can see in the dark...you guys can't. After that, we'll roll some Initiative." It makes sense, is logical, and, as long as the DM is consistent (e.g., say the reverse... with it being noon and sunny against some drow in stead of orcs), use the "rules" as they are needed. And by "rules" I really mean "rough guidelines on how to play a fun game based on imagination". But, if the PC's and orcs could have seen each other at roughly the same time, go ahead and roll Initiative. Just because a rule is in the book does NOT​ mean you have to use it!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mercule]

Anyway, obviously, just how I do it. It all feels very internally consistent to me, which is, I think, what matters. Your way makes plenty of sense too. It's all just about what kind of personal logic you extrapolate to resolve corner cases.

Yup. I can see your way, too. I get hung up on the "auto-twenty" on the roll, so I don't allow anything that could be construed as interchangeable with an attack action. I'd gladly sit at a table using your ruling and not complain. My way feels more natural, to me, which I find valuable as a DM. I was just making sure that anyone reading the thread for ideas was clear that we used a subtly different line.

 

[Mercule]

So was it "stealthily opening" the door that was the problem, or "stealthily bypassing the lock"? I had the impression you were talking about an unlocked door, and they had to roll against Stealth to see how quietly they could open it. From your paragraph above though it sounds like the real problem may have been getting past the lock, requiring either a Thieves Tools roll or knocking the door down. In either case that's no longer something you can do in a single Use An Item interaction, so doing it stealthily makes more sense than if it were an unlocked door--because you are trying to delay combat until the lock is picked/bypassed.

The Rogue's stealth isn't an issue -- it's barely worth him rolling for most things. I don't think the door was locked, in my example. Even if it was, I'd allow it to be outside combat because there was nothing for the guard to observe so long as the rogue maintains his stealth. An attack or casting a spell that could be construed as a combat action is different in its effect on an observer and goes back to what I said about knowledge and whether they'd know to roll initiative.

By the time an attack is resolved, everyone knows it's time to roll initiative, therefore the only question for a surprise round was whether the participants knew before or after the attack. If it's before (say, an obvious drawing of steel), then there is no surprise. If it's after (e.g. open and shut stealth) then there is surprise. When they don't even know there might be cause to roll initiative after the action is completed, then there isn't any initiative to roll and the single knowledgeable side can continue to act. There isn't any formal order of actions or track of rounds, but the everyone should have a heightened awareness of time and pseudo-rounds.

There are some corner cases where you could have cascading rounds of surprise. If multiple guards are around the corner from one another, but an assassin knows about all of them and picks them off one at a time, Dishonored style, for example. Those are such outliers that I wouldn't even bother with too much guidance on them. The goal is to have enough of a framework for making rulings to foster consistency on my part and set expectations for planning on the part of the players.

 

[Celtavian]

The way I was doing initiative prior to Mearls Sage Ruling was the following:

1. First hostile action. I don't roll initiative for non-combat situations unless I need to know the order of actions. Otherwise I let things occur in an organic fashion letting each player act when it is seems natural for them to do so.

2. I ran a surprise round when the first hostile action was taken. Everyone rolled initiative, so I knew when saves or abilities worked. Anyone surprised could essentially take no actions which I assumed meant they did not take a turn, though they did have a turn. I made a distinction between taking a turn requiring they take some kind of action on their turn and having a turn where they had to make a roll that wasn't an action on their turn such as a save at the start or end. I thought the game made this distinction, but I guess it does not make a distinction between "taking a turn" and "having a turn." I wish it did as it makes more narrative sense in my opinion.

3. Once past the surprise round, initiative proceeded as normal.

The surprise round made sense mechanically because it allowed you to adjudicate saves or abilities occurring on a turn, while at the same time allowing for the narrative idea that the target doesn't know that an enemy that hasn't acted is present. It was a mechanical method of denying a turn based on lack of awareness, while still adjudicating all mechanics based on a turn that don't require awareness. With Mearls ruling that narrative idea has been removed and I'm supposed to operate under the assumption that the target always has some awareness an enemy is present, which I find absurd. It devalues Stealth and Perception and overvalues initiative. You could have a 5 Perception and a +10 initiative and still act faster than someone with a +17 stealth. That is absurd to me. I do not know why Mearls feels this is how it should be. My only hope is Crawford sees this a different way at some point in the future.

 

[Magistus71]

If the PCs don't spot the enemies, then there is a surprise round as the enemies get a round of attacks before moving on to the first round of combat. If the enemies don't spot the PCs, the same thing happens.

This is exactly how my group plays it.

 

[redrick]

The way I was doing initiative prior to Mearls Sage Ruling was the following:

1. First hostile action. I don't roll initiative for non-combat situations unless I need to know the order of actions. Otherwise I let things occur in an organic fashion letting each player act when it is seems natural for them to do so.

2. I ran a surprise round when the first hostile action was taken. Everyone rolled initiative, so I knew when saves or abilities worked. Anyone surprised could essentially take no actions which I assumed meant they did not take a turn, though they did have a turn. I made a distinction between taking a turn requiring they take some kind of action on their turn and having a turn where they had to make a roll that wasn't an action on their turn such as a save at the start or end. I thought the game made this distinction, but I guess it does not make a distinction between "taking a turn" and "having a turn." I wish it did as it makes more narrative sense in my opinion.

3. Once past the surprise round, initiative proceeded as normal.

The surprise round made sense mechanically because it allowed you to adjudicate saves or abilities occurring on a turn, while at the same time allowing for the narrative idea that the target doesn't know that an enemy that hasn't acted is present. It was a mechanical method of denying a turn based on lack of awareness, while still adjudicating all mechanics based on a turn that don't require awareness. With Mearls ruling that narrative idea has been removed and I'm supposed to operate under the assumption that the target always has some awareness an enemy is present, which I find absurd. It devalues Stealth and Perception and overvalues initiative. You could have a 5 Perception and a +10 initiative and still act faster than someone with a +17 stealth. That is absurd to me. I do not know why Mearls feels this is how it should be. My only hope is Crawford sees this a different way at some point in the future.

But you can still run it this way. In fact, if that's the only way that makes sense for you to run it, and your players are happy with that approach, than you should run it this way. It doesn't dramatically alter the game.

A bunch of people are suggesting ways that they look at combat, surprise and initiative that make sense to them.

 

[Celtavian]

But you can still run it this way. In fact, if that's the only way that makes sense for you to run it, and your players are happy with that approach, than you should run it this way. It doesn't dramatically alter the game.

A bunch of people are suggesting ways that they look at combat, surprise and initiative that make sense to them.

I'm not writing a house rule for one subclass. If the game designers want to weaken an archetype ability for the Assassin, then so be it. I'm not going to generate a house rule to counter their ruling. I'll let the Assassin become a rarely used archetype with a weak class-defining ability. That's apparently what the game designers want.

 

[redrick]

---EDIT---

Sorry Celtavian, I don't mean to pick a fight with you.