Sage Advice: Rules Answers

[DireSickFish]

Haven't read it yet but I figured folks would want to know WoTC has it out:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/rules-answers-august-2015

Edit: Apparently thrown weapons still count as melee weapons when thrown. So you should be able to smite with them and other such effects that only work with a melee weapon.

The ruling on Whirlwind attack makes sense but the hunter ranger level 11 feature really is lackluster for melee now. Without a way to apply bonus damage to every hit of whirlwind attack it just isn't good for clearing out enemies and isn't a power boost to rangers that all other classes get at 11. Hoard Breaker is more useful to you typically because you'll get 3 attacks and 2 of them can be on the same target. Unless you have 4 or more enemies surrounding you that will die in 1 hit it just isn't a great action to take in combat.

[Toadkiller]

Anybody know what the changes to ritual list are?

[Aurthur]

If I’m a cleric/druid with the Disciple of Life feature, does the goodberry spell benefit from the feature? Yes. The Disciple of Life feature would make each berry restore 4 hit points, instead of 1, assuming you cast goodberry with a 1st-level spell slot.

LOL. I call them 'Greatberries!'.

[kaoskonfety]

LOL. I call them 'Greatberries!'.

indeed... they are magically delicious

[ZenBear]

I'm not too happy about the lack of Delay Turn. I constantly run into the issue of a bad initiative order screwing my team's plans because player X needs player Y to use Z ability so they can do something effective/cool and Ready Action just doesn't cut it.

For example, BBEG is flying 20ft above and the Paladin needs the Wizard to cast Fly on him but they're acting in the wrong order. You can only Ready one action so you can't move and attack until your next turn, which means you're accomplishing nothing this turn.

Another example, the Warlock has Hex up and wants to drop a Fireball but the Figher is in the AoE. The way Readying a spell works (IIRC, AFB) he has to Concentrate on the Readied spell so now he loses Hex.

Ready is too limited for proper tactical teamwork IMO.

[Naanomi]

They are melee weapons but it isn't a melee attack, so there is still a distinction for many purposes I think

[SharkForce]

Anybody know what the changes to ritual list are?

nothing stands out to me immediately.

[Flashy]

nothing stands out to me immediately.

Yeah, nothing seems to have been changed.

[DanyBallon]

As for ritual, I believe the only thing they did is create a new list with only ritual spells by level.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Can you concentrate on a spell while transformed by polymorph? You can’t cast spells while you’re transformed by polymorph, but nothing in the spell prevents you from concentrating on a spell that you cast before being transformed.

That means no more ancient dragon true polymorphed wizards :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

I'm not too happy about the lack of Delay Turn. I constantly run into the issue of a bad initiative order screwing my team's plans because player X needs player Y to use Z ability so they can do something effective/cool and Ready Action just doesn't cut it... Ready is too limited for proper tactical teamwork IMO.

The good thing is, he explained his logic for not having a Delay, and it was mostly about pacing of the game and not about deeper balance concerns. The DMG already has initiative variants, so there's nothing wrong with you introducing your own variant that allows Delay--just make sure you cover all the corner cases mentioned in the article, such as spell durations.

I use a Speed Factor variant which already handles spell durations independent of initative; it's straightforward for me to allow participants to Delay their turns. (I just shunt them into a separate declare/act cycle after everyone else's declarations have finished. Participants in that cycle can Delay again, but if everyone Delays instead of declaring, everyone loses that turn and we just go straight to the next round. So Mexican standoffs can last multiple for several minutes of game time while negotiations/etc. happen.)

[CNagy]

That means no more ancient dragon true polymorphed wizards :smallbiggrin:

True Polymorph has different wording; you can't speak, cast spells, etc, unless the new form is capable of such actions.

That said, the dragon has its own problems; True Polymorph concentrated on for the full hour turns the wizard into the dragon, and the dragon has Change Shape, which keeps the dragon from being able to use any class features or legendary actions of the form it takes--spellcasting being one of them. Dragons need to turn into something with innate spellcasting--and I don't know if there are any in the humanoid or beast types.

[SharkForce]

That means no more ancient dragon true polymorphed wizards :smallbiggrin:

ummm... no it doesn't. you can still turn yourself into a dragon. just like before, you won't keep your spells if you are turned into a dragon anyways, so it is exactly the same as it was before.

[Corey]

LOL. I call them 'Greatberries!'.

Classic!

That 1-level Life Cleric dip for Lore Bards is looking verrrry appealing now.

[DracoKnight]

ummm... no it doesn't. you can still turn yourself into a dragon. just like before, you won't keep your spells if you are turned into a dragon anyways, so it is exactly the same as it was before.

The way around this is you cast Clone on yourself before you true Polymorph yourself.

EDIT: The way around losing your spells permanently.

[SharkForce]

The way around this is you cast Clone on yourself before you true Polymorph yourself.

EDIT: The way around losing your spells permanently.

i suppose.

or you could just shapechange into a dragon in the first place. or just not concentrate for the full hour.

[Malifice]

I'm not too happy about the lack of Delay Turn. I constantly run into the issue of a bad initiative order screwing my team's plans because player X needs player Y to use Z ability so they can do something effective/cool and Ready Action just doesn't cut it.

For example, BBEG is flying 20ft above and the Paladin needs the Wizard to cast Fly on him but they're acting in the wrong order. You can only Ready one action so you can't move and attack until your next turn, which means you're accomplishing nothing this turn.

The Paladin moves to under the BBEG and readies the attack action for when the Wizard drops the BBEG.

I'm not seeing the problem mate?


Another example, the Warlock has Hex up and wants to drop a Fireball but the Figher is in the AoE. The way Readying a spell works (IIRC, AFB) he has to Concentrate on the Readied spell so now he loses Hex.

That's a better example.

I still wouldn't call it limiting. If anything it encourages teamwork. The Warlock calls out for the Fighter to move and (takes the Dodge action, readies a fireball dropping Hex, casts EB or whatever).

I didnt realise there was no delay in 5e for the first few sessions (still used to 3E). I've found it a breath of fresh air however, and dont notice it's missing at all now.

[MaxWilson]

The Paladin moves to under the BBEG and readies the attack action for when the Wizard drops the BBEG.

I'm not seeing the problem mate?

The problem is that 1.) you lose your reaction (no Shield or Counterspell), and 2.) you lose your Extra Attack and Bonus Action (neither one is usable with a Readied Action by RAW). 3.) You arguably can't move after your attack by RAW either, depending on how you read "or" in "action... or move" in the description of Ready on PHB 192.

It winds up being pretty thoroughly inferior to the case where the mage goes before the paladin, and it's hard to justify logically from an in-character perspective.

[Sigreid]

I have to say, I'm not a real big fan of the revisions and clarifications they've been putting out lately and I think I'm going to ignore them wholesale.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I have to say, I'm not a real big fan of the revisions and clarifications they've been putting out lately and I think I'm going to ignore them wholesale.

Why? I'm guessing they screw with some broken concept that made you a god-kid in the playground. That's usually why people hate the SA clarifications.

[Sigreid]

Why? I'm guessing they screw with some broken concept that made you a god-kid in the playground. That's usually why people hate the SA clarifications.

Nope, I just don't agree with the logic and don't see a reason for the changes. As an example, I don't think it breaks anything to allow the barbarian to hold his turn until after another's turn. It's actually pretty standard in real life fights/warfare to hold off for a trigger in some situations. Think "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes".

I do appreciate the assumption that it screws up with some power gaming angle. I don't usually even think to much about that.

Edit: and if anything is broken it's some of the crap they've put out in UA. I really hope they play-test thoroughly before they make any of that official.

[Malifice]

The problem is that 1.) you lose your reaction (no Shield or Counterspell), and 2.)

I cant see your Paladin player complaining too much about this!


you lose your Extra Attack and Bonus Action (neither one is usable with a Readied Action by RAW).

The Paladin hasnt lost his bonus action. He is free to use it before his turn ends (and he takes the ready action) to cast a spell, abjure the BBEG or whatever.

As far as losing extra attacks, thats not RAW, its sage advice, and I personally dont pay any heed to it. When you ready an action you can choose to ready the attack action. By RAW, the extra attack feature allows extra attacks when you take the attack action (readied or otherwise). Following sage advice nerfs fighters (who get their DPR from this class feature) unnecessarily.


3.) You arguably can't move after your attack by RAW either, depending on how you read "or" in "action... or move" in the description of Ready on PHB 192.

Agree. You move on your turn only (unless you ready to move or ready the dash action).


It winds up being pretty thoroughly inferior to the case where the mage goes before the paladin, and it's hard to justify logically from an in-character perspective.

The difference isnt that great, trust me - and like I said it encourages teamwork by getting PC's to anticipate the moves of other PC's, rather than react to them via initiative order changes. It encourages thought of the actions of others before you act and gets people more engaged with the battle.

From an in game 'logic' perspective, remember, actions are conducted virtually simultaneously. Your Warlock decides to cast his fireball, but an instant before he begins the spell, he notices the Paladin has moved to engage the BBEG. He's now torn as to what to do (muhahaha... sorry Paladin, didnt mean to hit you... those fireballs are tricky to get in the right spot...)

For mine, it better simulates the chaos of combat, speeds up the game, encourages PC's to think ahead about what others in the party want to do, and does away with a lot of meta-game tactics.

For example, the fireball situation you describe can easily be avoided by the Paladin either anticipating the fireball, or the Warlock player telling him to stay back or get fried.

[MeeposFire]

Haven't read it yet but I figured folks would want to know WoTC has it out:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/rules-answers-august-2015

Edit: Apparently thrown weapons still count as melee weapons when thrown. So you should be able to smite with them and other such effects that only work with a melee weapon.

The ruling on Whirlwind attack makes sense but the hunter ranger level 11 feature really is lackluster for melee now. Without a way to apply bonus damage to every hit of whirlwind attack it just isn't good for clearing out enemies and isn't a power boost to rangers that all other classes get at 11. Hoard Breaker is more useful to you typically because you'll get 3 attacks and 2 of them can be on the same target. Unless you have 4 or more enemies surrounding you that will die in 1 hit it just isn't a great action to take in combat.

I find whirlwind attack to be far too niche to really be worth taking/using. Think about it with the current ruling you need to have a number of enemies surrounding you on activation greater than the number of attacks per round that you get (otherwise you could just use your attack action and just split them up as you want AND get to move and use any normal thing you do on attacks).

Think of the prototypical ranger to WotC which would be the two weapon ranger. That high level ranger has 3 attacks per round normally which means the ranger needs a total of 4 enemies surrounding him at once to get any benefit from whirlwind attack.

Getting 4 enemies surrounding you at once is rare and most likely not a good idea. The times that this ability benfits you is just not great enough to be worth IMO. Compare it to the extra attack, smite, and other level 11 abilities and it seems really lack luster.

[mephnick]

Oh good, the ranger almost had something there. Glad to see that quashed.

[CNagy]

Rounds are six chaotic seconds of movement and murder, where you can essentially ready a snap response to certain conditions if you need to. If you're trying to sit out the action so you can get a full turn at a tactically better moment, I'd rule that as taking all of your availabe actions for the turn save your reaction, and let you set your initiative for the next round. There's just no time for the party to play it like Chess.

[MeeposFire]

I cant see your Paladin player complaining too much about this!



The Paladin hasnt lost his bonus action. He is free to use it before his turn ends (and he takes the ready action) to cast a spell, abjure the BBEG or whatever.

As far as losing extra attacks, thats not RAW, its sage advice, and I personally dont pay any heed to it. When you ready an action you can choose to ready the attack action. By RAW, the extra attack feature allows extra attacks when you take the attack action (readied or otherwise). Following sage advice nerfs fighters (who get their DPR from this class feature) unnecessarily.



Agree. You move on your turn only (unless you ready to move or ready the dash action).



The difference isnt that great, trust me - and like I said it encourages teamwork by getting PC's to anticipate the moves of other PC's, rather than react to them via initiative order changes. It encourages thought of the actions of others before you act and gets people more engaged with the battle.

From an in game 'logic' perspective, remember, actions are conducted virtually simultaneously. Your Warlock decides to cast his fireball, but an instant before he begins the spell, he notices the Paladin has moved to engage the BBEG. He's now torn as to what to do (muhahaha... sorry Paladin, didnt mean to hit you... those fireballs are tricky to get in the right spot...)

For mine, it better simulates the chaos of combat, speeds up the game, encourages PC's to think ahead about what others in the party want to do, and does away with a lot of meta-game tactics.

For example, the fireball situation you describe can easily be avoided by the Paladin either anticipating the fireball, or the Warlock player telling him to stay back or get fried.

extra attacks by their own definition given in the game do not apply when it is not your turn so using it on a different turn means no extra attacks by RAW.

[dropbear8mybaby]

It's actually pretty standard in real life fights/warfare to hold off for a trigger in some situations.
Triggers are specifically allowed through the Readied action. The stipulation is simply that there has to be a trigger. You can't simply say, "I delay," and then jump in whenever you want. Combat is meant to be "this six seconds, everything is happening very quickly and at roughly the same time," not a slow-motion, "I can make well-thought out tactical decisions on the fly," style.


Edit: and if anything is broken it's some of the crap they've put out in UA. I really hope they play-test thoroughly before they make any of that official.

Eh, you said it yourself. It's not official. It's play-test material. So I don't see any reason to bring it up at all in a discussion about official rules.


Oh good, the ranger almost had something there. Glad to see that quashed.

Yah, because a hunter is SOOOOO underpowered and lacks ANY versatility whatsoever :smallsigh:

[Malifice]

I find whirlwind attack to be far too niche to really be worth taking/using. Think about it with the current ruling you need to have a number of enemies surrounding you on activation greater than the number of attacks per round that you get (otherwise you could just use your attack action and just split them up as you want AND get to move and use any normal thing you do on attacks).


So... more than two enemies, and it's a good ability. With just four enemies adjacent, you've just doubled your number of attacks per turn.

A Ranger can whirlwind attack, use his bonus action to use his off hand weapon (or the butt of his polearm, or his greatweapon if he drops an enemy, or to cast a spell etc), and then use horde breaker for an extra attack.

The bonus action TWF and PAM off hand attack may be a bit sketchy as I think you need to take the attack action to get it, and tehcnically whirlwind attack is not the attack action, but that's just an necessary nerf that I certainly wouldnt enforce.

[MeeposFire]

So... more than two enemies, and it's a good ability. With just four enemies adjacent, you've just doubled your number of attacks per turn.

A Ranger can whirlwind attack, use his bonus action to use his off hand weapon (or the butt of his polearm, or his greatweapon if he drops an enemy, or to cast a spell etc), and then use horde breaker for an extra attack.

The bonus action TWF and PAM off hand attack may be a bit sketchy as I think you need to take the attack action to get it, and tehcnically whirlwind attack is not the attack action, but that's just an necessary nerf that I certainly wouldnt enforce.

We are discussing the current form of whirlwind so no let us not use any extra fun things otherwise we could add things like movement. They have made it clear that whirlwind is not the attack action nor is it treated remotely as such. Just for this conversation anyway since we are talking about the sage ruling and not how we would make it work in our own games.

At two enemies it is better to use the attack action. WA gives two attacks + horde breaker whereas using the attack action and two weapon fighting I can get 3 attacks + horde breaker and I can actually focus fire somebody if I want which I cannot do with WA.

At 3 enemies we break even though once again the attack action allows me to focus fire if wanted.


Only at 4 enemies adjacent does WA finally come out ahead and only by one attack. In that situation it is potentially useful but that is very niche.


Oddly WA had a bigger niche in 3e since in that edition your full attack had diminishing accuracy but WA had full accuracy on all attacks. Thankfully that is not true in 5e but it means that under the sort of rulings the Sage has given it is difficult to get enough enemies around you to make taking WA worthwhile compared to just using the attack action.

[Sigreid]

Triggers are specifically allowed through the Readied action. The stipulation is simply that there has to be a trigger. You can't simply say, "I delay," and then jump in whenever you want. Combat is meant to be "this six seconds, everything is happening very quickly and at roughly the same time," not a slow-motion, "I can make well-thought out tactical decisions on the fly," style.



Eh, you said it yourself. It's not official. It's play-test material. So I don't see any reason to bring it up at all in a discussion about official rules.


If you want to incorporate everything they put out, that's fine. I prefer to not adjust any interpretations that my group has already agreed upon for no good reason. In the end, I just don't think any of the clarifications are necessary. It doesn't break the game if the Archery fighting style gives it's +2 when the fighter throws his spear. There's no harm in the person who rolled highest initiative saying I'd like to go third instead. I thought it was obvious that Whirlwind would be a sudden burst with no movement between, but it doesn't hurt my game, or anyone else's if someone decides that it's cool if the ranger explodes through the enemy line killing a bunch of mooks as he goes, etc.

As far as the UA, it speaks to judgement. In my opinion the power drift with each new thing being a step up in order to sell books that made things go out of control.

[Pex]

Why? I'm guessing they screw with some broken concept that made you a god-kid in the playground. That's usually why people hate the SA clarifications.

Right. It's absolutely impossible to disagree with a concept just because one has a different taste. No, the only reason ever to disagree is because one wants to Win D&D. Who could possibly have a rational thought of their own?


Rounds are six chaotic seconds of movement and murder, where you can essentially ready a snap response to certain conditions if you need to. If you're trying to sit out the action so you can get a full turn at a tactically better moment, I'd rule that as taking all of your availabe actions for the turn save your reaction, and let you set your initiative for the next round. There's just no time for the party to play it like Chess.

That's not playing fair. Every NPC opponent knows exactly what another NPC opponent will do and when. They have perfect coordination and don't even need to shout across the battlefield to change tactics or spontaneously react to circumstances. Sometimes they know exactly what their first round of actions will be before the combat even starts, maybe even the second round. They have all this great power because only one player determines what they do - the DM. Allowing players to talk to each other and come up with teamwork tactics as the combat situation warrants is the least the DM can do.

[MeeposFire]

If you want to incorporate everything they put out, that's fine. I prefer to not adjust any interpretations that my group has already agreed upon for no good reason. In the end, I just don't think any of the clarifications are necessary. It doesn't break the game if the Archery fighting style gives it's +2 when the fighter throws his spear. There's no harm in the person who rolled highest initiative saying I'd like to go third instead. I thought it was obvious that Whirlwind would be a sudden burst with no movement between, but it doesn't hurt my game, or anyone else's if someone decides that it's cool if the ranger explodes through the enemy line killing a bunch of mooks as he goes, etc.

As far as the UA, it speaks to judgement. In my opinion the power drift with each new thing being a step up in order to sell books that made things go out of control.

The only reason why I rule to allow movement to still work with WA in my game (I am the DM so it is not a power boost for me) is that it actually makes the niche of WA being a real option happen enough to make it a good option to have. It is not always the best option since often times you want to focus fire something as much as possible but at least with movement it is much more feasible to get 4 enemies in movement range than it is to get 4 enemies adjacent at once.

[Sigreid]

The only reason why I rule to allow movement to still work with WA in my game (I am the DM so it is not a power boost for me) is that it actually makes the niche of WA being a real option happen enough to make it a good option to have. It is not always the best option since often times you want to focus fire something as much as possible but at least with movement it is much more feasible to get 4 enemies in movement range than it is to get 4 enemies adjacent at once.

And that's totally cool, and makes a great visual.

[ZenBear]

Rounds are six chaotic seconds of movement and murder, where you can essentially ready a snap response to certain conditions if you need to. If you're trying to sit out the action so you can get a full turn at a tactically better moment, I'd rule that as taking all of your availabe actions for the turn save your reaction, and let you set your initiative for the next round. There's just no time for the party to play it like Chess.

I love chess. I want to approach combat like chess. Is that wrong?

It makes no sense to me to say two allies acting in the same 6 seconds can't adjust their timing completely to act simultaneously. I actually have considered houseruling that the party makes a collective Initiative check, perhaps based on the highest in the party or the average, and let them order their actions in whatever way they want. It is all happening simultaneously after all. The effectiveness of their coordination depends on the experience and creativity of the players.

[Pex]

I love chess. I want to approach combat like chess. Is that wrong?

It makes no sense to me to say two allies acting in the same 6 seconds can't adjust their timing completely to act simultaneously. I actually have considered houseruling that the party makes a collective Initiative check, perhaps based on the highest in the party or the average, and let them order their actions in whatever way they want. It is all happening simultaneously after all. The effectiveness of their coordination depends on the experience and creativity of the players.

There is a drawback. Which ever side goes first, players or NPCs, will have a huge advantage. Let's say the players goes first. They do everything they want to hurt the NPCs. Some NPCs may drop or be controlled to not being able to do anything. By the time they go they're weaker and don't have an equal number of actions to do stuff. Now reverse the order. Chances are as DM you aren't going to have an NPC be able to drop a PC in one round, except perhaps at 1st level as the math forces the possibility. Still, they will have controls and can incapacitate some party members in some way before any player gets to do anything. Their coordination of tactics collapses before it starts. This possibility may not be too much a bother for you and your group to dump the idea, but it is something to consider.

It also makes high Dex and Alert feat almost useless for initiative. If you use party average, those who wanted the higher chance of going before the bad guys are handicapped by party members with low initiative modifiers. If you go by who has the highest modifier then one player makes the sacrifice of taking the feat but everyone benefits off it.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I love chess. I want to approach combat like chess. Is that wrong?

Yes, because the system isn't designed to accommodate that style. Adapt it to your style and then it's fine. Expecting everyone to adapt to your style when the system doesn't work like that, isn't.

[Malifice]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]That's not playing fair. Every NPC opponent knows exactly what another NPC opponent will do and when. They have perfect coordination and don't even need to shout across the battlefield to change tactics or spontaneously react to circumstances.

What? How?

Your DM sucks if this happens to you. If this is how you DM, please stop.

When I DM, I only act on what the individual monster knows. If a monster wants someone to help him he calls out for help (as the monster). Sometimes the monsters ignore the calls of allies because they dont like the monster in question, or because evil. Sometimes the only thing a monster is thinking about is getting out alive. Mindless undead dont use tactics - they claw at the nearest thing thats alive next to them.

Same when I play. I (the player) may have omniscient knowledge of the minutiae of the entire battle, but my character certainly doesnt.

[Gwendol]

Interesting ruling about thrown weapons: it will likely open up some new ideas for (ab)use.

The ranger got shortshafted, but we knew that already.

The elimination of delays goes hand in hand with the rest of the dropped ball that is reactions, triggers, and readied actions.

[Joe the Rat]

Interesting ruling about thrown weapons: it will likely open up some new ideas for (ab)use. Like thrown handaxes and javelins benefiting from Dueling style? Or making it clear that thrown daggers benefit from the monk's enhanced damage dice? Or being able to smite with a javelin?

That all works for me.

[DireSickFish]

I do like removing delay actions. It does limit options in some fights and makes some tactics not viable. It also speeds up play and forces them to make a decision about what to do -right now- as opposed to when a party member sets them up. In theory the party will have to adjust tactics based on who goes first.

It certainly isn't badwrongfun if you keep the old delay action.

[CNagy]

That's not playing fair. Every NPC opponent knows exactly what another NPC opponent will do and when. They have perfect coordination and don't even need to shout across the battlefield to change tactics or spontaneously react to circumstances. Sometimes they know exactly what their first round of actions will be before the combat even starts, maybe even the second round. They have all this great power because only one player determines what they do - the DM. Allowing players to talk to each other and come up with teamwork tactics as the combat situation warrants is the least the DM can do.

Yeah, no. The NPCs don't coordinate the way players do unless I am trying to mimic a fight against an anti-party. They view tactics as what is most important or reasonable to them at the time--which for most NPCs means attacking the player that most directly threatens them even if a different tactic like, say, focusing fire on the spellcaster would be much more efficient.

There are exceptions. If it is an ambush against the party, there are obviously already some tactics laid out ahead of time. If it is a well-disciplined mercenary group, they will have some go-to tactics in the same realm as Guy A trips so that Guys B and C get advantage on their attack--except that Guy A will go for the trip even if the target goes immediately after him in the initiative order (and can thus stand up before getting wailed on), and if Guy B goes first he will try to go for the trip even if he isn't as good at it as A, because NPCs don't compare their stat sheets to determine who is best to initiate this tactic. It has to be a significant difference in bonus (enough that in character you could say "this guy is clearly better at it than that guy") for the enemy to specifically use Guy A.

Essentially, NPC behavior (in my opinion) should be generally determined by role with a supplementary set of encounter specific If-Then conditions.

[tieren]

Like thrown handaxes and javelins benefiting from Dueling style? Or making it clear that thrown daggers benefit from the monk's enhanced damage dice? Or being able to smite with a javelin?

That all works for me.

I don't think anything changed at all with regards to the melee weapons.

The archery style always said it only worked with ranged weapons and the equipment list broke out the simple and martial ranged weapons and no thrown weapons were on the lists (other than dart and net).

Just like you can't use Dex as your combat stat for a thrown weapon if you use strength as the melee stat.

The melee weapon is still a melee weapon if you throw it, throwing it is not a melee attack, nothing changes.

[MaxWilson]

That's not playing fair. Every NPC opponent knows exactly what another NPC opponent will do and when. They have perfect coordination and don't even need to shout across the battlefield to change tactics or spontaneously react to circumstances. Sometimes they know exactly what their first round of actions will be before the combat even starts, maybe even the second round. They have all this great power because only one player determines what they do - the DM. Allowing players to talk to each other and come up with teamwork tactics as the combat situation warrants is the least the DM can do.

(???) That's kind of... the opposite of how I play NPCs. I mean, you can play NPCs that way if you want to, but if you want them to be more chaotic and realistic, like someone who is making decisions in a six-second period while surrounded by the chaos of battle, you can totally do that. "Half the regiment charged, the other half retreated--you had your choice." When 4 umber hulks are getting mangled by Evard's Black Tentacles, the other 4 umber hulks coming up behind them don't think, "Great! The PCs are distracted, let's power through and break them now!" They think, "Whoa, that looks like a meat grinder. Maybe I'm not that hungry right now, I think I'll go hide behind this wall instead."

D&D is a role-playing game, and I'd rather roleplay monsters than run them all like tactical battlecomputers singlemindedly intent on "beating" the PCs. YMMV though.

[DireSickFish]

Often I'm spreading my NPC attacks around to give everyone in the party a sense of danger. Tactically this is a terrible terrible choice. At the end of a fight odds are good that all npcs are dropped to 0 and none of the pcs have been.

[Vogonjeltz]

I find whirlwind attack to be far too niche to really be worth taking/using. Think about it with the current ruling you need to have a number of enemies surrounding you on activation greater than the number of attacks per round that you get (otherwise you could just use your attack action and just split them up as you want AND get to move and use any normal thing you do on attacks).

Think of the prototypical ranger to WotC which would be the two weapon ranger. That high level ranger has 3 attacks per round normally which means the ranger needs a total of 4 enemies surrounding him at once to get any benefit from whirlwind attack.

Getting 4 enemies surrounding you at once is rare and most likely not a good idea. The times that this ability benfits you is just not great enough to be worth IMO. Compare it to the extra attack, smite, and other level 11 abilities and it seems really lack luster.

Or you use your movement to insert yourself into a position where you can reach 4+ enemies and whirlwind, then continue to move so that you're not surrounded anymore.


It makes no sense to me to say two allies acting in the same 6 seconds can't adjust their timing completely to act simultaneously.

If there's a tie between two players, they get to determine who acts first (PHB 189).

Also, there are initiative variants in the DMG (DMG 270-271), one allows side inititiave, where the entire group acts together and chooses the order their characters act in. The downside is that this makes someone who is deliberately trying to have a high initiative pretty useless as no bonuses are factored in.

If you want even more granularity, Speed Factor looks pretty cool. Everyone decides what actions they want to take, then they roll initiative secretly (each round) and act in that order based on speed modifiers of the actions being taken.

[dropbear8mybaby]

D&D is a role-playing game, and I'd rather roleplay monsters than run them all like tactical battlecomputers singlemindedly intent on "beating" the PCs. YMMV though.

Definitely. I had a group in Lost Mines assault the Redbrand Hideout... at 1st-level. One of them decided it'd be a great idea to ignore the combat with the Nothic and explore further. This was, by the way, after they'd attacked and retreated already, so the Redbrand's figured they'd be back and were waiting. That drew four Redbrands, one of whom was savvy enough to knock on the door of bugbears. So suddenly a combat with one Nothic turned into a chaotic melee with four Redbrands and three bugbears (Droop had already died due to a change in circumstances from the previous intrusion).

Had I played them solely as machines of destruction, bent on one goal and one goal only, to destroy the PC's, they would've wiped the floor with them. But I prefer sandbox mentality, where I roleplay the NPC's based on who they are, what their motivations are, etc. So during the combat, one of the Redbrands was pushed into the crevasse where the Nothic's treasure chest was (Nothic was dead by this stage), and decided to loot it. A bugbear was pushed on top of him and was strong enough to climb out. The redbrand, after having gotten the magical sword and pocketful's of coins, had unsuccessfully tried to get out for several rounds. So he asked the bugbear for assistance. The bugbear told him to hand over the gold. They argued for a couple of rounds until the Redbrand threw handfuls of gold at the greedy bugbear.

That took those two combatants out of the combat for about six rounds (it was a long combat). It also made it funny and interesting for everyone at the table. That I think is far more fun than just a tactical meat-puppet.

[Pex]

What? How?

Your DM sucks if this happens to you. If this is how you DM, please stop.

When I DM, I only act on what the individual monster knows. If a monster wants someone to help him he calls out for help (as the monster). Sometimes the monsters ignore the calls of allies because they dont like the monster in question, or because evil. Sometimes the only thing a monster is thinking about is getting out alive. Mindless undead dont use tactics - they claw at the nearest thing thats alive next to them.

Same when I play. I (the player) may have omniscient knowledge of the minutiae of the entire battle, but my character certainly doesnt.


Yeah, no. The NPCs don't coordinate the way players do unless I am trying to mimic a fight against an anti-party. They view tactics as what is most important or reasonable to them at the time--which for most NPCs means attacking the player that most directly threatens them even if a different tactic like, say, focusing fire on the spellcaster would be much more efficient.

There are exceptions. If it is an ambush against the party, there are obviously already some tactics laid out ahead of time. If it is a well-disciplined mercenary group, they will have some go-to tactics in the same realm as Guy A trips so that Guys B and C get advantage on their attack--except that Guy A will go for the trip even if the target goes immediately after him in the initiative order (and can thus stand up before getting wailed on), and if Guy B goes first he will try to go for the trip even if he isn't as good at it as A, because NPCs don't compare their stat sheets to determine who is best to initiate this tactic. It has to be a significant difference in bonus (enough that in character you could say "this guy is clearly better at it than that guy") for the enemy to specifically use Guy A.

Essentially, NPC behavior (in my opinion) should be generally determined by role with a supplementary set of encounter specific If-Then conditions.

It's still one player using his one mind to figure out what to do. He determines all the NPCs' actions at the speed of thought. If it's complicated enough he'll take an extra 30 seconds. He has to make an effort to purposely play them dumb. Being human, he will occasionally make a mistake anyway the players can exploit or at least benefit from. Their tactics are already made up, even if it's just "attack nearest creature" because it's an undead or animal. When players do stuff the DM needs to react to, all the NPCs react without a second thought, even if the reaction is to run away. The NPCs have an inherent hive mind.

[D.U.P.A.]

Rounds are six chaotic seconds of movement and murder, where you can essentially ready a snap response to certain conditions if you need to. If you're trying to sit out the action so you can get a full turn at a tactically better moment, I'd rule that as taking all of your availabe actions for the turn save your reaction, and let you set your initiative for the next round. There's just no time for the party to play it like Chess.

I agree and if players are taking their time strategizing, it breaks the immersion and get bored. If you are limited by time, the situation looks much more dire. And chess is a game of large armies, it would make sense if players are ordering big armies around, but not when in half minute combat.

[Pex]

I agree and if players are taking their time strategizing, it breaks the immersion and get bored. If you are limited by time, the situation looks much more dire. And chess is a game of large armies, it would make sense if players are ordering big armies around, but not when in half minute combat.

But the DM can take all the time he wants to think to himself what the NPCs do. Yeah, that's fair.

[Anlashok]

Yes, because the system isn't designed to accommodate that style. Adapt it to your style and then it's fine. Expecting everyone to adapt to your style when the system doesn't work like that, isn't.

Are you really going to tell me the turn based tactical combat game isn't designed to handle turn based tactical combat? Just because they didn't include one feature from previous editions?

All the lack of a delay does is create the counter intuitive, nonsensical, verisimilitude defying and unrealistic situation where having a high initiative can actually be punitive.


Which, frankly, surprises me. I wouldn't have expected so many people here to be in favor of punishing someone for rolling well on their initiative or making the alert feat potentially detrimental.

[DanyBallon]

Are you really going to tell me the turn based tactical combat game isn't designed to handle turn based tactical combat? Just because they didn't include one feature from previous editions?

All the lack of a delay does is create the counter intuitive, nonsensical, verisimilitude defying and unrealistic situation where having a high initiative can actually be punitive.


Which, frankly, surprises me. I wouldn't have expected so many people here to be in favor of punishing someone for rolling well on their initiative or making the alert feat potentially detrimental.

There's the "ready" action for that, it let you have a reaction to a trigger you choose when taking the action. You still can move and use a bonus action on your initiative count. It's way more permissive than moving your initiative to a lower spot for all the following rounds. The latter is way more punitive for someone rolling well or that took the Alert feat in my opinion

[Malifice]

It's still one player using his one mind to figure out what to do. He determines all the NPCs' actions at the speed of thought. If it's complicated enough he'll take an extra 30 seconds. He has to make an effort to purposely play them dumb. Being human, he will occasionally make a mistake anyway the players can exploit or at least benefit from. Their tactics are already made up, even if it's just "attack nearest creature" because it's an undead or animal. When players do stuff the DM needs to react to, all the NPCs react without a second thought, even if the reaction is to run away. The NPCs have an inherent hive mind.

No, they most assuredly don't. Well... unless the DM chooses to play them that way.

It's like a player should only choose to do what they do based on character knowledge and not player knowledge, and perceptions. This includes making tactically inferior choices because it's what the character does.

For example, it's a 'free' action in 3.P to drop a weapon. My Paladin never dropped his weapon because it (in game) was a family heirloom given to him by his now dead father; he would always sheathe it respectfully. He also never fired into melee because he was concerned he might hit an ally despite the rules making such a thing impossible. He also refused to accept the +2 bonus for flanking an enemy as he would never stab a creature in the back. And so on.

If you prefer your DnD to be more like games of chess or competitive WH40K where fluff and characterization takes a back seat to 'winning', and everyone has an omniscient overview of the battle, and always makes the 'tactically optimal' choice notwithstanding anything else, then go for it. There is nothing wrong with that approach to the game.

Personally when I play and DM, I try and crawl into the head of the creature I am portraying and act as it would act given its prejudices, knowledge, perceptions, fears and preference. I'd certainly play a NPC adventuring party to a much higher level of tactical nous (and some creatures too - hobgoblins and devils tend to display a high level of tactics and co-ordination and co-operation) but I'm certainly not approaching battles with an 'optimize the tactics and strategy to win' approach at all, and I wouldn't be pleased at all if my players approached combat in the same way.


Are you really going to tell me the turn based tactical combat game isn't designed to handle turn based tactical combat? Just because they didn't include one feature from previous editions?

All the lack of a delay does is create the counter intuitive, nonsensical, verisimilitude defying and unrealistic situation where having a high initiative can actually be punitive.


Which, frankly, surprises me. I wouldn't have expected so many people here to be in favor of punishing someone for rolling well on their initiative or making the alert feat potentially detrimental.

Can you give me an example where rolling high in initiative is a bad thing?

It's not a question of how high your initiative is, its a question of changing your initiative score thats the issue. They're different issues.

[D.U.P.A.]

But the DM can take all the time he wants to think to himself what the NPCs do. Yeah, that's fair.

Thats a bad DM. And most of the time, players take way longer time to play their characters than DM, despite usually having multiple creatures to control.

[Fizban]

There's nothing wrong with keeping a delay option in the game. You should be writing down initiative counts for spells anyway in case someone gets dead, new parties appear, etc. Permanently shifting your initiative down doesn't magically make the roll pointless, since rolling higher gave you an option to act sooner and you intentionally chose to give that up. If the rest of the party wants to give up their advantage in order to coordinate with the person who rolled lowest then why shouldn't they? Letting the party group their initiative and reorganize their ordering by delaying (if they choose) will make combat easier in the long run than forcing them to act in a weird order that doesn't suit their tactics.

As for reaction times, have you never seen a movie where someone waits until the last moment for a signal before bursting into action? That's what the fighter's doing: waiting for the last syllable of that fly spell before charging. Have you never seen a scene where the team stops fighting for a moment to regroup and then all attack as one? That's delaying to group your initiative together.

And as for playing the game like chess: it's a tactical grid based combat game, of course you should be able to play it like chess if you want. So yeah go ahead and delay, it's perfectly fine.

[DanyBallon]

As for reaction times, have you never seen a movie where someone waits until the last moment for a signal before bursting into action? That's what the fighter's doing: waiting for the last syllable of that fly spell before charging. Have you never seen a scene where the team stops fighting for a moment to regroup and then all attack as one? That's delaying to group your initiative together.

Ready an action let you do just that! You won't be able to use your extra attack as it is a reaction, but since you don't move down your iniative score, you'll get to act again sooner, which help amplifying the nova effect.


And as for playing the game like chess: it's a tactical grid based combat game, of course you should be able to play it like chess if you want. So yeah go ahead and delay, it's perfectly fine.

That's debatable, not every edition of D&D were a grid based combat game. 3.P and 4e were, but you can do pretty well without in 5e. In fact, describing characters action, instead of moving miniatures on a grid mat, is one of the style of play that is put forward in this edition. Choosing to remove delay as it was and replacing it by the ready action, is, I believe, a nice compromise that speed up combat, and can be usefull to either style of play.

[Anlashok]

Can you give me an example where rolling high in initiative is a bad thing?
You need another party member to enable something for you for whatever reason (maybe you need to make sure you have advantage that someone else can grant, maybe you need fly cast on you, maybe the wizard is casting an AoE and you want to show up after it's finished). You get a 21 on your initiative and they get a 16. And... the highest monster gets a 12.

Now, you can take your turn as normal... and end up doing something substandard (exposing yourself to AoE, forgoing sneak attack, using a weaker option because you can't reach the enemy, etc). You could ready, but then you lose your reaction and any bonus action tied to the attack and that doesn't solve any of the positional issues. Not exactly a great option either.

The party fighter who got a 14 though doesn't have to worry about anything and takes his turn normally.


It's not a question of how high your initiative is, its a question of changing your initiative score thats the issue. They're different issues.
They're fundamentally the same, because the whole reason you delay is because you'd rather move later (which is a function of having a high initiative count).

Choosing to remove delay as it was and replacing it by the ready action.
Older editions had both (and readieds didn't eat your reaction equivalent in those either). So it's not really replacing one with the other.

[DanyBallon]

You need another party member to enable something for you for whatever reason (maybe you need to make sure you have advantage that someone else can grant, maybe you need fly cast on you, maybe the wizard is casting an AoE and you want to show up after it's finished). You get a 21 on your initiative and they get a 16. And... the highest monster gets a 12.

Now, you can take your turn as normal... and end up doing something substandard (exposing yourself to AoE, forgoing sneak attack, using a weaker option because you can't reach the enemy, etc). You could ready, but then you lose your reaction and any bonus action tied to the attack and that doesn't solve any of the positional issues. Not exactly a great option either.

The party fighter who got a 14 though doesn't have to worry about anything and takes his turn normally.


They're fundamentally the same, because the whole reason you delay is because you'd rather move later (which is a function of having a high initiative count).

Investing into being able to act first and always have to delay your iniative count after someone else is kinda counterproductive. 5e offer you the option to act after someone else, yet to keep you iniatiative count so it still matter through out all the combat duration.


Older editions had both (and readieds didn't eat your reaction equivalent in those either). So it's not really replacing one with the other.

I agree, but the readied action of 3.P moved your initiative count as well, the only difference between Delay and readied it these editions is that one was, you wait until later, and the other one, you wait until trigger happens and you could interrupt an action. So they were pretty much the same action.

Sure the cost of ready action is your reaction, but compare to moving down the iniative count, is not such a big deal, as reaction don't come as often.

[ZenBear]

Investing into being able to act first and always have to delay your iniative count after someone else is kinda counterproductive. 5e offer you the option to act after someone else, yet to keep you iniatiative count so it still matter through out all the combat duration.



I agree, but the readied action of 3.P moved your initiative count as well, the only difference between Delay and readied it these editions is that one was, you wait until later, and the other one, you wait until trigger happens and you could interrupt an action. So they were pretty much the same action.

Sure the cost of ready action is your reaction, but compare to moving down the iniative count, is not such a big deal, as reaction don't come as often.

You don't always have to sacrifice the benefits of your high initiative, but when it's the superior option to let your ally act first you should have the option to do so.

If sacrificing your reaction (and in some circumstances your movement and bonus action too) is going to allow the enemy to escape when otherwise your Sentinel AoO would prevent it then the Ready action is insufficient.

Asking for Delay to be allowed is not forcing my play style on anybody. Denying the option is forcing your play style on me.

[MaxWilson]

Asking for Delay to be allowed is not forcing my play style on anybody. Denying the option is forcing your play style on me.

Fortunately, this is physically impossible: no one on the Internet can deny you the right to play however you want. YMMV, etc.

[Xetheral]

Can you give me an example where rolling high in initiative is a bad thing?

Example 1: The party is travelling overland, and are ambushed by bandits whose stealth check exceeds the PCs' passive perceptions. Most of the PCs are therefore surprised in the first round of combat, but the character with the Alert feat is not. Initiative is rolled, and the character with Alert goes first. Fantastic! Except... nothing has happened yet: the enemies haven't attacked or even revealed their presence, so there is nothing to Ready an action against.

Depending on whether or not you consider "being in initiative" to be OOC knowledge, the character with Alert might not even know there is any reason to act. I imagine most groups would at least let the character know that "something is wrong" or even "you're about to be attacked", but that's only partial compensation for the misfortune of rolling the highest initiative. Better would have been to roll second-highest, after one of the bandits, because then you'd have a target and some idea of what the threat is.

If there was a Delay option, the character would have the choice between acting first with incomplete knowledge (to blindly cast a defensive spell perhaps, or take the dodge action) or waiting until after they know more about the threat and are able to react appropriately.

Example 2: Your Paladin, the one who refused to accept flanking bonuses, is trying to talk down the angry mob surrounding him consisting of two dozen guardsmen with sheathed weapons. You completely fail, and the mob turns hostile. Initiative is rolled and you get the highest roll. Fantastic! Except: your Paladin isn't going to attack first, especially not against people who haven't drawn their weapons yet. If you had just rolled second-highest, you could have recieved a single attack, and then drawn your weapon and knocked out the offending guardsman with Extra Attack and a pair of Smites. Seeing this might well have made the other guardsmen think twice about attacking, effectively ending the fight. But this is 5e, and you can't Delay. So you take the dodge action and weather two dozen attacks. Thanks to bounded accuracy, even with disadvantage you're probably hurting, and depending on your level, may even be in danger of dying before your turn comes around again. If only you hadn't rolled so high on initiative....

[Flashy]

Example 1: The party is travelling overland, and are ambushed by bandits whose stealth check exceeds the PCs' passive perceptions. Most of the PCs are therefore surprised in the first round of combat, but the character with the Alert feat is not. Initiative is rolled, and the character with Alert goes first. Fantastic! Except... nothing has happened yet: the enemies haven't attacked or even revealed their presence, so there is nothing to Ready an action against.

Depending on whether or not you consider "being in initiative" to be OOC knowledge, the character with Alert might not even know there is any reason to act. I imagine most groups would at least let the character know that "something is wrong" or even "you're about to be attacked", but that's only partial compensation for the misfortune of rolling the highest initiative. Better would have been to roll second-highest, after one of the bandits, because then you'd have a target and some idea of what the threat is.

If there was a Delay option, the character would have the choice between acting first with incomplete knowledge (to blindly cast a defensive spell perhaps, or take the dodge action) or waiting until after they know more about the threat and are able to react appropriately.

Example 2: Your Paladin, the one who refused to accept flanking bonuses, is trying to talk down the angry mob surrounding him consisting of two dozen guardsmen with sheathed weapons. You completely fail, and the mob turns hostile. Initiative is rolled and you get the highest roll. Fantastic! Except: your Paladin isn't going to attack first, especially not against people who haven't drawn their weapons yet. If you had just rolled second-highest, you could have recieved a single attack, and then drawn your weapon and knocked out the offending guardsman with Extra Attack and a pair of Smites. Seeing this might well have made the other guardsmen think twice about attacking, effectively ending the fight. But this is 5e, and you can't Delay. So you take the dodge action and weather two dozen attacks. Thanks to bounded accuracy, even with disadvantage you're probably hurting, and depending on your level, may even be in danger of dying before your turn comes around again. If only you hadn't rolled so high on initiative....


1. Ready an action to shoot/charge/whatever the first enemy who appears.

2. Ready the attack action against the first guard who attacks you.

[Malifice]

Investing into being able to act first and always have to delay your iniative count after someone else is kinda counterproductive. 5e offer you the option to act after someone else, yet to keep you iniatiative count so it still matter through out all the combat duration.



I agree, but the readied action of 3.P moved your initiative count as well, the only difference between Delay and readied it these editions is that one was, you wait until later, and the other one, you wait until trigger happens and you could interrupt an action. So they were pretty much the same action.

Sure the cost of ready action is your reaction, but compare to moving down the iniative count, is not such a big deal, as reaction don't come as often.

I don't see it come up that often to worry about and my PCs are happy with it as is.

I played it with delay actions by mistake at first (not realising they weren't a thing in 5e). Dropping them hasn't affected the game at all, and high initiative is still a desired thing.

[CNagy]

Example 1: The party is travelling overland, and are ambushed by bandits whose stealth check exceeds the PCs' passive perceptions. Most of the PCs are therefore surprised in the first round of combat, but the character with the Alert feat is not. Initiative is rolled, and the character with Alert goes first. Fantastic! Except... nothing has happened yet: the enemies haven't attacked or even revealed their presence, so there is nothing to Ready an action against.

Depending on whether or not you consider "being in initiative" to be OOC knowledge, the character with Alert might not even know there is any reason to act. I imagine most groups would at least let the character know that "something is wrong" or even "you're about to be attacked", but that's only partial compensation for the misfortune of rolling the highest initiative. Better would have been to roll second-highest, after one of the bandits, because then you'd have a target and some idea of what the threat is.

If there was a Delay option, the character would have the choice between acting first with incomplete knowledge (to blindly cast a defensive spell perhaps, or take the dodge action) or waiting until after they know more about the threat and are able to react appropriately.

Example 2: Your Paladin, the one who refused to accept flanking bonuses, is trying to talk down the angry mob surrounding him consisting of two dozen guardsmen with sheathed weapons. You completely fail, and the mob turns hostile. Initiative is rolled and you get the highest roll. Fantastic! Except: your Paladin isn't going to attack first, especially not against people who haven't drawn their weapons yet. If you had just rolled second-highest, you could have recieved a single attack, and then drawn your weapon and knocked out the offending guardsman with Extra Attack and a pair of Smites. Seeing this might well have made the other guardsmen think twice about attacking, effectively ending the fight. But this is 5e, and you can't Delay. So you take the dodge action and weather two dozen attacks. Thanks to bounded accuracy, even with disadvantage you're probably hurting, and depending on your level, may even be in danger of dying before your turn comes around again. If only you hadn't rolled so high on initiative....

I think you're confusing "bad" with "not optimal." In scenario 1, you've been alerted to the ambush--even not seeing any enemies. Maybe you cast a defensive spell or dodge, maybe you buff the party, maybe you ready an offensive spell or a ranged attack triggered by the appearance of a hostile creature. You can ignore triggers, so if the first guy pops up with a crossbow and you are more keen on seeing if a guy in robes makes a special appearance, you can do that.

But in this scenario, while you might have more optimal choices by rolling a lower initiative, it is not "better" to have rolled low. You might have some restrictions on how you can act by rolling high, but you are guaranteed to get to act. The same cannot be said if you roll lower than the enemy spellcaster who (on random die roll targeting) chooses you for the target of one of any number of spells that may incapacitate you.

Scenario #2 just shouldn't happen. Initiative rolled because the atmosphere turns hostile is initiative rolled too early. If the mob has signaled its intention to attack, it has done so by the free item interaction of drawing their swords and gripping their pitchforks. Especially against a player whose character has a moral code, this is just being a jerk (sorry, word filter) with the rules. "Haha... you can't do anything yet because even though we rolled for combat there are no overt signs of violent hostility, but if you don't act now you are forced to give up most of what you can do this round."

[Xetheral]

1. Ready an action to shoot/charge/whatever the first enemy who appears.

2. Ready the attack action against the first guard who attacks you.

1. If the character with Alert is even aware that combat has started (depending on whether or not your game treats "being in initiative" as metagame knowledge) then yes, you could ready an action to shoot the first enemy that appears. Note that: 1) you're sacrificing any subsequent attacks granted by Extra Attack, 2) you're sacrificing the ability to make a bonus action attack (if you have one), and 3) you will be unable to move before attacking, so the odds of the enemy having cover from you are high. However, you cannot charge, because 1) charging is an application of the Dash action, which is pointless to Ready because you can't move after the trigger appears and 2) charging requires the Charger feat. The only way readying a melee attack is useful in the ambush situation is if an enemy actually moves into your threat range.

2. You can indeed ready an action to attack the first guard who attacks you, but there are drawbacks: 1) you're sacrificing any subsequent attacks granted by Extra Attack, likely significantly reducing your odds of dropping a guardsman in one round, 2) you can't take an object interaction when it isn't your turn, so you'd have to either attack unarmed or draw your weapon before any of the guardsmen draw theirs, which the Paladin in question might well consider to be a provocation.


I think you're confusing "bad" with "not optimal." In scenario 1, you've been alerted to the ambush--even not seeing any enemies. Maybe you cast a defensive spell or dodge, maybe you buff the party, maybe you ready an offensive spell or a ranged attack triggered by the appearance of a hostile creature. You can ignore triggers, so if the first guy pops up with a crossbow and you are more keen on seeing if a guy in robes makes a special appearance, you can do that.

But in this scenario, while you might have more optimal choices by rolling a lower initiative, it is not "better" to have rolled low. You might have some restrictions on how you can act by rolling high, but you are guaranteed to get to act. The same cannot be said if you roll lower than the enemy spellcaster who (on random die roll targeting) chooses you for the target of one of any number of spells that may incapacitate you.

Scenario #2 just shouldn't happen. Initiative rolled because the atmosphere turns hostile is initiative rolled too early. If the mob has signaled its intention to attack, it has done so by the free item interaction of drawing their swords and gripping their pitchforks. Especially against a player whose character has a moral code, this is just being a jerk (sorry, word filter) with the rules. "Haha... you can't do anything yet because even though we rolled for combat there are no overt signs of violent hostility, but if you don't act now you are forced to give up most of what you can do this round."

I interpreted the request for examples of when rolling high was a "bad" thing as a request for examples where rolling high was worse than a lower roll. In both scenarios, going second would be tactically preferable to most character concepts whose standard first round of combat isn't always a particular buff spell. (I disagree with your assertion that having more-optimal choices isn't "better" than having less-optimal choices.)

In Scenario #1, remember that many games are very strictly against using metagame knowledge, and initiative is (arguably) a metagame concept. Therefore, at some tables, the character with Alert would be roleplaying poorly if they chose a combat action where they had no in-character knowledge that combat had begun.

In Scenario #2, combat has started because the guardsmen intend to draw their weapons and attack. It is therefore appropriate to roll initiative. Once that intent to attack has been established, permitting the guardsmen to draw their weapons prior to rolling initiative (while coincidentally better for the Paladin in this case) is arguably improper (for example, by doing so one reduces the value of the Dual Wielder feat). And you're absolutely right... it would be a jerk move. At my own table, I'd avoid the problem by permitting the Paladin to Delay in that case, even if I didn't allow it in general. At an AL table, however, the DM would not be authorized to bend the combat rules just because the character's moral code makes the situation highly disadvantageous to the Paladin. (If I was the DM I'd try to do it anyway, arguing that this was a corner case subject to DM-ruling, but I'm not familiar enough with AL rules to know if I could get away with it. In any case, by RAW, the Paladin is still at a disadvantage as a result of rolling a high initiative.)

[ZenBear]

Fortunately, this is physically impossible: no one on the Internet can deny you the right to play however you want. YMMV, etc.

Unless they're DMing my game. With the official rules stating there is no Delay Action, many DMs will be unwilling to houserule it in, so my preference is denied. The more people who believe Delay isn't a mechanic worth implementing the less likely I will find a DM who will allow it.

Another example: I'm restrained and can't reach the enemy, but the Rogue is acting next and can pick the lock. I can Ready an action to move, but I can't attack once I get there.

[Gwendol]

1. Ready an action to shoot/charge/whatever the first enemy who appears.

2. Ready the attack action against the first guard who attacks you.

Not very good due to the rules of triggers for readied actions to be what they are.

[Naanomi]

I'm somewhat confused here... If someone is very fast; able to act with confidence and effectiveness within the first moments of a six second imaginary period; but they want to wait to see what their slow as molasses buddy who is lucky to get his one spell off in that time, yet despite spending most of the round literally waiting and watching their friend they should not lose anything on their own action when they decide to spring into motion?

I like that there is a cost to delaying, but as people have mentioned your table is free to run it how they like

[Hawkstar]

I hate the lack of a delay action, especially since my Shield-Master, Athletics-expertise "Knock'em down for dogpile!" strength-bard has a tendency to go right before the monster in initiative order, making knockdown useless.

[JoeJ]

Example 1: The party is travelling overland, and are ambushed by bandits whose stealth check exceeds the PCs' passive perceptions. Most of the PCs are therefore surprised in the first round of combat, but the character with the Alert feat is not. Initiative is rolled, and the character with Alert goes first. Fantastic! Except... nothing has happened yet: the enemies haven't attacked or even revealed their presence, so there is nothing to Ready an action against.

Depending on whether or not you consider "being in initiative" to be OOC knowledge, the character with Alert might not even know there is any reason to act. I imagine most groups would at least let the character know that "something is wrong" or even "you're about to be attacked", but that's only partial compensation for the misfortune of rolling the highest initiative. Better would have been to roll second-highest, after one of the bandits, because then you'd have a target and some idea of what the threat is.

If there was a Delay option, the character would have the choice between acting first with incomplete knowledge (to blindly cast a defensive spell perhaps, or take the dodge action) or waiting until after they know more about the threat and are able to react appropriately.

Example 2: Your Paladin, the one who refused to accept flanking bonuses, is trying to talk down the angry mob surrounding him consisting of two dozen guardsmen with sheathed weapons. You completely fail, and the mob turns hostile. Initiative is rolled and you get the highest roll. Fantastic! Except: your Paladin isn't going to attack first, especially not against people who haven't drawn their weapons yet. If you had just rolled second-highest, you could have recieved a single attack, and then drawn your weapon and knocked out the offending guardsman with Extra Attack and a pair of Smites. Seeing this might well have made the other guardsmen think twice about attacking, effectively ending the fight. But this is 5e, and you can't Delay. So you take the dodge action and weather two dozen attacks. Thanks to bounded accuracy, even with disadvantage you're probably hurting, and depending on your level, may even be in danger of dying before your turn comes around again. If only you hadn't rolled so high on initiative....

Initiative is rolled "when combat starts." In both those examples, initiative should be rolled the instant that the bandits or the mob actually start their attack. The PC may not know all the details of the situation, but (since they weren't surprised) they do know that combat has started. By winning initiative, they can beat the enemies to the punch.

Think of it like a gunfight in a western movie. The villain starts to draw their gun, but the hero is faster and gets off the first shot. Or like trying to draw a sword against a legendary iajutsu master. You might make the first move, but you'll be dead before your sword even clears the scabbard.

[Xetheral]

Initiative is rolled "when combat starts." In both those examples, initiative should be rolled the instant that the bandits or the mob actually start their attack. The PC may not know all the details of the situation, but (since they weren't surprised) they do know that combat has started. By winning initiative, they can beat the enemies to the punch.

Think of it like a gunfight in a western movie. The villain starts to draw their gun, but the hero is faster and gets off the first shot. Or like trying to draw a sword against a legendary iajutsu master. You might make the first move, but you'll be dead before your sword even clears the scabbard.

In both scenarios, initiative is being rolled when one party is going to attack, and the attack would be handled immediately except for the fact that a PC got the highest initiative. I don't see how this is any different than what you are suggesting? In most cases, it would play out exactly like you suggest. The scenarios I've described are different. In Scenario 1, the PC going first hasn't yet noticed the enemy, making effective action difficult--they'd rather act after the first bandit has revealed itself. And in Scenario 2, the PC going first doesn't want to attack before the enemies draw their weapons due to moral issues--they'd rather act after the first enemy has drawn a weapon and attacked.


I hate the lack of a delay action, especially since my Shield-Master, Athletics-expertise "Knock'em down for dogpile!" strength-bard has a tendency to go right before the monster in initiative order, making knockdown useless.

That's a better example than mine, particularly since it's going to be a common situation for that type of character.

[DanyBallon]

In both scenarios, initiative is being rolled when one party is going to attack, and the attack would be handled immediately except for the fact that a PC got the highest initiative. I don't see how this is any different than what you are suggesting? In most cases, it would play out exactly like you suggest. The scenarios I've described are different. In Scenario 1, the PC going first hasn't yet noticed the enemy, making effective action difficult--they'd rather act after the first bandit has revealed itself. And in Scenario 2, the PC going first doesn't want to attack before the enemies draw their weapons due to moral issues--they'd rather act after the first enemy has drawn a weapon and attacked.

In case 1 then you will roll ini as soon as the enemies attack, and you can end up having a higher initiative count than them, but you are surprised and can't act until your next turn. Plain simple.
In case 2, you take the ready action (if you want you can still move and take a bonus action) then wait until the they pull their gun and attack them. You just lose your extra attack and possible reaction for this single round.

[DanyBallon]

I hate the lack of a delay action, especially since my Shield-Master, Athletics-expertise "Knock'em down for dogpile!" strength-bard has a tendency to go right before the monster in initiative order, making knockdown useless.

Use loaded dice to roll low, or that haunted set of dice you never want to touch, or just give your character a dex of 2 so the penalty will make sure he alway play last :smalltongue:

[CNagy]

In Scenario #1, remember that many games are very strictly against using metagame knowledge, and initiative is (arguably) a metagame concept. Therefore, at some tables, the character with Alert would be roleplaying poorly if they chose a combat action where they had no in-character knowledge that combat had begun.

In Scenario #2, combat has started because the guardsmen intend to draw their weapons and attack. It is therefore appropriate to roll initiative. Once that intent to attack has been established, permitting the guardsmen to draw their weapons prior to rolling initiative (while coincidentally better for the Paladin in this case) is arguably improper (for example, by doing so one reduces the value of the Dual Wielder feat). And you're absolutely right... it would be a jerk move. At my own table, I'd avoid the problem by permitting the Paladin to Delay in that case, even if I didn't allow it in general. At an AL table, however, the DM would not be authorized to bend the combat rules just because the character's moral code makes the situation highly disadvantageous to the Paladin. (If I was the DM I'd try to do it anyway, arguing that this was a corner case subject to DM-ruling, but I'm not familiar enough with AL rules to know if I could get away with it. In any case, by RAW, the Paladin is still at a disadvantage as a result of rolling a high initiative.)

The thing with scenario #1 is it's not metagame knowledge to act as if you are under attack, it's literally in-game knowledge. The Alert feat keeps you from ever being surprised and everything happens in the same 6 seconds of combat more or less simultaneously--turn order is sequential because that's required to actually have order, but narratively the situation is fluid enough that even if you have the first action in the surprise round, it is also taking place (again narratively) before, during, and possibly after the ambushers expose themselves. Shooting from the hip with a Scorching Ray (readied action) may not be the best possible action you could have taken once you see the entire lay of the land, but it remains preferable to get that shot off before the enemy's Stinking Cloud rolls over the party.

And again, I still say scenario #2 is initiative rolled too early. It's all fine and good to say that "they intend to attack" but narratively some action has to make that clear, otherwise as the DM I am forcing your character into action. If no one has even put their hands to their weapons, and you roll the highest initiative, then to the observer you are starting the fight. Narratively, that's a jerk thing to do, especially to someone with a moral code. Drawing weapons was just the first thing that came to mind as an example, but if I make a guard go hostile to the point that initiative is rolled, an unbiased observer is going to be able to say that the guard initiated hostilities even if you manage to roll better and bash him upside the head (non-lethal) before his sword is more than half-way out of its sheathe.

[JoeJ]

In both scenarios, initiative is being rolled when one party is going to attack, and the attack would be handled immediately except for the fact that a PC got the highest initiative. I don't see how this is any different than what you are suggesting? In most cases, it would play out exactly like you suggest. The scenarios I've described are different. In Scenario 1, the PC going first hasn't yet noticed the enemy, making effective action difficult--they'd rather act after the first bandit has revealed itself. And in Scenario 2, the PC going first doesn't want to attack before the enemies draw their weapons due to moral issues--they'd rather act after the first enemy has drawn a weapon and attacked.

Initiative isn't rolled when one party is going to attack, but when they do attack. So in the first scenario, bandits reveal themselves by attacking, but the PC's reflexes are faster and the counterattack lands first, possibly taking out one or more of the bandits before they can even get off their first shots.

The second scenario is similar; someone in the crowd swings their sword, but the paladin's sword is faster and the villain dies before they can land a blow. The action happens so fast that a bystander might need to make a perception roll to see who drew first, but anybody who can see it knows that the enemy attacked the paladin and not the other way around.

[DireSickFish]

I'd have to agree with the folks that are saying you're having initiative rolled to early. When dice hit the table for initiative the PCs know they are getting attacked. I have the same thing work for my monsters, when negotiations break down and the PC's decide to stab the orc chief if he rolls higher in initiative he gets to attack first.

The guy with Alertness would normally be surprised and they'd get a surprise round then he'd act at the top of the next order. Because he invested int his feat his character has superhuman reflexes and is reacting to the bandits before they can land there attacks. Possibly even before he consciously knows he's going attacked. Muscle memory took care of most of it and now there are two bandits who are going to need new spleens.

Initiative doesn't get rolled before you decide to kick down a door, it gets rolled after you break it down and see the goblins on the other side.

[Giant2005]

I don't implement delayed actions for all of the reasons cited in this thread, but I do allow you to lower your initiative if desired. The difference mostly being that if you lower your initiative, it stays that way for the entire combat rather than just a single round. I do that because rolling high shouldn't be a punishment, so rather than it be a punishment the roll is essentially an upper limit to the initiative and they can in practice, pick any value they like at that level or lower.

[DanyBallon]

I don't implement delayed actions for all of the reasons cited in this thread, but I do allow you to lower your initiative if desired. The difference mostly being that if you lower your initiative, it stays that way for the entire combat rather than just a single round. I do that because rolling high shouldn't be a punishment, so rather than it be a punishment the roll is essentially an upper limit to the initiative and they can in practice, pick any value they like at that level or lower.

Ain't doing this exactly the same as the 3.P "Delay"???


By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.

You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what’s going to happen. You can’t, however, interrupt anyone else’s action (as you can with a readied action).

Initiative Consequences of Delaying
Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don’t get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).

If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

While the following description of taking the "Ready" action on your turn in 5e


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.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

[Xetheral]

In case 1 then you will roll ini as soon as the enemies attack, and you can end up having a higher initiative count than them, but you are surprised and can't act until your next turn. Plain simple.
In case 2, you take the ready action (if you want you can still move and take a bonus action) then wait until the they pull their gun and attack them. You just lose your extra attack and possible reaction for this single round.

In case 1, you can't be surprised, because you have the Alert feat. So, you are not surprised, but since their stealth check beat your passive perception you don't know where the enemies are. At best you have a ranged weapon and can ready an attack. At worst, you lose your turn, depending on table style.

In case 2, you’re absolutely correct. And losing one’s extra attack and possible reaction is what makes going first in case 2 inferior to going second, which was the point of the example.


The thing with scenario #1 is it's not metagame knowledge to act as if you are under attack, it's literally in-game knowledge. The Alert feat keeps you from ever being surprised and everything happens in the same 6 seconds of combat more or less simultaneously--turn order is sequential because that's required to actually have order, but narratively the situation is fluid enough that even if you have the first action in the surprise round, it is also taking place (again narratively) before, during, and possibly after the ambushers expose themselves. Shooting from the hip with a Scorching Ray (readied action) may not be the best possible action you could have taken once you see the entire lay of the land, but it remains preferable to get that shot off before the enemy's Stinking Cloud rolls over the party.

And again, I still say scenario #2 is initiative rolled too early. It's all fine and good to say that "they intend to attack" but narratively some action has to make that clear, otherwise as the DM I am forcing your character into action. If no one has even put their hands to their weapons, and you roll the highest initiative, then to the observer you are starting the fight. Narratively, that's a jerk thing to do, especially to someone with a moral code. Drawing weapons was just the first thing that came to mind as an example, but if I make a guard go hostile to the point that initiative is rolled, an unbiased observer is going to be able to say that the guard initiated hostilities even if you manage to roll better and bash him upside the head (non-lethal) before his sword is more than half-way out of its sheathe.

Personally, in scenario #1 I would inform the player that they are under attack from opponents in hiding, and give the player the choice of acting immediately with incomplete information, or choosing to delay. But that’s my houserule.

For a DM trying to go by the book, they have a choice about how much information to give to the player, but there are tradeoffs to be made. If you don’t give the PC enemy location information, then the PC would have been better off going second. If you do give the PC enemy location information, then you’ve effectively nerfed stealth and expanded the Alert feat to supersede the Observant feat. In the reverse situation, where the PCs are doing the ambushing, the players are not going to be happy if an enemy with the Alert feat attacks them before they’ve revealed themselves.

In the second scenario, sure, you should describe it to the player that the guardsmen’s hands are going to their weapons and they’re starting to draw, but unless you're willing to give the enemies a free object interaction prior to rolling initiative, they will still be unarmed when the Paladin's turn comes up. In almost every other situation, the players would cry foul if you let the enemies draw their weapons for free immediately before rolling for initiative. Again, consider the reversed situation: if a player announces during a conversation with an NPC that they’re suddenly going to draw their weapon and attack, do you let them draw their weapon before rolling initiative? Do the other PCs get to? Do the enemies get to?


Initiative isn't rolled when one party is going to attack, but when they do attack. So in the first scenario, bandits reveal themselves by attacking, but the PC's reflexes are faster and the counterattack lands first, possibly taking out one or more of the bandits before they can even get off their first shots.

The second scenario is similar; someone in the crowd swings their sword, but the paladin's sword is faster and the villain dies before they can land a blow. The action happens so fast that a bystander might need to make a perception roll to see who drew first, but anybody who can see it knows that the enemy attacked the paladin and not the other way around.

Under your logic that an actual attack is required to start initiative, how do you resolve the common situation where both sides want to draw their weapons and attack the other at the same time? Unless someone is making an unarmed strike, everyone needs to draw their weapons before attacking, but under your logic someone must draw their weapon before initiative can be rolled. So, who gets to draw their weapon prior to the initiative roll? Everyone? Whomever said “I draw my weapon and attack!” first? The usual way to handle such a situation is to simply roll initiative, and handle drawing weapons as part of the combat turn, in which case initiative is indeed being rolled when someone is going to attack.

Furthermore, for your interpretation of scenario #1 you have a causality problem. Under the rules, a hidden attacker whose stealth check beats the passive perception of observers reveals themselves when they take the Attack action. Unless you’re going to let the bandits take the Attack action outside of the initiative order (thus ironically solving the problem of the PC not wanting to go first by simply not letting the PC go first), a given Bandit’s location won’t be known to the PCs until after they’ve made an attack roll.

As for the second scenario, see my response to CNagy.


I'd have to agree with the folks that are saying you're having initiative rolled to early. When dice hit the table for initiative the PCs know they are getting attacked. I have the same thing work for my monsters, when negotiations break down and the PC's decide to stab the orc chief if he rolls higher in initiative he gets to attack first.

The guy with Alertness would normally be surprised and they'd get a surprise round then he'd act at the top of the next order. Because he invested int his feat his character has superhuman reflexes and is reacting to the bandits before they can land there attacks. Possibly even before he consciously knows he's going attacked. Muscle memory took care of most of it and now there are two bandits who are going to need new spleens.

Initiative doesn't get rolled before you decide to kick down a door, it gets rolled after you break it down and see the goblins on the other side.

I run it the same way you do: I’d roll initiative after negotiations broke down but prior to any attacks, and after the door was broken down. However, I wouldn’t let the PCs know the locations of successfully hidden enemies just because initiative has been rolled, which strongly reduces the value of going first if all enemies are hidden.


Note that this is all somewhat academic: Hawkstar posted a much better example of a situation where not being able to delay severely hurts a character.

[JoeJ]

Under your logic that an actual attack is required to start initiative, how do you resolve the common situation where both sides want to draw their weapons and attack the other at the same time? Unless someone is making an unarmed strike, everyone needs to draw their weapons before attacking, but under your logic someone must draw their weapon before initiative can be rolled. So, who gets to draw their weapon prior to the initiative roll? Everyone? Whomever said “I draw my weapon and attack!” first? The usual way to handle such a situation is to simply roll initiative, and handle drawing weapons as part of the combat turn, in which case initiative is indeed being rolled when someone is going to attack.

I resolve it straight by the book; roll initiate and go. I never said weapons have to be drawn before initiative, although in some cases they are. When somebody declares that they're making an attack, roll initiative. If they have to draw their weapon as part of the attack, that changes nothing.


Furthermore, for your interpretation of scenario #1 you have a causality problem. Under the rules, a hidden attacker whose stealth check beats the passive perception of observers reveals themselves when they take the Attack action. Unless you’re going to let the bandits take the Attack action outside of the initiative order (thus ironically solving the problem of the PC not wanting to go first by simply not letting the PC go first), a given Bandit’s location won’t be known to the PCs until after they’ve made an attack roll.

If the bandits are shooting while hidden then the PC is limited in what actions they can take with their initiative, as they should be. They're still better off rolling high, because they can ready an action, dodge, cast a spell, run away, or whatever they choose to do. Even if they don't know where the attacker is, high initiative gives them that split second to take some kind of defensive action before the attackers strike.

[eastmabl]

As far as the UA, it speaks to judgement. In my opinion the power drift with each new thing being a step up in order to sell books that made things go out of control.

Regarding power creep and UA, I presume that anything which is on the "overpowered" side of things is the necessity of playtesting within the present edition. Unless a player really wants to play a UA class, a player won't choose a UA class/race which is sub-optimal. Wotc doesn't get players testing out the class/race, it doesn't get feedback about the mechanics which are enjoyable and which ones are terrible, and as a result the classes potentially suffer when it comes time to take them to print. While creating playtest material, it's better to error on the side of "a little too powerful" and dial it back.

So far, everything that's been official has been official has been on the reasonable side of things - no one is talking about how broken spells in the Elemental Evil Players' Guide have been. Now, if the Sword Coast Players' Guide has a bunch of things which are more powerful than what's found in the PHB, that'll be power creep.

[Xetheral]

I resolve it straight by the book; roll initiate and go. I never said weapons have to be drawn before initiative, although in some cases they are. When somebody declares that they're making an attack, roll initiative. If they have to draw their weapon as part of the attack, that changes nothing.

Then we don't disagree: initiative requires intent to attack (immediately), not an actual attack.


If the bandits are shooting while hidden then the PC is limited in what actions they can take with their initiative, as they should be. They're still better off rolling high, because they can ready an action, dodge, cast a spell, run away, or whatever they choose to do. Even if they don't know where the attacker is, high initiative gives them that split second to take some kind of defensive action before the attackers strike.

I disagree that the PC with Alert is better off going first. If he went second he'd suffer at most one attack before getting to act, and then would be able to engage the revealed bandit if desired. Having offensive and defensive options is superior to only having defensive ones.

[JoeJ]

Then we don't disagree: initiative requires intent to attack (immediately), not an actual attack.

I think you're making a distinction where no distinction is warranted.


I disagree that the PC with Alert is better off going first. If he went second he'd suffer at most one attack before getting to act, and then would be able to engage the revealed bandit if desired. Having offensive and defensive options is superior to only having defensive ones.

While going first... he can take the Ready action and suffer at most one attack before getting to act and engage the revealed bandit.

If your PC can delay to act later, then the bandits can also delay until after the PC acts. So either nothing has changed and the PC still acts first, or else everybody just stands around delaying until they're all old and gray.

[CNagy]

At this point, it just feels like an unbridgeable difference of opinion. To me, the desire to go second feels like one of those purely mechanics-driven preferences--the perfect play of D&D. And it feels like embracing it requires taking things into account that a character can't.

An example: outside of the very early levels, a player knows that there is little chance that their character will get dropped in one shot. Expectations of DM fairness tend to prevent even up to coin-flip odds of save or die in non-major encounters. It is preferable to make the most efficient use of one's turn by acting later, based on the assumption that the level of danger will permit one to shrug off an attack or two.

But this preference cannot be mapped onto a character without that character essentially believing that people don't die from a single arrow, and rarely does life throw a challenge at them that can immediately cut them down. In short, a player playing according to the OOC odds plays their character with a bit of an immortality complex--which is certainly one valid interpretation of the adventuring caste. I just skew towards the slightly grittier; if I spend my entire work-life getting arrows and lightning bolts shot at me, then getting a heads-up on danger means I'm alerting my fellows, going for cover, and either trying to prepare a defense or readying a counter-attack. I'm not going to become aware of danger and then sit there and wait for some element of it to present itself, so that I can then sally forth against it even if doing so means getting off an elaborate sword strike routine instead of a crack shot from my crossbow whilst using the party wagon as cover.

[Malifice]

Example 1: The party is travelling overland, and are ambushed by bandits whose stealth check exceeds the PCs' passive perceptions. Most of the PCs are therefore surprised in the first round of combat, but the character with the Alert feat is not. Initiative is rolled, and the character with Alert goes first. Fantastic! Except... nothing has happened yet: the enemies haven't attacked or even revealed their presence, so there is nothing to Ready an action against.

Yes there is. Why is he not surprised? Because he's alert to the danger. He's aware of the threat and can react accordingly in the first round of combat.

He may not know 'exactly' what the threat is, but jumping behind cover, casting a defensive spell (or readying to do so) are all totally valid options.


Example 2: Your Paladin, the one who refused to accept flanking bonuses, is trying to talk down the angry mob surrounding him consisting of two dozen guardsmen with sheathed weapons. You completely fail, and the mob turns hostile. Initiative is rolled and you get the highest roll. Fantastic! Except: your Paladin isn't going to attack first, especially not against people who haven't drawn their weapons yet.

Why am I rolling for initiative, if combat hasnt started?

Combat in DnD is simultaneous, but the resolution of the action is done via cyclical turns; you're confusing the two.

On the Paladins initiative count he doesn't see the NPC's sitting around talking to him. He sees (and the DM declares) that 'The Mob turns hostile and they place hands on swords, and start drawing them as they approach you - roll initiative.'

Even in the event the DM instead said 'The NPC's start yelling threats at you' and there was no mention of hostile actions (so why the hell are we rolling initiative seeing as we aren't in combat?) and he made me roll initiative, then on my turn I would instead either intimidate check them all to drop their weapons, or alternatively shout a warning to drop the weapons, while readying a melee attack if they either attempted to draw the weapons and are in reach, or closed on me with weapons drawn, but before any attacks were made (using my free object interaction as part of the readied action ) - ensuring that I still went first.

I get to choose the timing of my reaction remember. I can state that it occurs when a creature is adjacent and attempting to attack me, but before the attack is resolved.

The other option (low initiative, they go first) means I instead get the full brunt of all the attacks before I can do either.

[Fizban]

Ready an action let you do just that! You won't be able to use your extra attack as it is a reaction, but since you don't move down your iniative score, you'll get to act again sooner, which help amplifying the nova effect.
No it doesn't? There is no way in the normal 5e rules to move at anything other than your intiative count, nor can you delay to shift yourself down. You cannot Ready an action to charge and attack someone, that's why it's being used as an example. The fighter wants to fly up and attack, but cannot do so because the wizard hasn't cast fly yet. He is forced to waste his entire turn and initiative roll, instead of Delaying until after the wizard's turn, which could still happen before the monsters get to attack. You couldn't Ready a charge action in 3.5 either, but you could Delay until the right moment, which you cannot do in 5e for no good reason.

That's debatable, not every edition of D&D were a grid based combat game. 3.P and 4e were, but you can do pretty well without in 5e. In fact, describing characters action, instead of moving miniatures on a grid mat, is one of the style of play that is put forward in this edition. Choosing to remove delay as it was and replacing it by the ready action, is, I believe, a nice compromise that speed up combat, and can be usefull to either style of play.
Pretty sure those with the history knowledge could tell you in detail dnd started as a tactical miniatures game, and I know both 3.5 and especially 4e were heavily grid based. Sure you can choose to not use a grid and wing it, which in my experience always makes the game far slower with all the guesswork about relative positions, but removing the Delay action didn't speed up anything. Changing the Ready action did make it a lot faster to use, but Delaying was fine to begin with.

(I don't actually know what the status of readying/delaying was in 4e actually, but 5e is trying to be more like 3rd anyway).

[DanyBallon]

No it doesn't? There is no way in the normal 5e rules to move at anything other than your intiative count, nor can you delay to shift yourself down. You cannot Ready an action to charge and attack someone, that's why it's being used as an example. The fighter wants to fly up and attack, but cannot do so because the wizard hasn't cast fly yet. He is forced to waste his entire turn and initiative roll, instead of Delaying until after the wizard's turn, which could still happen before the monsters get to attack. You couldn't Ready a charge action in 3.5 either, but you could Delay until the right moment, which you cannot do in 5e for no good reason.

Ready action specially says that you can use your readied action to move. You won't be able to move and attack, on this your right. But in my opinion, the benefit for keeping your high initiative count, is far Superior to the few times your example show up.


Pretty sure those with the history knowledge could tell you in detail dnd started as a tactical miniatures game, and I know both 3.5 and especially 4e were heavily grid based. Sure you can choose to not use a grid and wing it, which in my experience always makes the game far slower with all the guesswork about relative positions, but removing the Delay action didn't speed up anything. Changing the Ready action did make it a lot faster to use, but Delaying was fine to begin with.

D&D effectivelly originate from tactical miniature, but soon evolved to a more story based game. Miniatures made a come back with 3rd. As for descriptive combat being more troublesome, I'd say on the contrary, it's more simple as you don't have players spending minutes to figure out the best movement to end up in the exact spot that spell radius Template will not reach him, or try to move in position wihout triggering attack of opportunity (I mean in 3.P, not 5e as they solve this problem), you just need to say, I'm moving to keep out of range of the spellcaster by keeping at 200ft from him, or in the second case telling the DM "I'm carefully moving around my enemy to get in his back, while being carefull not to trigger attack of opportunity can I make it with my base movement, yes or no?" It as simple as that.



(I don't actually know what the status of readying/delaying was in 4e actually, but 5e is trying to be more like 3rd anyway).

Actually, 5e is trying get back to the feel of 2e while keeping the good from 3e and 4e, and removing what slowed the game from earlier editions

[pwykersotz]

As a side note, this is a benefit to group initiative. It has it's own issues based on playstyle which might or might not suit a table, but it doesn't run into this particular trouble.

[Xetheral]

Then we don't disagree: initiative requires intent to attack (immediately), not an actual attack.I think you're making a distinction where no distinction is warranted.

I would tend to agree: you brought up the distinction as a way to explain why you thought my example was flawed. As long as we're on the same page now, great.


While going first... he can take the Ready action and suffer at most one attack before getting to act and engage the revealed bandit.

Yes, if he has a ranged weapon he can ready it to attack the first bandit that reveals himself, but he sacrifices any Extra Attacks or bonus action attacks. Meanwhile, if he went second, he'd still suffer only one attack and yet now can make full use of his turn.


If your PC can delay to act later, then the bandits can also delay until after the PC acts. So either nothing has changed and the PC still acts first, or else everybody just stands around delaying until they're all old and gray.

It was the bandits deciding to attack right now that started initiative. I wouldn't let them then change their mind.


At this point, it just feels like an unbridgeable difference of opinion. To me, the desire to go second feels like one of those purely mechanics-driven preferences--the perfect play of D&D. And it feels like embracing it requires taking things into account that a character can't.

An example: outside of the very early levels, a player knows that there is little chance that their character will get dropped in one shot. Expectations of DM fairness tend to prevent even up to coin-flip odds of save or die in non-major encounters. It is preferable to make the most efficient use of one's turn by acting later, based on the assumption that the level of danger will permit one to shrug off an attack or two.

But this preference cannot be mapped onto a character without that character essentially believing that people don't die from a single arrow, and rarely does life throw a challenge at them that can immediately cut them down. In short, a player playing according to the OOC odds plays their character with a bit of an immortality complex--which is certainly one valid interpretation of the adventuring caste. I just skew towards the slightly grittier; if I spend my entire work-life getting arrows and lightning bolts shot at me, then getting a heads-up on danger means I'm alerting my fellows, going for cover, and either trying to prepare a defense or readying a counter-attack. I'm not going to become aware of danger and then sit there and wait for some element of it to present itself, so that I can then sally forth against it even if doing so means getting off an elaborate sword strike routine instead of a crack shot from my crossbow whilst using the party wagon as cover.

It isn't necessarily a question of acting perfectly: it's a question of acting wisely. In non-surprise situations do people in your games who win initiative often choose to take the Dodge action in the first round of combat out of fear of their own mortality? That's a level of devotion to adherence to character concept beyond anything I've seen at the table, and it's pretty awesome. :) Just so long as the other players don't feel the RPing player is putting their characters lives at risk by refusing to engage the enemy and instead making it more likely other PCs are targeted by dodging. (Note that there are plenty of times dodging makes sense, just rarely in the first round of combat when you've won initiative.)


Yes there is. Why is he not surprised? Because he's alert to the danger. He's aware of the threat and can react accordingly in the first round of combat.

He may not know 'exactly' what the threat is, but jumping behind cover, casting a defensive spell (or readying to do so) are all totally valid options.

True, however, it would still be to the character's advantage to go second, immediately after the first bandit. Then, he'd have all the same options but also have a target to attack if he so chose. Note that taking cover is problematic, as the character doesn't yet know the threat vector; also, if the character is a party tank, taking cover (or dodging) simply makes it more likely the casters take the damage instead, and that's not a good thing.


Why am I rolling for initiative, if combat hasnt started?

Combat in DnD is simultaneous, but the resolution of the action is done via cyclical turns; you're confusing the two.

On the Paladins initiative count he doesn't see the NPC's sitting around talking to him. He sees (and the DM declares) that 'The Mob turns hostile and they place hands on swords, and start drawing them as they approach you - roll initiative.'

Given the number of people who've thought otherwise, I suspect I could have worded the original example better, but, as discussed in the back-and-forth about the examples, that is exactly when initiative is being rolled. "Hostile" was meant in the combat sense to indicate that the mob was attacking.


Even in the event the DM instead said 'The NPC's start yelling threats at you' and there was no mention of hostile actions (so why the hell are we rolling initiative seeing as we aren't in combat?) and he made me roll initiative, then on my turn I would instead either intimidate check them all to drop their weapons, or alternatively shout a warning to drop the weapons, while readying a melee attack if they either attempted to draw the weapons and are in reach, or closed on me with weapons drawn, but before any attacks were made (using my free object interaction as part of the readied action ) - ensuring that I still went first.

I get to choose the timing of my reaction remember. I can state that it occurs when a creature is adjacent and attempting to attack me, but before the attack is resolved.

Actually, you can't. The triggering action must finish before you can take your readied action. So while you could Ready to attack them after they draw their weapons, you can't Ready to attack them after they start attacking but before the attack is rolled (just as you can't ready an action to attack when an enemy starts to cast a spell).

That being said, you absolutely can Ready to attack in response to the first one who attacks you. You are, however, giving up any Extra Attacks as well as any potential bonus action attacks, which is inferior to going second when you would still have all those options. The point isn't that going first makes you helpless: it's that going first is worse than going second in this scenario.


The other option (low initiative, they go first) means I instead get the full brunt of all the attacks before I can do either.

Or, you could have rolled second highest, in which case you suffer only one attack, and then get to act. (Unless you're using group initiative, but you didn't specify that variant was in use when requesting examples where going first was a bad thing.)


Edit: and again, Hawkstar's Shield Master example is far superior to my own, and would make for a more useful point of discussion. Attack Action (or Attack Action dependent) debuffs that last until the enemy's next turn are often crippled by the inability to Delay to change one's initiative count.

[DanyBallon]

That being said, you absolutely can Ready to attack in response to the first one who attacks you. You are, however, giving up any Extra Attacks as well as any potential bonus action attacks, which is inferior to going second when you would still have all those options. The point isn't that going first makes you helpless: it's that going first is worse than going second in this scenario.

I think that's where our opinion diverge. I think it's more valuable to lose extra attack for a single round, than risking being incapacitated by that same enemy every round because now the enemy is acting before I do.

[Malifice]

I would tend to agree: you brought up the distinction as a way to explain why you thought my example was flawed. As long as we're on the same page now, great.



Yes, if he has a ranged weapon he can ready it to attack the first bandit that reveals himself, but he sacrifices any Extra Attacks or bonus action attacks. Meanwhile, if he went second, he'd still suffer only one attack and yet now can make full use of his turn.



It was the bandits deciding to attack right now that started initiative. I wouldn't let them then change their mind.



It isn't necessarily a question of acting perfectly: it's a question of acting wisely. In non-surprise situations do people in your games who win initiative often choose to take the Dodge action in the first round of combat out of fear of their own mortality? That's a level of devotion to adherence to character concept beyond anything I've seen at the table, and it's pretty awesome. :) Just so long as the other players don't feel the RPing player is putting their characters lives at risk by refusing to engage the enemy and instead making it more likely other PCs are targeted by dodging. (Note that there are plenty of times dodging makes sense, just rarely in the first round of combat when you've won initiative.)



True, however, it would still be to the character's advantage to go second, immediately after the first bandit. Then, he'd have all the same options but also have a target to attack if he so chose. Note that taking cover is problematic, as the character doesn't yet know the threat vector; also, if the character is a party tank, taking cover (or dodging) simply makes it more likely the casters take the damage instead, and that's not a good thing.



Given the number of people who've thought otherwise, I suspect I could have worded the original example better, but, as discussed in the back-and-forth about the examples, that is exactly when initiative is being rolled. "Hostile" was meant in the combat sense to indicate that the mob was attacking.



Actually, you can't. The triggering action must finish before you can take your readied action. So while you could Ready to attack them after they draw their weapons, you can't Ready to attack them after they start attacking but before the attack is rolled (just as you can't ready an action to attack when an enemy starts to cast a spell).

That being said, you absolutely can Ready to attack in response to the first one who attacks you. You are, however, giving up any Extra Attacks as well as any potential bonus action attacks, which is inferior to going second when you would still have all those options. The point isn't that going first makes you helpless: it's that going first is worse than going second in this scenario.



Or, you could have rolled second highest, in which case you suffer only one attack, and then get to act. (Unless you're using group initiative, but you didn't specify that variant was in use when requesting examples where going first was a bad thing.)


Edit: and again, Hawkstar's Shield Master example is far superior to my own, and would make for a more useful point of discussion. Attack Action (or Attack Action dependent) debuffs that last until the enemy's next turn are often crippled by the inability to Delay to change one's initiative count.

Te general rule is that unless specified otherwise the readied action occurs after the event that triggered it unless the readied action specifies otherwise.

Seeing as you can specify your own trigger for your own readied action you can overrule the general rule and word your readied action in a way that interrupts or resolves after something other than an action.

An example is to put your sword to someones throat and ready an attack 'if my opponent doesn't drop his weapon at the start of his turn'. Dropping a weapon isn't an action and if he takes his action to attack with the weapon he holds after the start of his turn he is acting after the trigger has come (and gone) so your attack comes first.

That's rules legal and complies with common sense.

[Xetheral]

I think that's where our opinion diverge. I think it's more valuable to lose extra attack for a single round, than risking being incapacitated by that same enemy every round because now the enemy is acting before I do.

If the enemy who rolled highest on initiative has an incapacitating attack and if that enemy chooses to target you, readying an action in an ambush scenario still leaves you vulnerable to being incapacitated. Remember, you don't get to take your readied action until after the enemy has attacked. (Sure, you could pick "see an enemy" as your trigger, but since they're hidden until they make an attack, your readied action would still come after the attack.)

[Malifice]

If the enemy who rolled highest on initiative has an incapacitating attack and if that enemy chooses to target you, readying an action in an ambush scenario still leaves you vulnerable to being incapacitated. Remember, you don't get to take your readied action until after the enemy has attacked. (Sure, you could pick "see an enemy" as your trigger, but since they're hidden until they make an attack, your readied action would still come after the attack.)

You're proceeding on the assumption that rolling initiative starts combat in an ambush.

Rolling initiative means that PCs are reacting to some stimulus (usually a charging monster).

In the ambush example I would at least tell the un perceptive but alert character that was oblivious to the bandits but aware that he was in danger (via alert) and in combat, that he has a sudden bad feeling that he's about to come under attack.

I'd probably just say he can hear (or notices) arrows in the air or a flash of steel from the bushes and gets a sudden sense of impending doom, and ask him what his reaction is while counting down from 6. (The mechanical effect of the alert feat being narrated).

[Xetheral]

You're proceeding on the assumption that rolling initiative starts combat in an ambush.

Rolling initiative means that PCs are reacting to some stimulus (usually a charging monster).

In the ambush example I would at least tell the un perceptive but alert character that was oblivious to the bandits but aware that he was in danger (via alert) and in combat, that he has a sudden bad feeling that he's about to come under attack.

I'd probably just say he can hear (or notices) arrows in the air or a flash of steel from the bushes and gets a sudden sense of impending doom, and ask him what his reaction is while counting down from 6. (The mechanical effect of the alert feat being narrated).

I don't permit attacks outside of initiative. Once a party to a conflict decides to take the Attack action (or other similarly-hostile action), I roll initiative. I too would tell the Alert character that they were under attack from hidden opponents, and then give the player the option to act or delay as they saw fit.

[Malifice]

I don't permit attacks outside of initiative. Once a party to a conflict decides to take the Attack action (or other similarly-hostile action), I roll initiative. I too would tell the Alert character that they were under attack from hidden opponents, and then give the player the option to act or delay as they saw fit.

Same. I'd just narrate it in such a way that he didn't know where the enemy where in an ambush situation and he failed his perception check.

[JackPhoenix]

Ok, the bandit example, what exactly is the problem? Let's say there are 2 bandits and one PC.


Situation 1: First turn: Bandits wins initiative, both attacks PC, PC acts (let's say he's got 2 attacks), kills them both. Result: PC suffered 2 attacks, both bandits are dead.

Situation 2: First turn: one bandit acts before PC, other after him: Bandit 1 attacks, PC acts, kills him, can't attack the other bandit who's hidden. Bandit 2 attacks on his initiative. Second turn: Bandit 1 is dead, PC acts, kills bandit 2 who revealed himself in the previous round. Result: PC suffered 2 attacks, both bandits are dead.

Situation 3: First turn: PC wins initiative, can't see any bandits, but thanks to Alert, got a hunch about danger, takes Dodge action. Both bandits attacks. Second turn: PC acts first, kills both bandits. Result: PC suffered 2 attacks (arguably at no disadvantage, because he can't see attackers before they attack), both bandits are dead


Of course, random chance on rolls, the number of attacks from PC, presence of other PC's/bandits, enough HP to survive the attack etc. may change the exact results, but in general, it doesn't matters, the results are the same, the only difference is if the encounter ends in one or two rounds, but the numbers of attacks was always the same. The PC actually have an advantage of one "extra" Action if he acts first, because he can use his action better then for Dodge...though he doesn't know what danger he's in, he can use defensive spell, run away, take cover...even run to the bushes and stumble upon one of the bandits by chance without knowing he was there!

[Xetheral]

Ok, the bandit example, what exactly is the problem? Let's say there are 2 bandits and one PC.


Situation 1: First turn: Bandits wins initiative, both attacks PC, PC acts (let's say he's got 2 attacks), kills them both. Result: PC suffered 2 attacks, both bandits are dead.

Situation 2: First turn: one bandit acts before PC, other after him: Bandit 1 attacks, PC acts, kills him, can't attack the other bandit who's hidden. Bandit 2 attacks on his initiative. Second turn: Bandit 1 is dead, PC acts, kills bandit 2 who revealed himself in the previous round. Result: PC suffered 2 attacks, both bandits are dead.

Situation 3: First turn: PC wins initiative, can't see any bandits, but thanks to Alert, got a hunch about danger, takes Dodge action. Both bandits attacks. Second turn: PC acts first, kills both bandits. Result: PC suffered 2 attacks (arguably at no disadvantage, because he can't see attackers before they attack), both bandits are dead


Of course, random chance on rolls, the number of attacks from PC, presence of other PC's/bandits, enough HP to survive the attack etc. may change the exact results, but in general, it doesn't matters, the results are the same, the only difference is if the encounter ends in one or two rounds, but the numbers of attacks was always the same. The PC actually have an advantage of one "extra" Action if he acts first, because he can use his action better then for Dodge...though he doesn't know what danger he's in, he can use defensive spell, run away, take cover...even run to the bushes and stumble upon one of the bandits by chance without knowing he was there!

The problem comes from the fact that situation 1 and 3 can be worse for the character (and the party) than situation 2. That you have found a specific set of combatants, attacks, and attack outcomes where the results are identical does not mean that the results will be identical without those extra constraints.

[Gwendol]

Te general rule is that unless specified otherwise the readied action occurs after the event that triggered it unless the readied action specifies otherwise.

Seeing as you can specify your own trigger for your own readied action you can overrule the general rule and word your readied action in a way that interrupts or resolves after something other than an action.

An example is to put your sword to someones throat and ready an attack 'if my opponent doesn't drop his weapon at the start of his turn'. Dropping a weapon isn't an action and if he takes his action to attack with the weapon he holds after the start of his turn he is acting after the trigger has come (and gone) so your attack comes first.

That's rules legal and complies with common sense.

While I agree with this, the way triggers are handled in the game gives ample fodder for a DM to screw you over wrt "triggering actions resolving before readied action can be taken". Case in point: it's impossible to ready an attack vs a creature trying to get out of your reach (or rather, you can ready the attack, but by the time you can take it the creature has left your threat zone). If you could, OA's wouldn't be worded the way they are.

[Malifice]

While I agree with this, the way triggers are handled in the game gives ample fodder for a DM to screw you over wrt "triggering actions resolving before readied action can be taken". Case in point: it's impossible to ready an attack vs a creature trying to get out of your reach (or rather, you can ready the attack, but by the time you can take it the creature has left your threat zone). If you could, OA's wouldn't be worded the way they are.

Word the trigger differently. You attack him if he moves more than a foot backwards, or maybe: You attack him if he doesnt immediately and at the start of his turn throw down his sword and surrender. All the ready action requires is a 'perceivable circumstance'.

After he completes moving a foot backwards (but while still within the reach of your sword) or if the start of his turn comes and passes and he hasnt immediately thrown down his sword and surrendered you attack.

Its no different to how you can cover a doorway with a crossbow. The creature doesnt have to end its movement in the doorway for you to take your readied action. You just need a percievable trigger to happen and bang.

Why rule one can cover a doorway with a crossbow and shoot them at any point during that movement, but you have to wait for an adjacent enemy in full view to complete its full movement before taking your readied action as it runs away?

[BladeWing81]

Delay is not really needed.

Just last wednesday, our assassin rogue made a smart move an ready-ed and action to an enemy to "shoot it at the moment someone enters melee with it" and signaled our character with simply: "get that guy". More than enough time for me or anyone else to close in and killed it on the spot.

[SharkForce]

Delay is not really needed.

Just last wednesday, our assassin rogue made a smart move an ready-ed and action to an enemy to "shoot it at the moment someone enters melee with it" and signaled our character with simply: "get that guy". More than enough time for me or anyone else to close in and killed it on the spot.

that's one example where ready works. there are a number of examples that have been cited where ready does not work.

[pwykersotz]

It seems to be one of those things that are like flanking bonuses. Players who want heavily tactical combat want it, but it goes slightly against the grain of what 5e tries to do. However, since it's not balance impacting, it's easy to houserule in to please the table. But keeping it out by default sets a certain tone and expectation for granularity of combat which is inline with the whole streamlining process of the game.

[Malifice]

It seems to be one of those things that are like flanking bonuses. Players who want heavily tactical combat want it, but it goes slightly against the grain of what 5e tries to do. However, since it's not balance impacting, it's easy to houserule in to please the table. But keeping it out by default sets a certain tone and expectation for granularity of combat which is inline with the whole streamlining process of the game.

I tried flanking for a session (and even implemented a rule to stop PCs from effortlessly moving around in a creatures reach, like the 5 foot step/ shift).

It was broken. I ditched it and we havent looked back.

[LordBlades]

I don't think anyone has touched yet (if I missed it sorry) how much ready sucks compared to delay for casters.

With delay, a caster could cast the right spell for the circumstances that occur when he wants to take his turn.

With ready:

-he needs to specify what spell he wants to cast when he declares the ready as opposed to when he executes it. This means any number of circumstances can make his spell choice invalid by the time he actually get to take his action.
-he needs to maintain concentration, which means readying ends any other concentration spell he had active and even if he choose the right spell, he might still lose it if he takes damage.


All in all, it seems to me that 5e is deliberately reducing the number (and impact) of tactical choices one can make in combat. Combat in 5e seems to be a lot more about numbers (pretty straightforward use of your character's abilities and rolling dice) rather than tactics. It's a lot more difficult to outplay a superior opponent or get outplayed by an inferior one. I don't think this is a bad thing in an objective sense: skill at tactical wargames should not be a prerequisite to play and enjoy an RPG, but I personally liked the tactical wargame aspect of 3.5 combat.

[Malifice]

I don't think anyone has touched yet (if I missed it sorry) how much ready sucks compared to delay for casters.

With delay, a caster could cast the right spell for the circumstances that occur when he wants to take his turn.

With ready:

-he needs to specify what spell he wants to cast when he declares the ready as opposed to when he executes it. This means any number of circumstances can make his spell choice invalid by the time he actually get to take his action.
-he needs to maintain concentration, which means readying ends any other concentration spell he had active and even if he choose the right spell, he might still lose it if he takes damage.


All in all, it seems to me that 5e is deliberately reducing the number (and impact) of tactical choices one can make in combat. Combat in 5e seems to be a lot more about numbers (pretty straightforward use of your character's abilities and rolling dice) rather than tactics. It's a lot more difficult to outplay a superior opponent or get outplayed by an inferior one. I don't think this is a bad thing in an objective sense: skill at tactical wargames should not be a prerequisite to play and enjoy an RPG, but I personally liked the tactical wargame aspect of 3.5 combat.

The choices havent been reduced at all.

The consequences of those choices, and the thought required to make them (risk/ reward/ forward thinking) have just changed.

It actually feels much more organic that an endless series of optimised readied/ delayed actions by a bunch of omniscient tatical geniuses.

[Talon Sky]

Not to drag real life in as an example, but as someone who got jumped and beat up a lot in high school let me make something clear: getting a feeling that something's about to go down (i.e. Failed Perception but Alert feat) and being able to react to it perfectly do not go hand in hand. Sometimes, even if you see the fist coming, the person attacking you is just a little bit faster. Sometimes all you can do is just duck or brace for it, whatever you readied but not your full round of actions.

Sorry, a lot of this conversation just came across to me as players complaining about not getting to act perfectly in a situation where their characters understandably wouldn't. Also, I worked all night, so this may not be perfectly articulated. Sorry about that :p

[LordBlades]

The choices havent been reduced at all.

The consequences of those choices, and the thought required to make them (risk/ reward/ forward thinking) have just changed.

It actually feels much more organic that an endless series of optimised readied/ delayed actions by a bunch of omniscient tatical geniuses.

You do realize delay is gone, and that readying heavily penalizes you, right? How is that not a reduction in choices?

While it might feel more organic to you, it feels more dumbed down and random to me.

Also, somebody with maxed Int for example probably is a tactical genius.

[Malifice]

You do realize delay is gone, and that readying heavily penalizes you, right? How is that not a reduction in choices?

Take your action now, or ready to do so later.

You can still ready a fireball for later on, it just has stronger consequences now (lose concentration on any current spells).


While it might feel more organic to you, it feels more dumbed down and random to me.

Then house-rule it. It's not really needed, but go for it.


Also, somebody with maxed Int for example probably is a tactical genius.

Einstein, Schroedinger and Hawking dont strike me as particularly savvy individuals that I would listen to in a swirling melee. I'd probably defer to Grog Smashfist; lord of steel and destroyer of worlds.

Maybe thats just me.

[LordBlades]

Take your action now, or ready to do so later.

You can still ready a fireball for later on, it just has stronger consequences now (lose concentration on any current spells).





However, the optiin to 'move and take your action later'. is gone. Now it's either 'move now, act later' or 'act now move latet', so there is a reduction in choices, coupled with the fact that some of the choices that remain have been made less viable.

[Arial Black]

It seems as though the writers of 5E got sick of how combat in 3E was quickly manipulated so that the semi-randomness of combat modelled by rolling initiatives was eliminated by combatants having perfect control of their fighting environment.

The consequence of eliminating the Delay action and putting so many riders on the Ready action, including the inability to change your initiative, means that combat remains somewhat chaotic, which better models actual combat.

Conceptually, all the action is happening all the time. Individual combatants do not actually take turns or start and stop doing their stuff. Taking turns is just a way to manage combat, not an aim.

But when combatants can change their initiative scores, then quickly each side changes scores so that the result is that one entire side has all of its members act one after the other and the opponents just have to wait and suffer. Then, after each guy of side A has gone, side B does the same. This modelled combat poorly.

Combatants might wish they had that kind of control, but the enemy isn't going to let them!

So, without the ability to change your initiative, combat remains more realistically chaotic. Any attempt to mess with when you do stuff (with Ready) comes at a price and doesn't last beyond that one instance.

I like that 5E did this.

[LordBlades]

It seems as though the writers of 5E got sick of how combat in 3E was quickly manipulated so that the semi-randomness of combat modelled by rolling initiatives was eliminated by combatants having perfect control of their fighting environment.

The consequence of eliminating the Delay action and putting so many riders on the Ready action, including the inability to change your initiative, means that combat remains somewhat chaotic, which better models actual combat.

Conceptually, all the action is happening all the time. Individual combatants do not actually take turns or start and stop doing their stuff. Taking turns is just a way to manage combat, not an aim.

But when combatants can change their initiative scores, then quickly each side changes scores so that the result is that one entire side has all of its members act one after the other and the opponents just have to wait and suffer. Then, after each guy of side A has gone, side B does the same. This modelled combat poorly.

Combatants might wish they had that kind of control, but the enemy isn't going to let them!

So, without the ability to change your initiative, combat remains more realistically chaotic. Any attempt to mess with when you do stuff (with Ready) comes at a price and doesn't last beyond that one instance.

I like that 5E did this.


Except 5e only did this for the players.

Explicitly, per RAW, identical monsters still act all at once (PHB pag. 189 'The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.'). Apparently a random group of goblins can muster more coordination than a band of seasoned adventurers.

I honestly don't think 5e did this to make combat more realistic. I think it did this to make combat simpler. Less thinking, more rolling. Which, as I said, I don't view as a bad thing (just aimed at a slightly different target audience than 3.5).

[CNagy]

Except 5e only did this for the players.

Explicitly, per RAW, identical monsters still act all at once (PHB pag. 189 'The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.'). Apparently a random group of goblins can muster more coordination than a band of seasoned adventurers.

I honestly don't think 5e did this to make combat more realistic. I think it did this to make combat simpler. Less thinking, more rolling. Which, as I said, I don't view as a bad thing (just aimed at a slightly different target audience than 3.5).

If you've got a Simulacrum, he acts on your turn. Identical creatures--the party is not a group of them. And there isn't a lot of coordination to "all the goblins stab at you."

[LordBlades]

If you've got a Simulacrum, he acts on your turn. Identical creatures--the party is not a group of them. And there isn't a lot of coordination to "all the goblins stab at you."


Except it's perfectly possible to have 50 goblins doing 50 different things (from stabbing at you to doing complex math or painting) all in perfect coordination.

Also, if 2 players build 2 identical characters, they still don't act on the same initiative, even if all they do is 'stab at the monster'.

The Simulacrum acts on your turn for simplicity's sake, because it's controlled by the same out of game entity (they player)

All identical monsters act on the same turn for simplicity's sake, because they are controlled by the same out of game entity (the DM)

It has nothing to do with realism or any kind of in-game justification IMO.

[EvanescentHero]

All identical monsters act on the same turn for simplicity's sake, because they are controlled by the same out of game entity (the DM)

It has nothing to do with realism or any kind of in-game justification IMO.

As the DM, if there are ten of the same monster, yeah, I'm going to have them act at the same time. Or I'll split them into groups and have those groups act at the same time. But I'm not interspersing ten different initiative rolls along with the five that my players make, not to mention if the goblins are there as mooks for some other monster(s).

This was true in 3.P as well. There is no reason to make combat take longer than it needs to by giving each individual goblin in a group larger than the party's an initiative roll of their own.

In addition, a line in the PHB does not necessarily have any real impact on how a DM runs combats. And on top of that, everything in a round of combat is supposed to be happening at the same time, so realistically, it hardly matters. But I'm not gonna make combat run longer, or make my job harder than it already is.

[LordBlades]

As the DM, if there are ten of the same monster, yeah, I'm going to have them act at the same time. Or I'll split them into groups and have those groups act at the same time. But I'm not interspersing ten different initiative rolls along with the five that my players make, not to mention if the goblins are there as mooks for some other monster(s).

This was true in 3.P as well. There is no reason to make combat take longer than it needs to by giving each individual goblin in a group larger than the party's an initiative roll of their own.

In addition, a line in the PHB does not necessarily have any real impact on how a DM runs combats. And on top of that, everything in a round of combat is supposed to be happening at the same time, so realistically, it hardly matters. But I'm not gonna make combat run longer, or make my job harder than it already is.

I totally agree and I never had any issues with that (I do the same as a DM).

What I disagree with is people praising how the lack of delay makes combat so realistic, when the DM side of the combat is still run (or at least that's the default expectation in the book) in the same completely unrealistic way as in 3.5.

[Arial Black]

Except 5e only did this for the players.

Explicitly, per RAW, identical monsters still act all at once (PHB pag. 189 'The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.'). Apparently a random group of goblins can muster more coordination than a band of seasoned adventurers.

I honestly don't think 5e did this to make combat more realistic. I think it did this to make combat simpler. Less thinking, more rolling. Which, as I said, I don't view as a bad thing (just aimed at a slightly different target audience than 3.5).

When I DM 5E (or 3E), all the monsters have individually rolled initiative. I would only have group initiative in unusual circumstances, like literally hordes of enemies.

The game also lets you assume average damage rolls for the bad guys. I would never do that! Does anyone do that?

Just because the game says it's okay, doesn't mean you must, or that it's better. The game also has multi-classing and feats as optional rules, but it seems more like that they are core rules that you can opt out of, to help keep it simple for those new to the game, and they can put them back in when they get their heads around the basics.

[DanyBallon]

When I DM 5E (or 3E), all the monsters have individually rolled initiative. I would only have group initiative in unusual circumstances, like literally hordes of enemies.

The game also lets you assume average damage rolls for the bad guys. I would never do that! Does anyone do that?

I do! I used to roll damage for all attacks, but I found out that unless I was on a lucky strike, it pretty much even out and was much faster this way. I still roll damage for bosses or on critical hit.

Same goes for initiative, I now roll initiative for individual groups, eitheir by creature type, or by function (i.e. Guards, reinforcement, archers, etc.), named NPC alway act individually.

[MeeposFire]

When I DM 5E (or 3E), all the monsters have individually rolled initiative. I would only have group initiative in unusual circumstances, like literally hordes of enemies.

The game also lets you assume average damage rolls for the bad guys. I would never do that! Does anyone do that?

Just because the game says it's okay, doesn't mean you must, or that it's better. The game also has multi-classing and feats as optional rules, but it seems more like that they are core rules that you can opt out of, to help keep it simple for those new to the game, and they can put them back in when they get their heads around the basics.

I have known people that have used averages before and it never bothered them or the players. Heck for me as a pl;ayer rolling dice is fun but with the amount that you do as a DM damage dice for the most part loses most of its charm.

One MAJOR exception is for drama or if I am about to roll a LOT of dice because then the fun is back!

[JFahy]

And as for playing the game like chess: it's a tactical grid based combat game, of course you should be able to play it like chess if you want. So yeah go ahead and delay, it's perfectly fine.

I can't resist. :smallwink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

[pwykersotz]

I can't resist. :smallwink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

Haha, that's hilarious! The relevance is absolutely perfect. :smallbiggrin:

[Gwendol]

Word the trigger differently. You attack him if he moves more than a foot backwards, or maybe: You attack him if he doesnt immediately and at the start of his turn throw down his sword and surrender. All the ready action requires is a 'perceivable circumstance'.

After he completes moving a foot backwards (but while still within the reach of your sword) or if the start of his turn comes and passes and he hasnt immediately thrown down his sword and surrendered you attack.

Its no different to how you can cover a doorway with a crossbow. The creature doesnt have to end its movement in the doorway for you to take your readied action. You just need a percievable trigger to happen and bang.

Why rule one can cover a doorway with a crossbow and shoot them at any point during that movement, but you have to wait for an adjacent enemy in full view to complete its full movement before taking your readied action as it runs away?

It's the bolded part that may lead to contention: "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your
reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore
the trigger."

I agree that is how readied actions and triggers should work: simultaneously, but that's not how the rules are written. Or rather, the way the rules are written does not lead to consistent outcomes wrt reaction triggers, which puts into question the ease to define readied action triggers.

[pwykersotz]

It's the bolded part that may lead to contention: "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your
reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore
the trigger."

I agree that is how readied actions and triggers should work: simultaneously, but that's not how the rules are written. Or rather, the way the rules are written does not lead to consistent outcomes wrt reaction triggers, which puts into question the ease to define readied action triggers.

I actually like this way better. It prevents the shenanigans of 3.5 where you could have crazy contingency plans. Having a perceptible trigger and taking your action after it occurs makes a lot more sense in my mind.

[CNagy]

It's the bolded part that may lead to contention: "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your
reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore
the trigger."

I agree that is how readied actions and triggers should work: simultaneously, but that's not how the rules are written. Or rather, the way the rules are written does not lead to consistent outcomes wrt reaction triggers, which puts into question the ease to define readied action triggers.

It's a lot simpler than it seems. Your trigger is a perceivable circumstance, and once that perceivable circumstance comes to pass, the very next thing that happens is your readied action unless you choose to pass. You can word the perceivable circumstance as specific or as general as you wish--and depending on how you word it, the trigger is either contained in/occurring before an action (in which case you interrupt that action) or the trigger is an action (in which case your reaction comes after that action.)

[Gwendol]

I'm glad we seem to be in agreement then. A word of caution though is to run this by the DM at one point or other, since the PHB definition of reactions, triggers, and readied action got somewhat stealth errataed by the DMG.