delaying your turn

[Samayu]

There's an action called Ready. You set a trigger and a specific thing to do, and when the trigger occurs, you may choose to do that thing. All other parts of your turn (like movement) happen during your turn, but this readied action happens at a later time, when the trigger occurs. Like, when someone comes within your reach you whack them.

But what about delaying your entire turn? You just say "pass," and at a later point in the round, when someone's done with their turn you say, "I want to go now."

Is that a thing? It's not in the PHB, as far as I can tell. I don't have the DMG.

The main reason I think it's important to be able to delay, is when we all want to act at the same time. For example, we all rush in and attack together... like the enemy gets to do to us, since groups go on the same initiative. Basically for both moving and attacking.

[Mellack]

Nope, by RAW there is no delay. You might want to ask your DM to allow it. Best you can do is ready a single action to all happen at once.

[MaxDPSsays]

I don't think it exist in the game. We do homebrew it though. We use the existing Ready an Action as it is in the book, but we added a "Hold Action" as well. It does just as you say. If I roll a 15 initiative and the fighter rolls a 12, I can use the hold action to lower my initiative to an 11, or right after the fighter goes. We don't even have to give a condition. If you change your mind you can wait until the wizard goes at a 5. You are then bound to that spot in initiative for all future rounds or until you hold even further.

[Insolitus]

Yeah, it's rather ridiculous considering that turns are meant to happen all at the same time. Why can't the high initiative rogue wait until their buddy the fighter engages so they can get sneak attack? Readying an action doesn't cut it seeing as you can't include movement and bonus actions.

[Samayu]

If there was still a Charge action, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

[Hawkstar]

They specifically excluded the Delay action from the game to "Make initiative matter".

[Potato_Priest]

I like this variant: When you originally roll initiative, you can reduce your initiative score at will. No other time during combat, however. That means that if the rogue knows they want the fighter to go first for the sneak attack they can delay, but they have to be planning ahead.

[Insolitus]

They specifically excluded the Delay action from the game to "Make initiative matter".

Initiative should still matter with a delay action though; often times you want to go before your opponents at the start of combat.

Personally, I think the delay action allows for more teamwork. And as the OP mentioned groups of enemies generally act on the same initiative, so they have that slight advantage in deciding what order to act in.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I like this variant: When you originally roll initiative, you can reduce your initiative score at will. No other time during combat, however.

My solution as well. Accommodates party tactics without the mess of a delay action.

[djreynolds]

It seems cool, delay action. I like it.

But to be fair there has to be a standard amount subtracted so there is a chance it could back fire.

Say your table standard was 4, and you rolled a 15, you could take an 11... no more no less.

This way it still allow the chance that one of the goblins rolled a 12.

But the idea is very cool for team tactics. I may try it.

[Tanarii]

It was intentionally left out.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/631941574243450880

Edit: I imagine what Mearls really means here is something like: it adds unnecessary complication and creates weird rules edge cases. IIRC I've seen other tweets from him or JC saying they felt the Ready action was sufficient to cover the rules requirements for acting on another's turn.

Edit2: here's an article from Hack&Slash quoting another Mearls tweet saying that it's to keep the rules simple, and H&S defending that the Delay action isn't needed:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-missing-delay-action-in-5th-edition.html

[Grod_The_Giant]

Not having a delay option is goofy, and alternatives probably will cause more confusion than simply saying "you can take your turn later."

[Theodoxus]

Tables I've played at with people who played prior editions, the lack of delay has caused some confusion.

I think the reasoning that the Tweet above was answering is silly. Easiest solution, if that's actually a problem, is to note the initiative number the effect was created on - it always goes on that number, regardless of when the initiator later goes. In essence, the magic gets its own initiative once cast. It's just that probably 99.9% of the time it'll be the same as the caster.

Delay should definitely be an Option, like most of the 'knobs' they added to in the DMG. "Advanced" groups who want a little more combat strategy toggle it on, otherwise the default is off.

Readying has created more confusion, honestly. People always ask if it resets their initiative; why they can't take multiple or bonus actions, etc. Making it a Reaction makes sense, but it's not an obvious conversion if you haven't used it or read up on Ready.

[Addaran]

We do homebrew it though. We use the existing Ready an Action as it is in the book, but we added a "Hold Action" as well. It does just as you say. If I roll a 15 initiative and the fighter rolls a 12, I can use the hold action to lower my initiative to an 11, or right after the fighter goes. We don't even have to give a condition. If you change your mind you can wait until the wizard goes at a 5. You are then bound to that spot in initiative for all future rounds or until you hold even further.

Exactly what i do and it works perfectly.


https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearl...41574243450880 Could be a problem, but i've never had a player try this. If he did, i'd just say that the spell ends when is turn was supposed to be.

[Samayu]

From the Tweets linked above:
Q: can a player delay their initiative to extend an effect that ends at the begging of their turn?
A: Nope - there is no delay action in 5th edition precisely to stop such shennanigans.

The answer is obvious - "You went in 17? It's now 17 again, so the effect ends. You want to delay your turn until later? Fine."

I would say it's also quite obvious that your group can house rule this any way they want, but that's a problem for two reasons. One, our DM plays absolutely by the book and doesn't allow house rules. Second, as I understand it, neither does Adventurer's League.

So now we're stuck with a rule that disallows certain tactics that the monsters can take advantage of.

Who the heck wrote that article on Hack & Slash? It makes no sense! Is it sarcasm? They assert that delaying actions slow the game down, but I can't figure out how. They assert that the appearance of truth (verisimilitude) "can die in a fire," but again, do not defend that opinion (except possibly with a metagame example).

And another Tweet from Mike Mearls:
Q: sorry, why no delay anymore in combat? Interested in reasoning.
A: effectively replaced by readying - slims down game

My opinion: not effectively replaced. Doesn't slim down game. Since the readied action can take place during someone else's turn, in the middle of their turn, in between their actions, things become more complicated. Personally, I think it's cool that the game has enough versatility to allow that, but it doesn't allow something much simpler.

What other edge cases are we trying to prevent?

[Kane0]

My group hasn't really missed it. The players that would use it are the kind that have trouble making decisions, so reducing their options to 'act or ready' helps a lot.

Nothing wrong with adding it back in, but so far readying seems to work fine. Stops the analysis paralysis for us at least.

[Cybren]

Tables I've played at with people who played prior editions, the lack of delay has caused some confusion.

I think the reasoning that the Tweet above was answering is silly. Easiest solution, if that's actually a problem, is to note the initiative number the effect was created on - it always goes on that number, regardless of when the initiator later goes. In essence, the magic gets its own initiative once cast. It's just that probably 99.9% of the time it'll be the same as the caster.

Delay should definitely be an Option, like most of the 'knobs' they added to in the DMG. "Advanced" groups who want a little more combat strategy toggle it on, otherwise the default is off.

Readying has created more confusion, honestly. People always ask if it resets their initiative; why they can't take multiple or bonus actions, etc. Making it a Reaction makes sense, but it's not an obvious conversion if you haven't used it or read up on Ready.

I kind of wonder what would happen if you let people just ready a full turns worth of movement & actions... It would certainly make some things way more powerful, so their reasoning may have been they didn't want players to spend too much time playing the Reaction Game...

[mephnick]

I do kind of wonder why you can't ready a full action (all attacks). Seems like it just hurts non-spellcasters. I'm sure there's some balance issue I'm not thinking of.

[Zalabim]

I do kind of wonder why you can't ready a full action (all attacks). Seems like it just hurts non-spellcasters. I'm sure there's some balance issue I'm not thinking of.

For spellcasters, readying a spell requires concentration even if the spell normally doesn't, and that also includes a chance to lose the spell if you take damage before your reaction is triggered. There's a few cases where the least is spent to take the readied option, like Channel Divinity (turn undead when they surround me) and the Rogue's Sneak Attack. Even the cleric's divine strike has to be used on your own turn.

[tsotate]

I do kind of wonder why you can't ready a full action (all attacks). Seems like it just hurts non-spellcasters. I'm sure there's some balance issue I'm not thinking of.

Because you can? You ready one action, and your extra attacks are part of the one attack action. Well, unless you for some reason want to TWF, but the rules discourage that for non-rogues just as much as they did in previous editions.

Also, spellcasters get it far worse. Readying eats their concentration, for something that might not even happen.

[Cazero]

Because you can? You ready one action, and your extra attacks are part of the one attack action.
Not by RAW. The Extra Attack class feature specifies occuring only on your turn.
Since it was probably made to clarify that you're not supposed to stack Extra Attacks on Attacks of Opportunity, it's pretty easy to fix if you find it problematic.

[tsotate]

Not by RAW. The Extra Attack class feature specifies occuring only on your turn.


Huh. I somehow never noticed that.

I take it back, casters and martials get screwed by readying actions.

[Tanarii]

Personally & overall, I don't miss the delay action. IMX it does, in the hands of experienced players, slow down games and open up shenanigans. It's almost never used for an intended purpose ... and using it to line up the players going all in a row typically is the most common use, and breaks the default assumptions of the combat system. (Just like side initiative does. DMG 270 side initiative variant's last sentence should be in bold or something.)

OTOH, when dealing with brand new players, it's an awesome tool to speed up play. Give them a time limit to start taking their turn, starting long and reducing as they get used to the game, and if they can't decide just tell them they Delay for now, but to jump in as soon as they know what they want to do. It's best to tell them in advance so you can make it clear you're not punishing them, just trying to make sure the game keeps moving forward while still giving them an opportunity to participate as and when they feel ready.

Generally speaking I don't think Delay is a bad rule to reintroduce to 5e when appropriate. Just be prepared to shut down "we all delay to bum-rush the room through the open door at the same initiative count" shenanigans and you're golden.

(Besides, starting combat outside a door shows a basic misunderstanding of the combat system. You roll inititave when the players enter the room and hostilities commence. With surprise if they successfully bum-rush. Not before they open the door.)

[Socratov]

I understand why ready is an action, but then again, in 3.5 it existed as well: if you expected something to happen you could delay your action until that turn. (It was how counterspelling used to work: you readied an action triggering on an enemy casting, then you'd roll arcana to recognise the spell and matched it cancel out or used dispel magic to cancel it out on a dispel check). You could, hoever, delay your turn in the initiative order to allow another people in your party to go first (like the bard using inspire courage with DFI for extra damage) and lay down some buffs/debuffs/whatever. It's not a game breaking thing to allow Jack to delay his turn until Jill has gone. It's essentially as if you ready your on when Jill has acted. It allows for more teamwork (which is good) and encourages tactical thinking including synergistic problem solving.

Just like a DM should never discourage teamwork, he shouldn't enforce the initiative order with an iron fist, nor should he penalise people for delaying their turns by permanently lowering their initiative.

Initiative resembles how quick you, as a character, respond to a threat. That does not mean you can't wait for things to unfold. it does mean you can't act any quicker then that: it's the literal maximum of your initiative for that encounter.

[Tanarii]

Just like a DM should never discourage teamwork, he shouldn't enforce the initiative order with an iron fist, nor should he penalise people for delaying their turns by permanently lowering their initiative. Completely disagree. If you allow delay, you absolutely should permanently lower the character initiative to the count they act on. Rounds are cyclical. If you reset them after delaying, you're allowing a character to act twice before other creatures get to act.

[Socratov]

Completely disagree. If you allow delay, you absolutely should permanently lower the character initiative to the count they act on. Rounds are cyclical. If you reset them after delaying, you're allowing a character to act twice before other creatures get to act.

Only if you delay your turn past the enemy's and at that point the game is not broken. You don't get to act twice in the same round, as the round is a sequence in which everyone has had a turn at which to act. You don't get to suddenly act extra and the number of actions you take is exactly the same, the timing is just different. The same pretty much happens when you ready an action: you get to act after your action is triggered (often done when the enemy triggers it) and in the next round you get to act on your initiative again.

Your initiative tells you when you can act, when you want to act is up to the player.

Isn't it the great idea that the turns in a round should happen about simultaneously anyway?

[Sabeta]

Yeah, it's rather ridiculous considering that turns are meant to happen all at the same time. Why can't the high initiative rogue wait until their buddy the fighter engages so they can get sneak attack? Readying an action doesn't cut it seeing as you can't include movement and bonus actions.

People really need to stop saying this. Game Mechanics > Fluff. Yes, it says the turns happen simultaneously, but if that were completely true then a monster who died should still have one more turn to attack or whatever because he won't actually be dead until the end of the 6 second round.

To be honest, delay just doesn't make sense. It's one thing to say that you focus your attention on exactly one circumstance, one that you're probably counting on to happen. It's another to say that your has decided to stand still for the .06 second difference while someone else fights.

[Tanarii]

Only if you delay your turn past the enemy's and at that point the game is not broken. You don't get to act twice in the same round, as the round is a sequence in which everyone has had a turn at which to act. Hair splitting and shenanigans. Or confusion on your part. A round isn't just a meta-game construct that exists free from initiative. It's also from one point in the initiative to the same point in the initiative. If you allow delay without adjusting initiative, you enabling someone to skip acting in order to act twice in one round. And since its under the players control, this will always be for their mechanical benefit, one way or another.



Isn't it the great idea that the turns in a round should happen about simultaneously anyway?
Yes. An not adjusting initiative breaks that idea. Because now they're getting to not act for a second, store up time, and act twice in the next simultaneous slice of 6 seconds.

[Socratov]

Hair splitting and shenanigans. Or confusion on your part. A round isn't just a meta-game construct that exists free from initiative. It's also from one point in the initiative to the same point in the initiative.
By that reasoning readying an action should be abolished too as it changes when your action happens in the same manner.

If you allow delay without adjusting initiative, you enabling someone to skip acting in order to act twice in one round.No, everyone will have the exact same number of turns as the next. A round of actions is from the highest in initiative order down to the lowest in initiative order: a round of actions is a sequence of turns in which every combat participant has had the opportunity to act, even if they are restricted in what actions they may take (when suffering from one of more conditions or passing)
And since its under the players control, this will always be for their mechanical benefit, one way or another. Well, excuse me, but IMO anything the players can do, the enemies can do as well. What's to stop the enemies to employ the same exact tactics? Why can't the enemies hatch a plan and execute it in order?


Yes. An not adjusting initiative breaks that idea. Because now they're getting to not act for a second, store up time, and act twice in the next simultaneous slice of 6 seconds.
So, you can't wait for the time to strike (delaying your turn after XYZ happens) and follow it up with a combo of your own? You turn the tables, set the fight to your hand, blablabla, whatever. Mechanically speaking you delay your turn at first, await the perfect moment and then let all hell break loose.

[Xethik]

By that reasoning readying an action should be abolished too as it changes when your action happens in the same manner.No, everyone will have the exact same number of turns as the next. A round of actions is from the highest in initiative order down to the lowest in initiative order: a round of actions is a sequence of turns in which every combat participant has had the opportunity to act, even if they are restricted in what actions they may take (when suffering from one of more conditions or passing) Well, excuse me, but IMO anything the players can do, the enemies can do as well. What's to stop the enemies to employ the same exact tactics? Why can't the enemies hatch a plan and execute it in order?
So, you can't wait for the time to strike (delaying your turn after XYZ happens) and follow it up with a combo of your own? You turn the tables, set the fight to your hand, blablabla, whatever. Mechanically speaking you delay your turn at first, await the perfect moment and then let all hell break loose.
It's a problem of burst action economy. A Wizard could invisible and then delay, taking their turn to move into position and fire off two spells before the enemy can react. Or in a fight that splits into a stalemates between two rooms, a fighter could delay and take his turn just before his turn, moving into the room and getting off two full attacks.

You can do similar things with readied actions, but with readied actions you are generally on defense. Having that same advantage on offense could be a major headache.

[Tanarii]

You can do similar things with readied actions, but with readied actions you are generally on defense. Having that same advantage on offense could be a major headache.
More importantly, Readied actions only happen on a specific trigger. If that trigger never occurs, you lose the Action portion of your turn completely. And that trigger is policed by the DM, which prevents 'enemy starts its turn' or 'enemy twitches' shenanigans that will make it garunteed to go off. Which is why Rogue builds that depend on out of turn Ready Sneak Attack are ridiculous ... you can't assume Ready attacks will work. They work great to deter the enemy from doing a specific thing, you can give it the hard choice between your Ready Sneak Attack and not doing the thing. But not for just assuming you'll get the attack

Delay doesn't have that disadvantage. If it's going to be house ruled back it, it absolutely needs to change initiative to prevent '2 turns before one enemy turn' shenanigans.

[Socratov]

It's a problem of burst action economy. A Wizard could invisible and then delay, taking their turn to move into position and fire off two spells before the enemy can react. Or in a fight that splits into a stalemates between two rooms, a fighter could delay and take his turn just before his turn, moving into the room and getting off two full attacks.

You can do similar things with readied actions, but with readied actions you are generally on defense. Having that same advantage on offense could be a major headache.

That all depends on how you use it.

example 1: the wizard gets his first spell of at an advantage (or disadvantage on the dex save), goo don him. After that a new round starts: are the enemies still surprised? No, they have been blasted, they are now (again) aware of the wizard standing where he is. He might blast again, but now they expect it. over the three rounds that this happens the wizard now has acted 3 times, but the enemies still have their turns before them as the round is not finished yet.

As for the fighter, in the mean time, the enemies get to act twice before he goes too. So unless he moves in at the last second before his two attacks he is standing there absorbing the full brunt of the front line. If he doesn't, someone else is taking that damage. In this case he might tag in and allow someone else to tag out.

As for an offensive reaction, what if the bard is at a lower initiative then I am, he will cast hypnotic pattern (like planned) and I want to lay waste at them with a well aimed fireball: "I ready an action to cast fireball once Beedle here has enthralled them with Hypnotic Pattern". Boom, I delay my action, lay waste, and because I'm at a higher initiative I get to act again before my buddy Beedle, might as well aim another fireball at them. Thats what I would call an offensive readied action. That same could be done with a single target spell that triggers once the barbarian has a chance to grapple the bastard. Saying that readied actions are mostly aimed at defence is frankly naïve.

If it would make you feel batter, I'd think it would be a reasonable thing to say that you can delay action as long as you don't move past an enemy in the rotation, to keep the action/reaction (not the in-game terms but the general concepts) chain in effect. I just don't hink you need to penalise people who want to adjust their timing in 1 or more rounds to facilitate more teamwork.

[Addaran]

As for an offensive reaction, what if the bard is at a lower initiative then I am, he will cast hypnotic pattern (like planned) and I want to lay waste at them with a well aimed fireball: "I ready an action to cast fireball once Beedle here has enthralled them with Hypnotic Pattern". Boom, I delay my action, lay waste, and because I'm at a higher initiative I get to act again before my buddy Beedle, might as well aim another fireball at them. Thats what I would call an offensive readied action. That same could be done with a single target spell that triggers once the barbarian has a chance to grapple the bastard. Saying that readied actions are mostly aimed at defence is frankly naïve.


Like Tanarii said, with ready action, there's always a risk that the trigger won't happen and you lose everything. There's also a "cost" since you don't get a full turn. You lose your bonus action, your reaction and can't do some things, like extra attack.

[Socratov]

Like Tanarii said, with ready action, there's always a risk that the trigger won't happen and you lose everything. There's also a "cost" since you don't get a full turn. You lose your bonus action, your reaction and can't do some things, like extra attack.
Well, the trigger is all down to choosing a sensible trigger. If you don't have one, don't ready an action or delay your turn. And I think that discouraging giving someone else a moment to shine and delaying your action to synchronise teamwork should be encouraged.

[Krivelios]

The main purpose is to make things faster. Remember that in olders editions you had to declare your action BEFORE you roll the dice.

[Tanarii]

The main purpose is to make things faster. Remember that in olders editions you had to declare your action BEFORE you roll the dice.
That seems like a non-sequitur. As in, what's the second sentence got to do with the price of milk?

You can run 5e that way. I tried it for one session to see how it would work. It's pretty terrible, although I also used side initiative, which just makes thing worse. And incidentally is why I said Delay to line up multiple PC initiative/actions on purpose is shenanigans. Because as the side initiative variant has shown me, this breaks the assumptions of the system.

But back to 'declare first' ... one thing that it had that kept side inititiative in check in OG gaming was most DMs I know ruled 'declare your actions' similar to the ready action ... if your declared action became invalid, you lost your action for the round. That means you either went pretty vague (I attack an Orc ganging up on Bob) which meant damage was around, or specific (I attack the same Orc Bob does; I attack the Orc trying to run for it) and risked doing overkill damage to a target, or your target disappearing around a corner and losing your turn. I believe that's RAW too, but there are so many versions of oD&D & Basic etc that I can't recall off the top of my head, I'd have to look it up. And AD&D 1e initiative was a hot mess anyway.

Edit: to be clear, I didn't do that when I tested it, I allowed targets to be chosen when the action 'resolved', you just had to declare what action you were using. If I'd done it as choose targets and potentially lose targets, declare actions + side initiative might actually have worked out okay.

Similarly, that's why I would never recommend reintroducing Delay Action and allowing players to line up their turns. If a new player can't think something up, sure. But experienced players just want it so they can manipulate the inititave system for shenanigans.

[Gwendol]

Game-wise, readying is more to handle than delaying, so the reasons for including the one and excluding the other are not exactly crystal clear. In-game there are stronger reasons for allowing readied actions and disallowing delaying of actions. When readying the PC sets up an action and looks for the trigger event. Delaying however becomes strange: your lightning reflexes allow you to react immediately, yet you don't... And if the reason for delaying is to allow a bard or cleric to hand out a buff, then the action should be readied using that trigger.

[Krivelios]

That seems like a non-sequitur. As in, what's the second sentence got to do with the price of milk?

You can run 5e that way. I tried it for one session to see how it would work. It's pretty terrible, although I also used side initiative, which just makes thing worse. And incidentally is why I said Delay to line up multiple PC initiative/actions on purpose is shenanigans. Because as the side initiative variant has shown me, this breaks the assumptions of the system.

But back to 'declare first' ... one thing that it had that kept side inititiative in check in OG gaming was most DMs I know ruled 'declare your actions' similar to the ready action ... if your declared action became invalid, you lost your action for the round. That means you either went pretty vague (I attack an Orc ganging up on Bob) which meant damage was around, or specific (I attack the same Orc Bob does; I attack the Orc trying to run for it) and risked doing overkill damage to a target, or your target disappearing around a corner and losing your turn. I believe that's RAW too, but there are so many versions of oD&D & Basic etc that I can't recall off the top of my head, I'd have to look it up. And AD&D 1e initiative was a hot mess anyway.

Edit: to be clear, I didn't do that when I tested it, I allowed targets to be chosen when the action 'resolved', you just had to declare what action you were using. If I'd done it as choose targets and potentially lose targets, declare actions + side initiative might actually have worked out okay.

Similarly, that's why I would never recommend reintroducing Delay Action and allowing players to line up their turns. If a new player can't think something up, sure. But experienced players just want it so they can manipulate the inititave system for shenanigans.

Making it a bit more clear. I don´t think we need the delay action. It makes the combat slower with interruptions. One of the things 5e tried really hard is to make things simpler. The statment on the second sentence was to remember that things used to be worse. Declare 1st, roll later is not a good way to speed anything, just a nice waty to make it more chaotic.

[BiPolar]

We've generally played it as you can delay your action as described in the PHB, but if you want to move your entire turn to another position you may do so - at the penalty that where you move becomes your new position in the initiative order.

[Tanarii]

Making it a bit more clear. I don´t think we need the delay action. It makes the combat slower with interruptions. One of the things 5e tried really hard is to make things simpler. The statment on the second sentence was to remember that things used to be worse. Declare 1st, roll later is not a good way to speed anything, just a nice waty to make it more chaotic.I think it worked fine for where it came from, and what it was trying to do. It came from wargaming, and the goal was to emulate simultaneous actions. That's exactly how many wargames were designed to do it too.

'Modern' D&D makes this big deal of talking about all the actions in a round being simultaneous, but the combat rules don't back that up at all. The switch to individual initiative and declaring / taking actions being done at the same turn as resolving them per individual creature, killed that.

IMX declare / resolve with side initiative is much faster than individual initiative & declare / resolve on each creatures turn.

They just each have their own pitfalls.

[Ursus the Grim]

I like this variant: When you originally roll initiative, you can reduce your initiative score at will. No other time during combat, however. That means that if the rogue knows they want the fighter to go first for the sneak attack they can delay, but they have to be planning ahead.

What's the significant difference between 'delay' as mentioned in OP and doing the following:

1. Rogue moves to target.
2. Rogue readies an action: 'when an ally enters melee with this creature, I will make an attack.'
3. Fighter enters melee with target, rogue gets sneak attack.

[Addaran]

One very good use of delay is when the team is stuck in a narrow hallway. If you fallow initiative, the team members have to pass through the other players (difficult terrain) and my end up blocking the others with where they stop. If you can delay, the first in line exit the hallway and can attack, then the 2nd, 3rd, etc.


What's the significant difference between 'delay' as mentioned in OP and doing the following:

1. Rogue moves to target.
2. Rogue readies an action: 'when an ally enters melee with this creature, I will make an attack.'
3. Fighter enters melee with target, rogue gets sneak attack.

Fighters move toward the targets, trigger a pit trap and fall in it. Now he won't get in melee with the creature, so rogue lose his turn.

An enemy caster reveal himself after the rogue's turn. The fighter decide to go hit him cause he's more dangerous, the rogue won't have his turn.


Or, if the rogue was a fighter that wanted to wait for the wolf barbarian to get in melee to have advantage, he'd only get one attack instead of all his extra attacks.

[Potato_Priest]

What's the significant difference between 'delay' as mentioned in OP and doing the following:

1. Rogue moves to target.
2. Rogue readies an action: 'when an ally enters melee with this creature, I will make an attack.'
3. Fighter enters melee with target, rogue gets sneak attack.

2 doors are 10 feet apart. The fighter knows that an enemy will be coming out of one of them, and wants to hit them when they do, but has only a maul. He has to ready an action by one of the doors and hope it's the one that the enemy chooses, because he can't move and attack in response to a trigger.

Where are you guys getting that you can't use extra attack on a ready action?

[Gwendol]

Where are you guys getting that you can't use extra attack on a ready action?

I'm not sure, but I guess it comes from extra attack only being available if "you take the attack action on your turn". Ready an action is a separate action, and it uses your reaction should the trigger occur. Since you forego to attack on your turn extra attack is no longer available.

[Marcloure]

2 doors are 10 feet apart. The fighter knows that an enemy will be coming out of one of them, and wants to hit them when they do, but has only a maul. He has to ready an action by one of the doors and hope it's the one that the enemy chooses, because he can't move and attack in response to a trigger.

Where are you guys getting that you can't use extra attack on a ready action?

That's is it. Ready action is also meant to penalize you for doing things out of your turn. You want to wait to attack only after your ally is closer? Fine, but you can only attack once.

[Tanarii]

One very good use of delay is when the team is stuck in a narrow hallway. If you fallow initiative, the team members have to pass through the other players (difficult terrain) and my end up blocking the others with where they stop. If you can delay, the first in line exit the hallway and can attack, then the 2nd, 3rd, etc.Or you can just skip your turn and wait for the opportunity to move out without shoving through someone. Which sounds far more simulation than everyone managing to perfectly synchronize going through a door in six seconds with no pre-planning or organization in the middle of combat. Or ready an action to move after the guy in front of you has moved. (Edit: that said there are edge cases where doing it in initiative order becomes ludicrous, even with ready Move actions.)

Now if it was before combat, and the PCs have all lined up swat team style on the other side of a door with a pre-planned order of entry ... do the correct thing, and don't roll initiative until they've all exited the hallway and are in the room on the other side, in the order that makes sense, possibly with part of the team intentionally hanging back outside in the hallway, depending on what was said before combat began. (And determine surprise a that point.)

[BeefGood]

Now if it was before combat, and the PCs have all lined up swat team style on the other side of a door with a pre-planned order of entry ... do the correct thing, and don't roll initiative until they've all exited the hallway and are in the room on the other side, in the order that makes sense, possibly with part of the team intentionally hanging back outside in the hallway, depending on what was said before combat began. (And determine surprise a that point.)

I guess that this scenario is common and I've been puzzling over how to handle it, without success. The solution above allows the whole party to enter the room, if they wish, before the Combat rules take over. That seems unrealistic because perhaps the creatures inside the room are tipped off that their room is about to be invaded, and are ready to hack at the first guy that comes through the door.
At the moment I am leaning toward starting Combat at the moment that the door is opened, or that the first character moves through the door. Determine surprise and roll initiative at that point. But then I'm stuck with the SWAT team problem, that the guy in the front of the line may get the lowest initiative roll so all the other party members have to move through him to get into the room, even though they may have planned to enter the room in a particular sequence.
The solution of a one-time and permanent (for the duration of that encounter) choice of a lower initiative score seems tempting to me. But it certainly would slow down the beginning of combat. First all the players would have to roll, then they'd have to compare rolls, then they'd have to decide on their substitute initiative values.

[Tanarii]

I guess that this scenario is common and I've been puzzling over how to handle it, without success. The solution above allows the whole party to enter the room, if they wish, before the Combat rules take over. That seems unrealistic because perhaps the creatures inside the room are tipped off that their room is about to be invaded, and are ready to hack at the first guy that comes through the door.Even if the creatures in the room are tipped off, it's still appropriate. Because who gets to act first in the sudden rush of combat initiating is exactly what the initiative roll is all about. You don't get to just say "I ready" and then expect to go first before combat. Because in that situation, everyone is ready (enough) for hostilities to commence, so everyone has an equal chance (modified by their initiative modifier) to act first.


At the moment I am leaning toward starting Combat at the moment that the door is opened, or that the first character moves through the door. Determine surprise and roll initiative at that point. But then I'm stuck with the SWAT team problem, that the guy in the front of the line may get the lowest initiative roll so all the other party members have to move through him to get into the room, even though they may have planned to enter the room in a particular sequence.If you're rolling initiative when the door opens, you're initiating combat before it's begun.

Edit: And in the swat team scenario it's even more inappropriate, because swat teams entering through a door typically also have surprise. Just start combat with the PCs just inside the door (except for ones explicitly stating they're hanging back), in the order they went through the door, and grant them surprise if they swat teamed successfully. I'm not really trying to say you're doing it wrong (because it probably comes across that way), so much as you're making it unnecessarily complicated. The rules already cover the scenario you're describing by just running them as expected.

[BeefGood]

If you're rolling initiative when the door opens, you're initiating combat before it's begun.

The rules already cover the scenario you're describing by just running them as expected.

A big piece of the puzzle for me is figuring out when the combat state begins. From the rulebooks, it's not clear to me. Help would be much appreciated.

[Tanarii]

A big piece of the puzzle for me is figuring out when the combat state begins. From the rulebooks, it's not clear to me. Help would be much appreciated.
I find the easiest thing to do is to keep in mind the entire thing is an abstract representation of what's going on in world, done in a way that's supposed to make the game easy to run and somewhat balanced.

In other words, just use the mechanics given whenever violence begins. Those mechanics are simple enough they can be used for everything from people bumping into each other in an open plain to swat-style busting into rooms to mexican standoffs to a negotiation suddenly going south with a sudden eruption of violence and drawing of weapons.

When that happens, check for surprise if one side was trying to ambush the other, roll initiative, start with players and enemies in a reasonable position, and play the game. Don't get all fiddly with playing out the busting through a door in a specific initiative order, or pre-combat ready actions, or any of that stuff.

[JackPhoenix]

Tanarii: So, you're saying that the group of enemies inside room who hears the party preparing to burst through the door should always be considerate enough to allow them to enter and position themselves before starting hostilities instead of shooting (or whatever) them the moment they step inside?

Reminds me of the 2012 XCOM game, where when you find a group of enemies (even with stealthy scout), animation starts where they "activate" and assume positions in cover, ruining any chance to catch them at disadvantage (like throwing a grenade at them while they are still clustered). I understand why the creators of the game did it (it would be easy to wipe many opponents before they do anything, thanks to the side initiative and lack of pre-battle movement on the enemy preventing them from doing the same to your team), but I always found it stupid and immersion-breaking.

Surprise has nothing to do with that, if they are surprised, they are unable to act in the first round anyway, and the non-surprised party may use the "extra" round however they like, if they want to use the moment of surprise to move themselves in the room and then doing nothing to give the enemy time to get ready before the battle really starts, they can, but I can't shake a feeling that they should take advantage of the surprised foes and attack them first. How are you "ambushing" anyone if you allow them to take "reasonable" position first?

SWAT teams act the way they do exactly because they don't want to give the opposition the chance to react. They don't wait for the criminal to grab his gun and take cover, and then hope their reflexes (or initiative) allow them to shoot first.

[Tanarii]

If you're determined to game out "prepared enemies vs prepared PCs through an open doorway when hostilities suddenly erupt", just start with an open door and roll initiative.

On the enemy side whomever wins is either fast enough to respond to someone jumping through the door or not. If they either win initiative and prepare a ready action or they don't.

On the PC side whomever wins initiative can either run through the door, or has to hesitate briefly to allow someone else to go through the door first, because the other person was too slow. In the latter case, they ready a move, losing the ability to make an attack because of the moment of hesitation.

Like I said, the rules work just fine on an abstract level for that situation the abstract rules work just fine on a in-game level for that situation. All this messing around with Delay is just an attempt to gain a mechanical advantage over the rules, similar to wanting to ready an action before combat begins.

[Gwendol]

If both sides are aware, there is no surprise and all should roll for initiative.

Combat starts when actions are being called out. Or at least that's how I usually run it.

[Crusadr]

What's the significant difference between 'delay' as mentioned in OP and doing the following:

1. Rogue moves to target.
2. Rogue readies an action: 'when an ally enters melee with this creature, I will make an attack.'
3. Fighter enters melee with target, rogue gets sneak attack.

Well the difference I see is that now you have a rogue standing in melee by itself who is vulnerable to attack from that target, and possibly other enemies if they go before the fighter, and the rogue has no option to disengage or move away until their next turn, if that will even be possible anymore.

[Arial Black]

So, you're saying that the group of enemies inside room who hears the party preparing to burst through the door should always be considerate enough to allow them to enter and position themselves before starting hostilities instead of shooting (or whatever) them the moment they step inside?

Assuming the enemy in the room knows about the PCs about to burst in, but the PCs don't know about the enemy:-

door opens -> both enemy and PCs act in initiative order, but surprised combatants (presumably most or all of the PCs) cannot move or act on their first turn. The enemy can shoot, throw grenades, Ready an attack for when a PC comes into view

If the PCs do know about the enemy, then door opens -> everyone acts in initiative order

Basically, combat starts in this scenario when the door opens. Opening the door itself is what starts the combat because neither side is in combat when the door is closed. No-one wastes part of their combat turn to open the door, because combat hasn't started yet. One of the PCs simply says that they open the door.

Even if the PCs surprise the enemy, the sequence is unchanged: door opens -> combat begins, surprised creatures cannot move or act on their first turn.

There are no problems. Problems only appear if you start the combat round before the door is open or after the door is open and the PCs move into position; the latter denies the baddies the opportunity to mess with PCs trying to move to cover.

[Tanarii]

There are no problems. Problems only appear if you start the combat round before the door is open or after the door is open and the PCs move into position; the latter denies the baddies the opportunity to mess with PCs trying to move to cover.
Nope. There are also no problems starting the combat after the door is open and the PCs have busted through it and some of them are on the other side of the door, especially if they gained surprise.

It totally depends on what feels right to the players and DM. Really it comes down to, when does that first split second reaction timing of combat begin. You can start it whenever you want. What you can't do, in 5e, is manipulate reactions and split second timing to put it all in the perfect mechanical order for your team.

Edit: it's important to remember even though it's all down, in game, to split second timing on who does what when hostilities begin, whatever point you put those at, in the end initiative is just an abstract system to for determining resolution order of actions. As long as it's done in a way that's balanced within the intended uses of system, it's all good. And delay is not an intended use of the 5e system. (If you pay careful attention, you'll note that's a circular statement. :smallwink: )

[Samayu]

Personally & overall, I don't miss the delay action. IMX it does, in the hands of experienced players, slow down games and open up shenanigans. It's almost never used for an intended purpose ... and using it to line up the players going all in a row typically is the most common use, and breaks the default assumptions of the combat system. (Just like side initiative does. DMG 270 side initiative variant's last sentence should be in bold or something.)

Generally speaking I don't think Delay is a bad rule to reintroduce to 5e when appropriate. Just be prepared to shut down "we all delay to bum-rush the room through the open door at the same initiative count" shenanigans and you're golden.


My main concern is that a pack of monsters, who all go on the same initiative number, can use the tactic, but we can't. Could you explain why that's so bad and why this is shenanigans?

Also, why does it slow things down? Everybody gets an action either way.

[Tanarii]

My main concern is that a pack of monsters, who all go on the same initiative number, can use the tactic, but we can't. Could you explain why that's so bad and why this is shenanigans?Why are a pack of monsters all acting on the same initiative number?

In that case, yeah you've got side initiative, but the players are stuck not being able to choose whatever order they want. In that case you might as well.


Also, why does it slow things down? Everybody gets an action either way.I play pretty damn fast combat, so I'm a little biased there. A fixed initiative order keeps things ... snappy. Everyone knows who is on deck next, everyone is paying attention, everyone is ready to declare as soon as their turn begins, and resolve as quickly as is reasonably possible. No delays, no thinking when it's not your turn, no 60 second turns unless something really complex is going on.

Now in theory really good and on the ball players could do that with Delay as well. But IMX that's just not the case. As soon as initiative order starts getting rearranged, it slows things down. Usually quite a lot.

[Samayu]

Why are a pack of monsters all acting on the same initiative number?


Every monster of a type, goes on the same nish number. Like, the leader gets a roll, the caster gets a roll and the generic orcs all get the same roll. Speeds things up a bit.



I play pretty damn fast combat, so I'm a little biased there. A fixed initiative order keeps things ... snappy. Everyone knows who is on deck next, everyone is paying attention, everyone is ready to declare as soon as their turn begins, and resolve as quickly as is reasonably possible. No delays, no thinking when it's not your turn, no 60 second turns unless something really complex is going on.


That must be nice. We try to push, but there are still players who get confused or lose track. But I find that when someone has delayed, when they decide they want to act, it's quick. They've been sitting there thinking all that time, and when something comes up that makes them want to act, they know exactly what they're going to do. And they have to speak quickly to not get skipped, because nobody was expecting them to be going then.

OTOH, I can see where if player 2 was expecting to use player 1's turn to decide on his own actions, and player 1 delays, now he's got to think fast.

[Tanarii]

Yah it's probably better for a player to Delay because they can't make up their mind than to spend a bunch of time thinking about what to do. That's a much better point (to me) than the standard argument about rearranging initiative for tactical benefit.

[djreynolds]

Question: is this a real thing or a possible homebrew?

I could see from a DMs perspective it could me game changing.

We had a battle recently, where I attacked the BBEG, then it was his turn, and then the rest of the party. Point is no one else on my team could advantage when I shoved him prone because he would simply stand up on his turn.

[Samayu]

Delaying your turn was deliberately left out of the rules, so if you do it, it's houserule.

[Spacehamster]

We do that if you have higher initiative roll you can choose when you go in the order but then you stay at the lower part in the initiative chain for the rest of the combat. Worked wonders for my buddies revised Beastmaster ranger, he always chose to go after his beast so the beast gets its reaction attack.

[Fishyninja]

Again so long as it's ok'd by the DM I don't see it as a problem, I think it could make for some interesting tactical advantages, however the issue would be that the party would then want to use this tactical advantage every turn.