Ready Action and "combat"

[Malifice]

I am well aware that initiative works just fine to resolve the bodyguard example at many tables. But initiative does not work just fine to resolve the bodyguard example at all tables. Isn't that readily apparent from the discussion in this thread?

That's a fault of the tables, not the rules.

[Cazero]

Starting next to each other (and in combat) is a different situation than the assailant needing to approach and move past the bodyguard on its way to the ward. I don't see the relevance of your analogy.
If anything, the bodyguard ought to be even better prepared to stop the attacker (considering how the attacker is already within arms reach and hostility have already begun), but still can't do better than an attack of opportunity. The issue is there for every single round of combat. Why would the first one be different?


More broadly are you arguing that initiative works to resolve the (presented) bodyguard example at all tables, despite the posters who say it isn't a satisfactory resolution at their tables?I'm arguing that since Readying out of combat doesn't help, it doesn't answer what Malifice asked for.

[Xetheral]

That's a fault of the tables, not the rules.

So you're saying that the bodyguard example isn't a valid example of a situation where some posters find the initiative rules unsatisfactory to resolve the situation?

And your justification for making that claim is that you consider the rules satisfactory to resolve that situation?

Or am I misinterpreting you?

-----

Edit to avoid multiposting:


If anything, the bodyguard ought to be even better prepared to stop the attacker (considering how the attacker is already within arms reach and hostility have already begun), but still can't do better than an attack of opportunity. The issue is there for every single round of combat. Why would the first one be different?

I see tackling someone who starts adjacent to you as they start to move away as much more difficult than tackling someone who has to approach from a distance and pass right by you. Apparently we just have different interpretations of what would be harder.


I'm arguing that since Readying out of combat doesn't help, it doesn't answer what Malifice asked for.

Malifice asked for an example where initiative was insufficient to resolve the situation. That's inherently a subjective question--reasonable people can disagree as to whether initiative is sufficient to resolve a particular situation. I offered an example where initiative is insufficient to resolve the situation at my table. I can't very well offer an example where initiative is insufficient at Malifice's table, because I don't know Malifice or his table.

You and Malifice think initiative is sufficient to resolve the scenario I presented. Great! I'm glad that works for you. But the doesn't somehow make initiative at my table, or call into question the validity of the example. If Malifice wants an example where initiative is insufficient at all tables he's going to be waiting a long time, because not all tables are the same.

[Tanarii]

You and Malifice think initiative is sufficient to resolve the scenario I presented.
I'm fairly sure Cazero's position is that your problem isn't initiative or not initiative. It's with grappling and OAs. And you attempt to resolve it with the Ready action.

Basically, that you're hacking the system to solve a perceived problem, then having to hack the system again to make your first hack work during the opening of combat.

Which is, if I may beat a dead horse, a common problem when going from a particular vision of how the in-game world must work to trying to make the rules model it. :smallamused:

You're taking the stance that the scenario is a problem for some tables. Well, yes, it is. But it's a problem those tables are causing for themselves by insisting on a specific way the scenario must resolve, and the rules not matching that specific way.

To me, that seems like slamming your head against a wall. Or, y'know, alternatively just do what you do and say "I'm (house) ruling this specific thing" and be done with it. At least you're willing to stick around and tell us why, and that probably feels even more like slamming your head against a wall hahaha

[Xetheral]

I'm fairly sure Cazero's position is that your problem isn't initiative or not initiative. It's with grappling and OAs. And you attempt to resolve it with the Ready action.

In the original example I pointed out that it could be dealt with on the fly with two different approaches: either treating the character as having readied an action, or by exceptionally permitting a grapple attempt on an AoO. In this case, the two are functionally identical. (And since it's a one-time ruling, this is the only case that need be considered.)


Basically, that you're hacking the system to solve a perceived problem, then having to hack the system again to make your first hack work during the opening of combat.

This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm making a one-time, exceptional ruling to address a perceived problem with the rules as applied to a particular scenario. I don't see any hacks here, let alone two.


Which is, if I may beat a dead horse, a common problem when going from a particular vision of how the in-game world must work to trying to make the rules model it. :smallamused:

If I may offer a comparison... consider 5e ability checks. The rules say only to call for a roll if the outcome is in doubt. The rules offer zero help in figuring out if the outcome is in doubt. That's entirely a determination based on narrative description, DM judgment, or any other method the DM chooses (e.g. rolling an ad-hoc die to resolve certain undescribed particulars of the setting, such resolving a player's question about where there is a stout branch nearby whose use as a lever might make a strength check an autosuccess). If those aren't enough to resolve the issue, then one relies on the mechanical abstraction of an ability check. To my knowledge, you don't consider this in any way problematic. I'm simply extending the same philosophy to include the combat system.

Most things are in doubt in the combat system, so I largely run it by the rules. Occasionally, a situation appears where I don't have any doubt. In the Bodyguard example, the Assailant is going to start moving first (because the Bodyguard is waiting for the Assailant to act) and the Bodyguard is going to try to tackle when the Assailant passes within reach (because that's what the Bodyguard has said it's going to do). So in my opinion there's no question of who is faster that I require mechanics to resolve. Ergo, an initiative roll wouldn't tell me anything useful about how to resolve this particular situation. (I'd still roll it so as to have the information for subsequent rounds or other combatants, if any.) The only question is how do I want to model that result mechanically, and I have an (irrelevant) choice between treating the Bodyguard as if he'd readied an action, or permitting a grapple attempt on an AoO.


You're taking the stance that the scenario is a problem for some tables. Well, yes, it is. But it's a problem those tables are causing for themselves by insisting on a specific way the scenario must resolve, and the rules not matching that specific way.

Isn't it just as fair to say that those tables are causing the problem for themselves by insisting on following the rules even when it results in a resolution they don't like?

In other words: you're privileging your preferred solution to an apparent conflict by blaming the existence of the conflict on the failure to adopt your preferred solution, when it would be just as fair to blame the existence of the conflict on the failure to adopt the other solution.


Or, y'know, alternatively just do what you do and say "I'm (house) ruling this specific thing" and be done with it.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I'm doing. It's just an ad-hoc houserule that only applies to a specific situation, rather than something I type up and put in my campaign documentation. I've been very consistent in talking about my approach as a houserule.


At least you're willing to stick around and tell us why, and that probably feels even more like slamming your head against a wall hahaha

Yes, it does.

[Malifice]

So you're saying that the bodyguard example isn't a valid example of a situation where some posters find the initiative rules unsatisfactory to resolve the situation?

Im saying those tables are doing it wrong.

Like I said above in 'the bodyguard situation' initiative should have already been rolled. There is a hostile party facing another opposing party, they are aware of each other, and at least one of those parties has declared he wants to take a hostile action (in this case readying the Attack action). This is the trigger for initiative.

At that point, the DM should have called for initiative, declaring to the dude that wants to run past 'You see the bodyguards eyes narrow, and his body tense, starting to watch you intently, positioning himself to defend his ward. Roll initiative.'

The dude that wants to run past now has enough information to know what he is reacting to. If he wins initiative, and wants to run past before the bodyguard can ready his action, good on him. He might win initiative and decide not to run past. It's up to him.

There is no problem. It's down to narration by the DM.

Failing that (a scenario where neither side is hostile, or the bodyguards opponent has only just arrived) then a Dexterity ability check to determine reaction speed between the bodyguard and his opponent to see if the Bodyguard can react in time to grapple the opponent as he suddenly dashes past is entirely appropriate.

The 'problem' (if there is one) is also down to the bodyguard not being very good at his job (no Sentinel feat, or superiority dice to spam on an AoO as the dude walks past, or not being a Cavalier etc) or even down to an issue with the rules elsewhere (namely not allowing grapple checks as AoOs).

Even then, none of that is an issue as long as the DM understands the rules, and applies them correctly.

[RSP]

First, there is no RAW that states that Actions are required to do things outside of the initiative order...


Um, no. You can completely ignore the PHB and what it says (as you apparently ignore and discount all the examples of RAW presented so far) but it doesn’t make your arguments correct.

From the opening of the PHB, “How To Play”:

“2. ...
The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions...

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions.”

See how the basics tell you actions exist outside of combat? I’m really not sure how you can state, RAW, actions don’t exist outside combat (but feel free just to type “no” and ignore these quotes). Note how they repeatedly refer to actions whether you’re in turns or not, or in combat or not.

See how that first part of the quote specifically says actions don’t need to be within turns? See how the rules state that the structure of actions change with turns, but don’t state the actions change?

[Cazero]

From the opening of the PHB, “How To Play”:

“2. ...
The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions...

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions.”

See how the basics tell you actions exist outside of combat? I’m really not sure how you can state, RAW, actions don’t exist outside combat (but feel free just to type “no” and ignore these quotes). Note how they repeatedly refer to actions whether you’re in turns or not, or in combat or not.I can just type no and tell you that you read those quotes wrong.
Apparently you can't tell apart the concept of action [plain language, someone using their agency to do something] from the concept of action [game design concept, mechanics establishing a time-based limitation on a creature's ability to act]. Those quotes are only using the first concept, even when talking about taking turns.
If a 5e Book of Erotic Fantasy is ever published and uses the word action as an euphemism for sex, it certainly won't imply that it can be done in 6 seconds.

[RSP]

I can just type no and tell you that you read those quotes wrong.
Apparently you can't tell apart the concept of action [plain language, someone using their agency to do something] from the concept of action [game design concept, mechanics establishing a time-based limitation on a creature's ability to act]. Those quotes are only using the first concept, even when talking about taking turns.
If a 5e Book of Erotic Fantasy is ever published and uses the word action as an euphemism for sex, it certainly won't imply that it can be done in 6 seconds.

The characters take actions in and out of combat, regardless of whether in turns. Combat is more structured (initiative and Turns) but it’s the same process.

What is different from players declaring their character’s casting Invisibility in combat than without? Does it use a different type of action? Per the RAW, it must use an action (“Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.”), so what is different in the action to cast it in combat vs in narrative?

Likewise, if you tell the DM your character tries to hide, is it a different type of action when in combat or in narrative (“The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action...”)? Does the DM resolve it using different rules?

Or is it all the same, because the basis of the game doesn’t change whether in combat or not: DM describes environment, players describe what they want their characters to do, and the DM decides how to resolve those actions and narrates their result.

Spoiler alert: It’s the same process in either case, combat is just more formalized, that is, you have initiative and Turns tracking what’s happening but it doesn’t change actions.

[Cazero]

What is different from players declaring their character’s casting Invisibility in combat than without? Does it use a different type of action? Per the RAW, it must use an action (“Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.”), so what is different in the action to cast it in combat vs in narrative?
I suppose that if you really want to keep track of every actions happening in each and every 6 seconds rounds of a 3 hours foraging session, you can do that. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to abstract it into a single roll.

[RSP]

I suppose that if you really want to keep track of every actions happening in each and every 6 seconds rounds of a 3 hours foraging session, you can do that. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to abstract it into a single roll.

The DM determines how the character’s actions are resolved. The only time there are formalized rules are the Actions in Combat, otherwise (and really still even then), it’s up to the DM.

I’d imagine the vast majority, at least, choose to put more time consuming actions under the umbrella of one roll, such as a Bard putting on a one-hour performance at an inn: roll a single Performance check for the performance.

Again, it’s not that actions, or the existence of them, changes, it’s that, RAW, there’s a more formalized system of tracking them (and resolving them) in combat and other situations within initiative.

[Arial Black]

Um, no. You can completely ignore the PHB and what it says (as you apparently ignore and discount all the examples of RAW presented so far) but it doesn’t make your arguments correct.

You can misunderstand the PHB, but it doesn't make your arguments correct.


From the opening of the PHB, “How To Play”:

“2. ...
The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions...

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions.”

See how the basics tell you actions exist outside of combat? I’m really not sure how you can state, RAW, actions don’t exist outside combat (but feel free just to type “no” and ignore these quotes). Note how they repeatedly refer to actions whether you’re in turns or not, or in combat or not.

See how that first part of the quote specifically says actions don’t need to be within turns? See how the rules state that the structure of actions change with turns, but don’t state the actions change?

So, the game uses jargon. The specific jargon words are (usually) also normal, non-jargon words when used in a different context.

For example, 'armour class' is jargon. It doesn't really make sense outside of that context.

'Weapon', on the other hand, is game jargon referring to those objects specifically designed to be weapons, like those on the Weapons table in the equipment chapter, and (as game jargon) 'weapon' does not apply to any object that is not designed to be a weapon, even if it is used as a weapon, like using a chair to smash someone's head in. This is why we have the Improvised Weapon rules, so that we know what to do when a non-weapon is used in combat.

But the word 'weapon' can (of course) be used in a 'natural language', normal sentence, without meaning the word as game jargon. You might say that "Faith is my weapon!", or say that your mugger was using a half-brick as a weapon.

Here we come to the word, 'action'. In 'natural language', the word means 'anything you do'. Your action (non-jargon) may be to sing, or blink, or wash the dishes, or compose bad epic poetry.

But the word 'action' is also game jargon. It refers to a specific, delineated, rule; a 'thing you do' in a Combat Round. Most things you do in Combat Rounds take your (usually) one-and-only action, but some other things take your bonus action, some your reaction, and some use none of them.

So to properly understand the rules you have to understand when the writers are using 'action' as a natural language, non-jargon word, or whether they are using it as game jargon for the Action you take on your turn during a Combat Round in initiative order.

Context is your friend, here. The opening essay you quote, How To Play on p6 of the PHB, does not contain ANY game jargon at all! The whole point of it is to explain to people who have never played an RPG before how it works in layman's terms; 'layman's terms' here being the direct opposite of 'game jargon'. Every single use of the word 'action' in that essay has absolutely nothing to do with the game jargon use of the word.

Contrast that with the Combat chapter in the PHB, where it explains the rules, and the associated jargon, in context:-

* "The game organises the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."

* "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action."

Note that the convention used in the PHB is that when game jargon is used for the first time in the rules that describe its use as a game mechanic as game jargon, the words are bolded. Note also that action is bolded here, in the combat chapter, because this is the first use in the chapter that explains the game mechanic of Actions In Combat.

Under the title Actions In Combat:-

* "When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise."

So, RAW, an 'action' (game jargon) is taken on your turn. A turn only exists in initiative order. The initiative order exists only in Combat Rounds (whether you are fighting or not).

They do not exist outside of combat rounds and initiative order. Anything that might be used in combat must be given an action cost (action/bonus action/reaction/etc) for when it is used in a Combat Round. Outside combat, actions neither exist nor are required in order to do stuff.

Pointing out that spells etc. have an associated action cost is not evidence that actions exist outside Combat Rounds, nor is it evidence that things with an action cost can only be performed in Combat Rounds. You keep posting examples as if they support your case; they don't.

And the (totally non-jargon) 'How To Play' essay is not evidence that the word 'action' in that essay is used as game jargon!

[Arial Black]

In the original example I pointed out that it could be dealt with on the fly with two different approaches...

Let me put it another way: his point is that a.) you are making up a rule when the rules are already adequate to handle the situation, when used properly, and b.) your 'solution' doesn't really solve your perceived problem anyway!

[RSP]

You can misunderstand the PHB, but it doesn't make your arguments correct.



So, the game uses jargon. The specific jargon words are (usually) also normal, non-jargon words when used in a different context.

...

And the (totally non-jargon) 'How To Play' essay is not evidence that the word 'action' in that essay is used as game jargon!

First, if your argument is based on How To Play not containing any jargon, then it fails: DM is clearly game jargon.

Second, what you keep ignoring about what I’ve pointed out:

“Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.”

So tell me, outside of combat, how long does it take to cast Aid? Per the RAW, as quoted, your options are “an Action,” “a bonus action,” “a reaction,” or “much more time” than any of those to cast.

If it’s “much more time” to cast, then ever non-combat spell breaks Concentration: “When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so.”

So in your homebrew system, how do you know how long it takes to cast a spell? And if it doesn’t use actions, then do you follow the RAW and have it break Concentration?

[Xetheral]

Im saying those tables are doing it wrong.

Like I said above in 'the bodyguard situation' initiative should have already been rolled. There is a hostile party facing another opposing party, they are aware of each other, and at least one of those parties has declared he wants to take a hostile action (in this case readying the Attack action). This is the trigger for initiative.

At that point, the DM should have called for initiative, declaring to the dude that wants to run past 'You see the bodyguards eyes narrow, and his body tense, starting to watch you intently, positioning himself to defend his ward. Roll initiative.'

The dude that wants to run past now has enough information to know what he is reacting to. If he wins initiative, and wants to run past before the bodyguard can ready his action, good on him. He might win initiative and decide not to run past. It's up to him.

If the Assailant wanted to attack the ward simultaneously with the Bodyguard saying they wanted to tackle the Assailant (if they come with reach) for whatever reason (maybe because they're both responding to the same event, maybe it was coincidental, maybe I ruled, as you suggest, that the Bodyguard's preparations we're visible under current environmental conditions and take long enough to be interruptable and the Assailant decided to react) then I would use initiative as written.

However, in the example, the Assailant does not move contemporaneously with the Bodyguard deciding to conditionally tackle. Ergo, there is no reason to roll initiative upon the Bodyguard's declaration, because even if I did, we'd immediately drop out of initiative since no one was taking a follow-up action, and then have the same issue all over again when the Assailant does decide to move.


There is no problem. It's down to narration by the DM.

The existence of a problem can vary table by table. Please stop telling me that there is no problem at my table. You do not (and cannot) know my table better than I do.

If you think that I'm simply misunderstanding the rules, and that the problem at my table would go away if I simply adopted your interpretation, that's totally fine. But insisting that I'm wrong about the existence of a problem at my table comes across as a personal attack on me, by implying either that I'm lying or that I'm so unqualified to report on what is problematic at my table that you (with no evidence at all) know better than I do.


The 'problem' (if there is one) is also down to the bodyguard not being very good at his job (no Sentinel feat, or superiority dice to spam on an AoO as the dude walks past, or not being a Cavalier etc) or even down to an issue with the rules elsewhere (namely not allowing grapple checks as AoOs).

I do not believe special training should be required to attempt to follow through on a prior decision to attempt to tackle someone as they run past. I'm perfectly willing to give feats to monsters and NPCs, but I don't think that all effective Bodyguards should be required to have Sentinel or take levels in a PC class. And yes, permitting a grapple attempt on an AoO would be another possible solution, but, as I've stated before, in this example it is functionally identical to treating the Bodyguard as having readied an action to Grapple.


Let me put it another way: his point is that a.) you are making up a rule when the rules are already adequate to handle the situation, when used properly, and b.) your 'solution' doesn't really solve your perceived problem anyway!

(a) Whether or not the rules are adequate to handle a situation is a subjective determination that will vary from DM to DM. I do not consider the rules adequate to handle the Bodyguard example, ergo the rules are not adequate at my table. (If my players disagreed with me about a specific situation, we'd discuss it.) (b) Either of my (equivalent) solutions solves the problem quite well at my table.

[Arial Black]

First, if your argument is based on How To Play not containing any jargon, then it fails: DM is clearly game jargon.

Oh my goodness! That's equal parts sad and hilarious!

That opening essay could be written in many different games and rule sets, D&D or otherwise. It's a non-jargon description of what goes on in an RPG from the players' perspective, intended for those who have never played. Including game mechanic jargon in such an essay would be self defeating.

I've noticed your tendency to fail to grasp context before, in the thread where you insisted that moving 5 feet leaves you too exhausted to benefit from a short rest, based on a sentence about travelling for miles as not being restful!


Second, what you keep ignoring about what I’ve pointed out:

“Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.”

Far from ignoring it, I've addressed it several times. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.


So tell me, outside of combat, how long does it take to cast Aid? Per the RAW, as quoted, your options are “an Action,” “a bonus action,” “a reaction,” or “much more time” than any of those to cast.

Easy! As stated in the rules, and as confirmed by JC in a tweet quoted earlier in this thread re: "when do you regain your reaction if combat ends before your next turn?", a round is roughly six seconds.

Seconds, minutes, hours, actual measures of time DO exist outside Combat Rounds. If, for some reason, you need to know how long it takes to cast a spell where the spell description uses non real time units, (action, bonus action, reaction), then you know it takes six seconds at most, that you could do all three in the same six seconds, but only one of each.

If the casting time is in real units of time (minutes, hours) then you don't even need to ask the question!

So, aid has a casting time of 1 action when used in a Combat Round, but if you want to cast it outside of combat you can cast it in under six seconds. If you want to cast several spells in quick succession outside combat, then you can't cast more than one every six seconds if their casting time is '1 action'.

It's really not difficult.


If it’s “much more time” to cast, then ever non-combat spell breaks Concentration: “When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so.”

Again, easy! If you cast a spell with a casting time longer than 1 action, it takes roughly six seconds per action to cast outside combat.

The rules for concentration still apply. Even outside combat, if the casting time is longer than 1 action then it takes your concentration even if you are not in combat. The presence or absence of combat does not modify the rules for concentration (although it does mean you are more likely to take damage!:smallsmile:).


So in your homebrew system in the rules for 5e...

Fixed it for you. :smallsmile:


...how do you know how long it takes to cast a spell?

Roughly six seconds per action it would have taken to cast it in combat.


And if it doesn’t use actions, then do you follow the RAW and have it break Concentration?

Yes. Of course.

[Cybren]

If the Assailant wanted to attack the ward simultaneously with the Bodyguard saying they wanted to tackle the Assailant (if they come with reach) for whatever reason (maybe because they're both responding to the same event, maybe it was coincidental, maybe I ruled, as you suggest, that the Bodyguard's preparations we're visible under current environmental conditions and take long enough to be interruptable and the Assailant decided to react) then I would use initiative as written.

However, in the example, the Assailant does not move contemporaneously with the Bodyguard deciding to conditionally tackle. Ergo, there is no reason to roll initiative upon the Bodyguard's declaration, because even if I did, we'd immediately drop out of initiative since no one was taking a follow-up action, and then have the same issue all over again when the Assailant does decide to move.

Yeah I feel like a very big disconnect here are the people arguing for a Strong Initiative reading of the rules don't seem to get the scenarios presented. "Someone actively doing something for several minutes before someone else decides to do something" gets compressed to "both are trying to do so at the same time"

[RSP]

Oh my goodness! That's equal parts sad and hilarious!

That opening essay could be written in many different games and rule sets, D&D or otherwise. It's a non-jargon description of what goes on in an RPG from the players' perspective, intended for those who have never played. Including game mechanic jargon in such an essay would be self defeating.

I've noticed your tendency to fail to grasp context before, in the thread where you insisted that moving 5 feet leaves you too exhausted to benefit from a short rest, based on a sentence about travelling for miles as not being restful!

You mean that other thread where we argued about long rests and short rests for a couple months which ended with JC stating the viewpoint I was arguing was the RAW? I guess you remember that differently.

But that doesn’t matter here, regardless of your attempt to denigrate, and if anyone is interested in those arguments and their outcome, they can visit that thread.

Now, regarding this thread. You ignore the RAW. That’s fine if it works for you, but the RAW does state actions exist, both in and out of combat, by separately stating they exist outside of the formalities of combat/initiative, and stating them within the specific, formal rules of combat.

Regardless of whether you’re in combat or not, the rules of the game don’t change. The Player declares what they want their character to do, the DM determines how to resolve that and describes the resolution and its effects.

You argue it’s not true because game terms aren’t in the opening write up. I point out they are. You counter that it’s a common game term. Well, so are rounds and turns, combat and actions, all of which also appear in the write up. So again: if your argument is “there are no game terms in the write up,” then you’re still wrong, even with your counter argument: “there are no game terms in the opening write up” cannot be true if we agree there are game terms in the opening write up.



Far from ignoring it, I've addressed it several times. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.

Easy! As stated in the rules, and as confirmed by JC in a tweet quoted earlier in this thread re: "when do you regain your reaction if combat ends before your next turn?", a round is roughly six seconds.

Seconds, minutes, hours, actual measures of time DO exist outside Combat Rounds. If, for some reason, you need to know how long it takes to cast a spell where the spell description uses non real time units, (action, bonus action, reaction), then you know it takes six seconds at most, that you could do all three in the same six seconds, but only one of each.

If the casting time is in real units of time (minutes, hours) then you don't even need to ask the question!

So, aid has a casting time of 1 action when used in a Combat Round, but if you want to cast it outside of combat you can cast it in under six seconds. If you want to cast several spells in quick succession outside combat, then you can't cast more than one every six seconds if their casting time is '1 action'.

It's really not difficult.

Again, easy! If you cast a spell with a casting time longer than 1 action, it takes roughly six seconds per action to cast outside combat.

The rules for concentration still apply. Even outside combat, if the casting time is longer than 1 action then it takes your concentration even if you are not in combat. The presence or absence of combat does not modify the rules for concentration (although it does mean you are more likely to take damage!:smallsmile:).


RAW, you have four options for casting times of spells: a single action, a bonus action, a reaction, or “much more time” than any of those to cast (that is, much more time than 1 action).

“Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.”

So, RAW, you don’t cast a spell in “roughly 6 seconds”; you cast it as an action.

Likewise, the RAW pretty specifically lays out that even spells with longer than an action casting time even use the action outside of combat: “When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so...”

Again, if actions don’t exist outside of combat, this doesn’t make much sense, and you could, say, cast two spells with longer than an action casting times at once as doing so wouldn’t violate the rules on Spellcasting. Since they each would need to use your action during their casting, you cannot. Likewise, you could not cast a spell with a casting time longer than an action and look for secret doors at the same time, or say conduct a medicine check to stabilize someone, because those each require actions as well.

Now outside the formalized rules of combat, there’s a lot more leeway with how the DM determines what constitutes the character’s action. For instance, the DM could decide a character putting on a show in which they rapidly throw knives, siloutting an assistant standing against the wall, is a Performance check. Note how throwing a knife a second isn’t possible in the formalized rules of combat, RAW, since you cannot draw that many weapons as part of an action. But again, the rules of actions outside of combat are more lax to favor the narrative.

[Tanarii]

Yeah I feel like a very big disconnect here are the people arguing for a Strong Initiative reading of the rules don't seem to get the scenarios presented. "Someone actively doing something for several minutes before someone else decides to do something" gets compressed to "both are trying to do so at the same time"
We get it.

The 'problem' is you guys are inisting that what the bodyguard is actually doing must be the equivilent of the Ready action.

The rest of us are saying: what is going on in universe is only the equivilent once initiative has been rolled and they've taken the ready action. Before that, whatever theyre doing isn't. It is something else.

Insisting that the rules must model a specific picture in you head, and that specific picture in your head must map to a specific way of the rules working, is what you are doing.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are kind of wondering why you're so insistent it must be this way. Nothing about the in game universe nor the rules mapping demands it, nor requires it to 'make sense'. Except, apparently, to you guys.

[Cybren]

We get it.

The 'problem' is you guys are inisting that what the bodyguard is actually doing must be the equivilent of the Ready action.

The rest of us are saying: what is going on in universe is only the equivilent once initiative has been rolled and they've taken the ready action. Before that, whatever theyre doing isn't. It is something else.

Insisting that the rules must model a specific picture in you head, and that specific picture in your head must map to a specific way of the rules working, is what you are doing.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are kind of wondering why you're so insistent it must be this way. Nothing about the in game universe nor the rules mapping demands it, nor rewuires it to make sense.

Right, which is the problem.

Because it creates the artificial division between "in initiative" and "not in initiative" that you et al have consistently denied exists! But right here you admit it exists and is supported in the rules, so there's that. That's the point of contention! Hence why I said your argument was "Strong Initiative"- you're taking the perspective that initiative is a concrete diegetic event that exists apart from the rest of the game, and that things you do within initiative can't be done outside of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And the bodyguard isn't actively trying to tackle the assailant for quite a while. He's preparing to do so. And, as stated above, people are really really bad at doing that over any extended period of time. Reaction times for things that will come at some unset time (if at all) tend to be much worse than more predictable things. And people can't maintain peak alertness for very long at all.

So "preparing to do thing" (in response to a trigger) and "actively doing thing" are completely different.

The bodyguard should have massive penalties if the assailant doesn't come in exactly as predicted, when predicted. Like the equivalent of being surprised. It's called being blind-sided. You can't prepare for all the possibilities at once--that's why people don't really walk around with a single bodyguard if there's any significant threat. You send a team.

[Tanarii]

Right, which is the problem.

Because it creates the artificial division between "in initiative" and "not in initiative" that you et al have consistently denied exists! But right here you admit it exists and is supported in the rules, so there's that. That's the point of contention! Hence why I said your argument was "Strong Initiative"- you're taking the perspective that initiative is a concrete diegetic event that exists apart from the rest of the game, and that things you do within initiative can't be done outside of it.

The only in-universe artificial division is the one youre insisting must be there.

Of course there is a mechanical artificial division. Thats the who point of rolling initiative. To transition between the two.

What's happening is you're insisting on making that an in-universe artificial division, when thats not necessary. Why?

[Cybren]

And the bodyguard isn't actively trying to tackle the assailant for quite a while. He's preparing to do so. And, as stated above, people are really really bad at doing that over any extended period of time. Reaction times for things that will come at some unset time (if at all) tend to be much worse than more predictable things. And people can't maintain peak alertness for very long at all.

So "preparing to do thing" (in response to a trigger) and "actively doing thing" are completely different.

The bodyguard should have massive penalties if the assailant doesn't come in exactly as predicted, when predicted. Like the equivalent of being surprised. It's called being blind-sided. You can't prepare for all the possibilities at once--that's why people don't really walk around with a single bodyguard if there's any significant threat. You send a team.

He's preparing to do so, which is doing something. It's literally called an action inside of combat. (Because it is a thing, and you are doing it.)
The question isn't "should this work to 100% efficiency", it's "how is this resolved". Some people are arguing that it can only be resolved with an initiative roll, and others are arguing that how it is resolved should be contingent on the particular scenario. I would have no problem resolving that someone ready for a specific thing gets worse at it if they spend 10 minutes waiting and it doens't happen, just like I would have no problem resolving that someone with the Alert feat would be able to get the jump in these sorts of abstract situations.

[Cybren]

The only in-universe artificial division is the one youre insisting must be there.

Of course there is a mechanical artificial division. Thats the who point of rolling initiative. To transition between the two.

What's happening is you're insisting on making that an in-universe artificial division, when thats not necessary. Why?

Pardon me, what? You literally said this. Verbatim. I'm quoting you!



The rest of us are saying: what is going on in universe is only the equivilent once initiative has been rolled and they've taken the ready action. Before that, whatever theyre doing isn't. It is something else.

That is direct acknowledgement that you believe that whatever physically entails readying an action is not capable of being performed out of combat. That's the division, that you just said exists. Right here.

[Xetheral]

And the bodyguard isn't actively trying to tackle the assailant for quite a while. He's preparing to do so. And, as stated above, people are really really bad at doing that over any extended period of time. Reaction times for things that will come at some unset time (if at all) tend to be much worse than more predictable things. And people can't maintain peak alertness for very long at all.

So "preparing to do thing" (in response to a trigger) and "actively doing thing" are completely different.

The bodyguard should have massive penalties if the assailant doesn't come in exactly as predicted, when predicted. Like the equivalent of being surprised. It's called being blind-sided. You can't prepare for all the possibilities at once--that's why people don't really walk around with a single bodyguard if there's any significant threat. You send a team.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Being ready to tackle someone if they approach and move past you doesn't require split-second timing. The Bodyguard can see the Assailant coming, so they have forewarning that it is time to act. Peak alertness isn't required.

If the Bodyguard hadn't decided to try to tackle in advance, then yes, I could see it being plausible that the Bodyguard might not decide to act in time to try to tackle the passing Assailant. But in the example, the choice was made ahead of time. Therefore the only question is whether it's physically possible for the Assailant to move 25 feet (10 feet to approach, 5 feet to enter reach, 5 feet within reach, 5 feet to leave reach) before the Bodyguard can notice that the Assailant is moving and act on the previously-made decision to try to tackle them as they go past (with requires moving zero feet*). In my mind, that would require super-hero levels of speed.

*Both might also need to shift their weight first, but I consider that to balance out, time-wise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Being ready to tackle someone if they approach and move past you doesn't require split-second timing. The Bodyguard can see the Assailant coming, so they have forewarning that it is time to act. Peak alertness isn't required.

If the Bodyguard hadn't decided to try to tackle in advance, then yes, I could see it being plausible that the Bodyguard might not decide to act in time to try to tackle the passing Assailant. But in the example, the choice was made ahead of time. Therefore the only question is whether it's physically possible for the Assailant to move 25 feet (10 feet to approach, 5 feet to enter reach, 5 feet within reach, 5 feet to leave reach) before the Bodyguard can notice that the Assailant is moving and act on the previously-made decision to try to tackle them as they go past (with requires moving zero feet*). In my mind, that would require super-hero levels of speed.

*Both might also need to shift their weight first, but I consider that to balance out, time-wise.

But that's not what a Readied action is. A readied action isn't a decision to shoot sometime later, it's "When X happens in the next 6 seconds, I'll shoot". It's not gun at low ready, it's gun up and aimed.

In this context, it's actively shifting your weight, bracing to take action soon. Not 10 minutes from now, but in the next 6 seconds.

We know this because readying a spell involves actually starting the cast (spending the spell slot) but slow-walking the components until the signal. It's use-it-or-lose-it with a 6-second window.

If the bodyguard and assailant are already in plain sight, prepared to act, then you should have already been in initiative. Planning a tackle in a specific case with a specific foe is a hostile act that starts combat. Combat/initiative does not mean actively trying to kill each other. It just means that you're in the time-sensitive, sequence-sensitive region. And it lasts until there's no more significant threat of immediate hostility. Until the bodyguard relaxes or the presumed assailant goes away. You may have many turns of "I ready a tackle"/"I do nothing except talk", and you can certainly set standing orders (Every turn until I say otherwise, I ready a tackle if...) and suspend formal tracking of initiative, effectively fast-forwarding until something happens. Yes, that means that if the assailant has initiative-related features (like an Assassin), they've forfeited them by not taking action once visible hostile intent (dropping to a ready stance, etc as part of the Ready action) have occurred. But that was their choice, and choices have consequences.

[MaxWilson]

If the bodyguard and assailant are already in plain sight, prepared to act, then you should have already been in initiative. Planning a tackle in a specific case with a specific foe is a hostile act that starts combat. Combat/initiative does not mean actively trying to kill each other. It just means that you're in the time-sensitive, sequence-sensitive region. And it lasts until there's no more significant threat of immediate hostility. Until the bodyguard relaxes or the presumed assailant goes away. You may have many turns of "I ready a tackle"/"I do nothing except talk", and you can certainly set standing orders (Every turn until I say otherwise, I ready a tackle if...) and suspend formal tracking of initiative, effectively fast-forwarding until something happens. Yes, that means that if the assailant has initiative-related features (like an Assassin), they've forfeited them by not taking action once visible hostile intent (dropping to a ready stance, etc as part of the Ready action) have occurred. But that was their choice, and choices have consequences.

Yes, you may, and a DM is not obligated to actually play out those rounds of not-quite-combat. You can just rule that this is exactly what's been happening all along as the parties have been conversing. That's the whole point.

If a player wants to declare a multi-round action, the DM doesn't have to prompt him every single round. "Are you still Dashing to get away? How about now? Are you still Dashing now?" That's stupid. Nor is the DM obligated to force everyone to declare actions in order every round, especially when it doesn't matter because they're all just talking except the guy who's already said that he's Readying a tackle/whatever.

This is exactly why people have a problem with claiming that you can't Ready actions outside of combat: it's like you are insisting on the most painful possible way (for the actual human beings at the table!) of doing things, and claiming that if you don't do things that laborious way, nothing counts. Obviously there are plenty of people here who just want to do things the easy way and get on with the game. "Sure, you can Ready a tackle in case he charges. [And I won't make you re-declare that Ready every six seconds--I already know what you intend to do.]"

[jas61292]

That is direct acknowledgement that you believe that whatever physically entails readying an action is not capable of being performed out of combat. That's the division, that you just said exists. Right here.

Yes. But not exactly.

It can't happen outside of combat. But only because it inherently IS combat. It's not saying you cannot do it if you are not in combat. It's saying that I'd you do it, you put yourself into combat, if you are not already.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. But not exactly.

It can't happen outside of combat. But only because it inherently IS combat. It's not saying you cannot do it if you are not in combat. It's saying that I'd you do it, you put yourself into combat, if you are not already.

Exactly. By readying an action, you're saying "start initiative now, I'm going to react to something with precise timing in the next 6 seconds." That's exactly what initiative is for, when you need to measure 6-second intervals because there might be multiple things happening during that time. Otherwise, you zoom out and only have 1 minute, 10 minute, or longer resolution, whatever's needed.

And multi-round Dashing is multiple actions. I would absolutely be irritated if a DM just presumed what I was doing--the situation may have changed in the intervening time. Unless the player explicitly says "until I say otherwise, I'm doing X every round" and being very precise about the X (and even then), the DM should at least pause and raise an eyebrow at the player each time around the order.

[MaxWilson]

Yes. But not exactly.

It can't happen outside of combat. But only because it inherently IS combat. It's not saying you cannot do it if you are not in combat. It's saying that I'd you do it, you put yourself into combat, if you are not already.

But that doesn't mean it can't happen outside of "combat", as the OP put it. You can continue running your game in RP mode until it becomes appropriate to move to round-by-round/turn-by-turn declarations of intent from each player, what people often call "rolling initiative" or "combat."

[Cybren]

But that doesn't mean it can't happen outside of "combat", as the OP put it. You can continue running your game in RP mode until it becomes appropriate to move to round-by-round/turn-by-turn declarations of intent from each player, what people often call "rolling initiative" or "combat."

Right. you can be “in combat” but eliding the actual tracking of rounds, as nothing is happening. Xetheral brought this up earlier.

[Xetheral]

But that's not what a Readied action is. A readied action isn't a decision to shoot sometime later, it's "When X happens in the next 6 seconds, I'll shoot". It's not gun at low ready, it's gun up and aimed.

In this context, it's actively shifting your weight, bracing to take action soon. Not 10 minutes from now, but in the next 6 seconds.

We know this because readying a spell involves actually starting the cast (spending the spell slot) but slow-walking the components until the signal. It's use-it-or-lose-it with a 6-second window.

The Ready Action (like most Actions) can model more than one thing in the game world. Just because it works a particular way with spellcasting doesn't mean I as DM can't also elect to use the same action to model the situation I described.

In this case, houseruling on the fly and treating the Bodyguard as if he'd Readied an action to grapple has exactly the mechanical effect I desire for modelling the situation: the Assailant moves first and the Bodyguard attempts to grapple mid-move. That makes the Ready action (with my one-time houserule) a useful tool. It doesn't matter that it would have been a less-useful tool if the Bodyguard was Readying a spell.



If the bodyguard and assailant are already in plain sight, prepared to act, then you should have already been in initiative. Planning a tackle in a specific case with a specific foe is a hostile act that starts combat. Combat/initiative does not mean actively trying to kill each other. It just means that you're in the time-sensitive, sequence-sensitive region. And it lasts until there's no more significant threat of immediate hostility. Until the bodyguard relaxes or the presumed assailant goes away. You may have many turns of "I ready a tackle"/"I do nothing except talk", and you can certainly set standing orders (Every turn until I say otherwise, I ready a tackle if...) and suspend formal tracking of initiative, effectively fast-forwarding until something happens. Yes, that means that if the assailant has initiative-related features (like an Assassin), they've forfeited them by not taking action once visible hostile intent (dropping to a ready stance, etc as part of the Ready action) have occurred. But that was their choice, and choices have consequences.

I don't like that approach. I'm not going to roll initiative when only one person is doing anything combat-related. Initiative is a tool to resolve who goes first. When only one person is acting I know who goes first. Ergo, rolling initiative wouldn't give me any useful information.

If it helps, my unwillingness to roll initiative just because the Bodyguard has announced his intentions to conditionally grapple is effectively cancelled out by my use of a houserule to treat the Bodyguard as having readied an action. The end result is mechanically identical in this case to having rolled initiative immediately and stayed in turns the whole time--it just looks different at the table.

I'd also note that rolling initiative the moment someone declares that they are Readying a hostile action has bizarre consequences when the enemy can't detect the Readying character. Let's say the Bodyguard is invisible and hidden, and we're taking your approach to initiative. The Bodyguard declares they're Readying an action, so you roll initiative... but nothing has happened as far as the Assailant is concerned. It's even more bizarre if the Ward and the Bodyguard are both invisible and hidden. Now the Assailant is surprised when the Bodyguard Readies an action, and becomes unsurprised on their first turn, but still isn't even aware the Bodyguard and Ward are present. What do you tell the Assailant?


DM: "You are no longer surprised."
Assailant: "No longer surprised by what?"
DM: "You have no idea."
Assailant: "Then why am I no longer surprised?"
DM: "Because you took your first turn in combat."
Assailant: "First turn in combat against what?"
DM: "You have no idea."
Assailant: "So... what did I do on my first turn in combat?"
DM: "Nothing, you were surprised."
Assailant: "What surprised me?"
DM: "You have no idea."
Assailant: (sighs) "Can I take my next action to make a perception check?"
DM: "That would be metagaming. You don't know anyone is present."
Assailant: "But I know I was surprised?"
DM: "No, nothing has happened yet of which your character is aware."
Assailant: "Then why did you tell me I am no longer surprised?"
DM: "So you could take your action next turn."
Assailant: "But I can't take any actions based on knowing that we're in initiative, because my character still isn't aware that anything is going on, even though he's not surprised?"
DM: "Correct."
Assailant: "So what am I supposed to do on my turn?"
DM: "Whatever you were doing before you had to skip a turn because you were surprised."
Assailant: "So... why are we in initiative again?"
DM: "Because someone took a hostile action."
Assailant: "Who took a hostile action?"
DM: "You have no idea."

[RSP]

I'd also note that rolling initiative the moment someone declares that they are Readying a hostile action has bizarre consequences when the enemy can't detect the Readying character. Let's say the Bodyguard is invisible and hidden, and we're taking your approach to initiative. The Bodyguard declares they're Readying an action, so you roll initiative... but nothing has happened as far as the Assailant is concerned. It's even more bizarre if the Ward and the Bodyguard are both invisible and hidden. Now the Assailant is surprised when the Bodyguard Readies an action, and becomes unsurprised on their first turn, but still isn't even aware the Bodyguard and Ward are present. What do you tell the Assailant?

Why isn’t this just resolved with surprise? If the PCs have no idea someone’s there, then wouldn’t initiative just start whenever they become aware of enemies, but with the PCs surprised? Isn’t this right back to out of combat Ready gives free action, then 1st round with surprise for 2 full actions before the PCs even have a chance to go, and why, then, isn’t this every ambush ever?

[MaxWilson]

DM: "You are no longer surprised."
Assailant: "No longer surprised by what?"
DM: "You have no idea."
Assailant: "Then why am I no longer surprised?"
DM: "Because you took your first turn in combat."
Assailant: "First turn in combat against what?"
DM: "You have no idea."
Assailant: "So... what did I do on my first turn in combat?"
DM: "Nothing, you were surprised."
Assailant: "What surprised me?"
DM: "You have no idea."
Assailant: (sighs) "Can I take my next action to make a perception check?"
DM: "That would be metagaming. You don't know anyone is present."
Assailant: "But I know I was surprised?"
DM: "No, nothing has happened yet of which your character is aware."
Assailant: "Then why did you tell me I am no longer surprised?"
DM: "So you could take your action next turn."
Assailant: "But I can't take any actions based on knowing that we're in initiative, because my character still isn't aware that anything is going on, even though he's not surprised?"
DM: "Correct."
Assailant: "So what am I supposed to do on my turn?"
DM: "Whatever you were doing before you had to skip a turn because you were surprised."
Assailant: "So... why are we in initiative again?"
DM: "Because someone took a hostile action."
Assailant: "Who took a hostile action?"
DM: "You have no idea."

[tears of laughter] Thank you for that.

[Tanarii]

Pardon me, what? You literally said this. Verbatim. I'm quoting you!



That is direct acknowledgement that you believe that whatever physically entails readying an action is not capable of being performed out of combat. That's the division, that you just said exists. Right here.
No it isn't. It's an acknowledgement there is a mechanical difference resolved by entering initiative and tracking turns. I can come up with any in-universe explanation I want to explain why. Including ones that don't require there to be an in-universe distinction.

[Xetheral]

Why isn’t this just resolved with surprise? If the PCs have no idea someone’s there, then wouldn’t initiative just start whenever they become aware of enemies, but with the PCs surprised? Isn’t this right back to out of combat Ready gives free action, then 1st round with surprise for 2 full actions before the PCs even have a chance to go, and why, then, isn’t this every ambush ever?

I was responding to PhoenixPhyre's argument that Ready is a hostile action, and therefore that initiative should be rolled when someone wants to Ready an action. I think your question is better directed towards PhoenixPhyre.

[RSP]

I was responding to PhoenixPhyre's argument that Ready is a hostile action, and therefore that initiative should be rolled when someone wants to Ready an action. I think your question is better directed towards PhoenixPhyre.

Not necessarily directed at you, Xetheral, just responding to the post.

It’s not that Ready is a hostile action that requires it to be done in initiative, it’s the perfect timing (and the need to track timing in general but that’s been covered).

Why does the BG who dumped Dex and with a -1 Initiative mod automatically react fast enough to try and snag the 20 Dex character with Alert (+10 initiative)? In doing this, you’ve taken away the meaning of character’s abilities scores.

Initiative matters in that it’s the characte’s ability to act in a situation of erupting chaos; of everyone trying to do something to someone else. This stat shouldn’t be ignored anymore than HPs, Attack mods or AC.

For the BG example, what if there are two PC interested in approaching the Ward to discuss something with them (non agressive). PC1 will walk up to the Ward. PC2 will Ready a move if the BG makes a move toward PC1.

So as PC1 walks up to the Ward fully aware of the BG. Asthe BG starts to move towards PC1, time essentially stops as PC2 moves 30’ and positions themself inbetween the BG and PC1 making the grapple on PC1 impossible.

(You say PC2 can’t end their movement within the 5’ space of PC1 or the BG, however, that’s a combat rule and since the characters Ready’d outside of combat and no initiative has been rolled, it doesn’t apply, as outside of combat you can certainly occupy the same 5’ of another character, or else you could never ballroom dance).

Initiative is used to see who reacts the fastest, who is quicker than others. Allowing already outside combat disregards the stat the same way as allowing a Player to state “I kill the warchief” and just having their character walk up and kill the warchief without an attack roll, damage roll or comparing those to the warchief’s AC and HPs.

You’ve effectively ignored the Ability scores of the characters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was responding to PhoenixPhyre's argument that Ready is a hostile action, and therefore that initiative should be rolled when someone wants to Ready an action. I think your question is better directed towards PhoenixPhyre.

No, Readying a hostile action is a hostile action. And in this example, note the conditional. If they've been staring at each other, waiting for the other to make the first move, then they're already aware of the other.

Consider this modification to the example.

Bodyguard has holstered gun. Instead of tackling, he's going to shoot if the assailant (btw, naming him the assailant presumes hostility) comes near.

Readying an action to do this means drawing the gun and entering a ready stance (both hands on gun, pointed at minimum vaguely near the target, shoulders braced, feet spread, etc). This is unambiguously a hostile action and should trigger initiative at that point even if the other person isn't really hostile. I would contend that this is a much better example of what it means to Ready an action (to be ready for immediate hostile action, i.e. within the next 6 seconds). You're taking a visible action (not simply a mental decision) to prepare to take action when triggered. A readied spell is starting the cast. A readied arrow is up and drawn back, on target. A readied tackle is in a stance to make that quick and easy. Readying a hostile action is a hostile action.

Initiative starts when one person is hostile (toward another person or group of people) and ends when no one is hostile. So it only takes one to tango (start initiative). And it's always better to start initiative too soon (because you can elide rounds if nothing happens) than too late (because then you let people game the system and require retcons).

[Cybren]

Initiative starts when one person is hostile (toward another person or group of people) and ends when no one is hostile. So it only takes one to tango (start initiative). And it's always better to start initiative too soon (because you can elide rounds if nothing happens) than too late (because then you let people game the system and require retcons).

You're almost there.

Initiative starts when one person is hostile, there is a question of who acts first, and also, the ensuing scene requires a succession of turns to complete and not a single act. Not every time someone gets tackled is going to become a full combat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're almost there.

Initiative starts when one person is hostile, there is a question of who acts first, and also, the ensuing scene requires a succession of turns to complete and not a single act. Not every time someone gets tackled is going to become a full combat.

That presumes the tackle is successful. And presumes you know the outcome from the start.

And in this case, there is question about timing. I've seen too many american football games to question that--the defenders are ready to tackle, but don't even lay a finger on the ball-carrier (or aren't even able to begin the attempt before he's past them) due to differences in reaction time or unexpected behavior.

[Xetheral]

Why does the BG who dumped Dex and with a -1 Initiative mod automatically react fast enough to try and snag the 20 Dex character with Alert (+10 initiative)? In doing this, you’ve taken away the meaning of character’s abilities scores.

Because what the Assailant is doing (approaching and passing by the Bodyguard) takes time. No matter how quickly the Assailant starts moving (which is what initiative represents), covering the distance to approach the Bodyguard permits sufficient time for anyone (who had previously decided to act) to reach out their arm and try to grapple.

Look at it this way... if the Assailant started 100 feet from the Bodyguard, I think you'd agree that no matter how high the Assailant's initiative, there is zero chance the Assailant can pass the Bodyguard without the Bodyguard getting an attempt to grapple. I personally think the same is true at 15 feet (especially considering that it will require 25 feet of movement before the Assailant clears the Bodyguard's reach). Ergo, even though RAW would let a 15'-distant Assailant pass by before the prepared Bodyguard can try to grapple, I'm not going to allow what I consider an absurdity--instead I'll use a one-time houserule to permit the grapple attempt.

If for you it isn't absurd for one character to move 25 feet before another character can try to grab them at the end of that movement, then my ad-hoc houserule is of zero use at your table. Great! My houserule is still useful at my table.


Initiative matters in that it’s the characte’s ability to act in a situation of erupting chaos; of everyone trying to do something to someone else. This stat shouldn’t be ignored anymore than HPs, Attack mods or AC.

The Bodyguard situation isn't particularly chaotic. The Bodyguard only needs to respond to the Assailant who is doing exactly what the Bodyguard expected.


Initiative is used to see who reacts the fastest, who is quicker than others. Allowing already outside combat disregards the stat the same way as allowing a Player to state “I kill the warchief” and just having their character walk up and kill the warchief without an attack roll, damage roll or comparing those to the warchief’s AC and HPs.

(Emphasis added.) I agree entirely with the bolded statement. In the Bodyguard example, the Bodyguard isn't trying to move faster than the Assailant (after all, the Bodyguard is waiting for the Assailant!). Ergo, I don't see initiative as being a useful tool here. We know the Assailant is going to start moving first. The only question is if the Bodyguard can move fast enough to make their (previously-elected) grapple attempt before the Assailant can finish moving 25 feet, and from my perspective the answer is obviously "yes". Since RAW says "no", I will make a one-time houserule and ignore RAW to resolve this situation.

Because it is a one-time houserule to resolve a specific situation, I still don't permit readying outside of combat in general.


No, Readying a hostile action is a hostile action. And in this example, note the conditional. If they've been staring at each other, waiting for the other to make the first move, then they're already aware of the other.

Consider this modification to the example.

Bodyguard has holstered gun. Instead of tackling, he's going to shoot if the assailant (btw, naming him the assailant presumes hostility) comes near.

Readying an action to do this means drawing the gun and entering a ready stance (both hands on gun, pointed at minimum vaguely near the target, shoulders braced, feet spread, etc). This is unambiguously a hostile action and should trigger initiative at that point even if the other person isn't really hostile. I would contend that this is a much better example of what it means to Ready an action (to be ready for immediate hostile action, i.e. within the next 6 seconds). You're taking a visible action (not simply a mental decision) to prepare to take action when triggered. A readied spell is starting the cast. A readied arrow is up and drawn back, on target. A readied tackle is in a stance to make that quick and easy. Readying a hostile action is a hostile action.

(Emphasis in original.) I entirely agree that Readying a hostile action is a hostile action in the abstract. As I described in detail in my previous response to you, I don't agree that Readying an action is necessarily limited to the narrow types of overt preparation you describe. I also don't agree that the other party necessarily has a chance to respond, because depending on the environment or the particular Readied action, any preparations might not be apparent.


Initiative starts when one person is hostile (toward another person or group of people) and ends when no one is hostile. So it only takes one to tango (start initiative). And it's always better to start initiative too soon (because you can elide rounds if nothing happens) than too late (because then you let people game the system and require retcons).

I disagree that initiative is required when only one person is hostile. While only one person is taking hostile actions, there is no question of order of action resolution. Ergo, initiative is unnecessary. I also consider starting initiative too soon a very large problem indeed, because the feel and flow of the game change dramatically when invoking the mechanical abstraction of turn-based combat. I'm not going to invoke those rules until there is a benefit to my game from doing so (such as resolving turn order between multiple PCs or NPCs when more than one wants to go first).

[RSP]

Because what the Assailant is doing (approaching and passing by the Bodyguard) takes time. No matter how quickly the Assailant starts moving (which is what initiative represents), covering the distance to approach the Bodyguard permits sufficient time for anyone (who had previously decided to act) to reach out their arm and try to grapple.

Look at it this way... if the Assailant started 100 feet from the Bodyguard, I think you'd agree that no matter how high the Assailant's initiative, there is zero chance the Assailant can pass the Bodyguard without the Bodyguard getting an attempt to grapple. I personally think the same is true at 15 feet (especially considering that it will require 25 feet of movement before the Assailant clears the Bodyguard's reach). Ergo, even though RAW would let a 15'-distant Assailant pass by before the prepared Bodyguard can try to grapple, I'm not going to allow what I consider an absurdity--instead I'll use a one-time houserule to permit the grapple attempt.

If for you it isn't absurd for one character to move 25 feet before another character can try to grab them at the end of that movement, then my ad-hoc houserule is of zero use at your table. Great! My houserule is still useful at my table.



The Bodyguard situation isn't particularly chaotic. The Bodyguard only needs to respond to the Assailant who is doing exactly what the Bodyguard expected.



(Emphasis added.) I agree entirely with the bolded statement. In the Bodyguard example, the Bodyguard isn't trying to move faster than the Assailant (after all, the Bodyguard is waiting for the Assailant!). Ergo, I don't see initiative as being a useful tool here. We know the Assailant is going to start moving first. The only question is if the Bodyguard can move fast enough to make their (previously-elected) grapple attempt before the Assailant can finish moving 25 feet, and from my perspective the answer is obviously "yes". Since RAW says "no", I will make a one-time houserule and ignore RAW to resolve this situation.

Because it is a one-time houserule to resolve a specific situation, I still don't permit readying outside of combat in general.

I’m not going to argue you wanting to use a houserule, as you say, if it works for you, then there’s no issue.

Just a caution: if I’m one of your players and I’m seeing NPCs do this stuff under the guise of “it’s just this situation” I’m going to argue that your screwing the players over if you’re not letting them do the same thing, which I’m my mind, happens whenever an ambush occurs.

The BG waiting for the character to approach is the same situation as the PCs waiting in ambush for enemies to approach. Why does the BG get a free action, timed when they want, and the PCs do not?

Again, just throwing this out there because it really sounds like you’re saying you’re going to rule on this way differently and without consistency.

[Cybren]

I’m not going to argue you wanting to use a houserule, as you say, if it works for you, then there’s no issue.

Just a caution: if I’m one of your players and I’m seeing NPCs do this stuff under the guise of “it’s just this situation” I’m going to argue that your screwing the players over if you’re not letting them do the same thing, which I’m my mind, happens whenever an ambush occurs.

The BG waiting for the character to approach is the same situation as the PCs waiting in ambush for enemies to approach. Why does the BG get a free action, timed when they want, and the PCs do not?

Again, just throwing this out there because it really sounds like you’re saying you’re going to rule on this way differently and without consistency.

I don't mean this as an attack on you, but i'll be honest, if a player said "you're screwing over the players" for any ruling I make, I would probably not play with that person anymore. If you are assuming I'm making rulings in bad faith, you shouldn't want to play with me, and I certainly don't want to play with you.

[Xetheral]

The BG waiting for the character to approach is the same situation as the PCs waiting in ambush for enemies to approach. Why does the BG get a free action, timed when they want, and the PCs do not?

I don't consider them necessarily the same. The details (e g. starting distance between Assailant and Bodyguard, the particular action to be Readied) can make all the difference.


Again, just throwing this out there because it really sounds like you’re saying you’re going to rule on this way differently and without consistency.

If it helps, when I elect to go outside the rules on an ad-hoc basis, I explain to the players both what I propose to houserule and why I think it's a good idea, and then, if necessary there's a discussion. (In practice, there doesn't tend to be much discussion--the players usually appreciate the change, even if it isn't favorable to their character.) I've received multiple compliments from different players over the years thanking me for my willingness to ignore the rules on the occasions where another approach might better take into account the nuance of a particular situation, so the "inconsistency" you mention apparently hasn't been a problem so far at my table.

[RSP]

I don't consider them necessarily the same. The details (e g. starting distance between Assailant and Bodyguard, the particular action to be Readied) can make all the difference.

Why isn’t this the same? Why wouldn’t the ambushing PCs not have similar distance? Why is readying an attack to grapple different than readying an attack to attack? Does your position change if the BG has a club out and Ready’s an attack with the club as opposed to a grapple?

[Tanarii]

Of course initiative shoild start when one person attempts to take a hostile action. Thats the point. It gives the others a chance to react, and react faster. As opposed to an automatic win just for declaring first, a free "I win" button.

Insofar as how far someone should be able to move or what they should be able to accomplisb in their first turn in combat before everyone gets a chance to "simultaneously" act in response, thats a bit of taste. The rules treat the first round as a full round of acrions, but I can see where there are times it might strain folks sense of verisimilitude.

[Xetheral]

Why isn’t this the same? Why wouldn’t the ambushing PCs not have similar distance? Why is readying an attack to grapple different than readying an attack to attack? Does your position change if the BG has a club out and Ready’s an attack with the club as opposed to a grapple?

The grapple is different from the attack because the rules already permit an attack of opportunity in the Bodyguard example. Ergo, I don't need to houserule because the rules already work in a way that makes sense to me. (And I've said from the beginning that treating the Bodyguard as if they'd readied an action to grapple is mechanically identical in this scenario to a houserule permitting a grapple on an attack of opportunity.)

In general, ambush scenarios are modelled well-enough by the surprise rules that I don't see the need to apply an ad-hoc house rule for the abstraction to make sense. I'm sure there are specific examples of ambush scenarios where I'd tweak the rules, but that would depend on the specific ambush. Hence why I answered that they aren't necessarily the same.


Of course initiative shoild start when one person attempts to take a hostile action. Thats the point. It gives the others a chance to react, and react faster. As opposed to an automatic win just for declaring first, a free "I win" button.

To clarify: I was saying that I don't use initiative when only one person is taking hostile actions on an ongoing basis. This was in response to PhoenixPhyre advocating that if the Bodyguard wants to ready a grapple I should roll initiative immediately and have the Bodyguard take the Ready action every turn while the rest of the scene progresses in rounds, no matter how long that takes. I consider it useless to use initiative to determine who goes first when only one character is taking hostile actions and no one else is following suit, because there is no sequencing to resolve.

I entirely agree that if multiple characters want a chance to go first, then rolling initiative is the apropriate tool to determine the order actions will be resolved.

[RSP]

The grapple is different from the attack because the rules already permit an attack of opportunity in the Bodyguard example. Ergo, I don't need to houserule because the rules already work in a way that makes sense to me. (And I've said from the beginning that treating the Bodyguard as if they'd readied an action to grapple is mechanically identical in this scenario to a houserule permitting a grapple on an attack of opportunity.)

In general, ambush scenarios are modelled well-enough by the surprise rules that I don't see the need to apply an ad-hoc house rule for the abstraction to make sense. I'm sure there are specific examples of ambush scenarios where I'd tweak the rules, but that would depend on the specific ambush. Hence why I answered that they aren't necessarily the same.


As I was thinking of it, the BG is within 5’ of the Ward, so moving to the Ward doesn’t offer an OA. Does that change your way of thinking? (Edit: changed an autocorrect)

[RSP]

I don't mean this as an attack on you, but i'll be honest, if a player said "you're screwing over the players" for any ruling I make, I would probably not play with that person anymore. If you are assuming I'm making rulings in bad faith, you shouldn't want to play with me, and I certainly don't want to play with you.

First off, if a Player feels screwed over and shares that feeling with you, I’d suggest asking why they feel that way, rather than just not play with them anymore.

Now, a ruling is a consistent thing: if any character is in the same situation, the ruling applies. That’s not what you’re saying, as far as I read the situation: you’re saying you allow NPCs to do one thing (Ready actions outside of combat), but not PCs,

If I’m playing the character approaching the Ward and say “I Ready a move with a trigger of ‘if the BG moves to stop me’” and you respond with “you’re not allowed to Ready outside combat.” And follow that up with “okay the BG tries to tackle you,” and I ask why we aren’t rolling initiative to see who goes first, and you reply “he automatically goes first because he Ready’d the Action outside of combat,” yeah, then that’s not a ruling in good faith, that is, you haven’t made a ruling on anything; you’ve simply ignored my character’s abilities (initiative).

This is why I suggested earlier in the thread to just create an NPC BG that has the ability to tackle as a Reaction those that get within 5’ of their Ward. You’ve now solved the situation without changing the rules for one side and not the other.

The game already allows NPCs to have abilities not available to the characters so the rules of the game aren’t changing, nor are you discounting the PC’s abilities. That’s a much better approach than telling the Player you’re changing the rules for the sole purpose of discounting his character’s abilities, in my opinion.

[Xetheral]

As I was thinking of it, the BG is within 5’ of the Ward, so moving to the Ward doesn’t offer an OA. Does that change your way of thinking? (Edit: changed an autocorrect)

In the original example the Bodyguard is midway between the Ward and the Assailant.

If instead the Bodyguard was adjacent to, but still in front of, the Ward, the Bodyguard would need to grapple the Assailant in the first space within reach to prevent the Assailant from attacking the Ward. This is indeed different from the original example where grappling the Assailant anywhere as they pass by (over a distance of 15 feet, after approaching for 10 feet) is sufficient. In your modified example timing is a lot more important because the Bodyguard has to grapple the Assailant at a specific location. (Also, grappling someone at their point of first approach arguably requires more body motion than grappling at the point of closest approach, and body motion takes time.) I'd consider normal initiative adequate for modelling this situation and wouldn't treat the Bodyguard as having readied an action.

Yes, there is still a disconnect in that the Bodyguard would have been able to Ready the action to Grapple at first aporoach if it hadn't been the first round of combat. But not getting a chance to grapple at first approach (despite being prepared) isn't as nonsensical (to me) as not getting a chance to grapple as someone runs all the way past you (despite being prepared). Accordingly, I consider the RAW to better model your modified example than it models the original example.

(Note that if it was a PC Bodyguard and I encountered your modified situation, I might suggest they move forward 10' and explain that that would give them more time to intercept. In practice though, ad-hoc rulings are made on the fly, so I wouldn't know to give the PC that advice if this thread hadn't led me to consider this particular situation in advance.)


Now, a ruling is a consistent thing: if any character is in the same situation, the ruling applies. That’s not what you’re saying, as far as I read the situation: you’re saying you allow NPCs to do one thing (Ready actions outside of combat), but not PCs,

I can't speak for Cybren, but I don't think anyone is advocating for dissimilar treatment of PCs and NPCs. In the Bodyguard example, it isn't specified who is in what role (although for a few pages some posters we're referring to the Assailant instead as an "orc".) I would use the same houserule for both PC and NPC Bodyguards.


This is why I suggested earlier in the thread to just create an NPC BG that has the ability to tackle as a Reaction those that get within 5’ of their Ward. You’ve now solved the situation without changing the rules for one side and not the other.

The game already allows NPCs to have abilities not available to the characters so the rules of the game aren’t changing, nor are you discounting the PC’s abilities. That’s a much better approach than telling the Player you’re changing the rules for the sole purpose of discounting his character’s abilities, in my opinion.

Ok, I take it back. You're apparently advocating for letting an NPC Bodyguard grapple in a situation where you wouldn't allow a PC Bodyguard. :) I recognize that you're using an entirely different game mechanic to do it (by giving an NPC an ability PC's can't get rather than making an ad-hoc exception to the Ready rules) but the end result is identical. So you don't have a problem with an (NPC) Bodyguard being able to Grapple out of turn on the first round of combat, you just have a problem with a houserule that would let anyone (PC or NPC) in this particular situation do so?

[Cybren]

I can't speak for Cybren, but I don't think anyone is advocating for dissimilar treatment of PCs and NPCs. In the Bodyguard example, it isn't specified who is in what role (although for a few pages some posters we're referring to the Assailant instead as an "orc".) I would use the same houserule for both PC and NPC Bodyguards.

Right, i'm not sure why we're assuming one party or another is a PC- the ruling is about handling a particular corner case when it comes up. Presumably the only reason there would be this sort of corner case would be because it was the player wanting to ready the action. Were it an NPC bodyguard I would, as with all situations, make the narrative positioning and potential consequences clear.

First off, if a Player feels screwed over and shares that feeling with you, I’d suggest asking why they feel that way, rather than just not play with them anymore.


As I said earlier, everyone at the table should be presuming good faith. If someone articulated that they feel screwed by a particular ruling, I would listen to what they have to say. A close friend of mine has a lot more leeway in being able to use candid language like "you're screwing me" than a stranger would. I've read enough screeds on this forum about how making rulings on the fly is intrinsically tyrannical that i wouldn't give a stranger that same benefit of the doubt.



Now, a ruling is a consistent thing: if any character is in the same situation, the ruling applies. That’s not what you’re saying, as far as I read the situation: you’re saying you allow NPCs to do one thing (Ready actions outside of combat), but not PCs,

I don't really know how you got this, as I said above.

[RSP]

Right, i'm not sure why we're assuming one party or another is a PC- the ruling is about handling a particular corner case when it comes up. Presumably the only reason there would be this sort of corner case would be because it was the player wanting to ready the action. Were it an NPC bodyguard I would, as with all situations, make the narrative positioning and potential consequences clear.

It doesn’t matter which characters are PCs. What matters is once you set the ruling of Ready can occur outside of combat if you have ~6 of prep time, then not allowing that is having a different set of rules. As clearly NPCs aren’t going to complain about the DM changing the rules, it would be the Players who are affected by this.

Once a ruling of “you can Ready outside of combat” goes into effect, you open up the option of Players using it.

If you then contradict that rule later, you are “screwing over” the Player who wants to use that as an option but is told they can’t: that is, that Player has less options in the game as other Players/characters.

If the Player says “I want to tackle anyone who tries to pass a certain point” and you allow that without initiative, as a Ready, how is that any different than “I want to attack anyone who tries to pass a certain point” as a setup to an ambush? It’s literally the same combat action you’re using (the attack action) and allowing outside of combat.

Likewise, you also then run into the issue of Readying actions whenever characters move outside of combat, like stated above with the character approaching the Ward Readying a move to move past the BG if the BG makes a motion to stop them. Per the rules of Ready, once the BG motions to tackle, the approaching character gets to take their Ready move and continue past the BG before the tackle is attempted.

You end up with characters acting based on when they say their trigger is versus using their game stats.

All youve ended up doing is either set the standard of “everyone Ready all the time” or “some characters can Ready and others can’t but I’m not going to explain the rules of when or why.”

Likewise, how does this situation not refect what happens all the time with any guard posted anywhere? Gate guards are guarding entry into a city/tower/home/etc just as much as BGs are guarding a Ward. Do all guards equally everywhere get the benefit of Readying actions outside of combat? Do they all equally have the benefit of perfect timing? Are all guards quick enough to react to the 20 Dex 20 Chr Swashbuckler with Alert?

Again, once the ruling is in place of ~6 of prep allows out-of-combat Readying, not allowing it seems like an arbitrary taking away of options.

[Xetheral]

It doesn’t matter which characters are PCs. What matters is once you set the ruling of Ready can occur outside of combat if you have ~6 of prep time, then not allowing that is having a different set of rules. As clearly NPCs aren’t going to complain about the DM changing the rules, it would be the Players who are affected by this.

Once a ruling of “you can Ready outside of combat” goes into effect, you open up the option of Players using it.

If you then contradict that rule later, you are “screwing over” the Player who wants to use that as an option but is told they can’t: that is, that Player has less options in the game as other Players/characters.

If the Player says “I want to tackle anyone who tries to pass a certain point” and you allow that without initiative, as a Ready, how is that any different than “I want to attack anyone who tries to pass a certain point” as a setup to an ambush? It’s literally the same combat action you’re using (the attack action) and allowing outside of combat.

Likewise, you also then run into the issue of Readying actions whenever characters move outside of combat, like stated above with the character approaching the Ward Readying a move to move past the BG if the BG makes a motion to stop them. Per the rules of Ready, once the BG motions to tackle, the approaching character gets to take their Ready move and continue past the BG before the tackle is attempted.

You end up with characters acting based on when they say their trigger is versus using their game stats.

All youve ended up doing is either set the standard of “everyone Ready all the time” or “some characters can Ready and others can’t but I’m not going to explain the rules of when or why.”

Likewise, how does this situation not refect what happens all the time with any guard posted anywhere? Gate guards are guarding entry into a city/tower/home/etc just as much as BGs are guarding a Ward. Do all guards equally everywhere get the benefit of Readying actions outside of combat? Do they all equally have the benefit of perfect timing? Are all guards quick enough to react to the 20 Dex 20 Chr Swashbuckler with Alert?

Again, once the ruling is in place of ~6 of prep allows out-of-combat Readying, not allowing it seems like an arbitrary taking away of options.

You appear to be overlooking the fact that this isn't a general houserule permitting Readying outside of combat. It's resolving a particular, fact-specific scenario by treating the Bodyguard as if they'd Readied an action to grapple (or, almost identically, permitting a grapple on an attack of opportunity). The houserule isn't generalizable. (I even said above I wouldn't use it if the Bodyguard was adjacent to the Ward.)

As for your question regarding guards everywhere, I probably would use the houserule if a guard was adjacent to the door they were guarding and was expecting someone specific to try to sprint up to them and through their door. Sure, the Swashbuckler is quick enough to start moving before the guard can, but the Swashbuckler can't cover ground fast enough to make it through the door before the guard can (try to) grapple (or, since it's a doorway, simply move 5' to block the entrance).

Let's put it another way: the PC is standing 20' outside an open (5' wide) castle door that had a guard next to it, who is staring at the PC suspiciously. The player says they want to sprint through the open door before the guard can step into the way. No combat actions have been declared, so for the moment there is no need to roll initiative or worry about readied actions. The PC needs to move 25 feet, and the guard needs to move 5 feet. What is the DC of a Dexterity check to accomplish the PC's intent? At my table, I wouldn't even allow the check: given the relative distances and speeds, it's an impossible task against a prepared guard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tueller drill. If one person starts with a holstered gun, and an opponent pulls a knife and charges from 21 feet away, only the top tiny percent of gunners will even get a shot off before being stabbed, let alone an accurate one. So yeah, someone 20 feet away can almost certainly slip past the guard as long as the runner gets to choose the timing of the action. In real life, anyway.

First move advantage is strong in reality, and you're denying it.

[Xetheral]

Tueller drill. If one person starts with a holstered gun, and an opponent pulls a knife and charges from 21 feet away, only the top tiny percent of gunners will even get a shot off before being stabbed, let alone an accurate one. So yeah, someone 20 feet away can almost certainly slip past the guard as long as the runner gets to choose the timing of the action. In real life, anyway.

First move advantage is strong in reality, and you're denying it.

I'm assuming that stepping to block a door or physically grab someone passing immediately adjacent is faster than unholstering a gun, raising it, and firing. For one thing, Also, approaching to stab is 10' less movement than moving all the way past someone.

[Cybren]

Also that drill is about whether or not you can put shots on target before someone has closed enough distance to stab you. It’s not at all applicable, because “I shot them but their momentum carried them the last two feet to slash my throat” has nothing to do with this

[Knaight]

That drill also has a tendency to involve getting knife fighting experts who are also very good runners, then treating that as synonymous with anyone with a knife.

[CantigThimble]

That drill also has a tendency to involve getting knife fighting experts who are also very good runners, then treating that as synonymous with anyone with a knife.

That describes basically any rogue in D&D.

[Knaight]

That describes basically any rogue in D&D.

In the context of a trained assassin it might actually make it better than it otherwise would be, yes. It's just worth remembering when it's presented in other contexts, like the threat posed by a belligerent drunk who can barely walk.

[Cybren]

That drill also has a tendency to involve getting knife fighting experts who are also very good runners, then treating that as synonymous with anyone with a knife.

It is useful for establishing a potential minimum safe distance, however. It just seems interesting how often people misinterpret the purpose and findings of that drill

[Tanarii]

Tueller drill. If one person starts with a holstered gun, and an opponent pulls a knife and charges from 21 feet away, only the top tiny percent of gunners will even get a shot off before being stabbed, let alone an accurate one. So yeah, someone 20 feet away can almost certainly slip past the guard as long as the runner gets to choose the timing of the action. In real life, anyway.

First move advantage is strong in reality, and you're denying it.


I'm assuming that stepping to block a door or physically grab someone passing immediately adjacent is faster than unholstering a gun, raising it, and firing. For one thing, Also, approaching to stab is 10' less movement than moving all the way past someone.
To me what this disagreement really demonstrates: trying to go from "exactly what I expect in-universe" to "rules are a detailed model" is problematic. People can never agree on what a reasonable in-universe outcome is to begin with.

I used to be, like, super rules-simulate-the-ingame-universe guy too. Not sure exactly how and when that switched, but I seem to have landed solidly on the complete opposite side. :smallamused:

[RSP]

I'm assuming that stepping to block a door or physically grab someone passing immediately adjacent is faster than unholstering a gun, raising it, and firing.

Can’t this same logic be argued in most combats? If this is your basis for who goes first, why roll initiative when the archer firing an arrow should always just go before the Swashbuckler who needs to move 30’, Bonus Action move 30’, draw their weapon and attack.