Enemies Attacking Same Initiative

[RSP]

Reading another thread made me think of this. Per the PHB:

“The DM makes one [initiative] roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.”

I’ve always taken this to mean all those identical creatures’ turns occur during the same initiative rank, but still take separate turns.

However, this isn’t clear by the RAW.

Is it actually the rule that DM-controlled creatures can all each make a move first, then each take Actions after all the moves?

This would allow exploits of Sneak Attack, Pack Tactics, and similar abilities, that each having their own turn could prevent.

Am I missing something (which is very much a possibility)?

[Christew]

“The DM makes one [initiative] roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.”

Is it actually the rule that DM-controlled creatures can all each make a move first, then each take Actions after all the moves?

Am I missing something (which is very much a possibility)?
Per PHB: "If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first." + "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."

It could definitely be more clear, but I have always interpreted this as: identical creatures automatically tie on initiative (group roll). Each individual creature still has a discrete turn (ordered on the initiative count by DM discretion).

[Segev]

Reading another thread made me think of this. Per the PHB:

“The DM makes one [initiative] roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.”

I’ve always taken this to mean all those identical creatures’ turns occur during the same initiative rank, but still take separate turns.

However, this isn’t clear by the RAW.

Is it actually the rule that DM-controlled creatures can all each make a move first, then each take Actions after all the moves?

This would allow exploits of Sneak Attack, Pack Tactics, and similar abilities, that each having their own turn could prevent.

Am I missing something (which is very much a possibility)?
That is, in fact, how the RAW work. I'm pretty sure that's WHY pack tactics is on certain creatures meant to move and act as, well, a pack.


Per PHB: "If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first." + "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."

It could definitely be more clear, but I have always interpreted this as: identical creatures automatically tie on initiative (group roll). Each individual creature still has a discrete turn (ordered on the initiative count by DM discretion).

Nope. It's not a "tie" if you rolled them all together on one roll. A "tie" requires two rolls that match. The rules for groups of the same creature are that they share an initiative, not that they automatically tie on initiative.

[Tanarii]

Per PHB: "If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first." + "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."

This. Different creatures always act on different turns, unless something specifically says otherwise, such a spell summons that specifically calls out that it acts on your turn. That's the general rule.

[Segev]

This. Different creatures always act on different turns, unless something specifically says otherwise, such a spell summons that specifically calls out that it acts on your turn. That's the general rule.

Can you please cite this "general rule?" The RAW say that you roll one initiative for all monsters of the same sort as a group. They say nothing about them acting on separate turns on that same initiative, nor even there being separate turns on a single initiative.

[RSP]

That is, in fact, how the RAW work. I'm pretty sure that's WHY pack tactics is on certain creatures meant to move and act as, well, a pack.

Anything further to support this?

Pact Tactics by itself doesn’t lead to all creatures with that ability acting on the same Turn.

As I said, I think the PHB reading could be read this way, I’m just curious if there’s any additional info supporting this.

[Mastikator]

Anything further to support this?

Pact Tactics by itself doesn’t lead to all creatures with that ability acting on the same Turn.

As I said, I think the PHB reading could be read this way, I’m just curious if there’s any additional info supporting this.

If it's not clear by RAW then the DM has to make a ruling, can rule either way and whatever the DM rules is the correct ruling for that game (and in my opinion should be locked in for the rest of the game).

Phb page 6
"Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

[stoutstien]

Reading another thread made me think of this. Per the PHB:

“The DM makes one [initiative] roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.”

I’ve always taken this to mean all those identical creatures’ turns occur during the same initiative rank, but still take separate turns.

However, this isn’t clear by the RAW.

Is it actually the rule that DM-controlled creatures can all each make a move first, then each take Actions after all the moves?

This would allow exploits of Sneak Attack, Pack Tactics, and similar abilities, that each having their own turn could prevent.

Am I missing something (which is very much a possibility)?

Under the section that describes turns and rounds..... During a round, each participant in the battle takes a turn....
That would mean the basic assumption is that when a turn is started it needs to be completed before someone else can begin theirs.
Saying that the initiative rules are all kinds of messed up so it really doesn't matter.

[RSP]

Under the section that describes turns and rounds..... During a round, each participant in the battle takes a turn....
That would mean the basic assumption is that when a turn is started it needs to be completed before someone else can begin theirs.
Saying that the initiative rules are all kinds of messed up so it really doesn't matter.

Yeah, I’d agree that’s the assumption but doesn’t seem to be anything that says that.

Mounting rules (the thread that started me thinking on this) has similar issues.

There seems to be a significant difference in enemy threat if they all act as one entity, as opposed to taking individual turns.

[Pildion]

Per PHB: "If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first." + "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."

It could definitely be more clear, but I have always interpreted this as: identical creatures automatically tie on initiative (group roll). Each individual creature still has a discrete turn (ordered on the initiative count by DM discretion).

I've always ruled it this way. If I roll for a group of Gobo's, then they all go at that Initiative, but they don't move, then action, its gobo 1 goes, then gobo 2 goes, and so on.

[diplomancer]

I'd say the interpretation hangs on whether "turn" has a technical meaning specific to the game or if it's natural English. If it's a technical meaning, then yes, separate but identical creatures all have their turns simultaneously. If it's "having a turn", natural English meaning, I'd say that it implies something more discrete; having a game where several different players "take turns" simultaneously is quite chaotic.

I tend to prefer the "all act simultaneously" interpretation. Makes combat, specially one full of minions, a lot faster. It might even make Conjure Animals more playable.

[RSP]

I've always ruled it this way. If I roll for a group of Gobo's, then they all go at that Initiative, but they don't move, then action, its gobo 1 goes, then gobo 2 goes, and so on.

Yeah, I think that’s what the rules expect, but it isn’t clear.

Does anyone know if the CR rules expect “always on” Pack Tactics, Sneak Attack, etc? Apologies, but I’m not good with the CR rules and how they’re derived.


I'd say the interpretation hangs on whether "turn" has a technical meaning specific to the game or if it's natural English. If it's a technical meaning, then yes, separate but identical creatures all have their turns simultaneously. If it's "having a turn", natural English meaning, I'd say that it implies something more discrete; having a game where several different players "take turns" simultaneously is quite chaotic.

I tend to prefer the "all act simultaneously" interpretation. Makes combat, specially one full of minions, a lot faster. It might even make Conjure Animals more playable.

Wouldn’t it make Conjure Animals more powerful when summoning animals with the abilities that benefit from positioning?

Certainly if PCs all acted together in this way, they’d be much more potent.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, I’d agree that’s the assumption but doesn’t seem to be anything that says that.

Mounting rules (the thread that started me thinking on this) has similar issues.

There seems to be a significant difference in enemy threat if they all act as one entity, as opposed to taking individual turns.

Lots of points in the game where the rules/suggestions can lead to extreme differences in outcome or challenge without warning. One of the reasons you can try to generate encounters purely on CR but eventually it will bite you.
I tend to just make mob and groups a single stat block to eliminate that issue. So a troop of zombie turkeys share a pool of resources. Sort of a like swarms but can take up multiple spaces.

As for mount rules. Those just need a rewrite from the ground up.

[RSP]

Lots of points in the game where the rules/suggestions can lead to extreme differences in outcome or challenge without warning. One of the reasons you can try to generate encounters purely on CR but eventually it will bite you.

I don’t really use CR (hence my inexperience with it), but agree: the number 1 rule of DMing is encounters (combat included) will be swingy based on PC actions, and, to a lesser degree, rolls.

[diplomancer]

Wouldn’t it make Conjure Animals more powerful when summoning animals with the abilities that benefit from positioning?

Yes, but:
1- it's a very small boost. If you summon, say, eight wolves (see next point), all 8 will attack with advantage instead of 6-8
2- Conjure Animals is powerful, but since, RAW, DM chooses the creature, it's, quite strictly, as powerful as the DM lets it be
The main problem of the spell is not its power, is it's that it clogs combat way too much, specially if you make each animal take its turn separately. Have them move all at once, and it's almost like having just one extra combatant instead of 8.



Certainly if PCs all acted together in this way, they’d be much more potent.
Sure, they would. But since they're not identical, that's not an issue with this interpretation. More to the point, unlike with identical creatures run by the same player, instead of making combat faster, it would make it even slower, and very likely create table issues about "leadership".

[Tanarii]

Can you please cite this "general rule?"
You're asking me to cite the rule when I quoted the citation of the rule.

But sure, and let's quote the entire section, not just the one sentence which cements the general rule.

Chapter 9: Combat
The Order of Combat
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes 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. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
PHB 189

General rule: During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.

[RSP]

Yes, but:
1- it's a very small boost. If you summon, say, eight wolves (see next point), all 8 will attack with advantage instead of 6-8.

It’s a bigger boost if we’re not assuming all attack one target (whether summons or DM controlled).

If separate turns, your best bet is all of them ganging up on one target so 7 out of 8 get Advantage. And if PC1/MOB1 drops, then subsequent wolves all go to the next.

However, if there are 4 PCs/MOBs, and you play “all same Turn”, then you can move wolf #1 to PC1, then move #2, each gets to attack with Advantage. If PC1 drops, then wolf#1 can move to PC2 which sets up wolf#3 for Advantage.

Or you could just have two wolves on each of the 4 PCs, with all 8 getting Advantage (only 4 get Advantage in “separate Turns”).

Tactically, “all same Turn” is a significant benefit.

[diplomancer]

You're asking me to cite the rule when I quoted the citation of the rule.

But sure, and let's quote the entire section, not just the one sentence which cements the general rule.

Chapter 9: Combat
The Order of Combat
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes 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. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
PHB 189

General rule: During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.

This is, indeed, the general rule. But are there exceptions to this rule? Simulacrum is an explicit one, so, yes, there is at least one exception to the rule. Are there others? I'd say, "yes, identical creatures and mounted combat".

"Acting at the same time" (the RAW on identical creatures) and "acting sequentially" (your take on it, based on the general rule) are pretty much opposite.


It’s a bigger boost if we’re not assuming all attack one target (whether summons or DM controlled).

If separate turns, your best bet is all of them ganging up on one target so 7 out of 8 get Advantage. And if PC1/MOB1 drops, then subsequent wolves all go to the next.

However, if there are 4 PCs/MOBs, and you play “all same Turn”, then you can move wolf #1 to PC1, then move #2, each gets to attack with Advantage. If PC1 drops, then wolf#1 can move to PC2 which sets up wolf#3 for Advantage.

Or you could just have two wolves on each of the 4 PCs, with all 8 getting Advantage (only 4 get Advantage in “separate Turns”).

Tactically, “all same Turn” is a significant benefit.


So, while this is possible with real wolves (and I don't think that's a problem, wolf packs are scarily efficient), I don't think you can pull it off with Conjure Animals, as you don't get that level of fine control; they only obey your verbal commands, and if you try to give detailed verbal commands during combat you are going to get NOPE'd hard by the DM.

[Christew]

"Acting at the same time" (the RAW on identical creatures) and "acting sequentially" (your take on it, based on the general rule) are pretty much opposite.
Everyone in a given round "acts at the same time" as a bundle of turns are abstracting the same six seconds. Acting sequentially on a given initiative count and sharing a turn are both interpretations of ambiguous language.

[Segev]

You're asking me to cite the rule when I quoted the citation of the rule.

But sure, and let's quote the entire section, not just the one sentence which cements the general rule.

Chapter 9: Combat
The Order of Combat
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes 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. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
PHB 189

General rule: During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.

In the very rule you quote, it says the order of turns is determined by rolling initiative. This is the same section that says you roll a single time for groups of identical creatures. If they have only one shared initiative - which determines turn order - they have only one shared turn. As in the phrase, "It is the goblins' turn." I could pedantically argue that "the goblins" are "a participant," but I think that's getting too legalistic for the conversational English that 5e rules are written in.

But, because the goblins all share one initiative roll, the section of rules you quoted indicates they all act together on one turn, not that they get individual sub-initiatives.

Remember, the rules repeatedly quoted about the DM resolving ties is for resolving ties, not for "resolving creatures that share an initiative."

And, again, the Mount rules show us that multiple creatures explicitly can act on the same turn, since a controlled mount can act even on the turn it is mounted, which almost invariably is the initiative to which it is being switched as it is mounted on the rider's turn. There's not even any "initiative"/"turn" ambiguity there: the mount explicitly is acting on the rider's "turn." And this happens immediately upon the mount's initiative being changed to match the rider's.

Therefore, we have precedent that initiative can be shared, and that it means all who share an initiative act on the same turn. Groups of identical combatants share an initiative, explicitly rolling only once for all of them to act together.

If it helps, you can think of a "group of identical combatants" as "a participant" that takes "a turn." Each creature in that group acts on that same turn.

Similarly, you can think of a unit of "mount + rider" as "a participant," since they act as a unit.

Honestly, as a house rule, I'd suggest permitting the rider to shift his inititaive to match the mount's if the mount is not a controlled mount, just to eliminate the confusing problems created by having mount and rider act on separate initiatives/turns.

Remember: all of this came up due to questions on how mounted combat works, with a particular eye towards controlled mounts. The rules give us indication that the intent is for them to act on the same turn, by, well, explicitly saying the mount can act "even on" the turn it's mounted. And, if you treat it that way, mounted combat works pretty intuitively, with the rider moving and acting more or less how he would without the mount, save for more movement options existing. All of the "mounted combat makes no sense/is broken!" situations require the insistance that the mount has to have its own, separate turn, and that the rider must complete his turn either before or after the mount completes his.

All of the goblins acting on one initiative, in one shared turn, makes perfect sense. All of the wolves doing likewise makes perfect sense. All of the wolves ridden by goblin riders doing similarly and sharing a turn with said goblin riders ALSO makes sense.

I agree: you CAN read into what you posted that all creatures get a separate, distinct turn that must end before another can begin, but if you read it that way, you introduce all of the "this is a broken mess!" problems. I insist that my reading is at least as true to the RAW - I would contend more so, as I believe you're injecting unsupported assumptions with yours, but that's beside the point - and that my reading eliminates all (or nearly all) of the problems that people are bringing up to claim these rules are "a mess." Further, I contend that my reading introduces no new problems.

By your reading, we have a gamist mess that doesn't jive with narrative fictional accounts of how combat flows. By my reading, we have a perfectly playable combat flow that acts as we intuitively expect it to. My reading absolutely aligns with the RAW.

If there are two potentially-valid readings of the rules, and one leads to undesirable game/narrative splits or other problems, while the other leads to smooth gameplay and smooth gameplay/story integration, I assert the axiom that the second is the correct way to choose to read the rules.

[Christew]

In the very rule you quote, it says the order of turns is determined by rolling initiative. This is the same section that says you roll a single time for groups of identical creatures. If they have only one shared initiative - which determines turn order - they have only one shared turn.
Same initiative = same turn is just as much an assumption as same initiative = tied initiative.

Remember, the rules repeatedly quoted about the DM resolving ties is for resolving ties, not for "resolving creatures that share an initiative."
The language is not "share an initiative" though.

And, again, the Mount rules show us that multiple creatures explicitly can act on the same turn, since a controlled mount can act even on the turn it is mounted, which almost invariably is the initiative to which it is being switched as it is mounted on the rider's turn. There's not even any "initiative"/"turn" ambiguity there: the mount explicitly is acting on the rider's "turn." And this happens immediately upon the mount's initiative being changed to match the rider's.
Mounted combat is a specific rule that clearly transcends the general rules. The fact that there is not ambiguity there does not in any way imply there is not ambiguity here.

Therefore, we have precedent that initiative can be shared, and that it means all who share an initiative act on the same turn. Groups of identical combatants share an initiative, explicitly rolling only once for all of them to act together.
Again, "share an initiative" is not in the rule being discussed. All conclusions based on importing that language are invalid.

All of the goblins acting on one initiative, in one shared turn, makes perfect sense. All of the wolves doing likewise makes perfect sense. All of the wolves ridden by goblin riders doing similarly and sharing a turn with said goblin riders ALSO makes sense.
Makes sense to you. That doesn't imply it makes sense to others or that it is the intended meaning of the RAW.

I agree: you CAN read into what you posted that all creatures get a separate, distinct turn that must end before another can begin, but if you read it that way, you introduce all of the "this is a broken mess!" problems. I insist that my reading is at least as true to the RAW - I would contend more so, as I believe you're injecting unsupported assumptions with yours, but that's beside the point - and that my reading eliminates all (or nearly all) of the problems that people are bringing up to claim these rules are "a mess." Further, I contend that my reading introduces no new problems.

By your reading, we have a gamist mess that doesn't jive with narrative fictional accounts of how combat flows. By my reading, we have a perfectly playable combat flow that acts as we intuitively expect it to. My reading absolutely aligns with the RAW.
How does discrete turns create a "broken" or "gamist" mess? It is the fundamental approach to combat used by 5E. As to "no new problems," OP's question is based on the implicit power increase that shared turns for identical monsters implies. That is a new problem to some people.

I agree, you CAN read it either way. That is the definition of ambiguous language. Taking the whole code of the language around the ambiguous language, I think the purpose is discrete turns.

[Tanarii]

In the very rule you quote, it says the order of turns is determined by rolling initiative. This is the same section that says you roll a single time for groups of identical creatures. If they have only one shared initiative - which determines turn order - they have only one shared turn.
This does not follow.

[Keltest]

This does not follow.

Im with Segev here. If they use one initiative, they use one turn. Thats sort of the whole point of doing it that way in the first place. If the DM still has to determine turn order for 30 goblins, thats going to drag things down fast, to say nothing of being hideously difficult to keep track of.

[Christew]

Im with Segev here. If they use one initiative, they use one turn. Thats sort of the whole point of doing it that way in the first place. If the DM still has to determine turn order for 30 goblins, thats going to drag things down fast, to say nothing of being hideously difficult to keep track of.
Or the whole point is simply to avoid rolling 29 additional initiative counts. "Determining turn order" can amount to whichever goblin I grab first, etc. Resolving 30 moves and 30 attacks is going to take the same amount of time/effort whether you do them simultaneously or sequentially.

[GooeyChewie]

Honestly, I had never considered the possibility of the group of enemies all taking their turns simultaneously rather than in sequence. If I squint and turn my head sideways I can kind of see how one might interpret it that way. But for gameplay purposes, taking the turns in sequence makes a lot more sense.


Resolving 30 moves and 30 attacks is going to take the same amount of time/effort whether you do them simultaneously or sequentially.

I disagree. Since the creatures can break up their movements and attacks, trying to resolve them as all one big turn would take significantly longer. You would need to track which enemies had how much remaining move and what remaining actions, rather than just tracking which ones have gone and which have not. For two or three enemies the difference might not be huge, but the complexity grows exponentially with more creatures.

[RSP]

So, while this is possible with real wolves (and I don't think that's a problem, wolf packs are scarily efficient), I don't think you can pull it off with Conjure Animals, as you don't get that level of fine control; they only obey your verbal commands, and if you try to give detailed verbal commands during combat you are going to get NOPE'd hard by the DM.

Why isn’t “kill them all” enough of a command for the summoned wolves to be just as efficient as the “real wolves”? Are the real wolves not trying to kill them all?

Either way, it’s a significant advantage for the “all one Turn” play vs “each takes its own Turn” play, whether that’s done by the DM or the summoning PC.

[Keltest]

Why isn’t “kill them all” enough of a command for the summoned wolves to be just as efficient as the “real wolves”? Are the real wolves not trying to kill them all?

Either way, it’s a significant advantage for the “all one Turn” play vs “each takes its own Turn” play, whether that’s done by the DM or the summoning PC.

Probably not actually, if theyre acting on their own initiative. Wolves are scavengers as much as hunters, which means if theyre attacking they either want to scatter you and pick off a weak member or just get you to go away out of their space. They would only fight for the sake of killing if they felt backed into a corner and that their life was at threat.

Which has nothing to do with your point, i know, but is an interesting bit of trivia.

[RSP]

Probably not actually, if theyre acting on their own initiative. Wolves are scavengers as much as hunters, which means if theyre attacking they either want to scatter you and pick off a weak member or just get you to go away out of their space. They would only fight for the sake of killing if they felt backed into a corner and that their life was at threat.

Which has nothing to do with your point, i know, but is an interesting bit of trivia.

Generally speaking, D&D monsters (wolves included) tend to act as the DM wants them to, regardless of in-game or out-of-game lore, or real life examples.

So, however the monsters behave, they’ll be more efficient in the “all one Turn” play style, vs the each having their own Turn” style.

[Segev]

Same initiative = same turn is just as much an assumption as same initiative = tied initiative.

The language is not "share an initiative" though.Except that it says you roll one initiative for all of them. The language for resolving ties refers to TIES. Did Matthew Stanford and Odell Beckham, Jr. "tie" for victory in the Super Bowl? No; they're both LA Rams players, and they both won, because they share the victory as part of the winning team.


Mounted combat is a specific rule that clearly transcends the general rules. The fact that there is not ambiguity there does not in any way imply there is not ambiguity here. It serves as additional precedent, combined with the rule about rolling once for a group of monsters. Further, it in no way indicates it is creating an exception by permitting action on a shared turn; it only indicates it's creating an exception by allowing the initiative to change. The clarifying text about "even on the turn" it's mounted is clearly indicating that the mount doesn't have to wait a round before it can act, but that, yes, it gets to act again sooner than it otherwise would have.


Again, "share an initiative" is not in the rule being discussed. All conclusions based on importing that language are invalid. Please cite rules text supporting this assertion. Rules text as written always treats initiative as being turn order; if you have to end one turn before starting another, they're on different initiatives, which is why you have to resolve tied initiative rolls to determine which creatures have their initiative come up first.


How does discrete turns create a "broken" or "gamist" mess? It is the fundamental approach to combat used by 5E. As to "no new problems," OP's question is based on the implicit power increase that shared turns for identical monsters implies. That is a new problem to some people.I recommend you look at discussions on how mounted combat works. To summarize, if all individual creatures must act on discrete turns that end before another creature's turn begins, then mounted characters must have their mounts move and act, then the mounted character may. Or vice-versa. And it's up to the DM which one goes first, since the DM resolves ties. Or maybe you let the player do it, since he theoretically controls both creatures. This creates an awkward, stilted gamism to how mounts move and riders act, whereby mounts must move entirely before or after the rider may do anything. It is literally impossible to do a charge-by attack on a mount, while you can easily do such a thing if you're not mounted. Instead, the mount - who may only dash, dodge, or disengage, aside from moving - has to move up to the enemy and just...stop. Then, the rider may attack. Then, on the mount's next turn, the mount may disengage and move away, but if he does, the rider can't attack again. Meanwhile, the bog standard champion fighter who is willing to take OAs can choose to dodge in and out of combat, running up and stabbing and backing off, if he wants to.

On the other hand, if you treat the rules as they are written, then the mount and rider share a turn because they share an initiative, and the rider can benefit from the mount's movement the same way he would his own. Better, even, since the mount can dash or disengage.

There's nothing stopping a DM from resolving the goblins in order, but he also has the liberty to move some or all of them, have some or all make attacks or other actions, then move any or all of them however much movement they have remaining. This is how the RAW are written to work. And if a pack of wolves are working together, they can move and attack as a unit. Or the DM can deal with one then the other then the next, if he wants.

But the RAW support shared turns.


I agree, you CAN read it either way. That is the definition of ambiguous language. Taking the whole code of the language around the ambiguous language, I think the purpose is discrete turns.I disagree; I think the purpose is very clearly shared turns. And since it can be read either way, why insist on reading it in a way that makes things harder?

[Keravath]

Here are the rules on initiative.

"Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order. The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.

The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest.

This is the order (called the initiative order) in which they act during each round. The initiative order remains the same from round to round.
If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first."

1) Every creature in the combat makes an initiative roll. The DM makes one roll for each group of identical monsters. Each creature in the group shares the same initiative.

2) The DM ranks the combatants in order. This does NOT say groups of combatants. It says "combatants". Each and every creature in the initiative order is ranked. This is the order in which they are resolved in the round.

3) The "if a tie occurs" refers to the preceding sentence in which the DM has placed every creature in the initiative order. It does not refer in any way to a tie of die rolls. The rolling part is the first paragraph prior to the DM arranging every individual creature (it says nothing about groups) into an initiative order (which may include ties when groups of identical creatures have the same initiative value.

4) The DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures. Again this does NOT say groups and it explicitly refers to ties within the order of combatants where groups of identical creatures are tied because they share the same initiative roll.

The only place in this rule that refers to groups is where the DM rolls the initiative die for groups of identical creatures together so that their turns will be resolved grouped at the same value of initiative. However, the rest of the rule clearly refers to placing every creature into the initiative order and then resolving ties within the initiative order by having the DM decide the order for DM controlled creatures.

This interpretation is supported by the rule at the beginning of the chapter.

"A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

The round is divided into turns in which EVERY participant takes a turn. No where does it say that groups of creatures resolve their turns simultaneously. The only rule about groups is when the DM makes the dexterity check for initiative and each identical creature in the group has the same value - which is where those creatures are placed when every creature in the combat is placed into an initiative order. The DM then resolves the tied initiative values for DM-controlled creatures however they like with each creature taking their turn in order.

----

The entire idea that groups of creatures resolve their turns simultaneously appears to be based on the sentence in which the DM is told to roll a single initiative check for groups of identical creatures while not taking into account the subsequent text that DM ranks the combatants in initiative order (which is the order they act in the round).

No where are groups acting simultaneously ever mentioned in the rules. (There are rules for controlled mounts, and a simulacrum is said to act on the same turn as its creator - but those are specific rules that take precedence over the general initiative order)

However, we are left with "so each member of the group acts at the same time." which is the source of the ambiguity. In my opinion, this simply refers to the creatures having the same initiative so their turns are resolved in order at the same time. However, if someone wants to ignore the text that the DM places the combatants into initiative order (and not groups of combatants) then it might seem reasonable to conclude that groups of identical creatures could act simultaneously. However, I disagree with that interpretation since after rolling for initiative the combatants (which includes every individual in every group) are placed into an initiative order and the resolving of ties refers to this list (at least in normal English reading of the text).

As always, individual DMs are welcome to play however they want.

[NaughtyTiger]

I've always ruled it this way. If I roll for a group of Gobo's, then they all go at that Initiative, but they don't move, then action, its gobo 1 goes, then gobo 2 goes, and so on.

I interpret the RAW this way as well,
but for the sake of efficiency...
I move all the Gobo's, then declare their actions (these 4 will attack the paladin), then execute their actions (roll 4 d20s, 2 hit...)

[Segev]

I interpret the RAW this way as well,
but for the sake of efficiency...
I move all the Gobo's, then declare their actions (these 4 will attack the paladin), then execute their actions (roll 4 d20s, 2 hit...)

And both are legal under the RAW.

[RSP]

…
The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time…

I appreciate the write up!

However I believe this one line is the issue as it specifically states “each member of the group acts at the same time.”

This line could very well be read as an exception to the otherwise general rules and that “at the same time”=“on the same Turn.”.

It could also be read as “acts on same initiative (but with separate Turns)”.

Hence the ambiguity.

[Christew]

I disagree. Since the creatures can break up their movements and attacks, trying to resolve them as all one big turn would take significantly longer. You would need to track which enemies had how much remaining move and what remaining actions, rather than just tracking which ones have gone and which have not. For two or three enemies the difference might not be huge, but the complexity grows exponentially with more creatures.
Fair point. I didn't go into detail because I was arguing "sequential is not slower than simultaneous" but you are right that it could easily be argued that "sequential is faster than simultaneous."

Please cite rules text supporting this assertion.
The relevant rule is repeatedly cited throughout this thread.

I disagree; I think the purpose is very clearly shared turns. And since it can be read either way, why insist on reading it in a way that makes things harder?

And both are legal under the RAW.
Struggling to reconcile your vociferous argument for one interpretation with your contention that both are RAW.

snip
As always, individual DMs are welcome to play however they want.
Great post. Very thorough.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I interpret the RAW this way as well,
but for the sake of efficiency...
I move all the Gobo's, then declare their actions (these 4 will attack the paladin), then execute their actions (roll 4 d20s, 2 hit...)

Despite that there may be different ways to interpret RAW, efficiency and pragmatism will continue to guide how I run this because 1) I don't really see the need to slow down combat, and 2) Having the baddies (particularly hordes) be OP is not remotely an issue I have with 5e. A small boost supported by RAI is fine.

[RSP]

Despite that there may be different ways to interpret RAW, efficiency and pragmatism will continue to guide how I run this because 1) I don't really see the need to slow down combat, and 2) Having the baddies (particularly hordes) be OP is not remotely an issue I have with 5e. A small boost supported by RAI is fine.

What makes you think all acting on one Turn is RAI?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

What makes you think all acting on one Turn is RAI?

I probably didn't state that as clearly as I could have. The RAI I was referring to was creatures that do get a benefit by this interpretation, like wolves with pack tactics. It seems to me that 2 wolves attacking 1 character are intended to get the benefit.

[stoutstien]

I probably didn't state that as clearly as I could have. The RAI I was referring to was creatures that do get a benefit by this interpretation, like wolves with pack tactics. It seems to me that 2 wolves attacking 1 character are intended to get the benefit.

To be fair it's also extremely likely that the wolfs would still be able to apply pack tactics even if they had independent turns via the ready action.

[Segev]

Struggling to reconcile your vociferous argument for one interpretation with your contention that both are RAW.

Lost in my vociferousness, most likely, is the part where I said that both are valid readings, but that one of them creates issues with mounted combat and the other has things run smoothly.

Conveniently, my reading also permits, but does not require, running the way people who want to run them as separate turns wish to. The goblins share a turn, but that doesn't mean you can't resolve everything goblin A does before moving on to goblin B. It just means you CAN resolve part of A's actions and movement, resolve part of B's, then move back to finish A's stuff up later in the turn, if you choose.

[Segev]

To be fair it's also extremely likely that the wolfs would still be able to apply pack tactics even if they had independent turns via the ready action.

The ready action is already a very clumsy thing. Having to invoke it to get things done that are already permitted on your own turn under the rules is part of my argument that the interpretation I dislike is a poor choice for how to read the RAW.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry, what exactly is the problem with Pack Tactics if your run turns sequentially? I've never had any issues with it.

[Christew]

Lost in my vociferousness, most likely, is the part where I said that both are valid readings, but that one of them creates issues with mounted combat and the other has things run smoothly.
Hmm, wonder where I got the idea that you were outright rejecting one of the available interpretations then.

Nope.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'm sorry, what exactly is the problem with Pack Tactics if your run turns sequentially? I've never had any issues with it.

under the interpretation where each creature completes its turn before the next starts, if DM moves two wolves in range of the Barbarian... the first wolf doesn't benefit from pack tactics, only the 2nd wolf.

[Tanarii]

under the interpretation where each creature completes its turn before the next starts, if DM moves two wolves in range of the Barbarian... the first wolf doesn't benefit from pack tactics, only the 2nd wolf.
Why is that a problem? Working as intended. I know if I was a player and a DM move two wolves and then attack with them, and claim they both got the bonus from Pack Tactics, I'd probably be annoyed. Not to mention wanting to know why the party couldn't do that.

[JNAProductions]

Why is that a problem? Working as intended. I know if I was a player and a DM move two wolves and then attack with them, and claim they both got the bonus from Pack Tactics, I'd probably be annoyed. Not to mention wanting to know why the party couldn't do that.

Party doesn’t have Pack Tactics, usually. That’s a good reason.

[Christew]

under the interpretation where each creature completes its turn before the next starts, if DM moves two wolves in range of the Barbarian... the first wolf doesn't benefit from pack tactics, only the 2nd wolf.
On its first turn. That's hardly an invalidation of the ability. Especially since it could just use ready action if the DM is dead set on maximizing first turn damage against the Barbarian.

[RSP]

Party doesn’t have Pack Tactics, usually. That’s a good reason.

Nothing in Pack Tactics grants that ability though.


under the interpretation where each creature completes its turn before the next starts, if DM moves two wolves in range of the Barbarian... the first wolf doesn't benefit from pack tactics, only the 2nd wolf.

Not just that, but all creatures can reposition themselves after all of them have attacked. That alone is a significant tactical advantage.

[Tanarii]

Party doesn’t have Pack Tactics, usually. That’s a good reason.
:smallamused:
In general, not specifically. PCs have plenty of ways to turn that into an advantage.

If that's the kind of thing you want, just use side initiative with mixable actions/movement, and be done with it. There's advantages to side initiative anyway.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Why is that a problem? Working as intended. I know if I was a player and a DM move two wolves and then attack with them, and claim they both got the bonus from Pack Tactics, I'd probably be annoyed. Not to mention wanting to know why the party couldn't do that.

Are you not OK with just adding that to the long list of ways the DM/ monsters are different than the PCs/ party in 5e? I suppose if players were used to the other way and this came as a surprise someone might be upset, but given the range of opinion on this issue if it were explained that 'this table functions this way' I can't see most players getting too worked up over it.

[Witty Username]

This. Different creatures always act on different turns, unless something specifically says otherwise, such a spell summons that specifically calls out that it acts on your turn. That's the general rule.

Wouldn't the rule cited by the OP constitute stating otherwise, for the specific instance of identical DM controlled creatures?

[Christew]

Wouldn't the rule cited by the OP constitute stating otherwise, for the specific instance of identical DM controlled creatures?
If you interpret "act at the same time" as "act on the same turn," not if you interpret it as "act on the same initiative count." One of two possible interpretations representing specific over general and the other not doesn't resolve the ambiguity.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

One thing that just occurred to me about this thread is that acting together isn't always a boon for the monsters. I've had characters set traps for monsters, and rather than one of them falling victim there have been times when two or more have suffered the consequences.

[Witty Username]

I disagree. Since the creatures can break up their movements and attacks, trying to resolve them as all one big turn would take significantly longer. You would need to track which enemies had how much remaining move and what remaining actions, rather than just tracking which ones have gone and which have not. For two or three enemies the difference might not be huge, but the complexity grows exponentially with more creatures.
So, like hit and run tactics? I tend to solve this problem with formation movement.
Identical monsters have the same movement rate, so as long as they maintain formation they move with one calculation.
This also applies to "rush in", a zombie horde will simply run at the nearest enemy if they have no direction. This means that moving all units in is pretty simple, and can be done as one step.
I also prefer rolling multiple dice simultaneously for attacks, this means attacks can be handled as one interaction instead of many.
Also, transitioning between normal and mob rules is easier doing this stuff, at least for me.
@Christew I suppose, but I have to ask a quick thing: does "at the same time" and "simultaneously" mean the same thing?

[Christew]

@Christew I suppose, but I have to ask a quick thing: does "at the same time" and "simultaneously" mean the same thing?
In plain meaning derived from common usage -- I suppose. In a system where initiative count, round, and turn are specialized terms to denote how time is abstracted by the system, and given the context of surrounding language -- no, that is one of two or more available interpretations.

[Tanarii]

Wouldn't the rule cited by the OP constitute stating otherwise, for the specific instance of identical DM controlled creatures?
No. It doesn't contradict the general rule by specifying they do not have their own turns or all share the same turn. It's especially clear in the context of the full un-parsed section of the rules that the OP single sentence cited was pulled from.

[GooeyChewie]

I suppose if players were used to the other way and this came as a surprise someone might be upset, but given the range of opinion on this issue if it were explained that 'this table functions this way' I can't see most players getting too worked up over it.

For me, it depends. If the DM says they're processing things a certain way because it's easier to handle like actions at the same time and it won't make much tactical difference, then no big deal. If the DM is cheesing the system to give the enemies a distinct tactical advantage that they shouldn't have, I probably would get upset, especially if the same advantages are not afforded to the party's conjured allies. If the DM is taking an extraordinary amount of time to parse the enemy actions and partial actions in order to achieve said tactical advantages, I'd probably bow out of the campaign at the end of the session.


So, like hit and run tactics? I tend to solve this problem with formation movement.
Identical monsters have the same movement rate, so as long as they maintain formation they move with one calculation.
This also applies to "rush in", a zombie horde will simply run at the nearest enemy if they have no direction. This means that moving all units in is pretty simple, and can be done as one step.
I also prefer rolling multiple dice simultaneously for attacks, this means attacks can be handled as one interaction instead of many.
Also, transitioning between normal and mob rules is easier doing this stuff, at least for me.
It doesn't necessarily need to be hit and run tactics. It's anything that could cause the enemies to want to intersperse their movements, attacks and bonus actions. For example, knocking a player character unconscious and taking out the risk of that character making an opportunity attack could cause an enemy which had previously used part of their movement to suddenly want to use their remaining movement.

Moving and attacking in formation does simplify things a lot, and take away a lot of the tactical advantage of being able to having a bunch of creatures act in one super-turn. It's kind of a hybrid in which you're processing all their turns at once but having them act in a similar manner as if they would have if taking sequential turns.

[RSP]

Another thing this thread taught me: Simulacrums act on the Turn of their creator (my tables have just rolled their own Initiative).

This brings up a very interesting issue: if the creator isn’t in the combat with the Simulacrum, there is no Turn on which it can act.

[Witty Username]

No. It doesn't contradict the general rule by specifying they do not have their own turns or all share the same turn. It's especially clear in the context of the full un-parsed section of the rules that the OP single sentence cited was pulled from.
Hm, the full context is more confusing. Off the full section, it reads as if creatures go at the same time if they use the same initiative with a specific rule that states otherwise if it is the result of a tied dex check.
I guess mounted combat is solved? The general rule is that creatures that use the same initiative operate at the same time, and the specific rule that enforces separate turns only works in tie breaker.

[Tanarii]

Hm, the full context is more confusing. Off the full section, it reads as if creatures go at the same time if they use the same initiative with a specific rule that states otherwise if it is the result of a tied dex check.
I guess mounted combat is solved? The general rule is that creatures that use the same initiative operate at the same time, and the specific rule that enforces separate turns only works in tie breaker.
General rule is creatures get their own turn. That rule is never broken unless something says a creature acts on another creature turn, as in a reaction or some conjure/animate spells that have it act on the casters turn. If there's multiple creatures with the same initiative, there's a clarification they get take turns one after the other. At no point is the general explicitly overridden in either DM single initiative rolled groups, conjure spells that have creatures roll initiative, or mounted combat.

[Witty Username]

General rule is creatures get their own turn. That rule is never broken unless something says a creature acts on another creature turn, as in a reaction or some conjure/animate spells that have it act on the casters turn. If there's multiple creatures with the same initiative, there's a clarification they get take turns one after the other. At no point is the general explicitly overridden in either DM single initiative rolled groups, conjure spells that have creatures roll initiative, or mounted combat.
Where does it say that turns have to be separate?

[Christew]

Where does it say that turns have to be separate?
PHB: "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."
Also PHB: "Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

Each participant/everyone gets a turn.

Each -- used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.

[diplomancer]

Where does it say that turns have to be separate?

As I've mentioned early, it really depends on whether "turn" means the general English word "turn", used in several different games, or if it has a more specialized meaning, namely "the moment in combat where you can move, take an Action, and a Bonus action". If the first, "a turn" does imply something separate (though it's worth noting that, say, in a game of Axis and Allies, you get to move all your pieces on the same turn; from that perspective, all your armed forces act "on the same turn"). If the latter, no.

[RSP]

As I've mentioned early, it really depends on whether "turn" means the general English word "turn", used in several different games, or if it has a more specialized meaning, namely "the moment in combat where you can move, take an Action, and a Bonus action". If the first, "a turn" does imply something separate (though it's worth noting that, say, in a game of Axis and Allies, you get to move all your pieces on the same turn; from that perspective, all your armed forces act "on the same turn"). If the latter, no.

I’d say it’s the common English word as a) it isn’t granted a definition specific to the game (for example something like “a turn is…”), b) it’s use is consistent with the common English definition (unlike, say Armor Class), c) the rules use it for both Players and Characters.

For c), the first use of “turn” is “The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.” It then later says “Initiative determines the order of turns during combat…The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest.” Players are not combatants, characters are. This is further illustrated by this sentence following the previous one: “ If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters.” So ties aren’t between players, but characters.

That all said, the RAW isn’t always consistent with how it’s written, and it may well be the writers meant it as a game term at some points and it’s common English meaning others (see: “action”).

[diplomancer]

Players are not combatants, characters are.


Well, in most games... still, I've seen a few ;)

[RSP]

Well, in most games... still, I've seen a few ;)

In those instances, I doubt the players subjected themselves to the rules requiring turns!

[Tanarii]

PHB: "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."
Also PHB: "Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

Don't forget to bold turn in the first quote, as per the PHB. It is bolded in the PHB to call out and defined as a game term right there, something that's separate for each participant.

(Another part of that paragraph also bolds the word round, calling it out as a different game term)

[diplomancer]

Don't forget to bold turn in the first quote, as per the PHB. It is bolded in the PHB to call out and defined as a game term right there, something that's separate for each participant.

(Another part of that paragraph also bolds the word round, calling it out as a different game term)

If that's what it's doing, and if your interpretation is correct, it'd be a great place to say "separately take a turn" or "take a separate turn"

[Segev]

PHB: "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."
Also PHB: "Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

Each participant/everyone gets a turn.

Each -- used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.

Except that groups of identical creatures are not "regarded and identified separately," rather explicitly having initiative rolled once for all of them as a group.

What puzzles me is this insistence that it MUST be read in this fashion that breaks mounted combat, and requires an invention of an exception not spelled out in mounted combat rules to be read into them to make them work intuitively...when reading it straight-forwardly to permit shared turns by creatures sharing an initiative still permits the behavior that is obviously desired by those arguing for creatures being unable to share an initiative: you can still fully resolve goblin A before moving on to goblin B if you want to, even though the rules state that you don't have to.

[Christew]

Except that groups of identical creatures are not "regarded and identified separately," rather explicitly having initiative rolled once for all of them as a group.
This reading requires defining "participant" to include "group of identical creatures." I do not prefer that conflation, though you can make it. I prefer creature = participant and each participant gets a turn.

What puzzles me is this insistence that it MUST be read in this fashion
Then I refer you to the myriad of posts that acknowledge both synchronous and sequential as available interpretations of the ambiguous language. Hopefully your puzzlement will abate.

[Segev]

Then I refer you to the myriad of posts that acknowledge both synchronous and sequential as available interpretations of the ambiguous language. Hopefully your puzzlement will abate.

Why would that abate my puzzlement? I specifically referenced that fact.

Nothing prevents "shared turns" from being done effectively sequentially, so the only effect of insisting that "shared turns" absolutely cannot be the way you read the RAW would have is to disallow something, rather than to allow something.

This isn't a case of, "Pick one; each has things it allows that the other doesn't;" this is a case of, "Pick A and get everything in B and then some, or pick B and only get some of what A offers." Moreover, if ruled consistently, "no shared turns" makes mounted combat a lot more stilted; if ruled so mounted combat still gets shared turns, of course, that goes away, but then...you're ruling against it then house ruling it back in, which seems odd, to me.

[Christew]

Why would that abate my puzzlement?
Because you said what puzzles you is the insistence that the rules MUST be read in a particular way. I did not insist that the rules MUST be read in a particular way. Ergo, unless the source of your puzzlement is something different than what was stated, your puzzlement should abate.

[Witty Username]

PHB: "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."
Also PHB: "Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

Each participant/everyone gets a turn.

Each -- used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.
Yes, it says in the first section it says everyone takes a turn in a round. The next section then says how to determine the order, which includes that identical DM controlled monsters go at the same time.

In short, text makes no claims that turns cannot overlap, and includes a clause that implies that they do.

If "at the same time" is ambiguous, then "each participant takes a turn" is also ambiguous. Since it makes no claim that turns cannot be overlapping or in parallel.

[RSP]

Don't forget to bold turn in the first quote, as per the PHB. It is bolded in the PHB to call out and defined as a game term right there, something that's separate for each participant.

(Another part of that paragraph also bolds the word round, calling it out as a different game term)

Except bolded words aren’t necessarily game terms (though I understand why you’d think that). For instance:

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

How are “move” and “take one action” being used other than their common English meaning? What game specific meaning do those words have? Where does the RAW tell us that game-specific meaning?

Also:

“In a dungeon environment, the adventurers’ movement happens on a scale of minutes.”

“In a city or wilderness, a scale of hours is often more appropriate.”

Same questions for those bolded words? Is a minute something other than 60 seconds? Etc.


If that's what it's doing, and if your interpretation is correct, it'd be a great place to say "separately take a turn" or "take a separate turn"

Or tell us the game-specific definition they want us to use.

[PhantomSoul]

Or tell us the game-specific definition they want us to use.

But that would obviously go against 5e's core principle of rulings over rules -- if you give people rules and clear systems, the entire principle could be in jeopardy!

[Tanarii]

I'll concede the holding may be an emphasis of a commonly used term in the game that still conveys some common English meaning. But that just locks in the point even further.

[RSP]

This paragraph may be of value:

“This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle. Throughout this chapter, the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and nonplayer characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. “You” can also mean the character or monster that you control.”

Bolded mine for emphasis.

Note: it doesn’t say “‘you’ can mean the characters (plural) or monsters (plural) that you control.” Every instance of “you”, therefore is either a singular [Player or the DM], or a singular [character or monster].

So generally speaking, every use of “you” that applies to a PC, applies to a singular monster. This probably means every creature has its own turn.

A good example of this:

“You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.”

So that can well mean:

“[The DM] can take only one bonus action on [a monster’s] turn, so [the DM] must choose which bonus action to use when [a monster] have more than one available.”

The other option reads as such:

“[The DM] can take only one bonus action on [the DM’s] turn, so [the DM] must choose which bonus action to use when [the DM] have more than one available.”

So either monsters have their own turns, or the “group turn” for monsters only allows for a single BA throughout that turn.

Likewise if we breakdown other sentences throughout the chapter (which I won’t do here): the reading, I believe, plays out to be a constant use of singular “a monster’s turn”, as opposed to “monsters’ turn”.

[Keltest]

This paragraph may be of value:

“This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle. Throughout this chapter, the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and nonplayer characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. “You” can also mean the character or monster that you control.”

Bolded mine for emphasis.

Note: it doesn’t say “‘you’ can mean the characters (plural) or monsters (plural) that you control.” Every instance of “you”, therefore is either a singular [Player or the DM], or a singular [character or monster].

So generally speaking, every use of “you” that applies to a PC, applies to a singular monster. This probably means every creature has its own turn.

A good example of this:

“You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.”

So that can well mean:

“[The DM] can take only one bonus action on [a monster’s] turn, so [the DM] must choose which bonus action to use when [a monster] have more than one available.”

The other option reads as such:

“[The DM] can take only one bonus action on [the DM’s] turn, so [the DM] must choose which bonus action to use when [the DM] have more than one available.”

So either monsters have their own turns, or the “group turn” for monsters only allows for a single BA throughout that turn.

Likewise if we breakdown other sentences throughout the chapter (which I won’t do here): the reading, I believe, plays out to be a constant use of singular “a monster’s turn”, as opposed to “monsters’ turn”.

The nonbolded section between the two bolded sections specifies what the DM controls.

[RSP]

The nonbolded section between the two bolded sections specifies what the DM controls.

Indeed. The DM controls multiple creatures, but the rules only reference singular creature’s turns.

[Keltest]

Indeed. The DM controls multiple creatures, but the rules only reference singular creature’s turns.

In the context of how the rules will go about explaining your options. Its clearly not meant to indicate that a DM can only control one creature.

[RSP]

In the context of how the rules will go about explaining your options. Its clearly not meant to indicate that a DM can only control one creature.

It clearly states singular in the rules, as stated.

The DM can control as many creatures as they want, but the rules indicate, when they do a turn, it’s a singular monster’s turn.

[Keltest]

It clearly states singular in the rules, as stated.

The DM can control as many creatures as they want, but the rules indicate, when they do a turn, it’s a singular monster’s turn.

5e doesnt hide things in its technical language like that. Any interpretation based on an incredibly strict reading of unrelated rules is not intended.

An ACTUAL rule would be things like the DMG's "tracking initiative" section. In particular the various suggested methods of doing so all give monsters one initiative value that they all act on. This indicates that the monsters are meant to be handled simultaneously, rather than having "ogre 1" always go before "ogre 2".

[diplomancer]

So either monsters have their own turns, or the “group turn” for monsters only allows for a single BA throughout that turn.

What's in debate here is not whether each goblin gets a turn (we all agree they do), but whether these turns are sequential or simultaneous. Whether you run it one way or the other, it's still true, at the end of the round, that everyone got a turn (i.e, an opportunity to move, take an action and a bonus action).

[PhantomSoul]

What's in debate here is not whether each goblin gets a turn (we all agree they do), but whether these turns are sequential or simultaneous. Whether you run it one way or the other, it's still true, at the end of the round, that everyone got a turn (i.e, an opportunity to move, take an action and a bonus action).

I grinned at the bolded part because it has the same ambiguity as is being discussed! (There was one turn shared by all vs. there was a turn per creature.)

[Keltest]

I mean, it seems to me that the rules (rightly IMO) leave it up to the DM how they want to handle any given group of identical creatures actions.

[RSP]

What's in debate here is not whether each goblin gets a turn (we all agree they do), but whether these turns are sequential or simultaneous. Whether you run it one way or the other, it's still true, at the end of the round, that everyone got a turn (i.e, an opportunity to move, take an action and a bonus action).

As I see it, the debate is does “The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time”; mean a) the identical creatures each have separate turns that will occur on the same initiative die roll?

Or does it mean they all act during the same turn?

The fact that the rules flat out tell us Player/Character are interchangeable with DM/Monster, when reading the rules, gives a very good indication they’re meant to be played the same.

I find it hard to believe they’d say that, then leave it up to that one clause to say “except the DM and Monsters operate with different rules.”

Further, if we read the rules as they tell us, that “you” is both the player or DM; or the character or monster, then every part of the rules in the combat chapter references a singular creature’s turn: not multiple creatures’ turn.


I mean, it seems to me that the rules (rightly IMO) leave it up to the DM how they want to handle any given group of identical creatures actions.

The game gives the DM the ability to do whatever they want with the rules at any time; but that doesn’t mean there aren’t standard rules.

[Keravath]

Are you not OK with just adding that to the long list of ways the DM/ monsters are different than the PCs/ party in 5e? I suppose if players were used to the other way and this came as a surprise someone might be upset, but given the range of opinion on this issue if it were explained that 'this table functions this way' I can't see most players getting too worked up over it.

Personally, I like the NPCs and PCs to follow the same rules as much as possible since, from an immersion perspective, the universe works the same for any creature whether PC or NPC. Having packs of NPCs bend time in such a way that everything they do is simultaneous but PCs with the same initiative don't have the same options breaks immersion for me. Why can NPCs coordinate their actions in a way that PCs can't?

On the other hand, if I was playing in a game and it was mentioned up front, it would not be a game-breaking house rule/interpretation of RAW that would make me walk away.

[NaughtyTiger]

Personally, I like the NPCs and PCs to follow the same rules as much as possible since, from an immersion perspective, the universe works the same for any creature whether PC or NPC. Having packs of NPCs bend time in such a way that everything they do is simultaneous but PCs with the same initiative don't have the same options breaks immersion for me. Why can NPCs coordinate their actions in a way that PCs can't?

Definite personal opinion thing for me.

Enemies attacking and falling one at a time breaks immersion for me.
Heck thinking in terms of "turns" and "actions" explicitly breaks immersion.
As a player, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about how the DMs are coordinating NPCs unless they draw attention to it.

NPCs moving as a horde, and then attacking as a horde, seems more "real" to me than expecting 10 bad guys to attack in sequence. And that last goblin deciding to attack the Ranger because he "knows" the 9th goblin landed the killing blow.

[RSP]

NPCs moving as a horde, and then attacking as a horde, seems more "real" to me than expecting 10 bad guys to attack in sequence. And that last goblin deciding to attack the Ranger because he "knows" the 9th goblin landed the killing blow.

Yeah, everything is happening during those same ~6 seconds, so there’s plenty that doesn’t make sense about turns already:

The Wizard can walk 60’ then cast fireball before any enemies move at. Then those enemies all move to different areas and attack.

So over those ~6 seconds, the enemies are both bunched together, not having moved yet (the end of the Wizard’s ~6 seconds), and also separated in different areas (the end of the same ~6 seconds for the enemies).

Whether the DM moves all the enemies at once or not, there’s plenty of “not real” in the turn-based system.