Mechanics that dont make sense

[PhoenixPhyre]

Doesn't really effect the usefulness of the spell for my group.
Detect magic covers spell identification (at least at my table the biggest concern when thinking of dispelling is if it is a spell, as conditions and their severity tend to be somewhat obvious). And for identifying items, each PC can identify an item over a short rest so time saving has limited application.
My bigger problem is that the spell replicatesan effect that can be done by anyone, so including something that is a least somewhat less easy as part of its effect gives it some more weight. And makes it useful as a DM tool to convey information.

But that is me and mine, if it works for you, then it works for you.

Had someone identify an object they found. Not really a magic item, more like part of a large ritual. Couldn't do that over a short rest.

[Witty Username]

So, some other magic imbued object?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, some other magic imbued object?

A crystal that served as part of a necromantic persistent "effect generator device", strengthening local undead while keeping them in a particular area.

Removed from the housing, it's just a nexus of demonic (charged by blood magic) and necromantic energy. Not something with abilities, but in theory something you could use as a component for something or smash to cause an explosion.

I do lots of these sorts of things. This particular campaign has quite a lot of old magitech (some of it demonic, some not), most of which can't take be used like magic items but are more like spells locked to a particular area or devices that produce large-scale effects.

[Witty Username]

I've had an item or two come up like that. I'll keep that in mind for future identify stuff.

I still like the bit of houserule on identify on a magic item getting name of the item, creator, intended purpose, previous owner, notable event used in as applicable. It's made for some fun.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I had another thought around surprise/ initiative. If a group is playing RAW, what's to stop a character who has successfully fulfilled all of the conditions applied by the DM to gain surprise, then loses initiative to simply not do anything, walk away, then come back in a round or 2 and try again? I mean there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says an otherwise surprised character actually notices a potential attacker just because he/she wins initiative. In fact that character can't take actions or reactions. So if the potential attacker doesn't attack, combat hasn't actually started yet, so I would think it would be well within a player's rights to say, "OK, I duck back behind the tree, compose myself, and try again in a few moments."

[Keltest]

I had another thought around surprise/ initiative. If a group is playing RAW, what's to stop a character who has successfully fulfilled all of the conditions applied by the DM to gain surprise, then loses initiative to simply not do anything, walk away, then come back in a round or 2 and try again? I mean there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says an otherwise surprised character actually notices a potential attacker just because he/she wins initiative. In fact that character can't take actions or reactions. So if the potential attacker doesn't attack, combat hasn't actually started yet, so I would think it would be well within a player's rights to say, "OK, I duck back behind the tree, compose myself, and try again in a few moments."

I mean, presumably the NPC who is surprised has been surprised by something. If initiative is rolled, combat has started, and youve done something to make them aware of your presence in some way, even if they cant act on it before you do something.

[Tanarii]

I mean, presumably the NPC who is surprised has been surprised by something. If initiative is rolled, combat has started, and youve done something to make them aware of your presence in some way, even if they cant act on it before you do something.

Thats how I run it. But it's not explicit that an entirely unnoticed group that surprises the enemy is automatically noticed when one of them initiates combat.

[Keltest]

Thats how I run it. But it's not explicit that an entirely unnoticed group that surprises the enemy is automatically noticed when one of them initiates combat.

Does it need to be? That's kind of what initiating combat is, isn't it? Certainly I won't let my group declare combat, roll initiative, then let them back off just because they don't like how it turned out without surprise. Why would adding surprise change that?

[Xetheral]

For mechanics that don't make (thematic) sense, I would note that Barbarians who Dash towards their foes risk dropping out of Rage if the enemy happens to miss them (or chooses a different target). If they want to guarantee they keep Rage they have to make a ranged attack instead of Dashing. Slowly advancing while making ranged attacks seems far less thematic than Dashing into melee.

For those who played 3.5 more than I have, how often did the Run action come up? Because I don't recall seeing it ever used in any game I've played. So not including it doesn't seem like a huge loss.

Quite a bit in outdoor battles. It was often advantageous to take the penalties for running to avoid having to spend two rounds moving and/or end one's turn out of full cover. Then again, my game probably had longer encounter distances (and a heavier reliance on full cover) than many other tables did in 3.5. I know my 5e games do--it's why I had to houserule the Barbarian problem I mention above.

And of the PHB rogues (against which it should really be compared, due to power creep), it's the only one that gets a real combat power boost at level 3. Thieves get Fast Hands and Second-Story Work, Arcane Tricksters get cantrips and spells (which until the bladetrips weren't all that much of a power boost, especially focusing on illusion and enchantment).

Fast Hands can be a circumstantial combat boost via grenade-like weapons. On the other hand, the rules in use for grenade-like weapons specifically (and improvised weapons more broadly) vary so much from table to table that YMMV.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I mean, presumably the NPC who is surprised has been surprised by something. If initiative is rolled, combat has started, and youve done something to make them aware of your presence in some way, even if they cant act on it before you do something.

First I disagree that you've necessarily done anything that might alert anyone, which I guess is the main reason I think this mechanic is crap. At an extreme situation the attacker is invisible, silent and 100 yards away; there literally is nothing he could do at that point, despite acting 2nd, that could alert their victim. Even in less extreme situations we're talking about a world that allows fantastic spells, so a high level Rogue abilities should be effectively comparable.

I'm thinking of movies where a potential attacker goes to strike, the potential victim looks around, moves, or does something else, so the attacker backs off for a moment then tries again. In D&D game terms there would be a cost to this. Any spells the attacker (and allies) had pre-cast would be using up rounds. The attacker would likely have to re-roll stealth vs perception successfully a second (or more) time. You're risking someone else coming along and messing things up.

If I were to start DMing RAW and including an initiative roll for surprised creatures, giving stealthy players an option to back off at this point and re-try would be the only way I could feel like I was doing right by those players. And I don't think it contradicts RAW.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Initiative and turn order is not in world perceivable. Acting differently like that based purely on your initiative score (not based on what people do, but purely on your dice roll) is, in my mind, not good play. It's the bad kind of meta gaming. Tables may vary, but that would leave a bad taste in my mouth as player or DM, and I'd never have an npc act like that.

[Xetheral]

Initiative and turn order is not in world perceivable. Acting differently like that based purely on your initiative score (not based on what people do, but purely on your dice roll) is, in my mind, not good play. It's the bad kind of meta gaming. Tables may vary, but that would leave a bad taste in my mouth as player or DM, and I'd never have an npc act like that.

What about the reverse, where the character with metagame information is the surprise victim? For example, let's say a (environmentally) blinded and deafened PC is feeling through their bag, trying to find a flint and steel by touch to make a light when (unbeknownst to them) combat breaks out around them. Does the character get to know that combat started when they suddenly have to stop looking for their flint and tinder for 6 seconds the round they were "surprised"? Or is the 6 second pause imperceptible to the PC?

[The Glyphstone]

Are there people who literally play combats as if only the person whose turn is 'current' can move in-universe while everyone else is standing perfectly still, like its a giant game of living battle chess or something? I could see it working in a very farcical, meta-aware setting like OOTS, but not in any world claiming to have a fourth wall otherwise.

[Keltest]

What about the reverse, where the character with metagame information is the surprise victim? For example, let's say a (environmentally) blinded and deafened PC is feeling through their bag, trying to find a flint and steel by touch to make a light when (unbeknownst to them) combat breaks out around them. Does the character get to know that combat started when they suddenly have to stop looking for their flint and tinder for 6 seconds the round they were "surprised"? Or is the 6 second pause imperceptible to the PC?

A player is free to invent whatever reason they like for their inaction, but they can recognize that events are moving around them. They just can't react to them, because reasons.

[Tanarii]

Does it need to be? That's kind of what initiating combat is, isn't it? Certainly I won't let my group declare combat, roll initiative, then let them back off just because they don't like how it turned out without surprise. Why would adding surprise change that?

Given that at least two people so far assume that a creature that is hidden and does something to start combat remains hidden until it does something on its first turn to reveal it, I'd say yes.

That's a wildly different assumption from a creature that is hidden and does something to start combat immediate revealing itself, even though enemies may have time to react between it starting combat and resolving its first action.


To me at sounds like wanting no one to be able to notice you between initiating your surprise attack and succeeding on it and rob you of some of the blow. Throwing out a nice cinematic explanation. OTOH I totally get from a rules perspective of "why on this first round only do I have to stop hiding before my action comes up?" But that presupposes that you get to start combats hidden. And of course it causes exactly this problem whenever the creature that started combat and was hidden fails to win initiative against everyone else.

[Keltest]

Given that at least two people so far assume that a creature that is hidden and does something to start combat remains hidden until it does something on its first turn to reveal it, I'd say yes.

That's a wildly different assumption from a creature that is hidden and does something to start combat immediate revealing itself, even though enemies may have time to react between it starting combat and resolving its first action.


To me at sounds like wanting no one to be able to notice you between initiating your surprise attack and succeeding on it and rob you of some of the blow. Throwing out a nice cinematic explanation. OTOH I totally get from a rules perspective of "why on this first round only do I have to stop hiding before my action comes up?" But that presupposes that you get to start combats hidden. And of course it causes exactly this problem whenever the creature that started combat and was hidden fails to win initiative against everyone else.

I mean, so far the only actually odd rules interaction ive seen from this is from the assassin rogue, and thats already fairly widely regarded as being extremely poorly written, from my understanding. Absent that specific scenario, the surprise rules seem to do what theyre intended to and give people launching sneak attacks and the like the ability to get them off without the unaware targets being able to affect it.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Are there people who literally play combats as if only the person whose turn is 'current' can move in-universe while everyone else is standing perfectly still, like its a giant game of living battle chess or something? I could see it working in a very farcical, meta-aware setting like OOTS, but not in any world claiming to have a fourth wall otherwise.

To me that's kind of how 5e is designed to work, with 'batting order' combat 1 after the other. I can't say I love it, and our group has tried playing with no initiative and less initiative to allow multiple combatants to move an act simultaneously, but there are just too many built in mechanics that made the change difficult. So we went back to more or less RAW. Based on this we certainly don't 'declare actions' as we did in 2e and players (and the DM) certainly adjust tactics and actions as the round goes on.

In the case of surprise though it just never made sense to us that initiative effectively can undo whatever rolls were made for the DM to declare the surprise condition, so we don't bother rolling initiative for surprised combatants. As per my previous post I could be ok with the idea with reverting to RAW, allowing that a good initiative roll by the potential victim makes him/her unavailable for surprise attack due to momentary positioning or whatever (but does not make the victim aware of the assailant), so then allows the potential assailant a chance to reset and try to gain the surprise condition again.

[The Glyphstone]

To me that's kind of how 5e is designed to work, with 'batting order' combat 1 after the other. I can't say I love it, and our group has tried playing with no initiative and less initiative to allow multiple combatants to move an act simultaneously, but there are just too many built in mechanics that made the change difficult. So we went back to more or less RAW. Based on this we certainly don't 'declare actions' as we did in 2e and players (and the DM) certainly adjust tactics and actions as the round goes on.

In the case of surprise though it just never made sense to us that initiative effectively can undo whatever rolls were made for the DM to declare the surprise condition, so we don't bother rolling initiative for surprised combatants. As per my previous post I could be ok with the idea with reverting to RAW, allowing that a good initiative roll by the potential victim makes him/her unavailable for surprise attack due to momentary positioning or whatever (but does not make the victim aware of the assailant), so then allows the potential assailant a chance to reset and try to gain the surprise condition again.

I didnt mean mechanically, but in the fiction of the game. I've personally always understood fights to be happening more or less simultaneously - a 'round' is 6 seconds, and everyone's turn is contained within that 6 second span. Initiative is just the abstract mechanic to express order of actions, some people move slightly faster than others. Sure, that brings up verisimilitude glitches of its own, but its better to me than the red light-green light of frozen statues who can still somehow defend themselves.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I didnt mean mechanically, but in the fiction of the game. I've personally always understood fights to be happening more or less simultaneously - a 'round' is 6 seconds, and everyone's turn is contained within that 6 second span. Initiative is just the abstract mechanic to express order of actions, some people move slightly faster than others. Sure, that brings up verisimilitude glitches of its own, but its better to me than the red light-green light of frozen statues who can still somehow defend themselves.

I hear what you're saying. It's just somewhat difficult to separate the mechanics from the fiction, which I suppose is why we've played around with different mechanics to more closely simulate the simultaneous nature of combat.

[Xetheral]

I mean, so far the only actually odd rules interaction ive seen from this is from the assassin rogue, and thats already fairly widely regarded as being extremely poorly written, from my understanding. Absent that specific scenario, the surprise rules seem to do what theyre intended to and give people launching sneak attacks and the like the ability to get them off without the unaware targets being able to affect it.

More generally, having the character who is initiating hostilities not go first can also create a problem when one PC wants to unilaterally start combat and another doesn't. I was having issues at my table where everyone OOC wanted more combat, but the player of the rash PC often lost initiative to a more cautious PC, who would then spend their first action trying to defuse the situation. The player of the rash PC didn't want to flatly ignore the cautious PC's request to not use violence, so we'd drop out of rounds almost immediately.

This (or some variation on the general theme, with the winners of initiative taking action to stop combat from starting) happened enough that I instituted a houserule that when only one character (PC or NPC) wants to take an offensive action, that character goes first in the initiative order. The idea behind the houserule is that the point of initiative is to resolve the question of who acts first, but if only one character wants to act first there is nothing for initiative to resolve. (Initiative still determines the order after the initiator, and the initiator does not get a second action in the first round--they simply remain at the top of the order.)

[Keltest]

More generally, having the character who is initiating hostilities not go first can also create a problem when one PC wants to unilaterally start combat and another doesn't. I was having issues at my table where everyone OOC wanted more combat, but the player of the rash PC often lost initiative to a more cautious PC, who would then spend their first action trying to defuse the situation. The player of the rash PC didn't want to flatly ignore the cautious PC's request to not use violence, so we'd drop out of rounds almost immediately.

This (or some variation on the general theme, with the winners of initiative taking action to stop combat from starting) happened enough that I instituted a houserule that when only one character (PC or NPC) wants to take an offensive action, that character goes first in the initiative order. The idea behind the houserule is that the point of initiative is to resolve the question of who acts first, but if only one character wants to act first there is nothing for initiative to resolve. (Initiative still determines the order after the initiator, and the initiator does not get a second action in the first round--they simply remain at the top of the order.)

That sounds less like an issue with the surprise or initiative rules and more like an issue with the group's social contract, or possibly just the DM jumping the gun on whether the party is actually going to do combat or not.

[Xetheral]

That sounds less like an issue with the surprise or initiative rules and more like an issue with the group's social contract, or possibly just the DM jumping the gun on whether the party is actually going to do combat or not.

Interesting perspective. From my standpoint there was no issue with the social contract--everyone agreed OOC that more combat would be fun. By removing the mechanical ability of characters who win initiative to preempt the combat, the IC desire to defuse a situation would no longer conflict with the OOC desire to let the situation fall apart.

In terms of jumping the gun on rolling initiative, when a player declares "I draw my axe and charge!" I think it's pretty clear that that's an appropriate time to roll initiative. But nothing in the rules lock the initiator into their action declaration--so if the situation changes before their turn comes up they don't have to draw their axe and charge at all. (I know many tables don't allow the opening action declaration to be revised even if it happens last in the initiative order, but that's just as much a houserule as my approach, and I definitely didn't want to discourage starting combat by penalizing the character who starts it!)

[Witty Username]

I had another thought around surprise/ initiative. If a group is playing RAW, what's to stop a character who has successfully fulfilled all of the conditions applied by the DM to gain surprise, then loses initiative to simply not do anything, walk away, then come back in a round or 2 and try again? I mean there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says an otherwise surprised character actually notices a potential attacker just because he/she wins initiative. In fact that character can't take actions or reactions. So if the potential attacker doesn't attack, combat hasn't actually started yet, so I would think it would be well within a player's rights to say, "OK, I duck back behind the tree, compose myself, and try again in a few moments."

So you are arguing, that the attacker that lost initiative chooses to end combat within the first round to reset initiative to be more favorable?
Why, the surprised target still loses an action and hidden attackers get advantage anyway. There is no tactical reason to not ambush.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So you are arguing, that the attacker that lost initiative chooses to end combat within the first round to reset initiative to be more favorable?
Why, the surprised target still loses an action and hidden attackers get advantage anyway. There is no tactical reason to not ambush.

Based on your interpretation there would be less reason for most classes/ subclasses to do this, other than a benefit of acting earlier in subsequent rounds. Only the assassin would be really incentivized to do this.

[qube]

An athletic human often runs about 15+ miles per hour (~132 ft per round).

Yup. On a track, with Nike shoos, and not a care in the world.

If you run like that, with

• rubber boots (as modern equivalent to medival boot - which didn't have any fance shock absortion),
• on an uneven natural terain
• darting from tree to tree
• carrying a with a backpack with your stuff

I give it 2 minutes before you sprain an ankle.

(edit: after typing this, I realised 2 minutes is 20 rounds - which could lead to nice athletics check + fumble rule )

"Speed 30 ft" is not for running on a track. So trying to compare it with 15+ miles per hour ultimately is irrelevant.

In the roman miltairy, military pace is 3 mph (or 18 (modern) miles in 6 (modern) hours), full pace was 3.5 mph. (22 miles instead of 18). And they did so with "only" 45 lb equipment. On paved roads.

- - - - -

So, ultimately, I'm not convinced 30ft combat speed is something that belongs in the "mechanic that doesn't make sence" category

[Tanarii]

In terms of jumping the gun on rolling initiative, when a player declares "I draw my axe and charge!" I think it's pretty clear that that's an appropriate time to roll initiative. But nothing in the rules lock the initiator into their action declaration--so if the situation changes before their turn comes up they don't have to draw their axe and charge at all. (I know many tables don't allow the opening action declaration to be revised even if it happens last in the initiative order, but that's just as much a houserule as my approach, and I definitely didn't want to discourage starting combat by penalizing the character who starts it!)

IMO combat in this kind of situation starts with "I reach for/ready my axe". Not a full declaration of their action. If the player overdeclared, DM can correct it with "you reach for / ready your axe for combat, everyone roll initiative. You can decide if you want to declare the charge when your turn comes up. Or not."

Depending on if you allow Surprise from sudden action (I generally don't), allies may be surprised by one member of their party suddenly going hostile. If it's a Mexican standoff or negotiation with potential hostiles, IMO they definitely shouldn't be.

Initiative determines if someone gets to calm the situation down if some folks on the PC side want to defuse combat and one is trying to go hostile. The NPCs may or may not comply with the attempt to defuse the situation. Personally, that sounds like initiative doing exactly what it should do. Giving someone a free top of the initiative action just because they declared their action before their turn sounds like a huge incentive to jump into declaring actions. Just like attempts to ready action before combat.

If the enemy (and allies) react faster when you suddenly begin to initiate hostilities is exactly what initiative is for. There may be edge cases, but the one you describe doesn't sound like one to me.

To me, it's the exact same for "breaking stealth" to start combat. The edge cases may be more common, e.g. you're hiding in a way that starting an attack won't give you away by sight, sound or smell, and the attack method is invisible & soundless.

[Keltest]

Interesting perspective. From my standpoint there was no issue with the social contract--everyone agreed OOC that more combat would be fun. By removing the mechanical ability of characters who win initiative to preempt the combat, the IC desire to defuse a situation would no longer conflict with the OOC desire to let the situation fall apart.

Issue is maybe the wrong word, since it implies a problem. Consequence might be better. But I'm curious how somebody is defusing a situation where one or more parties has declared openly hostile intent in a way that conflicts with the surprise mechanic.

Although in your given example, the solution to me would just be for the cautious character to in-character roll their eyes and dive in with the aggressive one, since people want more combat. That's why I bring up the social contract. Sometimes a character needs to bend a bit to facilitate the game.

[Witty Username]

Based on your interpretation there would be less reason for most classes/ subclasses to do this, other than a benefit of acting earlier in subsequent rounds. Only the assassin would be really incentivized to do this.

Pretty much, that and if one needed to be AOO free for whatever reason. Either way it reads as malicious DM behavior. If a hidden attacker can force initiative rerolls until they get their garunteed crit sneak attack on a PC without breaking stealth. It just feels like the DM is out to get someone.
As for a player trying this, I would rule that attempting to break initiative would forfeit surprise. As surprise is only for unaware targets. Essentially, once you commit to combat they are either surprised or not.
(I don't usually call for initiative until attack rolls are made, if surprise is going to be a factor)

[MoiMagnus]

More generally, having the character who is initiating hostilities not go first can also create a problem when one PC wants to unilaterally start combat and another doesn't. I was having issues at my table where everyone OOC wanted more combat, but the player of the rash PC often lost initiative to a more cautious PC, who would then spend their first action trying to defuse the situation. The player of the rash PC didn't want to flatly ignore the cautious PC's request to not use violence, so we'd drop out of rounds almost immediately.

This (or some variation on the general theme, with the winners of initiative taking action to stop combat from starting) happened enough that I instituted a houserule that when only one character (PC or NPC) wants to take an offensive action, that character goes first in the initiative order. The idea behind the houserule is that the point of initiative is to resolve the question of who acts first, but if only one character wants to act first there is nothing for initiative to resolve. (Initiative still determines the order after the initiator, and the initiator does not get a second action in the first round--they simply remain at the top of the order.)

When there is unanimous OOC opinion, we usually don't bother with the rules.
However, our GM usually goes with a similar but slightly different rule when there players are actually in conflict on this: if you win initiative against the person trying to start an action you don't want to take, the question asked by the GM is "You see X about to attack. Do you physically take action against the other PC, trying to disarm him or something?". Action has to be matched by action, and rounds are simultaneous, the question is not "who starts their action first?", it is "who finishes their action first?"

[Xetheral]

Issue is maybe the wrong word, since it implies a problem. Consequence might be better. But I'm curious how somebody is defusing a situation where one or more parties has declared openly hostile intent in a way that conflicts with the surprise mechanic.

Although in your given example, the solution to me would just be for the cautious character to in-character roll their eyes and dive in with the aggressive one, since people want more combat. That's why I bring up the social contract. Sometimes a character needs to bend a bit to facilitate the game.

I completely agree that characters need to bend at times to facilitate the game. But in this case an easy houserule fixed the problem (both in the general case I described and the weird issues with surprise) and doesn't require any character bending.

When there is unanimous OOC opinion, we usually don't bother with the rules.
However, our GM usually goes with a similar but slightly different rule when there players are actually in conflict on this: if you win initiative against the person trying to start an action you don't want to take, the question asked by the GM is "You see X about to attack. Do you physically take action against the other PC, trying to disarm him or something?". Action has to be matched by action, and rounds are simultaneous, the question is not "who starts their action first?", it is "who finishes their action first?"

While rounds are ostensibly simultaneous, every character gets to see the results of preceding characters' actions prior to declaring their own action. Telling a character that "you see X about to attack" isn't consistent with the IC fact that X may never start to attack at all. In other words, the causality created by sequential actions doesn't at all match the supposed simultaneity of those actions. I find my houserule fixes some of the problems that conflict creates.