D&D 5E Initiative and Delay

[Umbran]

Rhetorical questions:

Do either of you actually *like* butting heads?

Do you continue to butt heads because you think that you can't let the other guy win? Is it an ego thing, guys?

Why do you continue in this manner? What is being gained here? Anything?

The answers to these questions should inform you on whether you should continue. In your deliberation, include the fact that there's already been moderation in this thread....

 

[Piratecat]

We use a magnetic board, so Delay was rarely a problem for us time-wise. Just slide the creature's magnetic nametag to the right. This can also work well with 3x5 cards. But if people write down inits on a sheet of paper or on dry erase, I could see where it might eventually start getting messy.

I've replaced index cards with small paper hats, one per PC and per monster, labeled and folded over the top of my DM screen. The advantage there is that anyone can see where we are in the initiative order by glancing at the screen. To delay, I just remove the PC's indicator and put it to the side until they want to jump back into the action.

I don't think I'd ever go back to writing down order, though. Index cards are way more efficient.

 

[OnlineDM]

For what it's worth, I fully expect Delay rules to be one of the optional tactical combat rules that we will see in the Dungeon Master's Guide. It sounds like "first round only" Delay is probably a reasonable rule for tables that want more tactics.

 

[Tzarevitch]

Delay was removed because changing the initiative around mid-encounter is time consuming.

It's simple to house rule Delay back in, but you might want to consider only doing it for round one. The concept of wanting to move, attack, and move again is pretty strong in 5E. Adding Delay to that makes sniping more potent than it was in earlier editions (e.g. I wait until a foe enters the room, I then come out of cover, fire my bow, then go back in behind cover again). Also, surprise rounds are now all of the PC/NPC actions, not just a standard action. Putting Delay back in also makes surprise rounds stronger (e.g. as per your example, the Rogue can wait until the Fighter moves up in order to get sneak attack damage in).


Actually, I am not DMing at the moment, but if I were, I would have to seriously think about it before putting Delay back in. It allows for a certain level of "time compression" that I've never really liked.

PC 1: "I delay"
DM: "Another Orc enters the room and fires his bow"
PC 2: "I rush over 30 feet before anyone else can react, and attack that Orc, and creating a bottleneck at the door."

Delay always felt cheesy and artificial that someone could wait, and then superspeed enter in before anyone else's normal reactions. I like the fact that they removed it both for simplicity sake, and for plausibility reasons.


I also like the current Ready not affecting initiative. A lot faster to handle.

I think you are confusing delay and ready. Delay does not supersede someone else's actions. You have to declare a ready action to do that. Delay just lets you drop your initiative number. It doesn't let you compress time any more than acting on your normal initiative count did. You are just doing what you normally would have done, just on a lower initiative count.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

I allow my players to delay, but I do make them specify what they're going to do first. I can understand where it gets out of hand and can become problematic.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you are confusing delay and ready.

Nope.

Delay does not supersede someone else's actions. You have to declare a ready action to do that. Delay just lets you drop your initiative number.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I wrote. I am in total agreement with what you wrote here. Mechanically, you are correct.

It doesn't let you compress time any more than acting on your normal initiative count did. You are just doing what you normally would have done, just on a lower initiative count.

If you view it mechanically as just an initiative number, then your POV is easy to understand. If you view Delay as a mechanism where a PC can instantly react to any situation in the encounter, then you can understand how implausible and cheesy, and potentially powerful Delay can be.


The player of a PC who is not delaying cannot instantly react until his initiative. A lot of things can happen until that time.

The player of a PC who is delaying can act and react whenever he wants to. He cannot interrupt anyone else's turn, but he can act on the very next turn if he wants. It's not a very plausible state of events from the PC's perspective.

Don't view it mechanically like you are playing a game of Monopoly (i.e. don't view it from the player's POV), view it from the perspective of the PCs.


Example:

Player of PC Cleric: "I delay".

NPC 1 knocks Fighter unconscious.

Before NPC 2 whose turn comes up immediately after NPC 1 can coup de grace the fighter, the Cleric steps in.

Cleric heals fighter.

Coup De Grace can no longer be done.

NPC 2's turn.


Delay can be used to prevent a PC death in this example. What a player uses Delay for is irrelevant, it's still this supernatural ability to force your PC's (or NPC's) actions in at any time before the next creature's turn and the ability to react to the most recent set of events. It's totally game mechanics driven and implausible, hence, cheesy. It doesn't make logical sense.

The Cleric PC isn't preparing an action like with Ready (which makes sense, "when an ally falls, I cast cure wounds", the cleric is prepping a specific action). The player of the Cleric is reacting to NPC 1's turn before NPC 2 gets to act. If NPC 1 had cast Hold Person on the fighter instead of knocking him unconscious, the Cleric PC can cast Dispel Magic instead of Cure Wounds.

I might not be describing the issue well here, but this is what I dislike about the Delay action. It's totally metagamey.

 

[skotothalamos]

And why should surprise be better for a rogue than for other PCs? Why should it work exactly how he wants it to work?

There's an entire Rogue archetype built around using surprise as effectively as possible. Take Assassin at third level and you have no downside to being fast.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In the first round when you're assigning Init to begin with? How? Player X gets a 12, player Y gets a 6, player X says I want to go after player Y, done and done.

That is a very reasonable houserule. One I use myself.

If you allow someone to forgo his high initiative and allow him to act on any place in the initiative order below the number rolled. But he has to set it immediately, not like in 3rd edition be able to jump in anytime you want. That is what ready is for.

So rolled 18, want to go at 15? There you go. At 16 an enemy gets to join battle and shoots at you? No way you can react to that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why was Delay removed, and have others put it back in the game? Do you just let people lower their initiative count on their own? Am I missing an existing rule to deal with this?

The choice of removing Delay is in fact a bit odd... it's such a simple option that needs little explanation, and it hardly causes any problematic situations (Ready used to be more tricky in 3e).

 

[Li Shenron]

5E strips all that away. You roll initiative, and you take your turn when it comes up. With no option to adjust initiative order, the game forces players to act, or not act.

Think about a football snap. The Safety rolls highest initiative. He's first off the line, already in motion. He has to make a choice right there--do I rush the QB, or do I cover my man?

I am not sure I like the sound of this. A fight is not really always a situation where you have to act, it's not a sports match where you have to act and win, not always at least: sometimes not acting is a perfectly reasonable thing to do! Ever seen a movie where a fight doesn't start or halts in the middle because everybody's waiting for the other side to make their move? And sometimes this even leads the whole fight to stop. I certainly wouldn't want a system that forces everybody towards continuing a fight.

That said, having Delay in the game only has a small effect on that. I am sure you can still have the above situation without Delay. It's just the principle of "you have to keep fighting" that doesn't sound with me at all.

I think there was a thread, here, somewhere that discussed delay being removed due to how it might affect ongoing saving throws v. effects where the saving throw is made on the character's turn. For example, delaying might allow another PC to intervene on the PC's behalf before the dire consequences of a probable failed save take effect.

Never thought about this before, it sounds a legitimate concern. With spells effects based on turns, it might seem like delaying your turn can cause you to also delay an effect. It's a corner case that never happened in our games, but I see the point.