So a player in my DnD group had brought up sacrificing a high initiative for a lower one and that sounded like the delay your turn feature from Pathfinder
Thing is when I did research I didn't find any pros only the cons and I want to find some benefits before I make a ruling on wether or not to allow it in my games
Deliberately reducing your initiative isn't an option in 5e as written, but as long as it's a permanent reduction (it doesn't shoot back up to its original value next round) it's unlikely to be particularly exploitable. I think 5e left it out because it means you have to rearrange the initiative tracker, which is annoying.
Usually the reason you would want to do this is because you can apply a status that might end on the target's turn (end of turn saves, or a condition such as prone), and your initiative is immediately before an enemy, so they'll get a chance to recover before any of your teammates can take advantage. If you wait until after they go, well, they get to go (which might be bad), but then the rest of the PCs can take advantage of whatever you do.
Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round?
No. When it’s your turn, either you do something or you don’t. If you don’t want to do anything, consider taking the Dodge action so that you’ll, at least, have some extra protection. If you want to wait to act in response to something, take the Ready action, which lets you take part of your turn later.
For a variety of reasons, we didn’t include the option to delay your turn:
Your turn involves several decisions, including where to move and what action to take. If you could delay your turn, your decision-making would possibly become slower, since you would have to consider whether you wanted to take your turn at all. Multiply that extra analysis by the number of characters and monsters in a combat, and you have the potential for many slowdowns in play.
The ability to delay your turn can make initiative meaningless, as characters and monsters bounce around in the initiative order. If combatants can change their place in the initiative order at will, why use initiative at all? On top of that, changing initiative can easily turn into an unwelcome chore, especially for the DM, who might have to change the initiative list over and over during a fight.
Being able to delay your turn can let you wreak havoc on the duration of spells and other effects, particularly any of them that last until your next turn. Simply by changing when your turn happens, you could change the length of certain spells. The way to guard against such abuse would be to create a set of additional rules that would limit your ability to change duration. The net effect? More complexity would be added to the game, and with more complexity, there is greater potential for slower play.
Two of our goals for combat were for it to be speedy and for initiative to matter. We didn’t want to start every combat by rolling initiative and then undermine turn order with a delay option. Moreover, we felt that toying with initiative wasn’t where the focus should be in battle. Instead, the dramatic actions of the combatants should be the focus, with turns that happen as quickly as possible.
That's from the Sage Advice Compendium.
It's pretty much just what Pantagruel said, only with a bunch more words.
As previous posters have stated, there's no RAW mechanic besides the Dodge or Ready actions that allow someone to delay a turn in combat. That said, my DM allows players to voluntarily take a natural 1 for initiative. On occasion, that has been useful for players who wanted to see how the field would shake out before they had to act. It's homebrew and that initiative is static, but it's an interesting option.
You go looking for "pros" you won't find any. It's pretty much all "cons". Even the Ready action has a bad side. It requires an event to trigger, and you have to say what that is in advance. If what you are expecting doesn't happen, you don't do anything at all for your turn. Example. You're lurking in an ally, you want to mug a guy. You wait, you've got the Initiative, but your target isn't close enough yet, so you say that you're going to wait for him to get close enough. For whatever reason, he decides to go the other way. Next turn, on your initiative, you can try to chase him.
I let my players do a switch initiative (BUT! Only one player with only with one other for one time a long rest) then thats where they stay in the fight. I can see why folks want to switch it out expecially for more tactical players who wants to get the most out of their attack. For example grave domain cleric going before the paladin so as their path to the grave domain feature gets most impact on a hit.
The main upside is having things happen in the order you want it to happen. This gives some tactical advantages and some narrative advantages, neither of which are really a problem, usually resulting in everyone having more fun.
The hidden upside is that if you have effects that end on your turn, they would now end later in the round. This should be avoided, have effects that would normally end with the player's turn instead end at that initiative count.
It would be nice if you could just choose what order people went in. Makes rolling for initiative entirely pointless, no need to roll any dice. Maybe make it a passive? Just assume everyone rolls a 10, Ties go to which ever side the DM likes, so long as it always happens that way. Perfect for tactical plans. No complications, nothing to worry about.
Hasn't ever happened in the real world like that, but it's a fantasy game after all. Why should dice be involved?
I go first in initiative order, at Initiative 25. I make my attacks.
The mobs have Initiative 15, 12. 10, 8.
The Iniatiative 15 mob attacks me. I cast Shield, gaining +5 to my AC.
The other three mobs all attack me, and fail to hit because of my Shield spell.
Before my next turn, I volunteer to drop my initiative to 1.
The three mobs now all have to choose whether to also drop their initiative to 1, so that my Shield spell wears off, requiring the DM to give the mobs meta-knowledge of how the Shield spell works, or they just attack. Let's say that they attack.
All four mobs now attack again, and somehow my Shield spell is active against them for a second turn.
I finally take my turn.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
Note that if you just want to take your action after another creature, you still get to do this: it's called your next turn.
Our DM homebrewed an item that would allow the player to swap initiative with anyone in the fight at the start. It is a permanent swap, so you are now IN the new spot. So far, we've only used it to swap our own positions (Monk giving up high roll to Barb who rolled crap) for the above intent, my Monk wants to see the fight develop a bit before deciding where he wants to move/strike. Interesting and handy item, so far and not, IMO OP really, since a die roll could have given the exact same result.
Obviously not RAW, but a tactical possibility the DM can add if he/she wishes the players a bit more planning in fights.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Our DM homebrewed an item that would allow the player to swap initiative with anyone in the fight at the start. It is a permanent swap, so you are now IN the new spot. So far, we've only used it to swap our own positions (Monk giving up high roll to Barb who rolled crap) for the above intent, my Monk wants to see the fight develop a bit before deciding where he wants to move/strike. Interesting and handy item, so far and not, IMO OP really, since a die roll could have given the exact same result.
Obviously not RAW, but a tactical possibility the DM can add if he/she wishes the players a bit more planning in fights.
Swap with anyone? That's crazy powerful - it puts you to the top of initiative every fight (people really, really underestimate how important going first is). Swap with another friendly character, and I think it's fine.
I go first in initiative order, at Initiative 25. I make my attacks.
The mobs have Initiative 15, 12. 10, 8.
The Iniatiative 15 mob attacks me. I cast Shield, gaining +5 to my AC.
The other three mobs all attack me, and fail to hit because of my Shield spell.
Before my next turn, I volunteer to drop my initiative to 1.
The three mobs now all have to choose whether to also drop their initiative to 1, so that my Shield spell wears off, requiring the DM to give the mobs meta-knowledge of how the Shield spell works, or they just attack. Let's say that they attack.
All four mobs now attack again, and somehow my Shield spell is active against them for a second turn.
I finally take my turn.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
Note that if you just want to take your action after another creature, you still get to do this: it's called your next turn.
I would imagine that most people would assume that you can't change you initiative right after you've had your turn.
I go first in initiative order, at Initiative 25. I make my attacks.
The mobs have Initiative 15, 12. 10, 8.
The Iniatiative 15 mob attacks me. I cast Shield, gaining +5 to my AC.
The other three mobs all attack me, and fail to hit because of my Shield spell.
Before my next turn, I volunteer to drop my initiative to 1.
The three mobs now all have to choose whether to also drop their initiative to 1, so that my Shield spell wears off, requiring the DM to give the mobs meta-knowledge of how the Shield spell works, or they just attack. Let's say that they attack.
All four mobs now attack again, and somehow my Shield spell is active against them for a second turn.
I finally take my turn.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
Note that if you just want to take your action after another creature, you still get to do this: it's called your next turn.
I would imagine that most people would assume that you can't change you initiative right after you've had your turn.
Yeah I didn't mention this but one of my players did suggest the swap occur only once your turn occurs and not sooner
Plus if you do lower your initiative you can't then take your turn and most likely doing anything on the turn including moving would prevent you from using this special action
If I did this I would add 3 other details
1. You cannot go below 0 and you can only move down a number of spots equal to say proficiency+dex mod. You cannot go up in initiative ever
2. You cannot when you take this special action have your new initiative be the same as another persons
3. The Turn you take this special action is still a turn for the purpose of effects ending so say earlier you had a shield up when the turn you want to delay occurs it will end on that turn not the delayed turn (If that makes any sense)
You go looking for "pros" you won't find any. It's pretty much all "cons". Even the Ready action has a bad side. It requires an event to trigger, and you have to say what that is in advance. If what you are expecting doesn't happen, you don't do anything at all for your turn. Example. You're lurking in an ally, you want to mug a guy. You wait, you've got the Initiative, but your target isn't close enough yet, so you say that you're going to wait for him to get close enough. For whatever reason, he decides to go the other way. Next turn, on your initiative, you can try to chase him.
I disagree with the idea that it makes the game worse, I know one game where initiative order is defined by table seating order, it works for that table and game. I wouldn’t do that, I have played games where I allowed players to hold there entire round until after everyone has gone, they could only do this once a turn so if they all held they would go in the same order but after the monsters. Nothing was significantly broken by doing this.
I go first in initiative order, at Initiative 25. I make my attacks.
The mobs have Initiative 15, 12. 10, 8.
The Iniatiative 15 mob attacks me. I cast Shield, gaining +5 to my AC.
The other three mobs all attack me, and fail to hit because of my Shield spell.
Before my next turn, I volunteer to drop my initiative to 1.
The three mobs now all have to choose whether to also drop their initiative to 1, so that my Shield spell wears off, requiring the DM to give the mobs meta-knowledge of how the Shield spell works, or they just attack. Let's say that they attack.
All four mobs now attack again, and somehow my Shield spell is active against them for a second turn.
I finally take my turn.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
Note that if you just want to take your action after another creature, you still get to do this: it's called your next turn.
In this case I would say you can’t drop your initiative until the start of your turn, therefore all spell effects end
I go first in initiative order, at Initiative 25. I make my attacks.
The mobs have Initiative 15, 12. 10, 8.
The Iniatiative 15 mob attacks me. I cast Shield, gaining +5 to my AC.
The other three mobs all attack me, and fail to hit because of my Shield spell.
Before my next turn, I volunteer to drop my initiative to 1.
The three mobs now all have to choose whether to also drop their initiative to 1, so that my Shield spell wears off, requiring the DM to give the mobs meta-knowledge of how the Shield spell works, or they just attack. Let's say that they attack.
All four mobs now attack again, and somehow my Shield spell is active against them for a second turn.
I finally take my turn.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
Note that if you just want to take your action after another creature, you still get to do this: it's called your next turn.
This would be both OP and broken, IMO, if it were allowed. The item we have allows us to swap initiative with any one creature in the fight. ONE. Also, ONCE. Means you decide at the outset of combat if you trigger the item and get a different spot than you rolled. After that, the item is pointless until the next initiative roll. If anyone in our group was prone to attempting such obvious exploits of an item, it would surely burn up quickly. A big part of extra handy items is to NOT be a tool when using them, trying to break the game. Thankfully, none of us is o minded. The above example never occurred to me, as I am not a real power gamer. As a DM, I wouldn't allow that second shift.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Forgive me for being dense, but I don't see a second shift in that example. They rolled a 25 initiative, the attack played out, before their next turn they shift down to 1. The mobs attack, and the results are taken care of. They now take their turn. They don't say which initiative. If they stay at 1 everyone else gets to attack, if not, they go back to 25. I don't see a second time when the change anything. Myself, I'd make them stay at 1. That's the price they pay for altering their initiative, they had the advantage of going first, they chose not to keep it.
Always going first is very powerful. In some cases, it is vital. Consider how much an Assassin wants the ability to go first more than once.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<Insert clever signature here>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So a player in my DnD group had brought up sacrificing a high initiative for a lower one and that sounded like the delay your turn feature from Pathfinder
Thing is when I did research I didn't find any pros only the cons and I want to find some benefits before I make a ruling on wether or not to allow it in my games
Deliberately reducing your initiative isn't an option in 5e as written, but as long as it's a permanent reduction (it doesn't shoot back up to its original value next round) it's unlikely to be particularly exploitable. I think 5e left it out because it means you have to rearrange the initiative tracker, which is annoying.
Usually the reason you would want to do this is because you can apply a status that might end on the target's turn (end of turn saves, or a condition such as prone), and your initiative is immediately before an enemy, so they'll get a chance to recover before any of your teammates can take advantage. If you wait until after they go, well, they get to go (which might be bad), but then the rest of the PCs can take advantage of whatever you do.
Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round?
No. When it’s your turn, either you do something or you don’t. If you don’t want to do anything, consider taking the Dodge action so that you’ll, at least, have some extra protection. If you want to wait to act in response to something, take the Ready action, which lets you take part of your turn later.
For a variety of reasons, we didn’t include the option to delay your turn:
Two of our goals for combat were for it to be speedy and for initiative to matter. We didn’t want to start every combat by rolling initiative and then undermine turn order with a delay option. Moreover, we felt that toying with initiative wasn’t where the focus should be in battle. Instead, the dramatic actions of the combatants should be the focus, with turns that happen as quickly as possible.
That's from the Sage Advice Compendium.
It's pretty much just what Pantagruel said, only with a bunch more words.
<Insert clever signature here>
Thanks you
I do know this stuff I was just trying to figure out the benefits of such a feature and if they out way the cons
As previous posters have stated, there's no RAW mechanic besides the Dodge or Ready actions that allow someone to delay a turn in combat. That said, my DM allows players to voluntarily take a natural 1 for initiative. On occasion, that has been useful for players who wanted to see how the field would shake out before they had to act. It's homebrew and that initiative is static, but it's an interesting option.
You go looking for "pros" you won't find any. It's pretty much all "cons". Even the Ready action has a bad side. It requires an event to trigger, and you have to say what that is in advance. If what you are expecting doesn't happen, you don't do anything at all for your turn. Example. You're lurking in an ally, you want to mug a guy. You wait, you've got the Initiative, but your target isn't close enough yet, so you say that you're going to wait for him to get close enough. For whatever reason, he decides to go the other way. Next turn, on your initiative, you can try to chase him.
<Insert clever signature here>
I let my players do a switch initiative (BUT! Only one player with only with one other for one time a long rest) then thats where they stay in the fight. I can see why folks want to switch it out expecially for more tactical players who wants to get the most out of their attack. For example grave domain cleric going before the paladin so as their path to the grave domain feature gets most impact on a hit.
The main upside is having things happen in the order you want it to happen. This gives some tactical advantages and some narrative advantages, neither of which are really a problem, usually resulting in everyone having more fun.
The hidden upside is that if you have effects that end on your turn, they would now end later in the round. This should be avoided, have effects that would normally end with the player's turn instead end at that initiative count.
It would be nice if you could just choose what order people went in. Makes rolling for initiative entirely pointless, no need to roll any dice. Maybe make it a passive? Just assume everyone rolls a 10, Ties go to which ever side the DM likes, so long as it always happens that way. Perfect for tactical plans. No complications, nothing to worry about.
Hasn't ever happened in the real world like that, but it's a fantasy game after all. Why should dice be involved?
<Insert clever signature here>
No Delay in 5E but one can aways Ready to react to something later in the round.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
Note that if you just want to take your action after another creature, you still get to do this: it's called your next turn.
Our DM homebrewed an item that would allow the player to swap initiative with anyone in the fight at the start. It is a permanent swap, so you are now IN the new spot. So far, we've only used it to swap our own positions (Monk giving up high roll to Barb who rolled crap) for the above intent, my Monk wants to see the fight develop a bit before deciding where he wants to move/strike. Interesting and handy item, so far and not, IMO OP really, since a die roll could have given the exact same result.
Obviously not RAW, but a tactical possibility the DM can add if he/she wishes the players a bit more planning in fights.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Swap with anyone? That's crazy powerful - it puts you to the top of initiative every fight (people really, really underestimate how important going first is). Swap with another friendly character, and I think it's fine.
I would imagine that most people would assume that you can't change you initiative right after you've had your turn.
Yeah I didn't mention this but one of my players did suggest the swap occur only once your turn occurs and not sooner
Plus if you do lower your initiative you can't then take your turn and most likely doing anything on the turn including moving would prevent you from using this special action
If I did this I would add 3 other details
1. You cannot go below 0 and you can only move down a number of spots equal to say proficiency+dex mod. You cannot go up in initiative ever
2. You cannot when you take this special action have your new initiative be the same as another persons
3. The Turn you take this special action is still a turn for the purpose of effects ending so say earlier you had a shield up when the turn you want to delay occurs it will end on that turn not the delayed turn (If that makes any sense)
RAW it is not allowed, but if someone wanted to specifically give up their initiative number and go last I’d allow it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I disagree with the idea that it makes the game worse, I know one game where initiative order is defined by table seating order, it works for that table and game. I wouldn’t do that, I have played games where I allowed players to hold there entire round until after everyone has gone, they could only do this once a turn so if they all held they would go in the same order but after the monsters. Nothing was significantly broken by doing this.
In this case I would say you can’t drop your initiative until the start of your turn, therefore all spell effects end
This would be both OP and broken, IMO, if it were allowed. The item we have allows us to swap initiative with any one creature in the fight. ONE. Also, ONCE. Means you decide at the outset of combat if you trigger the item and get a different spot than you rolled. After that, the item is pointless until the next initiative roll. If anyone in our group was prone to attempting such obvious exploits of an item, it would surely burn up quickly. A big part of extra handy items is to NOT be a tool when using them, trying to break the game. Thankfully, none of us is o minded. The above example never occurred to me, as I am not a real power gamer. As a DM, I wouldn't allow that second shift.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Forgive me for being dense, but I don't see a second shift in that example. They rolled a 25 initiative, the attack played out, before their next turn they shift down to 1. The mobs attack, and the results are taken care of. They now take their turn. They don't say which initiative. If they stay at 1 everyone else gets to attack, if not, they go back to 25. I don't see a second time when the change anything. Myself, I'd make them stay at 1. That's the price they pay for altering their initiative, they had the advantage of going first, they chose not to keep it.
Always going first is very powerful. In some cases, it is vital. Consider how much an Assassin wants the ability to go first more than once.
<Insert clever signature here>