This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
This just means you have to define spells as ending on a specific initiative. Which is annoying so I can see why they didn't do it, but not a balance issue. Your particular example isn't even useful (sure, you got +5 AC for longer, but you also effectively lost a turn) but there are other effects that are more problematic.
If you allow players to change their Initiative, then you also have to change all spells and other effects which last normally last until your next turn to INSTEAD last until the same initiative number at which it was cast on the following round - more bookkeeping.
In the example listed, he used his turn. That means combat had begun, initiative was set and that was that (the way our item works) There is no changing your initiative after combat starts, only WHEN combat begins. That is, to me, exploiting the possibility and I wouldn't allow it. I agree that breaks things a fair bit and thus why most folks seem to object. What my group has as an item, it s something that allows, once everyone has rolled, the player to trade rolls with 1 creature in the list. Period. One and done, so if you take top spot that's your place for the combat.
The stance that top initiative is a good thing and ideal is situational to class and sometimes party makeup. My Monk doesn't want to be first, unless he was scouting and needs to get behind the meaty types as quickly as possible. So the item, for us so far, has been used by our Barbarian to get IN the face of a creature, taking my high initiative roll at least once. Handy, but again, not OP.
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.
This is why you shouldn't allow players to start changing initiative.
This just means you have to define spells as ending on a specific initiative. Which is annoying so I can see why they didn't do it, but not a balance issue. Your particular example isn't even useful (sure, you got +5 AC for longer, but you also effectively lost a turn) but there are other effects that are more problematic.
In the example I used, the 25 AC effectively gives the character 2 turns of Shield, with the use of only one spell slot. It's a particularly good example, because that additional 5 AC - and let's say I'm playing a 20 AC Eldritch Knight (no magic items) - makes my character unhittable except on a natural 20 for any monsters that don't have +6 to hit minimum.
Not only do I get double the spell slot, but I get to see what they all do before deciding what I'm going to do next, safe in the knowledge that I'm nicely shielded without having to expend any further resources. I don't have to worry about their attacks, because they're very unlikely to hit me anyway, purely because I changed initiative.
I am not sure why you can't see why that's getting double use from a single spell slot. It should be clear.
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
The benefits are being able to do things in the order that is more beneficial. Examples: -Healing someone up from 0 right before their turn so they take their turn before they get knocked out again -Waiting for a buff or some other effect like flanking -Waiting until after a caster AoEs to get into melee to avoid getting fireballed. -waiting for damage on enemies to get on kill effects from stuff like dark ones blessing or great weapon master or extra damage on something like toll the dead -Rogue wanting to wait until someone else gets into melee so they get sneak attack, and to not run into melee first and get beat down by all the enemies before a more tanky character gets in there to split up some damage. -Waiting until enemies get into range
I personally like it as a house rule. It lets creative players combo with each other and do cool stuff. You just have to have delaying your turn cost you whole turn so you cant cast a spell that says "until the start/end of your next turn".
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
The benefits are being able to do things in the order that is more beneficial. Examples: -Healing someone up from 0 right before their turn so they take their turn before they get knocked out again -Waiting for a buff or some other effect like flanking -Waiting until after a caster AoEs to get into melee to avoid getting fireballed. -waiting for damage on enemies to get on kill effects from stuff like dark ones blessing or great weapon master or extra damage on something like toll the dead -Rogue wanting to wait until someone else gets into melee so they get sneak attack, and to not run into melee first and get beat down by all the enemies before a more tanky character gets in there to split up some damage. -Waiting until enemies get into range
I personally like it as a house rule. It lets creative players combo with each other and do cool stuff. You just have to have delaying your turn cost you whole turn so you cant cast a spell that says "until the start/end of your next turn".
A lot of these things can be done just by using the Ready action to perform something at the right time in a round.
The rogue would have to wait until the following round to move in to be the second melee companion - but that gives them the first round in which do something sneaky in preparation.
A combat round is trying to simulate where a lot of things are happening almost simultaneously, so it really isn't always possible for someone to do something between "monster attacks" and "PC on 0 HP jumps back up on his feet and attacks"
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
The benefits are being able to do things in the order that is more beneficial. Examples: -Healing someone up from 0 right before their turn so they take their turn before they get knocked out again -Waiting for a buff or some other effect like flanking -Waiting until after a caster AoEs to get into melee to avoid getting fireballed. -waiting for damage on enemies to get on kill effects from stuff like dark ones blessing or great weapon master or extra damage on something like toll the dead -Rogue wanting to wait until someone else gets into melee so they get sneak attack, and to not run into melee first and get beat down by all the enemies before a more tanky character gets in there to split up some damage. -Waiting until enemies get into range
I personally like it as a house rule. It lets creative players combo with each other and do cool stuff. You just have to have delaying your turn cost you whole turn so you cant cast a spell that says "until the start/end of your next turn".
Remember that everything that the players can do, the monsters can do as well. It's in part for this reason that changing initiative shouldn't be allowed. If the Fighter can wait for flanking, so can the enemies (and you'll have to do this, unless you're planning for the enemies to be de-powered).
I feel that combat should feel dynamic and chaotic - 'turns' are purely there to make things manageable, and players should be discouraged from thinking this way. YMMV.
The only time I'd allow it is if a player wanted to drop their character's initiative to zero before the first round of the combat.
I have considered a rule which is built around one specific scenario - the planned attack, or ambush.
These rules would only come into play if the party have made a plan before combat starts. If the combat starts by them walking around a corner and the enemies seeing them, then the chaos of battle is preserved and initiative cannot be meddled with. Also, at no point would I let anyone switch initiative mid-combat.
The rule is simple - before the initiative roll, the players can choose someone to lead the attack. Then you roll initiative, and anyone who rolls higher than the leader reduces their initiative to go below them, whilst preserving the order they rolled (excluding the leader, obviously).
So if 3 players choose player 2 to lead, and they roll (players 1,2,3) 15, 12, 18, then player 3 (18) reduces I to 11, and player 1 (15) reduces I to 10. Enemies don't reduce theirs, and if a player would tie with an enemy by reducing their I, they reduce it one more, and do so until they aren't tied.
So in the above, if the poor goblin they're pouncing on rolled 11 for initiative, then player 3 would reduce to 10 and player 1 to 9, so they are following the leader, in the order they rolled, but the enemies now have higher initiative on them (in exchange for, say, the wizard opening the attack with a binding spell, or something like that).
For the majority of combats, this won't happen, but I like to make sure there's options if the players make a plan such as "first the barbarian kicks the door down and barges in, then the wizard casts grease, then the rogue sneaks in and stabs anyone prone" with the ability to make sure their opening move - "First the barbarian..." - gets to be pulled off without one of the other characters, who was part of making the plan, getting itchy feet and barging in first!
As for "then the wizard, then the rogue...", that's up for the fates to decide. Could be rogue then wizard. You can't predict everything in a combat!
I have considered a rule which is built around one specific scenario - the planned attack, or ambush.
These rules would only come into play if the party have made a plan before combat starts. If the combat starts by them walking around a corner and the enemies seeing them, then the chaos of battle is preserved and initiative cannot be meddled with. Also, at no point would I let anyone switch initiative mid-combat.
The rule is simple - before the initiative roll, the players can choose someone to lead the attack. Then you roll initiative, and anyone who rolls higher than the leader reduces their initiative to go below them, whilst preserving the order they rolled (excluding the leader, obviously).
So if 3 players choose player 2 to lead, and they roll (players 1,2,3) 15, 12, 18, then player 3 (18) reduces I to 11, and player 1 (15) reduces I to 10. Enemies don't reduce theirs, and if a player would tie with an enemy by reducing their I, they reduce it one more, and do so until they aren't tied.
So in the above, if the poor goblin they're pouncing on rolled 11 for initiative, then player 3 would reduce to 10 and player 1 to 9, so they are following the leader, in the order they rolled, but the enemies now have higher initiative on them (in exchange for, say, the wizard opening the attack with a binding spell, or something like that).
For the majority of combats, this won't happen, but I like to make sure there's options if the players make a plan such as "first the barbarian kicks the door down and barges in, then the wizard casts grease, then the rogue sneaks in and stabs anyone prone" with the ability to make sure their opening move - "First the barbarian..." - gets to be pulled off without one of the other characters, who was part of making the plan, getting itchy feet and barging in first!
As for "then the wizard, then the rogue...", that's up for the fates to decide. Could be rogue then wizard. You can't predict everything in a combat!
I don't insist that initiative begins just because someone has performed a hostile action. For me, initiative begins when "combat begins," which means that there are two hostile forces opposed to one another and that each will attempt hostile actions.
A fireball flung at goblins who can't see the players won't necessarily open initiative. I also allow that in the event that the characters are talking with someone and a player declares "I draw my dagger and stab him in the back" then if the target isn't expecting it then I'll have the character make an advantage attack roll, after which we'll roll initiative.
This is different to a situation where both sides are aware of the possibility of trouble. Last session the characters were clearly being intimidating; the moment someone reached for a weapon, we rolled initiative, as the six seconds of combat in a turn are all technically simultaneous and it's more about who is faster on the draw.
You do realize that if you allow someone to make an attack before calling for initiative, you are doing the same thing you argued against in your first post here. You are letting someone get "Benefit X" for a whole round while everyone one else gets nada. The reason the benefit happens is different but, the outcome is the same. Why bend a certain set of rules(Initiative and Surprise) and be completely inflexible on the other(Initiative Re-ordering)?
You do realize that if you allow someone to make an attack before calling for initiative, you are doing the same thing you argued against in your first post here. You are letting someone get "Benefit X" for a whole round while everyone one else gets nada. The reason the benefit happens is different but, the outcome is the same. Why bend a certain set of rules(Initiative and Surprise) and be completely inflexible on the other(Initiative Re-ordering)?
This is a fair point.
The initiative & surprise system covers this, though it's a little abstract:
Your player says "I stab the noble". Roll initiative, and if the noble goes first, they spend their first turn unaware of the combat (surprised) and keep talking or whatever. Then the player makes their attack. If the noble goes second, they are simply shocked at having been stabbed out of the blue.
My view on it (just an opinion) is that as soon as two potentially hostile parties are involved, initiative should be ready to roll. As soon as someone declares that they want to attack, then the initiative gets rolled. This is a good reason for having initiatives rolled up all before the session, to speed up the transition (get the players to roll 10 initiatives, and then randomly pick one from the list each time they get into a combat). Then it's just 1 roll for the DM to make, and they can make it without declaring initiative has started, meaning if the situation is defused, they can re-use that initiative roll for later!
Delaying your turn during a battle - very messy and ugly for the reasons already explained.
Allowing players to permanently move themselves down (and only down - no swapping) in the initiative order only at the moment initiative is rolled is a whole other thing with many fewer complications. The only downside my group has encountered with this houserule is that you can ensure you go right after your independent mount to counteract the primary disadvantage of having an independent mount. Even then, monsters can do it too and it doesn't seem outlandish that a rider and mount would coordinate.
Being "stuck" going first when you didn't want to is ridiculous and not intuitive at all. I think a one-time chance to permanently drop yourself in the order at the very start of combat improves the game for both the tactical wargame aspect and the realistic simulation of combat aspect.
You do realize that if you allow someone to make an attack before calling for initiative, you are doing the same thing you argued against in your first post here. You are letting someone get "Benefit X" for a whole round while everyone one else gets nada. The reason the benefit happens is different but, the outcome is the same. Why bend a certain set of rules(Initiative and Surprise) and be completely inflexible on the other(Initiative Re-ordering)?
Because you can't roll initiative when somebody that you have never seen, and you don't know exists, shoots a silent crossbow at you from across the street, or while you are sleeping and the creature creeping up on you has made a successful Stealth check that you don't even know about. The creatures don't know that they are in combat.
If you don't follow this for inciting incidents, then you get the following type of situation:
DM: You are standing with Toby, the friendly elf, and the rest of the party in the Cheery Happy Tavern. Everybody roll initiative.
Players: Initiative? Why?
DM: You have to roll it.
(players roll)
DM: Ok, up first is Jenny the Barbarian. What do you do?
Jenny: I am drinking my drink. I don't see any enemies. I don't believe I'm in combat.
DM: Ok great. Harry the Wizard, your turn.
Harry: I cast Mirror Image.
DM looks at his notes. Toby the not-so-friendly elf was intending to stab Harry the Wizard. But now, he's not going to. Toby continues to drink.
The turn finishes, and the players are no longer in combat. Toby the elf waits until the Mirror Image spell wears off.
DM: Ok. Roll initiative again.
Any creature can make attacks outside of initiative. The DM decides when initiative is rolled, and when you move from out of combat, to in combat.
The best option is for the inciting incident occur, then roll for surprise, then roll initiative. Surprised players miss their turn on the first turn of combat, and work down from the top.
For those interested, Jeremy Crawford discussed transiting into initiative within these very circumstances in a Dragon Talk podcast Dragon Talk: Sage Advice, 9/27/19 - YouTube
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
The benefits are being able to do things in the order that is more beneficial. Examples: -Healing someone up from 0 right before their turn so they take their turn before they get knocked out again -Waiting for a buff or some other effect like flanking -Waiting until after a caster AoEs to get into melee to avoid getting fireballed. -waiting for damage on enemies to get on kill effects from stuff like dark ones blessing or great weapon master or extra damage on something like toll the dead -Rogue wanting to wait until someone else gets into melee so they get sneak attack, and to not run into melee first and get beat down by all the enemies before a more tanky character gets in there to split up some damage. -Waiting until enemies get into range
I personally like it as a house rule. It lets creative players combo with each other and do cool stuff. You just have to have delaying your turn cost you whole turn so you cant cast a spell that says "until the start/end of your next turn".
A lot of these things can be done just by using the Ready action to perform something at the right time in a round.
The rogue would have to wait until the following round to move in to be the second melee companion - but that gives them the first round in which do something sneaky in preparation.
A combat round is trying to simulate where a lot of things are happening almost simultaneously, so it really isn't always possible for someone to do something between "monster attacks" and "PC on 0 HP jumps back up on his feet and attacks"
Held actions take up your concentration and reaction so not having to burn those is a major advantage.
Any movement or BA can't be held obviously so that can really effect what you can and can't do on a turn vs a held actions as well.
I get that it's a bit cheesy to wait until right before a downed characters turn to heal them up but this post was on any pros to delaying your turn and that is definitely one of them. Specifically to be able to use your BA to healing word, which you can't hold.
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
The benefits are being able to do things in the order that is more beneficial. Examples: -Healing someone up from 0 right before their turn so they take their turn before they get knocked out again -Waiting for a buff or some other effect like flanking -Waiting until after a caster AoEs to get into melee to avoid getting fireballed. -waiting for damage on enemies to get on kill effects from stuff like dark ones blessing or great weapon master or extra damage on something like toll the dead -Rogue wanting to wait until someone else gets into melee so they get sneak attack, and to not run into melee first and get beat down by all the enemies before a more tanky character gets in there to split up some damage. -Waiting until enemies get into range
I personally like it as a house rule. It lets creative players combo with each other and do cool stuff. You just have to have delaying your turn cost you whole turn so you cant cast a spell that says "until the start/end of your next turn".
Remember that everything that the players can do, the monsters can do as well. It's in part for this reason that changing initiative shouldn't be allowed. If the Fighter can wait for flanking, so can the enemies (and you'll have to do this, unless you're planning for the enemies to be de-powered).
I feel that combat should feel dynamic and chaotic - 'turns' are purely there to make things manageable, and players should be discouraged from thinking this way. YMMV.
The only time I'd allow it is if a player wanted to drop their character's initiative to zero before the first round of the combat.
I disagree
No you don't have to let the monsters do it too, and if you did, so what? This is strategic thinking and it's something that I encourage in combat, because with out strategy combat in D&D is really boring.
To simplify it I like to just allow players to skip their turn and go to the top of the next round (or bottom of the order depending on how you look at it).
Delaying your turn during a battle - very messy and ugly for the reasons already explained.
Allowing players to permanently move themselves down (and only down - no swapping) in the initiative order only at the moment initiative is rolled is a whole other thing with many fewer complications. The only downside my group has encountered with this houserule is that you can ensure you go right after your independent mount to counteract the primary disadvantage of having an independent mount. Even then, monsters can do it too and it doesn't seem outlandish that a rider and mount would coordinate.
Being "stuck" going first when you didn't want to is ridiculous and not intuitive at all. I think a one-time chance to permanently drop yourself in the order at the very start of combat improves the game for both the tactical wargame aspect and the realistic simulation of combat aspect.
Actually, just because a PC wants to go immediately after their independent mount, that doesn't mean that an NPC won't change their initiative to go between those two creatures.
In this system, who decides the order in which creatures get to change their initiative?
The initial question was if you could delay your own actions during a round. I say yes, that's what the Ready action is for. There are some down sides to that, and they go into it in the SAC. The pro is that it lets have some degree of control over when you act, and that's fine. Can you sacrifice your initiative? Well, yes, as long as you make a sacrifice. A sacrifice is something you do to pay for what you have done, or what you plan on doing. So on the second round, when it comes to your turn, what happens? Do you go back to your original place in the order? I say yes. You're not sacrificing anything when you do that. If you keep the lower place, you've made a sacrifice. The only trouble is when you let anyone do things without making a sacrifice.
A one shot magic item, that's fine. You just lost something. Being able to do it at will? I don't really see that as a good thing. You have actually removed the ability of your player to make a sacrifice, and instead you've just handed them a win. If you honestly think that's fun, go ahead.
I think that's treating someone like a child. You're giving them candy, and I don't know of anything more likely to spoil a child than giving them candy every time they ask for it. Even in something so simple and basic as this, it's still the same thing. Your players are going to love to use it, sure, but now you are the one paying the sacrifice for them. You're sacrificing your own ability to use good tactics, as well as theirs. If you don't let the monsters do it, they can't use good tactics either, and since you are the one playing the monsters, you've just made three sacrifices. How many do you think you ought to make?
I allow players to move down in initiative. They can choose to wait instead of having their turn. If it gets to 0 they miss their turn and next round starts with them at their original initiative. Never been a problem or slowed anything down for me.
This just means you have to define spells as ending on a specific initiative. Which is annoying so I can see why they didn't do it, but not a balance issue. Your particular example isn't even useful (sure, you got +5 AC for longer, but you also effectively lost a turn) but there are other effects that are more problematic.
If you allow players to change their Initiative, then you also have to change all spells and other effects which last normally last until your next turn to INSTEAD last until the same initiative number at which it was cast on the following round - more bookkeeping.
In the example listed, he used his turn. That means combat had begun, initiative was set and that was that (the way our item works) There is no changing your initiative after combat starts, only WHEN combat begins. That is, to me, exploiting the possibility and I wouldn't allow it. I agree that breaks things a fair bit and thus why most folks seem to object. What my group has as an item, it s something that allows, once everyone has rolled, the player to trade rolls with 1 creature in the list. Period. One and done, so if you take top spot that's your place for the combat.
The stance that top initiative is a good thing and ideal is situational to class and sometimes party makeup. My Monk doesn't want to be first, unless he was scouting and needs to get behind the meaty types as quickly as possible. So the item, for us so far, has been used by our Barbarian to get IN the face of a creature, taking my high initiative roll at least once. Handy, but again, not OP.
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.
In the example I used, the 25 AC effectively gives the character 2 turns of Shield, with the use of only one spell slot. It's a particularly good example, because that additional 5 AC - and let's say I'm playing a 20 AC Eldritch Knight (no magic items) - makes my character unhittable except on a natural 20 for any monsters that don't have +6 to hit minimum.
Not only do I get double the spell slot, but I get to see what they all do before deciding what I'm going to do next, safe in the knowledge that I'm nicely shielded without having to expend any further resources. I don't have to worry about their attacks, because they're very unlikely to hit me anyway, purely because I changed initiative.
I am not sure why you can't see why that's getting double use from a single spell slot. It should be clear.
The benefits are being able to do things in the order that is more beneficial.
Examples:
-Healing someone up from 0 right before their turn so they take their turn before they get knocked out again
-Waiting for a buff or some other effect like flanking
-Waiting until after a caster AoEs to get into melee to avoid getting fireballed.
-waiting for damage on enemies to get on kill effects from stuff like dark ones blessing or great weapon master or extra damage on something like toll the dead
-Rogue wanting to wait until someone else gets into melee so they get sneak attack, and to not run into melee first and get beat down by all the enemies before a more tanky character gets in there to split up some damage.
-Waiting until enemies get into range
I personally like it as a house rule. It lets creative players combo with each other and do cool stuff. You just have to have delaying your turn cost you whole turn so you cant cast a spell that says "until the start/end of your next turn".
A lot of these things can be done just by using the Ready action to perform something at the right time in a round.
The rogue would have to wait until the following round to move in to be the second melee companion - but that gives them the first round in which do something sneaky in preparation.
A combat round is trying to simulate where a lot of things are happening almost simultaneously, so it really isn't always possible for someone to do something between "monster attacks" and "PC on 0 HP jumps back up on his feet and attacks"
Remember that everything that the players can do, the monsters can do as well. It's in part for this reason that changing initiative shouldn't be allowed. If the Fighter can wait for flanking, so can the enemies (and you'll have to do this, unless you're planning for the enemies to be de-powered).
I feel that combat should feel dynamic and chaotic - 'turns' are purely there to make things manageable, and players should be discouraged from thinking this way. YMMV.
The only time I'd allow it is if a player wanted to drop their character's initiative to zero before the first round of the combat.
I have considered a rule which is built around one specific scenario - the planned attack, or ambush.
These rules would only come into play if the party have made a plan before combat starts. If the combat starts by them walking around a corner and the enemies seeing them, then the chaos of battle is preserved and initiative cannot be meddled with. Also, at no point would I let anyone switch initiative mid-combat.
The rule is simple - before the initiative roll, the players can choose someone to lead the attack. Then you roll initiative, and anyone who rolls higher than the leader reduces their initiative to go below them, whilst preserving the order they rolled (excluding the leader, obviously).
So if 3 players choose player 2 to lead, and they roll (players 1,2,3) 15, 12, 18, then player 3 (18) reduces I to 11, and player 1 (15) reduces I to 10. Enemies don't reduce theirs, and if a player would tie with an enemy by reducing their I, they reduce it one more, and do so until they aren't tied.
So in the above, if the poor goblin they're pouncing on rolled 11 for initiative, then player 3 would reduce to 10 and player 1 to 9, so they are following the leader, in the order they rolled, but the enemies now have higher initiative on them (in exchange for, say, the wizard opening the attack with a binding spell, or something like that).
For the majority of combats, this won't happen, but I like to make sure there's options if the players make a plan such as "first the barbarian kicks the door down and barges in, then the wizard casts grease, then the rogue sneaks in and stabs anyone prone" with the ability to make sure their opening move - "First the barbarian..." - gets to be pulled off without one of the other characters, who was part of making the plan, getting itchy feet and barging in first!
As for "then the wizard, then the rogue...", that's up for the fates to decide. Could be rogue then wizard. You can't predict everything in a combat!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I don't insist that initiative begins just because someone has performed a hostile action. For me, initiative begins when "combat begins," which means that there are two hostile forces opposed to one another and that each will attempt hostile actions.
A fireball flung at goblins who can't see the players won't necessarily open initiative. I also allow that in the event that the characters are talking with someone and a player declares "I draw my dagger and stab him in the back" then if the target isn't expecting it then I'll have the character make an advantage attack roll, after which we'll roll initiative.
This is different to a situation where both sides are aware of the possibility of trouble. Last session the characters were clearly being intimidating; the moment someone reached for a weapon, we rolled initiative, as the six seconds of combat in a turn are all technically simultaneous and it's more about who is faster on the draw.
You do realize that if you allow someone to make an attack before calling for initiative, you are doing the same thing you argued against in your first post here. You are letting someone get "Benefit X" for a whole round while everyone one else gets nada. The reason the benefit happens is different but, the outcome is the same. Why bend a certain set of rules(Initiative and Surprise) and be completely inflexible on the other(Initiative Re-ordering)?
This is a fair point.
The initiative & surprise system covers this, though it's a little abstract:
Your player says "I stab the noble". Roll initiative, and if the noble goes first, they spend their first turn unaware of the combat (surprised) and keep talking or whatever. Then the player makes their attack. If the noble goes second, they are simply shocked at having been stabbed out of the blue.
My view on it (just an opinion) is that as soon as two potentially hostile parties are involved, initiative should be ready to roll. As soon as someone declares that they want to attack, then the initiative gets rolled. This is a good reason for having initiatives rolled up all before the session, to speed up the transition (get the players to roll 10 initiatives, and then randomly pick one from the list each time they get into a combat). Then it's just 1 roll for the DM to make, and they can make it without declaring initiative has started, meaning if the situation is defused, they can re-use that initiative roll for later!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Delaying your turn during a battle - very messy and ugly for the reasons already explained.
Allowing players to permanently move themselves down (and only down - no swapping) in the initiative order only at the moment initiative is rolled is a whole other thing with many fewer complications. The only downside my group has encountered with this houserule is that you can ensure you go right after your independent mount to counteract the primary disadvantage of having an independent mount. Even then, monsters can do it too and it doesn't seem outlandish that a rider and mount would coordinate.
Being "stuck" going first when you didn't want to is ridiculous and not intuitive at all. I think a one-time chance to permanently drop yourself in the order at the very start of combat improves the game for both the tactical wargame aspect and the realistic simulation of combat aspect.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Because you can't roll initiative when somebody that you have never seen, and you don't know exists, shoots a silent crossbow at you from across the street, or while you are sleeping and the creature creeping up on you has made a successful Stealth check that you don't even know about. The creatures don't know that they are in combat.
If you don't follow this for inciting incidents, then you get the following type of situation:
DM: You are standing with Toby, the friendly elf, and the rest of the party in the Cheery Happy Tavern. Everybody roll initiative.
Players: Initiative? Why?
DM: You have to roll it.
(players roll)
DM: Ok, up first is Jenny the Barbarian. What do you do?
Jenny: I am drinking my drink. I don't see any enemies. I don't believe I'm in combat.
DM: Ok great. Harry the Wizard, your turn.
Harry: I cast Mirror Image.
DM looks at his notes. Toby the not-so-friendly elf was intending to stab Harry the Wizard. But now, he's not going to. Toby continues to drink.
The turn finishes, and the players are no longer in combat. Toby the elf waits until the Mirror Image spell wears off.
DM: Ok. Roll initiative again.
Any creature can make attacks outside of initiative. The DM decides when initiative is rolled, and when you move from out of combat, to in combat.
The best option is for the inciting incident occur, then roll for surprise, then roll initiative. Surprised players miss their turn on the first turn of combat, and work down from the top.
For those interested, Jeremy Crawford discussed transiting into initiative within these very circumstances in a Dragon Talk podcast Dragon Talk: Sage Advice, 9/27/19 - YouTube
Held actions take up your concentration and reaction so not having to burn those is a major advantage.
Any movement or BA can't be held obviously so that can really effect what you can and can't do on a turn vs a held actions as well.
I get that it's a bit cheesy to wait until right before a downed characters turn to heal them up but this post was on any pros to delaying your turn and that is definitely one of them. Specifically to be able to use your BA to healing word, which you can't hold.
I disagree
No you don't have to let the monsters do it too, and if you did, so what?
This is strategic thinking and it's something that I encourage in combat, because with out strategy combat in D&D is really boring.
To simplify it I like to just allow players to skip their turn and go to the top of the next round (or bottom of the order depending on how you look at it).
Actually, just because a PC wants to go immediately after their independent mount, that doesn't mean that an NPC won't change their initiative to go between those two creatures.
In this system, who decides the order in which creatures get to change their initiative?
The initial question was if you could delay your own actions during a round. I say yes, that's what the Ready action is for. There are some down sides to that, and they go into it in the SAC. The pro is that it lets have some degree of control over when you act, and that's fine. Can you sacrifice your initiative? Well, yes, as long as you make a sacrifice. A sacrifice is something you do to pay for what you have done, or what you plan on doing. So on the second round, when it comes to your turn, what happens? Do you go back to your original place in the order? I say yes. You're not sacrificing anything when you do that. If you keep the lower place, you've made a sacrifice. The only trouble is when you let anyone do things without making a sacrifice.
A one shot magic item, that's fine. You just lost something. Being able to do it at will? I don't really see that as a good thing. You have actually removed the ability of your player to make a sacrifice, and instead you've just handed them a win. If you honestly think that's fun, go ahead.
I think that's treating someone like a child. You're giving them candy, and I don't know of anything more likely to spoil a child than giving them candy every time they ask for it. Even in something so simple and basic as this, it's still the same thing. Your players are going to love to use it, sure, but now you are the one paying the sacrifice for them. You're sacrificing your own ability to use good tactics, as well as theirs. If you don't let the monsters do it, they can't use good tactics either, and since you are the one playing the monsters, you've just made three sacrifices. How many do you think you ought to make?
<Insert clever signature here>
I allow players to move down in initiative. They can choose to wait instead of having their turn. If it gets to 0 they miss their turn and next round starts with them at their original initiative. Never been a problem or slowed anything down for me.
There are effects that end at the end of your turn (for example, stunning strike) so you'd have to account for those as well.
If you are looking at alternatives, take a look at Popcorn Initiative.