could/should player call "roll initiative" starting a fight and going into turn combat? say as a player a thief runs by and snatched your money bag could a player call combat?
The player describes what they plan to do, but the DM decides whether a roll for initiative is required. Perhaps the bagsnatcher stops and begs for mercy. Perhaps they suddenly vanish.
Initiative isn't a player call. The DM determines whether combat is taking place requiring an initiative roll, that determination predicated upon the behavior of threats, targets, and the PCs.
The player can say, "I attack the thief" (if that's possible, if not, pursuit might be and the DMG has some decent chase rules), and it's the DMs call to see if that warrants rolling initiative and starting combat or pursuit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Players can state their actions. It can be a little difficult for a GM to justify not entering combat. Sure, you can say 'the child disappears into the crowd' - but that reeks of railroading and deus ex machina.
On the other hand, I'd have zero qualms about telling a player 'you're not attacking a child at my table - at all, ever, period.' That's not the kind of 'hero' that's in this tale.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
While the above posters are correct t that a player cannot truly call for the initiative rolls, nothing stops them from using “roll initiative” as a colloquialism to say “I attack.” After all, it is fairly common for a DM to respond to a player annoying an NPC by simply saying “roll initiative” - a player doing the same as a short-hand for “I would like to start combat” is not really that big of a deal and very well can be a learned behavior from their experiences on how a DM handles the mirrored situation.
In such a situation, the player is not actually the one deciding to roll initiative - they are expressing a desire to enter combat through D&D’s combat-start language, but the DM still gets to decide if an initiative roll is actually necessary.
Players can state their actions. It can be a little difficult for a GM to justify not entering combat. Sure, you can say 'the child disappears into the crowd' - but that reeks of railroading and deus ex machina.
On the other hand, I'd have zero qualms about telling a player 'you're not attacking a child at my table - at all, ever, period.' That's not the kind of 'hero' that's in this tale.
Just because it looks like a child does not mean it is a child.
Without attacking in some way how can the PC catch or stop the "child" thief.
I can understand your no kids rule if the children are just simply innocent bystanders but what if they do something to the PC?
Many evil NPC's use the image of a child to hide behind.
Initiative is not an action, so not something a player can declare for their character.
I'm not sure when a child wandered into the scenario. But yes, that's DM's prerogative, and a DM should be mindful when deploying things protected by boundaries like that. Like "you're beset by a swarming pickpocket gang of 'youts and the party has lost all their coin, scrolls, and potions. Now you can not engage, I do not tolerate violence against 'youts at this table" is really bad DMing.
As for a DM decoding a player "I roll for initiative" as "I attack," yes, a DM should infer that; but to allow it to stand uncorrected I'd say is still bad for the table, especially one with new players. Not every call to attack will be resolved with initiative. And again, taking initiative is not an action, and it's better to correct that so that the player mindset thinks more in terms of the action economy and declaring action rather than claiming the call to combat that "roll for initiative" implies. It's one of those easily corrected parts of D&D grammar/scripting that could lead to presumptions of player agency that the player shouldn't think they have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Regardless of who has a "right" to start combat, a good DM listens to the intent of the players and tries to resolve player actions in a way that meets everyone's shared expectations.
On one hand, a player could notice its pocket being picked, declare that they grab for the offender, and the DM has the offender run across the market before the player is "allowed" to respond. This can feel very manipulative and railroady.
On the other hand, the player could say, "I leap forward and slit his throat!" No you don't, Leeroy Jenkins. Other characters are going to get a chance to respond to your aggression.
The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, where players don't feel like you're using your DM powers to negate. In OP's situation, I'd pause the scene and ask the other players. "Grog gets that look in his eye and goes for his sword. Do you want to back him up or talk him down?" They can decide as a group what to do, and you can often work out the "this is what my character would do" type of people by allowing them to express their impulsivity while also allowing the party to RP in their own right by reigning them in.
Of course if everyone is on board with combat, you either go ahead and initiate combat or give your reason why they can't/shouldn't at this time.
Just because it looks like a child does not mean it is a child.
Without attacking in some way how can the PC catch or stop the "child" thief.
I can understand your no kids rule if the children are just simply innocent bystanders but what if they do something to the PC?
Many evil NPC's use the image of a child to hide behind.
... what?
So because - theoretically - possibly, a villain could pretend to be a child ... it's now ok to attack children? Hell .... no!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Just because it looks like a child does not mean it is a child.
Without attacking in some way how can the PC catch or stop the "child" thief.
I can understand your no kids rule if the children are just simply innocent bystanders but what if they do something to the PC?
Many evil NPC's use the image of a child to hide behind.
... what?
So because - theoretically - possibly, a villain could pretend to be a child ... it's now ok to attack children? Hell .... no!
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device. This scenario is not a PC attacking random children. We are told the 'child' stole from the PC's first.
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device. This scenario is not a PC attacking random children. We are told the 'child' stole from the PC's first.
Oh? So any time I use a child in a game, it's an open invitation to kill them? I don't think so.
But hey - your game, your rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device. This scenario is not a PC attacking random children. We are told the 'child' stole from the PC's first.
Oh? So any time I use a child in a game, it's an open invitation to kill them? I don't think so.
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device. This scenario is not a PC attacking random children. We are told the 'child' stole from the PC's first.
Oh? So any time I use a child in a game, it's an open invitation to kill them? I don't think so.
But hey - your game, your rules.
You are equating every child character, regardless of context, with a child character who steals from the party?
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device.
I'm responding to this.
I don't really think I've much to add.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device.
I'm responding to this.
I don't really think I've much to add.
Is any of this on topic? The OP never mentioned children in their post - that is something someone else added and then folks derailed the thread to discuss that issue. Considering we’re now at the point of this irrelevant tangent of someone flagrantly insulting others who might play the game differently, is it really any wonder OP has not bothered to follow-up on their thread?
There are a lot of valid points made here and im glossing over a lot of the pointless bickering. But you can attack a foe and NOT have it be in initiative. You can have an entire combat without initiative. Its the DMs call whether its necessary. The player is not the one in the game to decide what they need to roll. Thats the arbitration from the DM, as they are the ones holding the cards to the adventure.
I think some players get it in their head that the DM is doing this as a power trip or something. I dont really get it. Its just an extension of the "Its US against the DM" mindset. The player wants to have mechanical control over the situation.
No. A player never calls for initiative. The DM decides if and when player actions need to be resolved in a structured and ordered way.
If anything, I find some DMs often leave entering initiative too late. The characters are often stating things they want to do at the same time that really need to be resolved in order whether or not combat has actively started or not. That, in my opinion, is when initiative should be rolled.
I also play that attacks are NEVER allowed outside of initiative. There are no "bonus" extra attacks just because you say you shoot first. If I think a particular creature does something to trigger the encounter and they are lower in the order then I can just let everyone with initiatives higher than the starting player be surprised.
If players could call initiative, and they can't RAW, they're actually doing themselves a disservice in the OP's scenario.
Most DMs in this situation are likely not to ask for initiative which means that the 'rules' are a little more fuzzy. Pathfinder attempts to break this down by explaining different forms of play 'encounter mode', 'exploration mode', and 'downtime mode'. In D&D the comparison to 'exploration mode' is those roleplay and non-encounter moments where time is a little less rigid. A DM and players there can achieve a little more than they ordinarily would in combat because they're not hampered by the 6-second rounds.
What the player would be better served by doing is saying that they give chase, or they fire a sling at the thief. The DM might decide that being a big bad adventurer that just happens. A player then who pre-empts the DM in that way by calling for combat does things like running the risk they might miss the thief, or that the thief is going to get away when the DM might just have rule of cooled a narrative roleplay moment.
Point is that it's not always in the players' best interest to jump into initaitive.
There's no requirement that initiative be rolled even if PCs are taking combat actions -- if a PC announces 'I attack X', the DM is free to resolve it narratively, and in cases where the fight is unlikely to be of interest, should probably do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
could/should player call "roll initiative" starting a fight and going into turn combat? say as a player a thief runs by and snatched your money bag could a player call combat?
No.
The player describes what they plan to do, but the DM decides whether a roll for initiative is required. Perhaps the bagsnatcher stops and begs for mercy. Perhaps they suddenly vanish.
Initiative isn't a player call. The DM determines whether combat is taking place requiring an initiative roll, that determination predicated upon the behavior of threats, targets, and the PCs.
The player can say, "I attack the thief" (if that's possible, if not, pursuit might be and the DMG has some decent chase rules), and it's the DMs call to see if that warrants rolling initiative and starting combat or pursuit.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Players can state their actions. It can be a little difficult for a GM to justify not entering combat. Sure, you can say 'the child disappears into the crowd' - but that reeks of railroading and deus ex machina.
On the other hand, I'd have zero qualms about telling a player 'you're not attacking a child at my table - at all, ever, period.' That's not the kind of 'hero' that's in this tale.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
While the above posters are correct t that a player cannot truly call for the initiative rolls, nothing stops them from using “roll initiative” as a colloquialism to say “I attack.” After all, it is fairly common for a DM to respond to a player annoying an NPC by simply saying “roll initiative” - a player doing the same as a short-hand for “I would like to start combat” is not really that big of a deal and very well can be a learned behavior from their experiences on how a DM handles the mirrored situation.
In such a situation, the player is not actually the one deciding to roll initiative - they are expressing a desire to enter combat through D&D’s combat-start language, but the DM still gets to decide if an initiative roll is actually necessary.
Just because it looks like a child does not mean it is a child.
Without attacking in some way how can the PC catch or stop the "child" thief.
I can understand your no kids rule if the children are just simply innocent bystanders but what if they do something to the PC?
Many evil NPC's use the image of a child to hide behind.
Initiative is not an action, so not something a player can declare for their character.
I'm not sure when a child wandered into the scenario. But yes, that's DM's prerogative, and a DM should be mindful when deploying things protected by boundaries like that. Like "you're beset by a swarming pickpocket gang of 'youts and the party has lost all their coin, scrolls, and potions. Now you can not engage, I do not tolerate violence against 'youts at this table" is really bad DMing.
As for a DM decoding a player "I roll for initiative" as "I attack," yes, a DM should infer that; but to allow it to stand uncorrected I'd say is still bad for the table, especially one with new players. Not every call to attack will be resolved with initiative. And again, taking initiative is not an action, and it's better to correct that so that the player mindset thinks more in terms of the action economy and declaring action rather than claiming the call to combat that "roll for initiative" implies. It's one of those easily corrected parts of D&D grammar/scripting that could lead to presumptions of player agency that the player shouldn't think they have.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Regardless of who has a "right" to start combat, a good DM listens to the intent of the players and tries to resolve player actions in a way that meets everyone's shared expectations.
On one hand, a player could notice its pocket being picked, declare that they grab for the offender, and the DM has the offender run across the market before the player is "allowed" to respond. This can feel very manipulative and railroady.
On the other hand, the player could say, "I leap forward and slit his throat!" No you don't, Leeroy Jenkins. Other characters are going to get a chance to respond to your aggression.
The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, where players don't feel like you're using your DM powers to negate. In OP's situation, I'd pause the scene and ask the other players. "Grog gets that look in his eye and goes for his sword. Do you want to back him up or talk him down?" They can decide as a group what to do, and you can often work out the "this is what my character would do" type of people by allowing them to express their impulsivity while also allowing the party to RP in their own right by reigning them in.
Of course if everyone is on board with combat, you either go ahead and initiate combat or give your reason why they can't/shouldn't at this time.
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
... what?
So because - theoretically - possibly, a villain could pretend to be a child ... it's now ok to attack children? Hell .... no!
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The proper DM response is to ask "What are you doing that would require initiative?"
And if the DM does not want children to be attacked in any way, they should not be using child thieves as a plot device. This scenario is not a PC attacking random children. We are told the 'child' stole from the PC's first.
Oh? So any time I use a child in a game, it's an open invitation to kill them? I don't think so.
But hey - your game, your rules.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You made the railroad your players ride on.
You are equating every child character, regardless of context, with a child character who steals from the party?
Yes. I railroad my players into never killing children - which, to be frank, would never come up, because we're decent people.
I'm responding to this.
I don't really think I've much to add.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Is any of this on topic? The OP never mentioned children in their post - that is something someone else added and then folks derailed the thread to discuss that issue. Considering we’re now at the point of this irrelevant tangent of someone flagrantly insulting others who might play the game differently, is it really any wonder OP has not bothered to follow-up on their thread?
Sure. it is a universal code word for attack
or as Padme would say "I call it aggressive negotiations."
There are a lot of valid points made here and im glossing over a lot of the pointless bickering. But you can attack a foe and NOT have it be in initiative. You can have an entire combat without initiative. Its the DMs call whether its necessary. The player is not the one in the game to decide what they need to roll. Thats the arbitration from the DM, as they are the ones holding the cards to the adventure.
I think some players get it in their head that the DM is doing this as a power trip or something. I dont really get it. Its just an extension of the "Its US against the DM" mindset. The player wants to have mechanical control over the situation.
No. A player never calls for initiative. The DM decides if and when player actions need to be resolved in a structured and ordered way.
If anything, I find some DMs often leave entering initiative too late. The characters are often stating things they want to do at the same time that really need to be resolved in order whether or not combat has actively started or not. That, in my opinion, is when initiative should be rolled.
I also play that attacks are NEVER allowed outside of initiative. There are no "bonus" extra attacks just because you say you shoot first. If I think a particular creature does something to trigger the encounter and they are lower in the order then I can just let everyone with initiatives higher than the starting player be surprised.
Just want to throw in a perspective here:
If players could call initiative, and they can't RAW, they're actually doing themselves a disservice in the OP's scenario.
Most DMs in this situation are likely not to ask for initiative which means that the 'rules' are a little more fuzzy. Pathfinder attempts to break this down by explaining different forms of play 'encounter mode', 'exploration mode', and 'downtime mode'. In D&D the comparison to 'exploration mode' is those roleplay and non-encounter moments where time is a little less rigid. A DM and players there can achieve a little more than they ordinarily would in combat because they're not hampered by the 6-second rounds.
What the player would be better served by doing is saying that they give chase, or they fire a sling at the thief. The DM might decide that being a big bad adventurer that just happens. A player then who pre-empts the DM in that way by calling for combat does things like running the risk they might miss the thief, or that the thief is going to get away when the DM might just have rule of cooled a narrative roleplay moment.
Point is that it's not always in the players' best interest to jump into initaitive.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
There's no requirement that initiative be rolled even if PCs are taking combat actions -- if a PC announces 'I attack X', the DM is free to resolve it narratively, and in cases where the fight is unlikely to be of interest, should probably do so.