The only time I might advance the initiative order occurs when there is a specific character taking a specific action that is the trigger for initiative being required. This also prevents the character casting a spell out of initiative. The problem with casting an attack spell before initiative is rolled is that the character could end up with multiple turns before another character gets to take an action. I don't really care if the hidden wizard gets to cast a fireball on my poor NPCs that didn't notice him - I do care that all of the other players get their turn before the wizard comes up again. So the wizard may be the first one to act in the encounter but they won't get any additional turns.
This I think is a really good point, keeping the action economy in check allows players to be inventive without it breaking stuff.
The players and the target can all be surprised by the sorcerer suddenly teleporting and zapping. So the technically correct way is:
Sorcerer declares action/bonus action.
All creatures roll initiative because of #1
All creatures rolling initiative are surprised except the sorcerer. per the rules: "If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren't."
The net affect is the Sorcerer's action/bonus action will happen before anyone else's unless a rule supersedes it (i.e., cannot be surprised) which a player might have. So it is possible that a lucky character reacts before the sorcerer, but it is not likely.
I would not rule they are automatically surprised. While I agree with the logic I would use a skill check or contest. Maybe the Thug's (and party member's and prisoners) insight or perception vs the Sorcerer's Deception
Again, you're focused on semantics, "taking perceived-as-hostile action vs reacting to it" is the same moment, initiative is what determines the timeline. The trigger is whenever someone wants to fight. Otherwise is isn't... combat. The wanting-to-fight bit is required by at least 1 party. Otherwise no one is fighting, and, it isn't a fight. This is tautological at this point. And, again, why I say your argument is entirely semantics: We fundamentally agree when in the timeline the combat starts so going back and forth about it is pointless.
But do we?
Yes. We do.
My guess is that the back and forth is still going largely because it still seems to be a disagreement on the timing.
Your insistence on the casting of Misty Step NOT being what prompts initiative seems to indicate that the Misty Step would have already taken place when initiative is rolled.
My insistence? IDK. I said a thing, and then someone questioned it directly, so I've just been explaining. Not really trying to be insistent.
The trigger, for combat, is someone wanting to fight. If there is something "I'm insistent" on it is that. But only because it is true.
But you've said "So initiative is rolled prior to misty step being completed." which would indicate that it hadn't. So exactly when does the teleportation take place in your opinion? And does it have to take place at all?
As for the timing? We agree on the timing. If the guard/prisoner/anyone would react with violence to someone trying to cast a spell in that situation, them responding with violence triggers combat the instant someone tries to cast the spell.
So Misty step isn't the trigger for combat. It is the trigger for the trigger to combat. A trigger once removed, if you will.
The distinction is important because casting Misty Step doesn't just universally trigger combat. Wouldn't make sense as a rule. You alone and misty step up to a ledge. Roll initiative? Immediately start and end combat? No, Misty Step itself doesn't start combat. Someone's violent reaction to it does. So, in a situation where there won't be a violent reaction to it being cast, no combat is needed. Thus the violent response is the trigger to combat, not the spell misty step.
So in a case where someone would react with violence to spellcast? Combat starts immediately when they attempt to cast because of that violent response. So initiative before the misty step. But, if no one present would respond to the spell being cast with violence, for whatever reason, then it'll go off uncontested. But initiative, in the OPs case, would happen immediately before the attempt to shocking grasp that immediately followed it because that, itself, is violence. ie combat.
So, in all likelihood, the guards/prisoners would see a voodoo-man doing voodoo and immediately respond right then and there, thus: initiative before they misty step.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The distinction is important because casting Misty Step doesn't just universally trigger combat. Wouldn't make sense as a rule. You alone and misty step up to a ledge. Roll initiative? Immediately start and end combat? No, Misty Step itself doesn't start combat. Someone's violent reaction to it does. So, in a situation where there won't be a violent reaction to it being cast, no combat is needed. Thus the violent response is the trigger to combat, not the spell misty step.
But that distinction is only important because you are stuck on "it's Misty Step" instead of "it's casting a spell with hostile intent in a hostile environment". If the wizard had said "I cast Fire Ball" then you wouldn't wait to see if anyone reacts or not before calling for initiative would you?
So in a case where someone would react with violence to spellcast? Combat starts immediately when they attempt to cast because of that violent response. So initiative before the misty step. But, if no one present would respond to the spell being cast with violence, for whatever reason, then it'll go off uncontested. But initiative, in the OPs case, would happen immediately before the attempt to shocking grasp that immediately followed it because that, itself, is violence. ie combat.
And I guess this is where I see it becoming problematic. If no-one reacts and you allow the wizard to start taking a turn why would you stop him mid-turn to roll initiative? And how do you continue? Does the wizard (potentially) lose the rest of the turn he's started on or do you allow him a free win on initiative? Neither alternative seems appealing to me.
And IF someone reacts, what happens to the Misty Step (if the wizard doesn't go first)? Is the wizard locked into casting a Misty Step on his turn even though the situation/battlemap might look completely different when his turn comes around? Or do you allow him to act freely even though that means that the act that everyone is reacting to never actually took place? Again, neither alternative seems appealing to me.
I guess I just don't see why you would open up to any of these issues potentially being issues when the solution is so simple, just call for initiative directly when the wizard announces he wants to act (with hostile intents).
The distinction is important because casting Misty Step doesn't just universally trigger combat. Wouldn't make sense as a rule. You alone and misty step up to a ledge. Roll initiative? Immediately start and end combat? No, Misty Step itself doesn't start combat. Someone's violent reaction to it does. So, in a situation where there won't be a violent reaction to it being cast, no combat is needed. Thus the violent response is the trigger to combat, not the spell misty step.
But that distinction is only important because you are stuck on "it's Misty Step" instead of "it's casting a spell with hostile intent in a hostile environment". If the wizard had said "I cast Fire Ball" then you wouldn't wait to see if anyone reacts or not before calling for initiative would you?
So in a case where someone would react with violence to spellcast? Combat starts immediately when they attempt to cast because of that violent response. So initiative before the misty step. But, if no one present would respond to the spell being cast with violence, for whatever reason, then it'll go off uncontested. But initiative, in the OPs case, would happen immediately before the attempt to shocking grasp that immediately followed it because that, itself, is violence. ie combat.
And I guess this is where I see it becoming problematic. If no-one reacts and you allow the wizard to start taking a turn why would you stop him mid-turn to roll initiative? And how do you continue? Does the wizard (potentially) lose the rest of the turn he's started on or do you allow him a free win on initiative? Neither alternative seems appealing to me.
And IF someone reacts, what happens to the Misty Step (if the wizard doesn't go first)? Is the wizard locked into casting a Misty Step on his turn even though the situation/battlemap might look completely different when his turn comes around? Or do you allow him to act freely even though that means that the act that everyone is reacting to never actually took place? Again, neither alternative seems appealing to me.
I guess I just don't see why you would open up to any of these issues potentially being issues when the solution is so simple, just call for initiative directly when the wizard announces he wants to act (with hostile intents).
I did not want to set a precedent for the player to start turning his character into Nightcrawler (X-Men) and * bamf * into situations thinking he can get a free attack/action.
Still in the situation when I had him roll initiative put him in the middle of the order which he felt his 'cool' idea was negated because the other players, metagaming aside, started before him. Maybe. Just maybe. If the Sorcerer was hidden or made some effort to hide/cover intention I could have given Suprise against the Prisoner, but as everyone was in this stand-off situation I felt everyone was alert and on edge that getting the jump on someone would have been difficult without some form of subterfuge.
It's not like Misty Step is somehow unique in its ability to set you up for using your action to do violence. Consider... Drawing a weapon?
You need to draw your weapon before you can attack. At the moment you draw it, do you roll initiative? No: That would mean initiative begins partway through someone's turn. Initiative doesn't do that. The first thing that happens after initiative is rolled is always: the character who's first begins their turn. (Except in the case of lair actions, but I don't think that's important here.)
So you have to rewind slightly, and roll initiative just before the weapon is drawn.
This is the problem with D&D and Initiative (and any turn-based system). Combat in real life is people doing things at lightning speeds all at once. Arrows flying, knives swishing, shields clashing, people dodging. Whatever. Ever watched a fencing match? The entire process of "scoring one point" is basically a round in D&D, but it's filled with advances, feints, engages, parries, ripostes and finally, a touche. In D&D, the one who scored went "first" and "hit". In fencing, the one who scored might not have even made the initial movement that began the engagement (although, with right of way.. let's not get sidetracked on the details here, the whole point is that D&D doesn't match real fighting very well.)
Anyway, my actual point is this:
Imagine the tables were reversed. If the PCs had some hapless enemy hostage with a knife to their throat, and one of the bad guys they were looking right at managed to Misty Step behind them, and cast Shocking Grasp before they had a chance to do anything, even though the PC is saying "I want to react to any hostilities by killing this bad guy", then you can imagine the outcry.
The way I'd run it is with a bunch of caveats before the PC does something: a bit like this ---
Sorcerer: OK, I'm sick of this, I Misty Step behind him and Shocking Grasp so he can't react to kill the guard! DM: He's got a knife to the guards throat and he's keeping a close eye on everyone. If you try that, he might be able to react before you can do it. Just starting to speak those magic words will be an initiative check. Fighter: Wait, this is combat? OK, I'll charge. Rogue: If he's charging I'm going to pull out my bow and shoot the prisoner in the eye. Take that, miserable poor person! DM: Hold up everyone. So far none of you know the Sorcerer is about to precipitate combat. Sorcerer- do you want to give them a nod so they're ready? Or do you want to try to surprise everyone? Either way, it's a deception check, but you'll have disadvantage if you want to clue the rest of the PCs in without also alerting the enemies. Sorcerer: Is there a column or a wall I can slip behind so the prisoner can't see me muttering to myself? DM: Hmm. He's looking right at you and very tense. <Rolls Insight for the player> Just moving where he can't see you is suspicious, and you think he'd see that as a provocation. Sorcerer: Damn! I just want to Nightcrawler his ass! Screw the rest of the PCs, I do it. DM: Roll flat deception.. Everyone else -- what's your passive Insight? Fighter: 12 Rogue: 16 Sorcerer: I rolled an 18.. Charisma Caster FTW! DM: Fine, everyone is surprised. Roll Initiative. Sorcerer: A 4! Really, a 4? Fighter: 18 Rogue: 22 .. Dex Monkey FTW! I draw my bow and DM: You were surprised. You get your reaction back. Fighter: I react by sneering at the nearest escapee. "You're going DOWN!" DM: The enemy leader narrows his eyes as you mutter the magic words for Misty Step and disappear from view. He was surprised, but rolled higher than a 4, I'm sorry. Sorcerer: Wait, so what happens? Do I bamf him or not? <This following interaction is not strictly RAW, because I'm forcing the Sorcerer to complete his precipitating action because it's more dramatic. It's also what I'd do if the Reaction the prisoner was taking was something like "if someone completes a hostile move".> DM: Oh you bamf behind him alright. He was still surprised. But as you know he had a Reaction to try to kill the guard as soon as hostilities start. He recovers fast enough to your move that he slits the guards throat before you can do anything else. You're behind him now, and you still have an action. Still want to Shocking Grasp? The guard is bleeding out on the floor, as the prisoner drops him and spins toward you (facing in D&D isn't a thing!) Sorcerer: Oh, dang. Well Shocking Grasp will at least let me get away. DM: He's already used his reaction to kill the guard. You can do whatever you like without fear of his Opportunity Attack. Although there are a couple of other people nearby who look hostile. Sorcerer: Eek. This just got interesting.
<Alternatively, I might do this> DM: You can still bamf behind him, but he hears you muttering arcane words, and as a reaction, cuts the guards throat before you disappear. You can change your mind about Misty Step if you like, but either way, the stand off is over. Sorcerer: Damn. Well, I'd rather not be surrounded by enemies, and since there's no one left to save, Fireball seems appropriate.
You know it should have been easy to adjudicate the situation I described.
--- removed ---
I did not want to set a precedent for the player to start turning his character into Nightcrawler (X-Men) and * bamf * into situations thinking he can get a free attack/action.
Still in the situation when I had him roll initiative put him in the middle of the order which he felt his 'cool' idea was negated because the other players, metagaming aside, started before him. Maybe. Just maybe. If the Sorcerer was hidden or made some effort to hide/cover intention I could have given Suprise against the Prisoner, but as everyone was in this stand-off situation I felt everyone was alert and on edge that getting the jump on someone would have been difficult without some form of subterfuge.
Wow - way too long a reply :)
TL;DR It is your game, come up with a consistent mechanic that you and your players like to balance the game rules with the game narrative, play and have fun :)
---
I just wanted to add that in all these situations, house rules or not, it is almost always a DM call as to the specific scene and situation. I don't think there is any issue with your call that everyone was alert and paying attention in a quiet tense stand off so that as soon as the sorcerer raised their voice to utter a magic word to cast a spell, everyone reacted as if the fuse was lit and needed to act right away.
However, it sounds like the sorcerer didn't imagine the scene the same way. Perhaps the sorcerer imagined it as loud, noisy and chaotic with guards and prisoners looking frantically around and shouting so that a brief utterance of a few magical words might go unnoticed (misty step is verbal only) and if there is any noise at all then a normally spoken magic word is unlikely to be heard by anyone not standing next to the sorcerer.
So clearly the sorcerer didn't picture the scene correctly - between a quiet, tense stand off and a chaotic noisy situation with folks shouting at each other.
However, keep in mind that if you've rolled initiative that the sorcerer will never "a free attack/action." The only thing that can happen is that the sorcerer gets the FIRST action. Everyone else will get their turn in initiative order so the sorcerer doesn't get anything for free - they just got it first. The only way to get a "free attack/action" is to allow the character to resolve their action THEN roll initiative - where the character could roll high and essentially get two actions in a row. However, IF you roll initiative before the character takes their action then they don't get anything extra - everyone will get their turn - there is no extra or free attack/action - they just get to take theirs first.
This approach only makes sense when the initiative is called for due to the planned action of one character AND that action is unlikely to be noticed or telegraphed before the character takes that action. Making it all a DM call and it is up to the DM to come up with an approach that works for them and their players.
In the future, I can see the sorcerer player asking the DM "Can we roll initiative please?" ... so that everyone just waits to see what the character wants to do.
I think it is important to remember that it is the PLAYERS who roll dice for initiative. The characters have no idea. The players rolling initiative means nothing to the characters. It tells the players the order that the character actions will be resolved - that's it. Rolling initiative doesn't reveal hidden creatures (there are separate rules for that). Rolling initiative doesn't lock in character choices of actions, these are decided on the character's turn. Initiative only decides the order in which the character actions (which may or may not be attacks since a character can take ANY action they can imagine on their turn) are resolved.
Sometimes it makes the most narrative sense for the order of resolution of actions to be random. However, at other times, it makes the most narrative sense for a particular action or character to go first since, for whatever reason, the rest of the characters are just standing around not doing anything special for that specific 6 second time frame while one character IS doing something special.
It is up to the DM to resolve how they want it to run. The easiest way is for every situation to be resolved in a random order and then try to patch up the narrative in some way (the most common being that the action was somehow telegraphed so that the other creatures present became aware of a character's intent before they did anything so that when they roll a higher initiative they are reacting to some sort of telegraphing). However, there are times when this interpretation doesn't make much sense. In the present situation, the sorcerer is casting a bonus action verbal only spell which is particularly quick to cast - how much telegraphing can there really be unless everyone is on the edge of their seat looking for the smallest provocation? (which is essentially what the DM was picturing the situation as).
However, consider another example, a hidden/invisbile rogue with expertise in stealth plans to make an attack. Initiative is rolled and everyone else rolls higher than him. He has not revealed his location (there are rules for what reveals your location and rolling initiative is not one of these), he has not attacked or cast a spell so they are still invisible, their stealth is still higher than the passive perception of the defenders so everyone else is surprised. Everyone else is unaware of the hidden attacker, in fact none of them know that a fight might have started at all - initiative is a PLAYER mechanic - it has nothing to do with the characters.What do these NPCs do on their turn?
The rogues turn comes around and they decide not to attack because the targets look to be more alert than they expected so they withdraw and come back later hoping the defenders will be less alert. Is there anything wrong with that scenario? RAW, the rogue doesn't decide their action until their turn. They can decide not to attack and instead stealthily withdraw and come back another time to see if the circumstances improve.
Anyway, all these situations require the DM to bridge the narrative of the adventure to the rules of the game. The key being a fun and engaging experience for everyone. This particular mechanic has one of the players of your game realizing that they can't suggest a cool idea because it then results in a random initiative order being rolled and the likelihood of them never getting to use the idea. So you need to figure out what rules you want to use to handle this type of situation in the future so that it is fun for you and your players. I think this thread has quite a few good ideas that you can probably choose from to figure out what you want to do in your games to balance the game narrative with the game rules. In some cases, rules are more important, in others perhaps the narrative continuity makes more sense to you.
There is no wrong choice - there is only how you want to run your game.
You know it should have been easy to adjudicate the situation I described.
I did not want to set a precedent for the player to start turning his character into Nightcrawler (X-Men) and * bamf * into situations thinking he can get a free attack/action.
Still in the situation when I had him roll initiative put him in the middle of the order which he felt his 'cool' idea was negated because the other players, metagaming aside, started before him. Maybe. Just maybe. If the Sorcerer was hidden or made some effort to hide/cover intention I could have given Suprise against the Prisoner, but as everyone was in this stand-off situation I felt everyone was alert and on edge that getting the jump on someone would have been difficult without some form of subterfuge.
Yea that comment was meant to Rav and not as critique to you.
I would probably not allow the Sorcerer (my mistake calling him "wizard" above) to go the full "I want to Misty Step and then do this and ...." but rather ask the players if anyone wants to do something or if they are going to keep talking and as soon as the sorcerer (or anyone else) says "I want..." I'd stop it and then roll for initiative.
Also I think that this is where the DM and the group needs to talk it out beforehand to agree on what to expect. Wanting to do something cool is fine but a player cannot expect to have cool = extra action/turn or override initiative order. Of course the DM shouldn't be too strict either, if players want to do something that isn't likely to be seen as hostile then that could likely be done without a turn order. Having such an understanding helps a lot IMO.
You can also adjust the initiative order a bit if you think that fits better. I played in a game just the other week where my character did something that happened to be what forced initiative to be rolled. I did not roll the highest but the DM started combat on my initiative count and then kept going from there. It worked in the moment but I had some issues with that that we talked over afterwards. I didn't do an active "I try to kill him" type of thing but more of an "stepped on the x" kind of thing so I'm fine with the encounter starting with my turn as that made sense (but a DM should keep track that it doesn't become something the group actively tries to do to allow PC's with poor initiative to go early). What I didn't think was right was the "move on from that point on the initiative count" part as that meant that the players that did roll high on initiative ended up going last in the round. We've not ended that discussion but I'd probably be in favour of starting with the one that set it off and then do the rest by normal initiative procedure. Again keeping track that it doesn't become a tactic for the group to game if for low-initiative players.
I did not want to set a precedent for the player to start turning his character into Nightcrawler (X-Men) and * bamf * into situations thinking he can get a free attack/action.
Still in the situation when I had him roll initiative put him in the middle of the order which he felt his 'cool' idea was negated because the other players, metagaming aside, started before him. Maybe. Just maybe. If the Sorcerer was hidden or made some effort to hide/cover intention I could have given Suprise against the Prisoner, but as everyone was in this stand-off situation I felt everyone was alert and on edge that getting the jump on someone would have been difficult without some form of subterfuge.
Yeah. If you do decide that no one could be surprised, then I feel like the only way to run that is to make it clear before the player actually takes the action.
DM: "You could try that, but even with only a verbal component, he might get to react before you finish casting the spell. It'll be down to initiative." Sorcerer: "But how can he know what I'm about to do? How can anyone?" DM: "He doesn't know, but he's aware enough of you that he knows something is happening. If you're fast enough, you'll pull it off. If he's faster, then maybe he'll kill the guard." Sorcerer: "And what about the other PCs?" DM: "They're good at reading your intentions. You've been fighting together as a team for a while. If you start something, they'll capitalize on it by making their own move. That rogue friend of yours has some excellent reflexes. He might even beat you to the punch." Sorcerer: "Seems weird that I start combat but don't go first." DM: "Sure does. That's the problem with a resolution window of six seconds and being able to make a move, action and bonus action in one go. You want a more granular turn, go play GURPS, where you can take a single attack, or move one square in a 1 second turn... but dodge an infinite number of incoming attacks. Potayto, Tomahto." Sorcerer: Fine, I rolled a 4 for init. DM: Sux to be you, the guard is dead.
The distinction is important because casting Misty Step doesn't just universally trigger combat. Wouldn't make sense as a rule. You alone and misty step up to a ledge. Roll initiative? Immediately start and end combat? No, Misty Step itself doesn't start combat. Someone's violent reaction to it does. So, in a situation where there won't be a violent reaction to it being cast, no combat is needed. Thus the violent response is the trigger to combat, not the spell misty step.
But that distinction is only important because you are stuck on "it's Misty Step" instead of "it's casting a spell with hostile intent in a hostile environment". If the wizard had said "I cast Fire Ball" then you wouldn't wait to see if anyone reacts or not before calling for initiative would you?
Misty step cannot be cast with hostile intent. You can't hurt anyone else with it. It is a Self target spell.
Like, no one says "Watch out pal or I'm going to Misty Step you so hard right now" it doesn't even make sense to consider it a hostile action. Fireball though? That's hostile to everyone, sometimes even to your own allies. ROFL.
You start combat when someone decides they wanna fight. That can be the NPC who sees a dude in a wizard hat doing arcane mumbles and decides he wants to stop him with some knuckle sandwiches. Boom, initiative. But the arcane mumbles didn't trigger the initiative, the guy wanting to throw down is what started it.
So in a case where someone would react with violence to spellcast? Combat starts immediately when they attempt to cast because of that violent response. So initiative before the misty step. But, if no one present would respond to the spell being cast with violence, for whatever reason, then it'll go off uncontested. But initiative, in the OPs case, would happen immediately before the attempt to shocking grasp that immediately followed it because that, itself, is violence. ie combat.
And I guess this is where I see it becoming problematic. If no-one reacts and you allow the wizard to start taking a turn why would you stop him mid-turn to roll initiative? And how do you continue? Does the wizard (potentially) lose the rest of the turn he's started on or do you allow him a free win on initiative? Neither alternative seems appealing to me.
There are no turns before combat. So you are not "allowing him to start taking a turn" and you are not "stopping him mid-turn" there are no turns, and he hasn't started any turns.
If no one present is going to intervene, in any way, you start combat with the wizard at melee range and with the intent to shocking grasp, initiative is now rolled. Now, this is unlikely to happen, because someone present in the OP's scenario is almost assuredly going to wanna intervene. But, say they don't for whatever personal reasons they have, right. If no one aims to intervene, then there is nothing in conflict, no resolutions or contests of wills or desired outcomes are at stake yet. Not until he tries to zap-a-dude-who-don't-wanna-be-zapped. Boom, conflict. So that is when initiative is rolled. While he is standing there about to zap the guy.
There is no turns before this, partial or otherwise. initiative is rolled and the wizard simply starts in melee range of his target.
And IF someone reacts, what happens to the Misty Step (if the wizard doesn't go first)? Is the wizard locked into casting a Misty Step on his turn even though the situation/battlemap might look completely different when his turn comes around? Or do you allow him to act freely even though that means that the act that everyone is reacting to never actually took place? Again, neither alternative seems appealing to me.
Initiative arises at the moment of conflict.
Say you're there and a wizard wants to misty step. If you want to intervene, initiative. If you don't care, no initiative.
Initiative is rolled to see who gets to act first. You, or the guy about to do something you wanna try to prevent (or, just, you know... punch).
So you roll initiative when this conflict occurs to determine the sequence of events. Who is faster? You or him? If he beats your initiative roll he was too quick and you couldn't do anything before he finished his goal, it happens. But if you win the initiative and act before he does the thing, in this case Misty Step, it means he was slow on the draw and you're going to get the opportunity to try to do something about it. And, he's not 'locked-in' because he can react to what you're doing now, too, the situation is now fully in flux.
I guess I just don't see why you would open up to any of these issues potentially being issues when the solution is so simple, just call for initiative directly when the wizard announces he wants to act (with hostile intents).
I do, but misty step isn't hostile. Shocking grasp is tho. The first 'contested' event that needs combat rules to resolve here isn't the misty step, it is the shocking grasp. Unless, of course, an NPC wants to get in on this action before hand for whatever reason.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Still in the situation when I had him roll initiative put him in the middle of the order which he felt his 'cool' idea was negated because the other players, metagaming aside, started before him. Maybe. Just maybe. If the Sorcerer was hidden or made some effort to hide/cover intention I could have given Suprise against the Prisoner, but as everyone was in this stand-off situation I felt everyone was alert and on edge that getting the jump on someone would have been difficult without some form of subterfuge.
This is a real concern for players, and it does suck when your plans fall to pieces because of some bad rolls. But, that is D&D, really. It might help to contextualize initiative as how responsive and fast to react to changing situations someone is. Someone with a lower initiative might get their turn passed to them with "before you even have time to fully carry out your plan, others have already jumped into action, and you now find yourself amid a chaotic melee, the situation has changed several times as you frantically process the scene deciding how to act. What do you do?"
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A creature's signaled intentions don't necessarily need to be hostile to prompt initiative, otherwise anyone could flee without ever going into initiative order. Initiative takes place when the DM judge it's appropriate to determine turn order. It's especially true when multiple creatures want to act simultaneously.
In a tense situation where many creatures are involved such as the above scenario, to me spellcasting is an intention that prompt initiative, as the others also have intentions to act.
If a DM isn't sure if initiative should be rolled, it can always ask away when one "attemps to [insert action], is anyone want to do something or you let be?" Most of the time, it will be clear if yes or no.
The distinction is important because casting Misty Step doesn't just universally trigger combat. Wouldn't make sense as a rule. You alone and misty step up to a ledge. Roll initiative? Immediately start and end combat? No, Misty Step itself doesn't start combat. Someone's violent reaction to it does. So, in a situation where there won't be a violent reaction to it being cast, no combat is needed. Thus the violent response is the trigger to combat, not the spell misty step.
But that distinction is only important because you are stuck on "it's Misty Step" instead of "it's casting a spell with hostile intent in a hostile environment". If the wizard had said "I cast Fire Ball" then you wouldn't wait to see if anyone reacts or not before calling for initiative would you?
Misty step cannot be cast with hostile intent. You can't hurt anyone else with it. It is a Self target spell.
Like, no one says "Watch out pal or I'm going to Misty Step you so hard right now" it doesn't even make sense to consider it a hostile action. Fireball though? That's hostile to everyone, sometimes even to your own allies. ROFL.
You start combat when someone decides they wanna fight. That can be the NPC who sees a dude in a wizard hat doing arcane mumbles and decides he wants to stop him with some knuckle sandwiches. Boom, initiative. But the arcane mumbles didn't trigger the initiative, the guy wanting to throw down is what started it.
So in a case where someone would react with violence to spellcast? Combat starts immediately when they attempt to cast because of that violent response. So initiative before the misty step. But, if no one present would respond to the spell being cast with violence, for whatever reason, then it'll go off uncontested. But initiative, in the OPs case, would happen immediately before the attempt to shocking grasp that immediately followed it because that, itself, is violence. ie combat.
And I guess this is where I see it becoming problematic. If no-one reacts and you allow the wizard to start taking a turn why would you stop him mid-turn to roll initiative? And how do you continue? Does the wizard (potentially) lose the rest of the turn he's started on or do you allow him a free win on initiative? Neither alternative seems appealing to me.
There are no turns before combat. So you are not "allowing him to start taking a turn" and you are not "stopping him mid-turn" there are no turns, and he hasn't started any turns.
If no one present is going to intervene, in any way, you start combat with the wizard at melee range and with the intent to shocking grasp, initiative is now rolled. Now, this is unlikely to happen, because someone present in the OP's scenario is almost assuredly going to wanna intervene. But, say they don't for whatever personal reasons they have, right. If no one aims to intervene, then there is nothing in conflict, no resolutions or contests of wills or desired outcomes are at stake yet. Not until he tries to zap-a-dude-who-don't-wanna-be-zapped. Boom, conflict. So that is when initiative is rolled. While he is standing there about to zap the guy.
There is no turns before this, partial or otherwise. initiative is rolled and the wizard simply starts in melee range of his target.
And IF someone reacts, what happens to the Misty Step (if the wizard doesn't go first)? Is the wizard locked into casting a Misty Step on his turn even though the situation/battlemap might look completely different when his turn comes around? Or do you allow him to act freely even though that means that the act that everyone is reacting to never actually took place? Again, neither alternative seems appealing to me.
Initiative arises at the moment of conflict.
Say you're there and a wizard wants to misty step. If you want to intervene, initiative. If you don't care, no initiative.
Initiative is rolled to see who gets to act first. You, or the guy about to do something you wanna try to prevent (or, just, you know... punch).
So you roll initiative when this conflict occurs to determine the sequence of events. Who is faster? You or him? If he beats your initiative roll he was too quick and you couldn't do anything before he finished his goal, it happens. But if you win the initiative and act before he does the thing, in this case Misty Step, it means he was slow on the draw and you're going to get the opportunity to try to do something about it. And, he's not 'locked-in' because he can react to what you're doing now, too, the situation is now fully in flux.
I guess I just don't see why you would open up to any of these issues potentially being issues when the solution is so simple, just call for initiative directly when the wizard announces he wants to act (with hostile intents).
I do, but misty step isn't hostile. Shocking grasp is tho. The first 'contested' event that needs combat rules to resolve here isn't the misty step, it is the shocking grasp. Unless, of course, an NPC wants to get in on this action before hand for whatever reason.
Rav, I'm not sure why you are hung up on "hostility" being the requirement for initiative, but 1) I can find no rule that dictates that hostility is required for initiative, and 2) I can find no rule dictating what is considered "hostile" or not. Combat can be hostile (most are) but it is not required to be (friendly jousting, competition, etc). It is also impossible for an inanimate object to be hostile, yet initiative is rolled when a complex trap is triggered (in fact, said complex trap doesn't even have initiative itself, it just acts on a preset timeframe in the order).
If you have those rules, please share them, otherwise, it's time to let that argument go.
For my final thought on this, I present 3 options assuming you can find a rule regarding hostility as requested:
I start to walk towards you while unarmed with hands at my sides
I start to walk towards you holding a knife and waving it menacingly
I start to teleport towards you holding a knife and waving it menacingly
While the first one is probably not hostile given the limited information presented, the second one is probably hostile. what makes you so sure the third is different from the second. Would you allow the knife waver to move right up to you before starting initiative? if not, then why would you allow someone to teleport right up to you before starting initiative?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This I think is a really good point, keeping the action economy in check allows players to be inventive without it breaking stuff.
I would not rule they are automatically surprised. While I agree with the logic I would use a skill check or contest. Maybe the Thug's (and party member's and prisoners) insight or perception vs the Sorcerer's Deception
Yes. We do.
My insistence? IDK. I said a thing, and then someone questioned it directly, so I've just been explaining. Not really trying to be insistent.
The trigger, for combat, is someone wanting to fight. If there is something "I'm insistent" on it is that. But only because it is true.
As for the timing? We agree on the timing. If the guard/prisoner/anyone would react with violence to someone trying to cast a spell in that situation, them responding with violence triggers combat the instant someone tries to cast the spell.
So Misty step isn't the trigger for combat. It is the trigger for the trigger to combat. A trigger once removed, if you will.
The distinction is important because casting Misty Step doesn't just universally trigger combat. Wouldn't make sense as a rule. You alone and misty step up to a ledge. Roll initiative? Immediately start and end combat? No, Misty Step itself doesn't start combat. Someone's violent reaction to it does. So, in a situation where there won't be a violent reaction to it being cast, no combat is needed. Thus the violent response is the trigger to combat, not the spell misty step.
So in a case where someone would react with violence to spellcast? Combat starts immediately when they attempt to cast because of that violent response. So initiative before the misty step. But, if no one present would respond to the spell being cast with violence, for whatever reason, then it'll go off uncontested. But initiative, in the OPs case, would happen immediately before the attempt to shocking grasp that immediately followed it because that, itself, is violence. ie combat.
So, in all likelihood, the guards/prisoners would see a voodoo-man doing voodoo and immediately respond right then and there, thus: initiative before they misty step.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But that distinction is only important because you are stuck on "it's Misty Step" instead of "it's casting a spell with hostile intent in a hostile environment". If the wizard had said "I cast Fire Ball" then you wouldn't wait to see if anyone reacts or not before calling for initiative would you?
And I guess this is where I see it becoming problematic. If no-one reacts and you allow the wizard to start taking a turn why would you stop him mid-turn to roll initiative? And how do you continue? Does the wizard (potentially) lose the rest of the turn he's started on or do you allow him a free win on initiative? Neither alternative seems appealing to me.
And IF someone reacts, what happens to the Misty Step (if the wizard doesn't go first)? Is the wizard locked into casting a Misty Step on his turn even though the situation/battlemap might look completely different when his turn comes around? Or do you allow him to act freely even though that means that the act that everyone is reacting to never actually took place? Again, neither alternative seems appealing to me.
I guess I just don't see why you would open up to any of these issues potentially being issues when the solution is so simple, just call for initiative directly when the wizard announces he wants to act (with hostile intents).
You know it should have been easy to adjudicate the situation I described.
I did not want to set a precedent for the player to start turning his character into Nightcrawler (X-Men) and * bamf * into situations thinking he can get a free attack/action.
Still in the situation when I had him roll initiative put him in the middle of the order which he felt his 'cool' idea was negated because the other players, metagaming aside, started before him. Maybe. Just maybe. If the Sorcerer was hidden or made some effort to hide/cover intention I could have given Suprise against the Prisoner, but as everyone was in this stand-off situation I felt everyone was alert and on edge that getting the jump on someone would have been difficult without some form of subterfuge.
It's not like Misty Step is somehow unique in its ability to set you up for using your action to do violence. Consider... Drawing a weapon?
You need to draw your weapon before you can attack. At the moment you draw it, do you roll initiative? No: That would mean initiative begins partway through someone's turn. Initiative doesn't do that. The first thing that happens after initiative is rolled is always: the character who's first begins their turn. (Except in the case of lair actions, but I don't think that's important here.)
So you have to rewind slightly, and roll initiative just before the weapon is drawn.
It's the same with Misty Step.
This is the problem with D&D and Initiative (and any turn-based system). Combat in real life is people doing things at lightning speeds all at once. Arrows flying, knives swishing, shields clashing, people dodging. Whatever. Ever watched a fencing match? The entire process of "scoring one point" is basically a round in D&D, but it's filled with advances, feints, engages, parries, ripostes and finally, a touche. In D&D, the one who scored went "first" and "hit". In fencing, the one who scored might not have even made the initial movement that began the engagement (although, with right of way.. let's not get sidetracked on the details here, the whole point is that D&D doesn't match real fighting very well.)
Anyway, my actual point is this:
Imagine the tables were reversed. If the PCs had some hapless enemy hostage with a knife to their throat, and one of the bad guys they were looking right at managed to Misty Step behind them, and cast Shocking Grasp before they had a chance to do anything, even though the PC is saying "I want to react to any hostilities by killing this bad guy", then you can imagine the outcry.
The way I'd run it is with a bunch of caveats before the PC does something: a bit like this ---
Sorcerer: OK, I'm sick of this, I Misty Step behind him and Shocking Grasp so he can't react to kill the guard!
DM: He's got a knife to the guards throat and he's keeping a close eye on everyone. If you try that, he might be able to react before you can do it. Just starting to speak those magic words will be an initiative check.
Fighter: Wait, this is combat? OK, I'll charge.
Rogue: If he's charging I'm going to pull out my bow and shoot the prisoner in the eye. Take that, miserable poor person!
DM: Hold up everyone. So far none of you know the Sorcerer is about to precipitate combat. Sorcerer- do you want to give them a nod so they're ready? Or do you want to try to surprise everyone? Either way, it's a deception check, but you'll have disadvantage if you want to clue the rest of the PCs in without also alerting the enemies.
Sorcerer: Is there a column or a wall I can slip behind so the prisoner can't see me muttering to myself?
DM: Hmm. He's looking right at you and very tense. <Rolls Insight for the player> Just moving where he can't see you is suspicious, and you think he'd see that as a provocation.
Sorcerer: Damn! I just want to Nightcrawler his ass! Screw the rest of the PCs, I do it.
DM: Roll flat deception.. Everyone else -- what's your passive Insight?
Fighter: 12
Rogue: 16
Sorcerer: I rolled an 18.. Charisma Caster FTW!
DM: Fine, everyone is surprised. Roll Initiative.
Sorcerer: A 4! Really, a 4?
Fighter: 18
Rogue: 22 .. Dex Monkey FTW! I draw my bow and
DM: You were surprised. You get your reaction back.
Fighter: I react by sneering at the nearest escapee. "You're going DOWN!"
DM: The enemy leader narrows his eyes as you mutter the magic words for Misty Step and disappear from view. He was surprised, but rolled higher than a 4, I'm sorry.
Sorcerer: Wait, so what happens? Do I bamf him or not?
<This following interaction is not strictly RAW, because I'm forcing the Sorcerer to complete his precipitating action because it's more dramatic. It's also what I'd do if the Reaction the prisoner was taking was something like "if someone completes a hostile move".>
DM: Oh you bamf behind him alright. He was still surprised. But as you know he had a Reaction to try to kill the guard as soon as hostilities start. He recovers fast enough to your move that he slits the guards throat before you can do anything else. You're behind him now, and you still have an action. Still want to Shocking Grasp? The guard is bleeding out on the floor, as the prisoner drops him and spins toward you (facing in D&D isn't a thing!)
Sorcerer: Oh, dang. Well Shocking Grasp will at least let me get away.
DM: He's already used his reaction to kill the guard. You can do whatever you like without fear of his Opportunity Attack. Although there are a couple of other people nearby who look hostile.
Sorcerer: Eek. This just got interesting.
<Alternatively, I might do this>
DM: You can still bamf behind him, but he hears you muttering arcane words, and as a reaction, cuts the guards throat before you disappear. You can change your mind about Misty Step if you like, but either way, the stand off is over.
Sorcerer: Damn. Well, I'd rather not be surrounded by enemies, and since there's no one left to save, Fireball seems appropriate.
Wow - way too long a reply :)
TL;DR It is your game, come up with a consistent mechanic that you and your players like to balance the game rules with the game narrative, play and have fun :)
---
I just wanted to add that in all these situations, house rules or not, it is almost always a DM call as to the specific scene and situation. I don't think there is any issue with your call that everyone was alert and paying attention in a quiet tense stand off so that as soon as the sorcerer raised their voice to utter a magic word to cast a spell, everyone reacted as if the fuse was lit and needed to act right away.
However, it sounds like the sorcerer didn't imagine the scene the same way. Perhaps the sorcerer imagined it as loud, noisy and chaotic with guards and prisoners looking frantically around and shouting so that a brief utterance of a few magical words might go unnoticed (misty step is verbal only) and if there is any noise at all then a normally spoken magic word is unlikely to be heard by anyone not standing next to the sorcerer.
So clearly the sorcerer didn't picture the scene correctly - between a quiet, tense stand off and a chaotic noisy situation with folks shouting at each other.
However, keep in mind that if you've rolled initiative that the sorcerer will never "a free attack/action." The only thing that can happen is that the sorcerer gets the FIRST action. Everyone else will get their turn in initiative order so the sorcerer doesn't get anything for free - they just got it first. The only way to get a "free attack/action" is to allow the character to resolve their action THEN roll initiative - where the character could roll high and essentially get two actions in a row. However, IF you roll initiative before the character takes their action then they don't get anything extra - everyone will get their turn - there is no extra or free attack/action - they just get to take theirs first.
This approach only makes sense when the initiative is called for due to the planned action of one character AND that action is unlikely to be noticed or telegraphed before the character takes that action. Making it all a DM call and it is up to the DM to come up with an approach that works for them and their players.
In the future, I can see the sorcerer player asking the DM "Can we roll initiative please?" ... so that everyone just waits to see what the character wants to do.
I think it is important to remember that it is the PLAYERS who roll dice for initiative. The characters have no idea. The players rolling initiative means nothing to the characters. It tells the players the order that the character actions will be resolved - that's it. Rolling initiative doesn't reveal hidden creatures (there are separate rules for that). Rolling initiative doesn't lock in character choices of actions, these are decided on the character's turn. Initiative only decides the order in which the character actions (which may or may not be attacks since a character can take ANY action they can imagine on their turn) are resolved.
Sometimes it makes the most narrative sense for the order of resolution of actions to be random. However, at other times, it makes the most narrative sense for a particular action or character to go first since, for whatever reason, the rest of the characters are just standing around not doing anything special for that specific 6 second time frame while one character IS doing something special.
It is up to the DM to resolve how they want it to run. The easiest way is for every situation to be resolved in a random order and then try to patch up the narrative in some way (the most common being that the action was somehow telegraphed so that the other creatures present became aware of a character's intent before they did anything so that when they roll a higher initiative they are reacting to some sort of telegraphing). However, there are times when this interpretation doesn't make much sense. In the present situation, the sorcerer is casting a bonus action verbal only spell which is particularly quick to cast - how much telegraphing can there really be unless everyone is on the edge of their seat looking for the smallest provocation? (which is essentially what the DM was picturing the situation as).
However, consider another example, a hidden/invisbile rogue with expertise in stealth plans to make an attack. Initiative is rolled and everyone else rolls higher than him. He has not revealed his location (there are rules for what reveals your location and rolling initiative is not one of these), he has not attacked or cast a spell so they are still invisible, their stealth is still higher than the passive perception of the defenders so everyone else is surprised. Everyone else is unaware of the hidden attacker, in fact none of them know that a fight might have started at all - initiative is a PLAYER mechanic - it has nothing to do with the characters.What do these NPCs do on their turn?
The rogues turn comes around and they decide not to attack because the targets look to be more alert than they expected so they withdraw and come back later hoping the defenders will be less alert. Is there anything wrong with that scenario? RAW, the rogue doesn't decide their action until their turn. They can decide not to attack and instead stealthily withdraw and come back another time to see if the circumstances improve.
Anyway, all these situations require the DM to bridge the narrative of the adventure to the rules of the game. The key being a fun and engaging experience for everyone. This particular mechanic has one of the players of your game realizing that they can't suggest a cool idea because it then results in a random initiative order being rolled and the likelihood of them never getting to use the idea. So you need to figure out what rules you want to use to handle this type of situation in the future so that it is fun for you and your players. I think this thread has quite a few good ideas that you can probably choose from to figure out what you want to do in your games to balance the game narrative with the game rules. In some cases, rules are more important, in others perhaps the narrative continuity makes more sense to you.
There is no wrong choice - there is only how you want to run your game.
Yea that comment was meant to Rav and not as critique to you.
I would probably not allow the Sorcerer (my mistake calling him "wizard" above) to go the full "I want to Misty Step and then do this and ...." but rather ask the players if anyone wants to do something or if they are going to keep talking and as soon as the sorcerer (or anyone else) says "I want..." I'd stop it and then roll for initiative.
Also I think that this is where the DM and the group needs to talk it out beforehand to agree on what to expect. Wanting to do something cool is fine but a player cannot expect to have cool = extra action/turn or override initiative order. Of course the DM shouldn't be too strict either, if players want to do something that isn't likely to be seen as hostile then that could likely be done without a turn order. Having such an understanding helps a lot IMO.
You can also adjust the initiative order a bit if you think that fits better. I played in a game just the other week where my character did something that happened to be what forced initiative to be rolled. I did not roll the highest but the DM started combat on my initiative count and then kept going from there. It worked in the moment but I had some issues with that that we talked over afterwards.
I didn't do an active "I try to kill him" type of thing but more of an "stepped on the x" kind of thing so I'm fine with the encounter starting with my turn as that made sense (but a DM should keep track that it doesn't become something the group actively tries to do to allow PC's with poor initiative to go early).
What I didn't think was right was the "move on from that point on the initiative count" part as that meant that the players that did roll high on initiative ended up going last in the round. We've not ended that discussion but I'd probably be in favour of starting with the one that set it off and then do the rest by normal initiative procedure. Again keeping track that it doesn't become a tactic for the group to game if for low-initiative players.
Yeah. If you do decide that no one could be surprised, then I feel like the only way to run that is to make it clear before the player actually takes the action.
DM: "You could try that, but even with only a verbal component, he might get to react before you finish casting the spell. It'll be down to initiative."
Sorcerer: "But how can he know what I'm about to do? How can anyone?"
DM: "He doesn't know, but he's aware enough of you that he knows something is happening. If you're fast enough, you'll pull it off. If he's faster, then maybe he'll kill the guard."
Sorcerer: "And what about the other PCs?"
DM: "They're good at reading your intentions. You've been fighting together as a team for a while. If you start something, they'll capitalize on it by making their own move. That rogue friend of yours has some excellent reflexes. He might even beat you to the punch."
Sorcerer: "Seems weird that I start combat but don't go first."
DM: "Sure does. That's the problem with a resolution window of six seconds and being able to make a move, action and bonus action in one go. You want a more granular turn, go play GURPS, where you can take a single attack, or move one square in a 1 second turn... but dodge an infinite number of incoming attacks. Potayto, Tomahto."
Sorcerer: Fine, I rolled a 4 for init.
DM: Sux to be you, the guard is dead.
Misty step cannot be cast with hostile intent. You can't hurt anyone else with it. It is a Self target spell.
Like, no one says "Watch out pal or I'm going to Misty Step you so hard right now" it doesn't even make sense to consider it a hostile action. Fireball though? That's hostile to everyone, sometimes even to your own allies. ROFL.
You start combat when someone decides they wanna fight. That can be the NPC who sees a dude in a wizard hat doing arcane mumbles and decides he wants to stop him with some knuckle sandwiches. Boom, initiative. But the arcane mumbles didn't trigger the initiative, the guy wanting to throw down is what started it.
There are no turns before combat. So you are not "allowing him to start taking a turn" and you are not "stopping him mid-turn" there are no turns, and he hasn't started any turns.
If no one present is going to intervene, in any way, you start combat with the wizard at melee range and with the intent to shocking grasp, initiative is now rolled. Now, this is unlikely to happen, because someone present in the OP's scenario is almost assuredly going to wanna intervene. But, say they don't for whatever personal reasons they have, right. If no one aims to intervene, then there is nothing in conflict, no resolutions or contests of wills or desired outcomes are at stake yet. Not until he tries to zap-a-dude-who-don't-wanna-be-zapped. Boom, conflict. So that is when initiative is rolled. While he is standing there about to zap the guy.
There is no turns before this, partial or otherwise. initiative is rolled and the wizard simply starts in melee range of his target.
Initiative arises at the moment of conflict.
Say you're there and a wizard wants to misty step. If you want to intervene, initiative. If you don't care, no initiative.
Initiative is rolled to see who gets to act first. You, or the guy about to do something you wanna try to prevent (or, just, you know... punch).
So you roll initiative when this conflict occurs to determine the sequence of events. Who is faster? You or him? If he beats your initiative roll he was too quick and you couldn't do anything before he finished his goal, it happens. But if you win the initiative and act before he does the thing, in this case Misty Step, it means he was slow on the draw and you're going to get the opportunity to try to do something about it. And, he's not 'locked-in' because he can react to what you're doing now, too, the situation is now fully in flux.
I do, but misty step isn't hostile. Shocking grasp is tho. The first 'contested' event that needs combat rules to resolve here isn't the misty step, it is the shocking grasp. Unless, of course, an NPC wants to get in on this action before hand for whatever reason.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is a real concern for players, and it does suck when your plans fall to pieces because of some bad rolls. But, that is D&D, really. It might help to contextualize initiative as how responsive and fast to react to changing situations someone is. Someone with a lower initiative might get their turn passed to them with "before you even have time to fully carry out your plan, others have already jumped into action, and you now find yourself amid a chaotic melee, the situation has changed several times as you frantically process the scene deciding how to act. What do you do?"
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A creature's signaled intentions don't necessarily need to be hostile to prompt initiative, otherwise anyone could flee without ever going into initiative order. Initiative takes place when the DM judge it's appropriate to determine turn order. It's especially true when multiple creatures want to act simultaneously.
In a tense situation where many creatures are involved such as the above scenario, to me spellcasting is an intention that prompt initiative, as the others also have intentions to act.
If a DM isn't sure if initiative should be rolled, it can always ask away when one "attemps to [insert action], is anyone want to do something or you let be?" Most of the time, it will be clear if yes or no.
Rav, I'm not sure why you are hung up on "hostility" being the requirement for initiative, but 1) I can find no rule that dictates that hostility is required for initiative, and 2) I can find no rule dictating what is considered "hostile" or not. Combat can be hostile (most are) but it is not required to be (friendly jousting, competition, etc). It is also impossible for an inanimate object to be hostile, yet initiative is rolled when a complex trap is triggered (in fact, said complex trap doesn't even have initiative itself, it just acts on a preset timeframe in the order).
If you have those rules, please share them, otherwise, it's time to let that argument go.
For my final thought on this, I present 3 options assuming you can find a rule regarding hostility as requested:
While the first one is probably not hostile given the limited information presented, the second one is probably hostile. what makes you so sure the third is different from the second. Would you allow the knife waver to move right up to you before starting initiative? if not, then why would you allow someone to teleport right up to you before starting initiative?