I had a question about the ready action in combat. In previous versions of D&D, operating out of initiative order was allowed both by readying an action or by delaying your turn, which permanently changes your position in the order. I'm curious as to why delays are no longer allowed in 5e, when they may be desirable for tactical reasons.
For instance, a fighter may want to delay their entire turn until the party wizard has finished calling up a wall of stone or blasting the battlefield with something nasty. Simply readying an action wouldn't help in this situation, because the fighter may want to a) keep their reaction available, b) act in a non-contingent manner, and c) both move into position and attack in the same round.
What would be the pitfalls in implementing delays as a house rule?
You are right when saying that 5th edition does not mention anything about a delay in the Initiative order.
However, I think there is no harm in allowing a character choosing an initiative value equal or lower than its roll. Maybe, in this case, the initiative order should be hidden.
The reason turn delays don't exist in 5e--and I have this on very good authority--is quite simple: they add an amount of complexity (and take up an amount of play time) that the game designers were not at all happy with, for relatively little reward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Also, the delay option made initiative rolling kind of obsolete. Mostly because after a single turn, the entire party could have basically just said "I go after that character" without rolling by all delaying until they choose to act.
Interesting. I don't see them as all that complicated, but it is helpful to know that it was a deliberate choice.
The problem with delaying your turn is that you go from "what's the best possible turn I can take right now?" to "what's the best possible permutation of turns me and all my allies can take?" It also complicates spells and abilities that are supposed to last 1 round, since you can change when your next turn happens.
For the full explanation straight from the horse's mouth, see "Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round?" in Sage Advice Compendium.
Also, the delay option made initiative rolling kind of obsolete. Mostly because after a single turn, the entire party could have basically just said "I go after that character" without rolling by all delaying until they choose to act.
Not really, because initiative would still determine when your enemies act, and by delaying, you could never cause your character to act before an enemy if they couldn't already. Your party could all delay their actions, but at some point you're basically going to be giving your enemies a surprise round.
Interesting. I don't see them as all that complicated, but it is helpful to know that it was a deliberate choice.
The problem with delaying your turn is that you go from "what's the best possible turn I can take right now?" to "what's the best possible permutation of turns me and all my allies can take?" It also complicates spells and abilities that are supposed to last 1 round, since you can change when your next turn happens.
For the full explanation straight from the horse's mouth, see "Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round?" in Sage Advice Compendium.
The spell consideration was what I had in mind. One could theoretically squeeze a bit more power out of a spell by delaying their round and potentially extending a harmful effect on an enemy or a beneficial effect for an ally for a few more turns. Thing is, they could only really get away with this once, because at some point they'd be delaying their turn until the bottom of the initiative order at which point they can delay no further. As for worrying about strategy, I'm less convinced. I don't see a great reason why players should be locked out of a series of tactics they've practiced for an entire encounter because of one set of rolls.
I see all your points though. If I were to implement delays as a house rule, I might only allow it once in an encounter, and have it cost something in terms of a bonus action or reaction. But otherwise I don't see a truly compelling reason to forbid strategic planning. Delays seem like a way of implementing the "Side Initiative" option in the DMG, while not completely stripping away the value of having a high initiative bonus.
at first I liked 5e over Pathfinder. but this is just one more oversimplification. letting the character take their initiative roll or something lower at the start of combat should at least be an option in the book.
the same with rolling a natural 20 on death saves. and how strangely vague whatever happens next is. I've had to call games because of arguments around these rules.
at first I liked 5e over Pathfinder. but this is just one more oversimplification. letting the character take their initiative roll or something lower at the start of combat should at least be an option in the book.
the same with rolling a natural 20 on death saves. and how strangely vague whatever happens next is. I've had to call games because of arguments around these rules.
How is that vague? You make two saves immediately on a NAT 20, there’s nothing else to it.
on the main question, I’d allow a delay at the start of initiative only (the player can use a number lower than their roll) but I keep the order behind the screen so I would not allow turn delay shenanigans mid combat as it would mess up my combat notes
Starting at 14th level, when you hit a creature with an attack, you can use this feature to instantly transport the target through the lower planes. The creature disappears and hurtles through a nightmare landscape.
At the end of your next turn, the target returns to the space it previously occupied, or the nearest unoccupied space. If the target is not a fiend, it takes 10d10 psychic damage as it reels from its horrific experience.
Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.
If warlock delays its turn it will cause the target of Hurl Through Hell to be on the other planes of existance longer then normaly what will allow the party to basically have two rounds to deal with other enemies instead of one. It will kind of break the game.
the same with rolling a natural 20 on death saves. and how strangely vague whatever happens next is. I've had to call games because of arguments around these rules.
There's nothing vague about that:
"Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point."
Starting at 14th level, when you hit a creature with an attack, you can use this feature to instantly transport the target through the lower planes. The creature disappears and hurtles through a nightmare landscape.
At the end of your next turn, the target returns to the space it previously occupied, or the nearest unoccupied space. If the target is not a fiend, it takes 10d10 psychic damage as it reels from its horrific experience.
Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.
If warlock delays its turn it will cause the target of Hurl Through Hell to be on the other planes of existance longer then normaly what will allow the party to basically have two rounds to deal with other enemies instead of one. It will kind of break the game.
Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round? Nope. When it’s your turn, either you do something or you don’t. If you don’t want to do anything, consider taking the Dodge action so that you’ll, at least, have some extra protection. If you want to wait to act in response to something, take the Ready action, which lets you take part of your turn later.
For a variety of reasons, we didn’t include the option to delay your turn:
Your turn involves several decisions, including where to move and what action to take. If you could delay your turn, your decision-making would possibly become slower, since you would have to consider whether you wanted to take your turn at all. Multiply that extra analysis by the number of characters and monsters in a combat, and you have the potential for many slowdowns in play.
The ability to delay your turn can make initiative meaningless, as characters and monsters bounce around in the initiative order. If combatants can change their place in the initiative order at will, why use initiative at all? On top of that, changing initiative can easily turn into an unwelcome chore, especially for the DM, who might have to change the initiative list over and over during a fight.
Being able to delay your turn can let you wreak havoc on the durations of spells and other effects, particularly any of them that last until your next turn. Simply by changing when your turn happens, you could change the length of certain spells. The way to guard against such abuse would be to create a set of additional rules that would limit your ability to change durations. The net effect? More complexity would be added to the game, and with more complexity, there is greater potential for slower play.
Two of our goals for combat were for it to be speedy and for initiative to matter. We didn’t want to start every combat by rolling initiative and then undermine turn order with a delay option. Moreover, we felt that toying with initiative wasn’t where the focus should be in battle. Instead, the dramatic actions of the combatants should be the focus, with turns that could happen as quickly as possible. Plus, the faster your turn ends, the sooner you get to take your next turn.
I don't allow delaying, per se, but I am quite flexible in how I allow my players to use Ready. I still require a set trigger and it still uses the player's reaction, but I will allow pretty much a full turn to be used as that reaction (move, action and bonus action) at times, as long as those haven't been used on the turn and the entire use of them is spelled out.
So, for instance, if someone is about to cast sleep, I may allow the rogue to say "When the first enemy falls asleep from that spell, I run over to them (move), tie them up (action), then dash back to where I am now (bonus action)".
Now, this is very similar to delay. However, the restriction that it must be spelled out in advance makes it riskier and more difficult to use effectively. The trigger could fail (nobody falls asleep), or there could be better options if you had been able to decide after the caster finished their turn. I can also limit whether and how often I allow this, depending on circumstances. It doesn't get used often at my table, but when it does it can be incredibly effective and fun without completely breaking the simplicity of 5e's initiative order.
I like that Urth. I recently allowed some similar leeway, like allowing a 'bodyguard' PC to move 5-10 ft to intercept an enemy charging the party wizard from much further away and getting the readied attack off. A strict 'zero movement' didn't make sense in that situation. As someone wise has said, "don't be a slave to the mechanics".
When I GM, I let anyone at the time initiative is rolled set their initiative to any value less than or equal to what they actually rolled. It does wonders for no longer penalizing characters for having excellent initiative and thereby forcing them to act first when they don't want to.
I prefer to leave things as they are. The rules are already in place, the mechanics are clear and simple. The intent was to make combat fast and furious, which isn't what you get if the players are sitting there discussing things at length. That slows down the entire game.
If you just have to do something implement a "Tactics" skill. A single click, and you get a check against a difficulty class the DM generates, and then you're done. I can take anyone who wants that through it step by step in the character generator on D&D Beyond. It's in the customization area at the bottom of the skills entry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<Insert clever signature here>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a question about the ready action in combat. In previous versions of D&D, operating out of initiative order was allowed both by readying an action or by delaying your turn, which permanently changes your position in the order. I'm curious as to why delays are no longer allowed in 5e, when they may be desirable for tactical reasons.
For instance, a fighter may want to delay their entire turn until the party wizard has finished calling up a wall of stone or blasting the battlefield with something nasty. Simply readying an action wouldn't help in this situation, because the fighter may want to a) keep their reaction available, b) act in a non-contingent manner, and c) both move into position and attack in the same round.
What would be the pitfalls in implementing delays as a house rule?
You are right when saying that 5th edition does not mention anything about a delay in the Initiative order.
However, I think there is no harm in allowing a character choosing an initiative value equal or lower than its roll. Maybe, in this case, the initiative order should be hidden.
The reason turn delays don't exist in 5e--and I have this on very good authority--is quite simple: they add an amount of complexity (and take up an amount of play time) that the game designers were not at all happy with, for relatively little reward.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Interesting. I don't see them as all that complicated, but it is helpful to know that it was a deliberate choice.
Also, the delay option made initiative rolling kind of obsolete. Mostly because after a single turn, the entire party could have basically just said "I go after that character" without rolling by all delaying until they choose to act.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Not really, because initiative would still determine when your enemies act, and by delaying, you could never cause your character to act before an enemy if they couldn't already. Your party could all delay their actions, but at some point you're basically going to be giving your enemies a surprise round.
The spell consideration was what I had in mind. One could theoretically squeeze a bit more power out of a spell by delaying their round and potentially extending a harmful effect on an enemy or a beneficial effect for an ally for a few more turns. Thing is, they could only really get away with this once, because at some point they'd be delaying their turn until the bottom of the initiative order at which point they can delay no further. As for worrying about strategy, I'm less convinced. I don't see a great reason why players should be locked out of a series of tactics they've practiced for an entire encounter because of one set of rolls.
I see all your points though. If I were to implement delays as a house rule, I might only allow it once in an encounter, and have it cost something in terms of a bonus action or reaction. But otherwise I don't see a truly compelling reason to forbid strategic planning. Delays seem like a way of implementing the "Side Initiative" option in the DMG, while not completely stripping away the value of having a high initiative bonus.
at first I liked 5e over Pathfinder. but this is just one more oversimplification. letting the character take their initiative roll or something lower at the start of combat should at least be an option in the book.
the same with rolling a natural 20 on death saves. and how strangely vague whatever happens next is. I've had to call games because of arguments around these rules.
How is that vague? You make two saves immediately on a NAT 20, there’s nothing else to it.
on the main question, I’d allow a delay at the start of initiative only (the player can use a number lower than their roll) but I keep the order behind the screen so I would not allow turn delay shenanigans mid combat as it would mess up my combat notes
I know this is an old topic but I must note this.
Consider Warlock feature:
If warlock delays its turn it will cause the target of Hurl Through Hell to be on the other planes of existance longer then normaly what will allow the party to basically have two rounds to deal with other enemies instead of one. It will kind of break the game.
There's nothing vague about that:
"Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point."
Which is why there is no "delay" in D&D 5E.
Not to mention what would happen if monks could delay their turns after using Stunning Strike...
Two pretty simple ways you could solve the 'longer spell/effect' problem:
1: the spell/effect still ends at the original initiative count (requires a little more effort on the DM's part)
2: you can't delay your turn while benefiting from a spell or effect you created that ends on your next turn
Here's a Sage Advice on the subject that might interest you https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-answers-august-2015
Can you delay your turn and take it later in the round? Nope. When it’s your turn, either you do something or you don’t. If you don’t want to do anything, consider taking the Dodge action so that you’ll, at least, have some extra protection. If you want to wait to act in response to something, take the Ready action, which lets you take part of your turn later.
For a variety of reasons, we didn’t include the option to delay your turn:
Two of our goals for combat were for it to be speedy and for initiative to matter. We didn’t want to start every combat by rolling initiative and then undermine turn order with a delay option. Moreover, we felt that toying with initiative wasn’t where the focus should be in battle. Instead, the dramatic actions of the combatants should be the focus, with turns that could happen as quickly as possible. Plus, the faster your turn ends, the sooner you get to take your next turn.
I don't allow delaying, per se, but I am quite flexible in how I allow my players to use Ready. I still require a set trigger and it still uses the player's reaction, but I will allow pretty much a full turn to be used as that reaction (move, action and bonus action) at times, as long as those haven't been used on the turn and the entire use of them is spelled out.
So, for instance, if someone is about to cast sleep, I may allow the rogue to say "When the first enemy falls asleep from that spell, I run over to them (move), tie them up (action), then dash back to where I am now (bonus action)".
Now, this is very similar to delay. However, the restriction that it must be spelled out in advance makes it riskier and more difficult to use effectively. The trigger could fail (nobody falls asleep), or there could be better options if you had been able to decide after the caster finished their turn. I can also limit whether and how often I allow this, depending on circumstances. It doesn't get used often at my table, but when it does it can be incredibly effective and fun without completely breaking the simplicity of 5e's initiative order.
I like that Urth. I recently allowed some similar leeway, like allowing a 'bodyguard' PC to move 5-10 ft to intercept an enemy charging the party wizard from much further away and getting the readied attack off. A strict 'zero movement' didn't make sense in that situation. As someone wise has said, "don't be a slave to the mechanics".
When I GM, I let anyone at the time initiative is rolled set their initiative to any value less than or equal to what they actually rolled. It does wonders for no longer penalizing characters for having excellent initiative and thereby forcing them to act first when they don't want to.
That's a good idea, as a one-time choice. Nothing gets messed with mid-combat.
That said, a player who doesn't want to go first could just do nothing on their first turn and wait for the next...
I prefer to leave things as they are. The rules are already in place, the mechanics are clear and simple. The intent was to make combat fast and furious, which isn't what you get if the players are sitting there discussing things at length. That slows down the entire game.
If you just have to do something implement a "Tactics" skill. A single click, and you get a check against a difficulty class the DM generates, and then you're done. I can take anyone who wants that through it step by step in the character generator on D&D Beyond. It's in the customization area at the bottom of the skills entry.
<Insert clever signature here>