So in my campaign our DM has enforced a restriction to in character talking on your turn. For example, he allowed a player to ask some enemies "why are you attacking us?" The NPC's had to respond when their turn came up.
So in our last combat, we had our cleric surrounded by 3 wargs while a couple more were on the fighter. I'm playing a wizard tank build, which is pretty good, and decided to use Vortex Warp on the cleric to get him out of harms way. He decided to resist it. I ask "do you really want to resist my spell?" He says yes, and successfully resists it. This of course frustrates me, but I thought this could have been avoided if we could have done some basic communication. I could say "I'll get you out" and he responds with "no, I'm staying." No spells or actions wasted.
So is there a good case I could make to the DM to allow this much limited communication so I don't have to waste actions and resources because of conflicts in intentions?
First, I’d chat with other players, and see if they agree with you. If everyone is on board, I would try something like: This house rule is not fun. Personally, I think every rule should be working toward making the game fun. Of course, what is fun will be different for different people, but that’s a whole different thread.
But is there more context? Did the party have a habit of spending half an hour strategizing about each little detail in a fight? What was the problem your DM was trying to solve, did they say?
But is there more context? Did the party have a habit of spending half an hour strategizing about each little detail in a fight? What was the problem your DM was trying to solve, did they say?
This rule has been from the beginning. He's actually lax on table talks, but says we can only speak in character on our turns in combat. He's just enforcing what he thinks is RAW, and I don't think he's necessarily wrong. But I do think he could loosen up that one.
For a little more context, the cleric is playing his first campaign, so he's making mistakes here and there. The reason he resisted is because he wanted to try his stellar bodies spell on the wargs. I didn't think he was in a good position to do this because there were 3 attacking him, and two of them had flanking advantage (the DM uses flanking rules).
Later on he ended up getting downed because a Naga came out of nowhere in the fight and we had a hard time with that one. Because the DM thought we handled prior encounters too easily, he made some changes to this Naga. It used Blight to target all 3 of us at once and seemingly wasn't limited on spell slots for it since it cast this spell 3 times on us. We barely beat it. We have a party of 3 at lvl 8.
For a little more context, the cleric is playing his first campaign, so he's making mistakes here and there. The reason he resisted is because he wanted to try his stellar bodies spell on the wargs. I didn't think he was in a good position to do this because there were 3 attacking him, and two of them had flanking advantage (the DM uses flanking rules).
Later on he ended up getting downed because a Naga came out of nowhere in the fight and we had a hard time with that one. Because the DM thought we handled prior encounters too easily, he made some changes to this Naga. It used Blight to target all 3 of us at once and seemingly wasn't limited on spell slots for it since it cast this spell 3 times on us. We barely beat it. We have a party of 3 at lvl 8
Ok first things first, you need to relax and stop trying to control everything in this game.
People are allowed to make mistakes, it's not the end of the world, especially new players. It is generally considered rude to tell another player what to do on their turn unless they ask for suggestions. The only appropriate table talk when you think someone is making a mistake is to politely remind them of information the party knows that they might have forgotten in the moment and which might affect their decision - e.g. in the case of the cleric reminding them that all three wargs will get attacks on them with advantage before their turn. If they still want to stay there that's their choice and you should respect it. Especially since in this case you were wrong, the cleric didn't need to be vortex warped away they survived the wargs just fine. (RAW a Worg is CR 1/2, it's nothing to a level 8 character, why were you worried about them at all??)
Even having wasted a spell slot & a turn, the party beat a Deadly combat that the DM HBed to be even more deadly than Deadly, so your party is probably OP min-maxed so don't worry about playing "optimally", wasting some spell slots or turns here or there is not the end of the world, you will still be able to handily beat combats designed for your level without issue. 5e is not a strategic combat game it's far too easy for that.
Finally, the DM is a person at the table too. They are equally deserving to have fun as you or anyone else at the table. In general, the players easily stomping any combat is not very fun for the DM, so you should not be expecting that to be the game experience regardless of how OP you build your character or how optimally you play. Characters in your party are going to take damage, they will be knocked out, they might even die (and then get resurrected), that is part of the game, fighting monsters is supposed to be dangerous. If that isn't the type of game-experience you want you need to talk with the other people at the table including the DM to negotiate a style & challenge level of game that everyone will enjoy.
FYI a Spirit Naga is RAW CR 8 and Worgs are CR 1/2, a party of 3 level 8 characters can generally handle 2x CR 8 creatures if they have their full resources available. Hence the DM HBed the Naga to be even more dangerous to test your party and determine the difficulty they need in order to challenge your party, so that they can also have fun at the table.
The rules actually do say you can communicate through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn so the DM not allowing back and forth is understandable.
As DM i usually allow brief exchange, but put limit, especially when players start to questions each others about next action, movement or elaborate plans.
Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
This is why we have a secret discord channel that the DM can't see. Obviously we don't use it in the middle of combat, but we can say, "I'm going to get you out on my turn" and they can respond with "I'm staying" and then when it is my turn I can say verbally "Let me know if you want out and I'll get you!" we still act in character and keep our utterances short, but can do a bit of limited strategy or write things we need to make sure we don't forget. Of course, our healer is the one least likely to pay attention, so there are limitations.
For a little more context, the cleric is playing his first campaign, so he's making mistakes here and there. The reason he resisted is because he wanted to try his stellar bodies spell on the wargs. I didn't think he was in a good position to do this because there were 3 attacking him, and two of them had flanking advantage (the DM uses flanking rules).
Later on he ended up getting downed because a Naga came out of nowhere in the fight and we had a hard time with that one. Because the DM thought we handled prior encounters too easily, he made some changes to this Naga. It used Blight to target all 3 of us at once and seemingly wasn't limited on spell slots for it since it cast this spell 3 times on us. We barely beat it. We have a party of 3 at lvl 8
Ok first things first, you need to relax and stop trying to control everything in this game.
People are allowed to make mistakes, it's not the end of the world, especially new players. It is generally considered rude to tell another player what to do on their turn unless they ask for suggestions. The only appropriate table talk when you think someone is making a mistake is to politely remind them of information the party knows that they might have forgotten in the moment and which might affect their decision - e.g. in the case of the cleric reminding them that all three wargs will get attacks on them with advantage before their turn. If they still want to stay there that's their choice and you should respect it. Especially since in this case you were wrong, the cleric didn't need to be vortex warped away they survived the wargs just fine. (RAW a Worg is CR 1/2, it's nothing to a level 8 character, why were you worried about them at all??)
Even having wasted a spell slot & a turn, the party beat a Deadly combat that the DM HBed to be even more deadly than Deadly, so your party is probably OP min-maxed so don't worry about playing "optimally", wasting some spell slots or turns here or there is not the end of the world, you will still be able to handily beat combats designed for your level without issue. 5e is not a strategic combat game it's far too easy for that.
Finally, the DM is a person at the table too. They are equally deserving to have fun as you or anyone else at the table. In general, the players easily stomping any combat is not very fun for the DM, so you should not be expecting that to be the game experience regardless of how OP you build your character or how optimally you play. Characters in your party are going to take damage, they will be knocked out, they might even die (and then get resurrected), that is part of the game, fighting monsters is supposed to be dangerous. If that isn't the type of game-experience you want you need to talk with the other people at the table including the DM to negotiate a style & challenge level of game that everyone will enjoy.
FYI a Spirit Naga is RAW CR 8 and Worgs are CR 1/2, a party of 3 level 8 characters can generally handle 2x CR 8 creatures if they have their full resources available. Hence the DM HBed the Naga to be even more dangerous to test your party and determine the difficulty they need in order to challenge your party, so that they can also have fun at the table.
I once broke this rule because a player was going to get their PC killed. Basically the rogue went after the bbeg that the other members of the party had previously fought. The player who was going to help him was late to the game. So one rogue on top of the roof with a npc that regenerates and unable to get sneak attack damage.
Mathematically the bbeg was healing for most of the damage the rogue was capable of doing. And with two attacks the bbeg was going to eliminate the player. So I went ahead and told him he didn't have a chance unless someone wanted to come help him.
It was the first five minutes of the game session and no need for the character to die when their PC should have realized they didn't have a chance.
Ok first things first, you need to relax and stop trying to control everything in this game.
People are allowed to make mistakes, it's not the end of the world, especially new players. It is generally considered rude to tell another player what to do on their turn unless they ask for suggestions. The only appropriate table talk when you think someone is making a mistake is to politely remind them of information the party knows that they might have forgotten in the moment and which might affect their decision - e.g. in the case of the cleric reminding them that all three wargs will get attacks on them with advantage before their turn. If they still want to stay there that's their choice and you should respect it. Especially since in this case you were wrong, the cleric didn't need to be vortex warped away they survived the wargs just fine. (RAW a Worg is CR 1/2, it's nothing to a level 8 character, why were you worried about them at all??)
I don't believe I was asking for more control of others. I was asking for the ability to at least signal intentions so we can coordinate better and avoid clashes like this.
And I wouldn't say I was wrong because the damage he took earlier contributed to him getting downed 2 rounds before the end of the fight. I have no doubt he could have handled the wargs, but not without losing a bunch of HP.
And honestly it's fine that he wanted to stay and try out his spell, but I'm not gonna want to coordinate with him if he's not going to cooperate. So I think some basic communication should be allowed, just what I suggested in OP.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I think your Vortex Warp example is fine. You don't have time to wait mid-combat. By the time you've articulated what you're going to do and heard the other character's objection to the plan, you've wasted like half a round. I think it's fair to require you to jump the gun and hope it's what your ally wanted, ready an action, or do it on your next turn after you've gotten a reply. If combat does go "wrong", that's an opportunity to roleplay. Your characters don't have to be perfectly rational during fights.
I think the bigger issue here is that your group was apparently doing well in combat and now the DM has over-corrected to the point that you feel like you can't afford to have the cleric player, who's still learning, make tactical mistakes.
I think the bigger issue here is that your group was apparently doing well in combat and now the DM has over-corrected to the point that you feel like you can't afford to have the cleric player, who's still learning, make tactical mistakes.
Honestly, I think the OP is exaggerating how close to a TPK they were. This is 5e, one character getting reduced to 0 hp in the last 2 rounds of combat is not a big deal. They have a wizard tank, a fighter (decent survivability & DPR) and a cleric. If the OP is worried about the cleric going down leading to a TPK they can take Life Transference so that their wizard-tank can heal the cleric if they go down, or take Magic Initiate to pick up an emergency Healing Word. And remember this was after the DM tripled the damage of the Naga.
I think the bigger issue here is that your group was apparently doing well in combat and now the DM has over-corrected to the point that you feel like you can't afford to have the cleric player, who's still learning, make tactical mistakes.
Honestly, I think the OP is exaggerating how close to a TPK they were. This is 5e, one character getting reduced to 0 hp in the last 2 rounds of combat is not a big deal. They have a wizard tank, a fighter (decent survivability & DPR) and a cleric. If the OP is worried about the cleric going down leading to a TPK they can take Life Transference so that their wizard-tank can heal the cleric if they go down, or take Magic Initiate to pick up an emergency Healing Word. And remember this was after the DM tripled the damage of the Naga.
Since you think I'm exaggerating, I was at 13 health, the fighter was at 19 health. Another Blight spell would have easily taken us out. My character is Artificer 4, Wizard 4. I don't have lvl3 spells. My character is tanky at the cost of spell progression.
And FYI, another reason I had to teleport the Cleric was because my character is optimized to take multiple melee enemies. With the Rune Shaper feat, I have Armor of Agathys, and abjuration wizard gives me Arcane Ward. I also have Spiny Shield from the Humblewood Campaign, same book the cleric gets his night domain. I can reduce damage and deal it back on top of getting a bigger HP buffer. But this only works on creatures with melee.
The Naga didn't do any attack that wasn't a spell. It essentially exploited a weakness in my character because I don't get counterspell until next level and I don't get magic resistance until much later. I took 125 damage that encounter and only have 71 true HP (not counting damage reduction from Spiny Shield). The last attack from the Naga did 46 damage to me and half that to the fighter. Am I exaggerating?
And FYI, another reason I had to teleport the Cleric was because my character is optimized to take multiple melee enemies. With the Rune Shaper feat, I have Armor of Agathys, and abjuration wizard gives me Arcane Ward. I also have Spiny Shield from the Humblewood Campaign, same book the cleric gets his night domain. I can reduce damage and deal it back on top of getting a bigger HP buffer. But this only works on creatures with melee.
Aka you wanted to show off how powerful your character is, and tell the cleric to go back and sit at the back where they belong. Guess what, no character gets to shine in every single combat, every character has weaknesses that will occasionally come up. The DM was actually pretty kind since I assume both you and the fighter have Con save proficiency, if the DM really wanted to be vindictive they would have used the Naga's Hold Person upcast to hit all of you then Lightning Bolted you to death, or used Dominate Person on the fighter and have you fight each other.
Why are you so angry about this? What do you think would have happened if you did all fall to 0hp? That the DM would just suddenly end the campaign, game over and tell you all to go home and never see you again? It's just a game, let other people have their fun sometimes. Even in the case of the whole party dropping to 0 hp there's dozens of ways for the story to continue, one of you likely would have made all their death saves and eventually recovered consciousness and could have had a heroic moment saving the rest of the party. The DM could have you make new characters who go on a quest to discover what happened to your previous characters, recover their bodies and resurrect them, or deus ex-machina's another group of adventurers finding and rescuing you. Your characters might have been visited by Gods (or Devils) and offered deals in exchange for resurrecting you, setting you off on a new campaign arc. Or you all end up stuck in a strange demiplane awaiting your afterlives and have to uncover a mystery of corruption behind what this place is and how to escape.
In combat character talking should be limited too around 6 seconds, since your turn is around 6 seconds but this should not apply to players, people might make arguments around metagaming but overall, most things a person knows about their character is metagaming, there is merely good metagaming and bad metagaming, out of game discussions among the party is not bad metagaming.
An adventuring party should be more capable of working together/cohesively than can be expressed in 6 seconds of talking, so in character, yes 6 seconds, out of character, no, this makes no sense. It is still a game at the end of the day and simply being able to ask "Do you want me to pull you out of there?" out of character should have been a reasonable thing to do before casting and finding out that the answer was no.
In combat character talking should be limited too around 6 seconds, since your turn is around 6 seconds but this should not apply to players, people might make arguments around metagaming but overall, most things a person knows about their character is metagaming, there is merely good metagaming and bad metagaming, out of game discussions among the party is not bad metagaming.
A turn is not 6 seconds but a fraction of it. A round is 6 seconds, in which each participant takes a turn
The Order of Combat: The game organizes combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
In combat character talking should be limited too around 6 seconds, since your turn is around 6 seconds but this should not apply to players, people might make arguments around metagaming but overall, most things a person knows about their character is metagaming, there is merely good metagaming and bad metagaming, out of game discussions among the party is not bad metagaming.
A turn is not 6 seconds but a fraction of it. A round is 6 seconds, in which each participant takes a turn
The Order of Combat: The game organizes combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
While that is true, I'd still stick to 6 seconds, unless you really want to divide a round up by the number of participating creatures, in a 20 creature (thus 20 turn combat), that would be 6/20 or 0.3 seconds per turn, this doesn't make sense... else fighters really are blistering fast when a level 11 fighter can pull off up to 8 attacks in 0.3 seconds. I usually see turn time as the same as round time but the actions that occur first are based on initiative but otherwise concurrent too all other turns... still that isn't mechanically supported as such. Just the way I usually view it since it makes more sense. I do not believe the system declares exactly how the breakdown here works tho.
In combat character talking should be limited too around 6 seconds, since your turn is around 6 seconds but this should not apply to players, people might make arguments around metagaming but overall, most things a person knows about their character is metagaming, there is merely good metagaming and bad metagaming, out of game discussions among the party is not bad metagaming.
A turn is not 6 seconds but a fraction of it. A round is 6 seconds, in which each participant takes a turn
The Order of Combat: The game organizes combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
While that is true, I'd still stick to 6 seconds, unless you really want to divide a round up by the number of participating creatures, in a 20 creature (thus 20 turn combat), that would be 6/20 or 0.3 seconds per turn, this doesn't make sense... else fighters really are blistering fast when a level 11 fighter can pull off up to 8 attacks in 0.3 seconds. I usually see turn time as the same as round time but the actions that occur first are based on initiative but otherwise concurrent too all other turns... still that isn't mechanically supported as such. Just the way I usually view it since it makes more sense. I do not believe the system declares exactly how the breakdown here works tho.
I'm pretty sure that the idea is that everything happens simultaneously. But since that's very difficult to play, then we divide it in turns. But if we assume that turns are less than 6 seconds long, then we're falling into the common joke of one creature taking their turn while the rest stand there doing nothing. I would say everyone has 6 seconds per turn and they're all simultaneous, divided in turn for convenience. Otherwise a lot of people's immersion would break.
Ok first things first, you need to relax and stop trying to control everything in this game.
People are allowed to make mistakes, it's not the end of the world, especially new players. It is generally considered rude to tell another player what to do on their turn unless they ask for suggestions. The only appropriate table talk when you think someone is making a mistake is to politely remind them of information the party knows that they might have forgotten in the moment and which might affect their decision - e.g. in the case of the cleric reminding them that all three wargs will get attacks on them with advantage before their turn. If they still want to stay there that's their choice and you should respect it. Especially since in this case you were wrong, the cleric didn't need to be vortex warped away they survived the wargs just fine. (RAW a Worg is CR 1/2, it's nothing to a level 8 character, why were you worried about them at all??)
I don't believe I was asking for more control of others. I was asking for the ability to at least signal intentions so we can coordinate better and avoid clashes like this.
And I wouldn't say I was wrong because the damage he took earlier contributed to him getting downed 2 rounds before the end of the fight. I have no doubt he could have handled the wargs, but not without losing a bunch of HP.
And honestly it's fine that he wanted to stay and try out his spell, but I'm not gonna want to coordinate with him if he's not going to cooperate. So I think some basic communication should be allowed, just what I suggested in OP.
I have had a similar problem in a lot of combats over the years.
It just happens. In my last I had worked my placement and figured out the next spell I was going to cast on one of the bad guys. An AOE spell. Well the bad guy fell into the trap and moved away from the combat area right into my range. Immediately one of my allies breaks off from another bad guy and closes with the one I was going to spell. If I had yelled to get back the BG would have known the trap (and my hiding spot) and moved also.
Things happen. It makes roleplay much better in the end. now you have something to argue(chatter banter) in character with with the other player.
And FYI, another reason I had to teleport the Cleric was because my character is optimized to take multiple melee enemies. With the Rune Shaper feat, I have Armor of Agathys, and abjuration wizard gives me Arcane Ward. I also have Spiny Shield from the Humblewood Campaign, same book the cleric gets his night domain. I can reduce damage and deal it back on top of getting a bigger HP buffer. But this only works on creatures with melee.
Aka you wanted to show off how powerful your character is, and tell the cleric to go back and sit at the back where they belong. Guess what, no character gets to shine in every single combat, every character has weaknesses that will occasionally come up. The DM was actually pretty kind since I assume both you and the fighter have Con save proficiency, if the DM really wanted to be vindictive they would have used the Naga's Hold Person upcast to hit all of you then Lightning Bolted you to death, or used Dominate Person on the fighter and have you fight each other.
Why are you so angry about this? What do you think would have happened if you did all fall to 0hp? That the DM would just suddenly end the campaign, game over and tell you all to go home and never see you again? It's just a game, let other people have their fun sometimes. Even in the case of the whole party dropping to 0 hp there's dozens of ways for the story to continue, one of you likely would have made all their death saves and eventually recovered consciousness and could have had a heroic moment saving the rest of the party. The DM could have you make new characters who go on a quest to discover what happened to your previous characters, recover their bodies and resurrect them, or deus ex-machina's another group of adventurers finding and rescuing you. Your characters might have been visited by Gods (or Devils) and offered deals in exchange for resurrecting you, setting you off on a new campaign arc. Or you all end up stuck in a strange demiplane awaiting your afterlives and have to uncover a mystery of corruption behind what this place is and how to escape.
More like he could have saved HP in the fight. I didn't think it was controversial for a tank to try and tank. The way I see it, by taking my escape he perhaps could have survived another round which means one more hit which means one less round to win and no one goes down.
And I don't know why you're shifting the goalpost at this point. I say that we narrowly beat it. Then you reply that i'm exaggerating then I described the situation and you say "dying isn't the end of the campaign..." OK... but I said we narrowly beat it. Was I wrong? Was I exaggerating?
And the frustrating part is not that I didn't get to show off or whatever... it's that I spent an action and a spell slot to help him only to be refused. And that's why i'm asking for good reason to be able to at least signal each other so I can maybe do coordination with my party without wasting a turn because my party won't cooperate.
So in my campaign our DM has enforced a restriction to in character talking on your turn. For example, he allowed a player to ask some enemies "why are you attacking us?" The NPC's had to respond when their turn came up.
So in our last combat, we had our cleric surrounded by 3 wargs while a couple more were on the fighter. I'm playing a wizard tank build, which is pretty good, and decided to use Vortex Warp on the cleric to get him out of harms way. He decided to resist it. I ask "do you really want to resist my spell?" He says yes, and successfully resists it. This of course frustrates me, but I thought this could have been avoided if we could have done some basic communication. I could say "I'll get you out" and he responds with "no, I'm staying." No spells or actions wasted.
So is there a good case I could make to the DM to allow this much limited communication so I don't have to waste actions and resources because of conflicts in intentions?
First, I’d chat with other players, and see if they agree with you. If everyone is on board, I would try something like: This house rule is not fun. Personally, I think every rule should be working toward making the game fun. Of course, what is fun will be different for different people, but that’s a whole different thread.
But is there more context? Did the party have a habit of spending half an hour strategizing about each little detail in a fight? What was the problem your DM was trying to solve, did they say?
This rule has been from the beginning. He's actually lax on table talks, but says we can only speak in character on our turns in combat. He's just enforcing what he thinks is RAW, and I don't think he's necessarily wrong. But I do think he could loosen up that one.
For a little more context, the cleric is playing his first campaign, so he's making mistakes here and there. The reason he resisted is because he wanted to try his stellar bodies spell on the wargs. I didn't think he was in a good position to do this because there were 3 attacking him, and two of them had flanking advantage (the DM uses flanking rules).
Later on he ended up getting downed because a Naga came out of nowhere in the fight and we had a hard time with that one. Because the DM thought we handled prior encounters too easily, he made some changes to this Naga. It used Blight to target all 3 of us at once and seemingly wasn't limited on spell slots for it since it cast this spell 3 times on us. We barely beat it. We have a party of 3 at lvl 8.
Ok first things first, you need to relax and stop trying to control everything in this game.
People are allowed to make mistakes, it's not the end of the world, especially new players. It is generally considered rude to tell another player what to do on their turn unless they ask for suggestions. The only appropriate table talk when you think someone is making a mistake is to politely remind them of information the party knows that they might have forgotten in the moment and which might affect their decision - e.g. in the case of the cleric reminding them that all three wargs will get attacks on them with advantage before their turn. If they still want to stay there that's their choice and you should respect it. Especially since in this case you were wrong, the cleric didn't need to be vortex warped away they survived the wargs just fine. (RAW a Worg is CR 1/2, it's nothing to a level 8 character, why were you worried about them at all??)
Even having wasted a spell slot & a turn, the party beat a Deadly combat that the DM HBed to be even more deadly than Deadly, so your party is probably OP min-maxed so don't worry about playing "optimally", wasting some spell slots or turns here or there is not the end of the world, you will still be able to handily beat combats designed for your level without issue. 5e is not a strategic combat game it's far too easy for that.
Finally, the DM is a person at the table too. They are equally deserving to have fun as you or anyone else at the table. In general, the players easily stomping any combat is not very fun for the DM, so you should not be expecting that to be the game experience regardless of how OP you build your character or how optimally you play. Characters in your party are going to take damage, they will be knocked out, they might even die (and then get resurrected), that is part of the game, fighting monsters is supposed to be dangerous. If that isn't the type of game-experience you want you need to talk with the other people at the table including the DM to negotiate a style & challenge level of game that everyone will enjoy.
FYI a Spirit Naga is RAW CR 8 and Worgs are CR 1/2, a party of 3 level 8 characters can generally handle 2x CR 8 creatures if they have their full resources available. Hence the DM HBed the Naga to be even more dangerous to test your party and determine the difficulty they need in order to challenge your party, so that they can also have fun at the table.
The rules actually do say you can communicate through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn so the DM not allowing back and forth is understandable.
As DM i usually allow brief exchange, but put limit, especially when players start to questions each others about next action, movement or elaborate plans.
This is why we have a secret discord channel that the DM can't see. Obviously we don't use it in the middle of combat, but we can say, "I'm going to get you out on my turn" and they can respond with "I'm staying" and then when it is my turn I can say verbally "Let me know if you want out and I'll get you!" we still act in character and keep our utterances short, but can do a bit of limited strategy or write things we need to make sure we don't forget. Of course, our healer is the one least likely to pay attention, so there are limitations.
I once broke this rule because a player was going to get their PC killed. Basically the rogue went after the bbeg that the other members of the party had previously fought. The player who was going to help him was late to the game. So one rogue on top of the roof with a npc that regenerates and unable to get sneak attack damage.
Mathematically the bbeg was healing for most of the damage the rogue was capable of doing. And with two attacks the bbeg was going to eliminate the player. So I went ahead and told him he didn't have a chance unless someone wanted to come help him.
It was the first five minutes of the game session and no need for the character to die when their PC should have realized they didn't have a chance.
I don't believe I was asking for more control of others. I was asking for the ability to at least signal intentions so we can coordinate better and avoid clashes like this.
And I wouldn't say I was wrong because the damage he took earlier contributed to him getting downed 2 rounds before the end of the fight. I have no doubt he could have handled the wargs, but not without losing a bunch of HP.
And honestly it's fine that he wanted to stay and try out his spell, but I'm not gonna want to coordinate with him if he's not going to cooperate. So I think some basic communication should be allowed, just what I suggested in OP.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I think your Vortex Warp example is fine. You don't have time to wait mid-combat. By the time you've articulated what you're going to do and heard the other character's objection to the plan, you've wasted like half a round. I think it's fair to require you to jump the gun and hope it's what your ally wanted, ready an action, or do it on your next turn after you've gotten a reply. If combat does go "wrong", that's an opportunity to roleplay. Your characters don't have to be perfectly rational during fights.
I think the bigger issue here is that your group was apparently doing well in combat and now the DM has over-corrected to the point that you feel like you can't afford to have the cleric player, who's still learning, make tactical mistakes.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Honestly, I think the OP is exaggerating how close to a TPK they were. This is 5e, one character getting reduced to 0 hp in the last 2 rounds of combat is not a big deal. They have a wizard tank, a fighter (decent survivability & DPR) and a cleric. If the OP is worried about the cleric going down leading to a TPK they can take Life Transference so that their wizard-tank can heal the cleric if they go down, or take Magic Initiate to pick up an emergency Healing Word. And remember this was after the DM tripled the damage of the Naga.
Since you think I'm exaggerating, I was at 13 health, the fighter was at 19 health. Another Blight spell would have easily taken us out. My character is Artificer 4, Wizard 4. I don't have lvl3 spells. My character is tanky at the cost of spell progression.
And FYI, another reason I had to teleport the Cleric was because my character is optimized to take multiple melee enemies. With the Rune Shaper feat, I have Armor of Agathys, and abjuration wizard gives me Arcane Ward. I also have Spiny Shield from the Humblewood Campaign, same book the cleric gets his night domain. I can reduce damage and deal it back on top of getting a bigger HP buffer. But this only works on creatures with melee.
The Naga didn't do any attack that wasn't a spell. It essentially exploited a weakness in my character because I don't get counterspell until next level and I don't get magic resistance until much later. I took 125 damage that encounter and only have 71 true HP (not counting damage reduction from Spiny Shield). The last attack from the Naga did 46 damage to me and half that to the fighter. Am I exaggerating?
Aka you wanted to show off how powerful your character is, and tell the cleric to go back and sit at the back where they belong. Guess what, no character gets to shine in every single combat, every character has weaknesses that will occasionally come up. The DM was actually pretty kind since I assume both you and the fighter have Con save proficiency, if the DM really wanted to be vindictive they would have used the Naga's Hold Person upcast to hit all of you then Lightning Bolted you to death, or used Dominate Person on the fighter and have you fight each other.
Why are you so angry about this? What do you think would have happened if you did all fall to 0hp? That the DM would just suddenly end the campaign, game over and tell you all to go home and never see you again? It's just a game, let other people have their fun sometimes. Even in the case of the whole party dropping to 0 hp there's dozens of ways for the story to continue, one of you likely would have made all their death saves and eventually recovered consciousness and could have had a heroic moment saving the rest of the party. The DM could have you make new characters who go on a quest to discover what happened to your previous characters, recover their bodies and resurrect them, or deus ex-machina's another group of adventurers finding and rescuing you. Your characters might have been visited by Gods (or Devils) and offered deals in exchange for resurrecting you, setting you off on a new campaign arc. Or you all end up stuck in a strange demiplane awaiting your afterlives and have to uncover a mystery of corruption behind what this place is and how to escape.
In combat character talking should be limited too around 6 seconds, since your turn is around 6 seconds but this should not apply to players, people might make arguments around metagaming but overall, most things a person knows about their character is metagaming, there is merely good metagaming and bad metagaming, out of game discussions among the party is not bad metagaming.
An adventuring party should be more capable of working together/cohesively than can be expressed in 6 seconds of talking, so in character, yes 6 seconds, out of character, no, this makes no sense. It is still a game at the end of the day and simply being able to ask "Do you want me to pull you out of there?" out of character should have been a reasonable thing to do before casting and finding out that the answer was no.
A turn is not 6 seconds but a fraction of it. A round is 6 seconds, in which each participant takes a turn
While that is true, I'd still stick to 6 seconds, unless you really want to divide a round up by the number of participating creatures, in a 20 creature (thus 20 turn combat), that would be 6/20 or 0.3 seconds per turn, this doesn't make sense... else fighters really are blistering fast when a level 11 fighter can pull off up to 8 attacks in 0.3 seconds. I usually see turn time as the same as round time but the actions that occur first are based on initiative but otherwise concurrent too all other turns... still that isn't mechanically supported as such. Just the way I usually view it since it makes more sense. I do not believe the system declares exactly how the breakdown here works tho.
I'm pretty sure that the idea is that everything happens simultaneously. But since that's very difficult to play, then we divide it in turns. But if we assume that turns are less than 6 seconds long, then we're falling into the common joke of one creature taking their turn while the rest stand there doing nothing. I would say everyone has 6 seconds per turn and they're all simultaneous, divided in turn for convenience. Otherwise a lot of people's immersion would break.
It reminds me of the comical video that Viva La Dirt League mockingk D&D Turn Based ; )
Mitsubishi Motors Canada | Brand Affinity | Pilot 16x9 30s FR Edited (youtube.com)
I have had a similar problem in a lot of combats over the years.
It just happens.
In my last I had worked my placement and figured out the next spell I was going to cast on one of the bad guys. An AOE spell. Well the bad guy fell into the trap and moved away from the combat area right into my range. Immediately one of my allies breaks off from another bad guy and closes with the one I was going to spell. If I had yelled to get back the BG would have known the trap (and my hiding spot) and moved also.
Things happen. It makes roleplay much better in the end. now you have something to argue(chatter banter) in character with with the other player.
look at it as a good thing in the long run.
More like he could have saved HP in the fight. I didn't think it was controversial for a tank to try and tank. The way I see it, by taking my escape he perhaps could have survived another round which means one more hit which means one less round to win and no one goes down.
And I don't know why you're shifting the goalpost at this point. I say that we narrowly beat it. Then you reply that i'm exaggerating then I described the situation and you say "dying isn't the end of the campaign..." OK... but I said we narrowly beat it. Was I wrong? Was I exaggerating?
And the frustrating part is not that I didn't get to show off or whatever... it's that I spent an action and a spell slot to help him only to be refused. And that's why i'm asking for good reason to be able to at least signal each other so I can maybe do coordination with my party without wasting a turn because my party won't cooperate.
Telepathy works well for combat communication.
Rary's Telepathic Bond works great and since its a ritual spell its cheap to cast.