So, I'm trying to figure out how surprise rounds work when the parties are aware of each other, but not certain that combat will take place. The problem in my mind is that combat, in these cases, is not triggered until a hostile action actually occurs. So, I can't very well start the combat by saying, "everyone roll initiative". Because, then when a player rolls higher than the opposition, he knows combat is coming.
Sure, if he's good at not meta-gaming, then no problem, he would just first wait to be attacked. But if he's not good at it, then he knows he gets the flat-footed restriction and all of that.
On the other hand, perhaps a sense-motive to know that his opponent(s) intend(s) to attack (with situational penalties for distance and ambient noise)?
Of course, the reversal of this situation is relevant to. How about the NPCs if they don't know the PCs are going to attack? It could work either way.
A couple of scenarios are listed below. I would appreciate your suggestions on how combat might reasonably occur.
Scenario 1:
A PC and NPC are in a bar. The NPC has clumsily (maybe not?) spilled a beer on the PC and the PC demands an apology. An argument ensues and they are face-to-face yelling at each other. The NPC is riled up enough that he takes the first swing. Is that a surprise round? Or does everyone roll initiative and he just happens to go first? Keep in mind that only an idiot PC, at this point, would not consider that violence is possible and not be ready.
Scenario 2:
A group of adventurers are on horseback riding across the plains of a wild, frontier land, populated with many aggressive and non-aggressive tribal natives. In the distance they see, coming towards them, another group of people on horseback--perhaps aggressive tribal nomads, perhaps peaceful tribal nomads, perhaps another band of traveling adventurers, perhaps just traveling merchants. The PCs are waiting to determine hostility level before making any attacks. Turns out that it's a group of hostile raiders from a local tribe of cannibals. As they get within a couple hundred feet, the nomads start shooting longbows. Again, the party would be naive to consider themselves safe from attack and would instead be ready.
Both scenarios are commonplace type of scenarios. My question is, how do you go about initiating combat in these cases--who rolls first? is there a surprise round? etc...
Thanks for this remedial advice.
So, I'm trying to figure out how surprise rounds work when the parties are aware of each other, but not certain that combat will take place.
When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds.
I generally have 'combat begin' at the first intent of hostile action. This means someone with quick reflexes can actually act before that action happens.
For instance, as soon as the guy in the bar decides to take a swing, roll inits. If the other guy beats him on init, you say "You see him wind up to take a swing at you. What do you do?" (or whatever)
For the attack at a couple hundred feet, I would probably give the PCs a perception check to notice that they're starting to aim longbows at them. Then roll inits. PCs who made the check gets to act in the surprise round.
You might get better responses from the Advice forum, there's a lot of different ways for people to run this.
The real problem with that approach, Grick, is that you can have the incredibly nonsensical situation of the whole party acting prior to the person who is starting the fight actually starts the fight. I don't want to repost this in the Advice forums and have two threads of the same thing. Here's the real problem, as I see it. From a rules perspective, which you've kindly repeated, we have the following phrases:
"At the start of a battle", "When combat begins", "When a combat starts"
But nowhere is the start of combat defined. Is it after the first punch is thrown? Is it before any hostile action is taken, but declaration of hostility has been made or people are taking menacing actions?
It seems to me that the real problem lies in the question: how is combat "triggered"? That's where things get unreal for me and I'm having to handwave things.
Here's how I'd do it.
If there are two teams, A and B, in a stand-off, unless there's some sort of pre-arranged signal, only the one person who initializes hostilities acts in the surprise round. It's quite possible for one team member to surprise his own team just as much as the other. If I'm feeling generous or someone has specifically told me they are watching that particular actor closely, I might allow a sense motive roll to ALSO act in the surprise round. This might allow someone to actually beat the guy who's starting hostilities to the punch.
Combat is defined by a threat from an enemy. A group of people arguing isn't a threat until one of them has hit the other in the face. So the sucker punch would be the surprise round, and then combat. The complicated part comes from when is it reasonable to start tracking actions in rounds? Players can do things out of combat that require actions, like move. But if a guy moves to punch a guy would that be his only action of a surprise round and combat start before the punch in that case? DId he move threateningly?
|
If you're trying to avoid the flat-footed state on the defenders because they're expecting an attack:
Roll initiatives as normal without a surprise round. If the defenders roll higher initiatives than the antagonist, they still haven't gotten any indication that the antagonist is attacking. Unless they plan on attacking without provocation (as the antagonist hasn't shown his intention yet), they really shouldn't be attacking. Generally this means that the defenders are just going to move around / ready actions / delay.
It does require the players to think about what their characters would do in the situation, rather than metagaming the entry into combat.
Or, you could just have a surprise round without causing the flat-footed condition.
I think, to solve my problem, that I'm going to interpret the words, "When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised." to also refer to when you are not aware that the person in front of you is now a combat opponent. Meaning, the PC may know he is a verbal opponent (the PC is arguing with him), but not a combat opponent.
Using that interpretation I would do as SlimGauge suggests, as that has been my best interpretation, as well. The perception check to see if someone is aiming their arrows at you from a distance (as in Scenario 2) is good and easy to see. The sense motive isn't so obvious as the DC isn't clear. Should it be an opposed roll? So, if the NPC tries to sucker punch the PC, he's actively trying to bluff the PC or just trying to catch him off-guard or both?
In scenario 2, how would you allow the possibility for the (N)PC(s) to go in the surprise round along with the NPC initiating the attack? Anyone who would roll initiative in the surprise round before the attacker would be presumed to have readied their standard action and then resolving it just before the attacker in the order of their initiative rolls.
That's my current thinking, anyway.
|
I think, to solve my problem, that I'm going to interpret the words, "When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised." to also refer to when you are not aware that the person in front of you is now a combat opponent. Meaning, the PC may know he is a verbal opponent (the PC is arguing with him), but not a combat opponent.
Using that interpretation I would do as SlimGauge suggests, as that has been my best interpretation, as well. The perception check to see if someone is aiming their arrows at you from a distance (as in Scenario 2) is good and easy to see. The sense motive isn't so obvious as the DC isn't clear. Should it be an opposed roll? So, if the NPC tries to sucker punch the PC, he's actively trying to bluff the PC or just trying to catch him off-guard or both?
In scenario 2, how would you allow the possibility for the (N)PC(s) to go in the surprise round along with the NPC initiating the attack? Anyone who would roll initiative in the surprise round before the attacker would be presumed to have readied their standard action and then resolving it just before the attacker in the order of their initiative rolls.
That's my current thinking, anyway.
"When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised." is all you really need you just need to look at it deeper. Being aware of someone and being aware of their intent are two different things.
Also you can't ready action if there isn't an initiative in most cases.
Scenario 1
By most means yes it would be a surprise round. Unless the player stated something to give him awareness that IS NOT META. if at some point during the argument he says. I roll sense motive, or this guy seems angry enough to fight, I won't throw the first punch but if he does I am ready to rock. Basically if he has no means of being ready to dodge(add his dex to ac) he is surprised.
Scenario 2
If the only instruction the PC's give is "we wait to see if they are hostile" and there are no checks made to verify that such as perception or sense motive than they are surprised. However if they say something like "We take defensive actions." Then the NPC's might get a free round or few attacks the players are waiting to get hit and shouldn't lose their dex.
Sometimes the rules don't have all the answers but that's how i have always done it for the past 16ish years. Another way you can help your self decide is picture your self in the scenario IRL and without meta'ing decide if you would be aware with what the PC give you. If you though 'this guy is clearly angry but harmless(bad or no sense motive check)' You probably wouldn't be ready for that sucker punch. where as if you though 'This guy is drunk angry and stupid enough to throw down(good sense motive or you are itching to a fight and just want him to throw the first punch)' you will probably have a good chance of dodging and are probably watching his hands more than his face
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Han shot first.
The real problem with that approach, Grick, isNothing whatsoever..
Your "nothing whatsoever" is contradicted by common sense.
it's the RAW.
Thanks. I can and did read the rules. I'm also fairly adept at interpreting rules. If you have nothing better to add, why bother responding in the first place?
If someone gets the drop on another so be it, but the first person to declare 'and I attack' does not get a surprise round all to themselves...
None of what I said makes any sense to you? If the initiating trigger of a fight is an NPC throwing a punch, but everyone acts before that action, then how did the fight start? You could have 20 people going in the round before the guy throws the first punch. RAW supports, and legitimately so, such ridiculousness by your estimation.
If you want to houserule something, that's your business, but I'd suggest that you put more thought into what exactly you want to avoid and at what cost,
Well, uh, yes. That's why I started this thread. I've shown what I want to avoid and the cost seems relatively obvious... someone, whether that's the PC or the NPC, gets the first combat action. This whole thread was about assessing this situation. If you wanted to dismiss it, you didn't even need to bother responding. Instead of doing that, how about answering the basic question I asked of Grick:
How is "When combat starts" defined?
- or -
How is "At the start of a battle" defined?
- or -
How is "When combat begins" defined?
What is the trigger telling me to tell the players, "Alright, roll for initiative"?
Han shot first.
Exactly what I was considering! Han made a successful Sense Motive and shot first! But, now imagine the whole bar doing that before Greedo shoots. The approach james maissen seems to endorse would allow for that, especially if Greedo is a little on the slower side.
|
jupistar, are you assuming that everyone else is standing around while each person takes their 6 second turn in sequence? (the "whole bar doing that before Greedo shoots")
Remember that a round is 6 seconds total and that everyone is in theory acting in that same 6 seconds.
Also, this is a bad place to ask about house rules. There is a whole forum for that. Grick and others have given you the correct answer for this section (Rules questions).
It would be better to restate your question if it was not the answer you where expecting.
Now, to what appears to be the real Rules Questions:
------
How is "When combat starts" defined?
It is when the first attack is started. You do not attack outside of combat, so if you wish to attack all involved need to roll initiative. Note, you do this even in surprise rounds. Rolling initiative does not mean that you get to act always. If you are surprised you do not get to react in the surprise round, even if you roll really high on init.
The big question is if the sides knew each other as combatants. This is a great place for sense motive checks. Most people will not just randomly punch some guy with out giving away the build up to the punch in body language and such. A Sense Motive check either vs a "Hunch" (as per the rules a DC 20) or a bluff from a person who is trying to hide their anger and want to action. This gives the players a chance to know more about the situation ("This guy you are arguing with seems to be on the verge of attacking."). This allows them a chance to ready themselves for combat and react in the surprise round or even move first to subdue. If thy fail the check, they do not know the combat is about the start and are surprised.
This allows the characters who spent a lot of points/feats/etc to build up sense motive, initiative, and bluff (in case they want to use that themselves) a chance to use those to more effect. Also, what is good for the players is good for the GM.
Combat rounds are simultaneous.
Imagine two gun-fighters meet, lets call them Jim and Dorian. They don't know they are enemies yet. They both have quick-draw
Dorian decides to off Jim and goes for his gun. Jim sees this (Perception success.)
Now initiative is rolled. Jim wins!
During his round he draws his pepperbox and full-attacks Dorian. At this moment, Dorian is not just standing around, he is pulling out his rifle and is bringing it up. But Jim is just faster.
Dorian dies with his rifle in his hands.
To an outside observer, both gunslingers drew weapons at the same time. Jim just shot first. There is no doubt that there was clear and present danger.
I agree with Grick. I see all the time where people try to say "common sense" says otherwise, but I don't usually agree. That "common sense" is only based on how you imagine the sequence. It can just as easily be explained the Greedo was telegraphing his intentions so obviously, that the only person that didn't know what he was going to do was in fact Greedo. I see this all the time as a combat LARPer. It is hilarious after you kill someone when they cry about how you couldn't have known what they were going to do, yet when pressed they admit they were in fact going to attack you.
Waiting for the conscious realization that you are under attack, rather than following the instincts of the situation, will lead you directly to your grave.
I'm not asking to houserule anything. I'm not trying to change anything. I'm with all of you guys in everything you're saying. The issue isn't one of whether or not people can preempt another person's attack. I agree that it's possible. The issue is if, by the rules, we can:
a) Define and know when combat starts
b) Provide a reasonable understanding/explanation of the mechanism used to determine the order in which events occur
For example, right after lecturing me on what the rules are (and I agree with), tell me about making Perception checks and Sense Motive checks. Why? Because common sense says that people have to be aware of the combat taking place before they can respond. It's not just about being aware of an opponent's presence, but also the fact that they are, in fact, now combat opponents--that combat is taking place. As such, the rules state, "Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks."
The rules for a surprise round state, "When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised. Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware."
The rules do not directly stipulate the use of any check for any reason other than to "be aware of your opponent". So the rules interpretation I'm suggesting is that "being aware of your opponent" also should include being aware of the change of state from non-combatant NPC to combatant NPC.
There is one clear point of contention I want to address:
Waiting for the conscious realization that you are under attack, rather than following the instincts of the situation, will lead you directly to your grave.
Whether you think it is smart or stupid, right or wrong, for someone to wait to be attacked before retaliating, clearly some people might take a different view. But that's not the real question, just something I wish to address. Your preemptive strike belief is a value judgment that may be countered by a moral or ethical one.
But in either case, I understand that it's possible for preemptive action to occur and I'm not against it, though, by default, it should not be likely that everyone is able to act preemptively. What I'm against is a whole bar full of people rolling initiative and acting prior to the person who throws the punch that starts the fight.
It. Is. Ridiculous.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm against is a whole bar full of people rolling initiative and acting prior to the person who throws the punch that starts the fight.
Here's how I'd do it, and I think you'll find it satisfactory:
Things are getting heated between the two groups: Alice, Alan, and Aaron parked in Bob, Barney, and Betty's carpool spot. Alan decides to throw a punch.
When Alan announces that intent, we roll initiative. Alan will get to act in the surprise round automatically, because he's starting it. However, everyone else gets to make a check to see if they see the punch coming (if they're in easy view, I'd make it Sense Motive instead of Perception).
If Bob succeeds on that check, he gets to act in the surprise round. He "saw it coming". If Bob also rolled higher initiative than Alan, then he not only saw it coming, but was quick enough to do something about it - though if Bob throws a punch of his own, then everyone who failed their check to see Alan's intent will see Bob's punch and tell Security that Bob started it, so Bob might choose to delay instead (or go total defense because he's a pansy).
The only way the whole bar acts before the (intended) first punch is if the whole bar makes the check for awareness and wins initiative. Unlikely, but if it happens, then just say that everyone knew Alan was that kind of guy. ;)
Han Shot First
In this case, Han tells the GM that he's stealthily drawing his weapon under the table. Han then says "I shoot Greedo". The GM asks for initiative rolls. Then, Greedo makes a Perception check to see if he notices the gun. He fails it, so he doesn't get to act in the surprise round. Han, being the only one with an action in the surprise round, uses his standard action to fire his pistol, getting sneak attack on Greedo and ending the fight before the first normal round.
If there are two teams, A and B, in a stand-off, unless there's some sort of pre-arranged signal, only the one person who initializes hostilities acts in the surprise round. It's quite possible for one team member to surprise his own team just as much as the other.
I like this. But what if there is a pre-arranged signal?
james, about half the respondents in this thread agree that you can't be "aware of your opponents", even if you see them standing before you, if you don't know they're your opponent. I would say that my interpretation is not "house ruling", but rather just that... an interpretation. I have no motive to change anything, I merely have a motive to understand the rules as written in a scenario for which they're not clearly defined.
And your statistics are silly. 1 in 30 people are going to be last to go. So the NPC's chances are 1 in 30 to be the that person, not 1 in 8000. His chances to be one of the last two is less than that and one of the last three is even less than that. 3 in 30 is not likely, but at 10% it's a heckuva lot more likely than it should be. And I just chose the arbitrary number of 3. If he acted among the last 6 of 30 and 24 people acted before he could take that swing, it's just as ludicrous. That's just a 1 in 5 chance with all initiative modifiers being equal.
This argument about "we believe in fire breathing dragons, so we can just believe anything" is so tired. By that reasoning, anything can be justified, including the GM ruling that you don't fall when you walk off a cliff. There are rules about taking falling damage, but there are no rules about having to fall. So when the kobold runs off the cliff and doesn't fall and the PC chases him and does, like Elmer Fudd chasing Bugs, we can just say, "No more ridiculous than fire breathing dragons."
Suspension of disbelief.
I'll repeat myself. It being even remotely possible that a whole bar full of people without divination or time traveling or magical twisting of reality can act in a fight before the fight starts is simply ludicrous. It is ridiculous. And I think the rules support my position. But even if you don't think so, our argument would be RAW vs. RAI, because I don't believe what you suggest is intended. I personally think that I'm supported by RAW, too. I think jiggy and others who suggest much the same as him have it right. You can read the rules the way you wish, but if you think that you're reading it plain and that it is not a nuanced rule and you don't mind that your interpretation can lead to ridiculous scenarios like we've discussed, well that's your choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It being even remotely possible that a whole bar full of people without divination or time traveling or magical twisting of reality can act in a fight before the fight starts is simply ludicrous.
I guess the punk should have thought about it before picking a fight with a group of heroes.
Your "math" is presuming that he's "dicing off" against each other (N)PC individually. That's not at all what's happening. He has one die roll and it is being placed in a ranking of die rolls. Trust me, my "gamer math" is working ok right now. The only fallacy in my math is not accounting for the possibility for ties.
I go to all that trouble to lay stuff out, and jupistar skipped right by it. :(
No, I didn't, jiggy. If you read what I wrote to james, you see I credited you. I'm sorry I didn't take the time to say more directly: your interpretation is I think the general consensus among those not named "james maissen" and "grick". There is a surprise round and that is the time when the combat starter would act. The others can act in the surprise round if they get a perception and/or sense motive check (in some cases, both are needed) to see the attack coming (thus becoming aware of their opponent). And if they do act in that surprise round, then they can preemptively respond to the attack.
So, yes, I think this is the right way to read the rules. I'm happy with the outcome of this thread. Thanks, jiggy.
Are you sure Grick's and my interpretations are actually in conflict?
Well, I'm not exactly sure. I read his and james as taking the same position and *that* would definitely conflict.
Edit: Yeah, I think so. He doesn't consider the possibility of a surprise round in his explanation of the rules. He doesn't consider the need for a perception/sense motive check for the bar scenario, instead he just grants that the higher init rolls represent a successful perception of the impending attack. Though he rightly sees one for the hostile tribe scenario. But he hasn't said much throughout the remainder of this thread, so his position may be evolving or just not fully elucidated. I don't mean to speak for him.
But in either case, I understand that it's possible for preemptive action to occur and I'm not against it, though, by default, it should not be likely that everyone is able to act preemptively. What I'm against is a whole bar full of people rolling initiative and acting prior to the person who throws the punch that starts the fight.
Usually it isn't going to be likely. For the whole bar to beat the guy in initiative he probably has to roll very low. And in that case, he bungled something. Maybe his drunken ass forgot that his ale mug was still in his punching hand, and he doused himself while he was trying to throw the first punch. Maybe he was resting his feet on his stool and he got them tangled with the legs as he leapt up. Maybe he nearly tripped, and halfway through throwing the first punch he had to grab at the bar to stop from falling over. In either case, I see no problem with anyone who saw it coming to be able to take an action - and if the whole bar saw it coming, the whole bar should be able to spend a standard action pointing and laughing ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to make a comment that I feel some people are missing here.
Rounds of combat where people attack are not one punch. We understand that there's a large portion of dodging, weaving, parrying, etc.
So isnt it entirely realistic that the guy who declared he was attacking DID throw the first punch, but it was caught on the arm of the guy who won initiative, who punched him in the face?
Fits the system as described, fits completely, imo.
I do want to make a comment that I feel some people are missing here.
Rounds of combat where people attack are not one punch. We understand that there's a large portion of dodging, weaving, parrying, etc.
So isnt it entirely realistic that the guy who declared he was attacking DID throw the first punch, but it was caught on the arm of the guy who won initiative, who punched him in the face?
Fits the system as described, fits completely, imo.
Is that still the way combat is described or is that a relic from 3.0/3.5? I did consider that, but kind of dismissed it, I admit. I don't think that kind of language is still in the description. If it is, I have the following objection (there may be more, but I'm exhausted):
What if the guy's initial triggering action is to throw something (say a pewter mug of beer)? That something couldn't still be in his hand later in the round for him to "really" throw it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to make a comment that I feel some people are missing here.
Rounds of combat where people attack are not one punch. We understand that there's a large portion of dodging, weaving, parrying, etc.
So isnt it entirely realistic that the guy who declared he was attacking DID throw the first punch, but it was caught on the arm of the guy who won initiative, who punched him in the face?
Fits the system as described, fits completely, imo.
Is that still the way combat is described or is that a relic from 3.0/3.5? I did consider that, but kind of dismissed it, I admit. I don't think that kind of language is still in the description. If it is, I have the following objection (there may be more, but I'm exhausted):
What if the guy's initial triggering action is to throw something (say a pewter mug of beer)? That something couldn't still be in his hand later in the round for him to "really" throw it.
Additionally, there was a FAQ blog post describing why (if you managed to full-attack on a charge with a lance, somehow) you'd only get the lance's damage bonus on the first attack. The reason was because the first attack has the charge's momentum, while iterative attacks require you to pull the lance back again before pushing forward a second time for the second attack.
Seems to me, then, that the design philosophy in Pathfinder is that each action in combat really is the action it says it is.
I'll still stand with the no surprise round when you are aware of all the participants. I see it as exactly what's written and no more disturbing than full round actions on one's initiative.
Alright. I understand your complaint about full round attack actions. I'm just not in favor of making things less realistic rather than more realistic. My opinion has always been, the greater the realism, the greater the immersion.
Moreover I see problems from a game play perspective with allowing a house rule to 'suddenly surprise someone' right in front of you. I think that initiative settles this, and in fact is the point of it.
I think initiative simply sets a speed of action, but doesn't necessarily cover the issue of expectation of combat (just as it doesn't when the opponents are invisible). Either way, I have your view. Thanks. I flatly reject your constant description of what I and so many others are saying as a "house rule". It is the rules of the book and they makes sense.
|
I gotta say, jupistar, that there's at least two players at my table with whom the practice of awarding a surprise round to one party in a conversation just because they decided to throw the first "punch" would be a complete deal-breaker. These players frequently dismiss any argument that doesn't account for them being ready for a fight at any minute. They insist that's how their characters, being accustomed to combat and high amounts of danger, would behave. I have a hard time disputing that, so I go with James' reading of RAW very frequently.
It does lead to situations like:
Me: "Piotr, it's your turn"
Piotr: "Why are we in initiative again?"
Me: *facepalm*
...but it does so fairly infrequently.
If two hostile parties are negoiating then I would assume everyone is ready for a fight. If not then nobody has weapons. As soon as one person twitches(starts to take an offensive action) roll for init. That is how I do it.
As for realism nobody would really be flat-footed in real life in this situation.
I am not saying that there will always be combat, but when someone might(if you even suspect it)* kill you I would like to think you would be watching their every move.
*If you don't suspect it then why show up with all the weapons, and being the first person to say "I attack" should not get you an advantage. That is why initiative is there.
If you reach for your gun first, but I am faster than you then I actually pull mine and shoot first. That is what initiative is.
|
|
These situations tend to come up fairly regularly. I agree with the essential message behind the OP, that they can be a bit difficult to adjudicate and/or comprise a grey area. I have used Perception, Sense Motive, and even Survival (outdoors ambush) to establish who can act in a surprise round. In general, if everyone is aware of each other, there is no surprise round. Special circumstances can work out differently, and in those cases I've used alternatives. A couple of examples that come to mind are being attacked by opponents who are not hiding in an urban environment, or a natural setting where wildlife patterns might be disrupted (the birds have gone quiet).
I'm perfectly fine with someone initiating combat by throwing a punch, casting a spell, etc., but not being the first one to act. The intention can lead to unconscious action or tension, the opponent might reasonably be highly prepared to act. Attacking, casting a spell, etc. do not happen instantaneously; while someone might intend to act first, it doesn't mean that this immediately overrides what everyone else might be prepared to do on their own. By corollary, I am unwilling to have things be in a manner where the first person who gives up on a non-combat solution automatically goes first. It breeds an environment where players have a vested interest in having their character do so and rewards attacking everything in sight.
I also run into people wanting to ready actions outside of combat. I understand the Readied Action to be a special combat that happens within combat. I understand combat to be started by rolling initiative, which is determined by the GM. A player may say, "I ready to shoot him with my crossbow if he makes a threatening move," during a stand-off. That communicates an expectation of what he's going to do, not a free ticket to go first. Whether the crossbow attack happens first or not is another story, and is determined by initiative order. Likewise, that intention may itself, trigger the beginning of hot hostilities. (Sorry if this is off-topic, but it is closely related.)
Surprise rounds don't always happen, and the guy who thinks he's getting the jump on someone may not always actually do so. If that still doesn't sit well, consider using a GM helper and give someone +2 on initiative, or a number based on an opposed check.
I don't think everyone in Pathfinder carries weapons all the time. In most AP's and adventures the common people are unarmed.
I never said anything about always expecting a fight, but if I am meeting someone I don't know or trust my guard would always be up especially in a world like Pathfinder.
If a GM has a world that is so dangerous that literally everyone carries a weapon there is no way I am not ready for a fight unless I am meeting a good friend(I do not mean associate).
For me that would have to be a friend betraying a friend.
I would then require a bluff check by whoever was trying to do the deceiving though. Now since they are old friends I would give a bonus to the bluff check. Your friends know when you are up to something more than most people would so even if the attack was not suspected the potential victim might get a hunch that something is not right.
That is a GM call, but I can see a surprise round with the shiv example.
If commoner A and B are at work I can see a surprise round taking place or a bonus to initative depending on the relationship between the 2 coworkers.
My point was that when having a talk your guard should be up if both sides are armed in PF, especially if one side is interfering with the other side's goal.
And if I am under a GM where people are armed all the time I am even more cautious.
With the good king situation, trusting the king does not mean I have to trust his guards. Of course I do admit that is a good reason for a surprise round though since killing well liked political figures in front of adventures who will probably leap to his defense is bad on a variety of levels. <--This one would most likely work.
If he has a temper I don't think I would trust him as much. That case is less likely to get a surprise round in my opinion. If he is so mad that he is about to act out of character or if he is charmed then a sense motive comes into play at least. With that said how he manifest his temper is a large factor. If all he ever does is yell then yeah a surprise round is likely. If he has killed or had people killed before , even if he does not do it a lot, then I might be on guard.
Saying I attack before someone else does should not grant you a surprise round unless the person really has their guard down.
edit:clarification
If two hostile parties are negoiating then I would assume everyone is ready for a fight. If not then nobody has weapons. As soon as one person twitches(starts to take an offensive action) roll for init. That is how I do it.
As for realism nobody would really be flat-footed in real life in this situation.
You're ready for a fight, that is not flat-footed, only after taking your first action in combat.
If all one had to do to avoid being flat-footed was have their weapon out or say their guard is up, catching someone off guard would be a much rarer thing.
When you're in hostile negotiations, you're trying to achieve some outcome before combat begins, or trying to avoid combat altogether. In either case, you have no idea exactly when, or even if combat is about to begin. It's no different than walking through a dungeon where you might be attacked at any moment.
Saying your guard is up is the assumed default. I'm not sure there are even any rules for PCs walking through a dungeon with their guard intentionally down.
I am not sure why the OP is having trouble with the RAW. In example one there is no surprise round. Nor is there in example two. In both scenarios, the groups are aware of one another. When someone wants to take an attack action, roll for regular initiative.
If everyone is aware of everyone--there is no surprise round because everyone is aware of everyone else. Yes, a whole party can give someone a beat down before he gets a swing in--unless he succeeded at doing did something sneaky to make the other side unaware.
If someone did something sneaky to make the other side "not aware" that they were opponents, then there would be a surprise round as normal.
I am confused at the confusion. :)