|
You cannot, by RAW, use Diplomacy to alter his attitude quickly enough to keep him from taking a swing.
If it is impossible to use diplomacy fast enough to alter a hostile targets attitude, why is there a DC for doing exactly that?
The time requirement is the time required to complete the action. Not the time required to initiate the action.
While it is true nothing stops another player from attacking the unarmed elderly man from behind while he is engaged in conversation, the alignment rules would come into play at that point. You just murdered somebody in cold blood.
|
|
flip it around: Assume the two groups are out of initiative, no surprise and around 40' apart. One of the players says "Forget diplomacy. I cast fireball on them." The GM says, "Roll Init". The NPCs win. If they attack, are they starting the fight or reacting to the PC's attack? Would you yell at the GM for having the NPCs attack before you'd done anything?
My experience is that when PC's initiate hostilities during a conversation, they demand a surprise round.
When NPC's initiate hostilities duration a conversation, PC's insist they were expecting trouble.
Tracking initiative during a potentially hostile social encounter addresses both side equally. It also gives a structured time line for the casting of spells, tracking the durations of active spells and class abilities and provide a means of moving PC's and NPC's in a coherent manner. It is what the rules are designed for.
If you are expecting trouble, nothing prevents you from readying actions or assuming a defensive stance. At the same time, nothing in the combat rules requires you to attack or bars the usage of social skills.
You cannot, by RAW, use Diplomacy to alter his attitude quickly enough to keep him from taking a swing.If it is impossible to use diplomacy fast enough to alter a hostile targets attitude, why is there a DC for doing exactly that?
The time requirement is the time required to complete the action. Not the time required to initiate the action.
While it is true nothing stops another player from attacking the unarmed elderly man from behind while he is engaged in conversation, the alignment rules would come into play at that point. You just murdered somebody in cold blood.
Just because a creature is hostile doesn't always mean you are in combat with it. For example, a hostile enemy locked in a jail cell or a hostile orc at the bottom of a pit.
You couldn't use Diplomacy to stop them from attacking you in combat. But if you have a full minute to talk to them then you can possibly change their Attitude.
That is why there is a DC for Hostile NPCs.
|
|
You cannot, by RAW, use Diplomacy to alter his attitude quickly enough to keep him from taking a swing.If it is impossible to use diplomacy fast enough to alter a hostile targets attitude, why is there a DC for doing exactly that?
The time requirement is the time required to complete the action. Not the time required to initiate the action.
While it is true nothing stops another player from attacking the unarmed elderly man from behind while he is engaged in conversation, the alignment rules would come into play at that point. You just murdered somebody in cold blood.
Just because a creature is hostile doesn't always mean you are in combat with it. For example, a hostile enemy locked in a jail cell or a hostile orc at the bottom of a pit.
You couldn't use Diplomacy to stop them from attacking you in combat. But if you have a full minute to talk to them then you can possibly change their Attitude.
That is why there is a DC for Hostile NPCs.
1. Combat is meta-game term until somebody swings that first sword.
2. You assuming every NPC mercilessly kills everything it sees immediately upon sighting, regardless of alignment, because of that meta-game state. No possibility of surrender or negotiation. An assumption that is patently false.
2. You assuming every NPC mercilessly kills everything it sees immediately upon sighting, regardless of alignment, because of that meta-game state. No possibility of surrender or negotiation. An assumption that is patently false.
No. I'm assuming that a creature that has an attitude of Hostile would actually be hostile. It's right there in the definition of the word.
My experience is that when PC's initiate hostilities during a conversation, they demand a surprise round.
They don't get one:
If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin
Tracking initiative during a potentially hostile social encounter addresses both side equally. It also gives a structured time line for the casting of spells, tracking the durations of active spells and class abilities and provide a means of moving PC's and NPC's in a coherent manner. It is what the rules are designed for.
If you want to track duration's of active spells, you don't need to roll an initiative for it.. Just use a round tracker. Then, when Combat™ begins, roll for initiative.
You cannot, by RAW, use Diplomacy to alter his attitude quickly enough to keep him from taking a swing....
The time requirement is the time required to complete the action. Not the time required to initiate the action.
I imagine this is what should have happened:
GM: "Roll for initiative"
Kensi: "Great I got top initiative"
GM: "OK, you're up"
Kensi: "I use diplomacy to influence their attitude to not attack us!"
GM: "Are you sure? you realize this takes a minute right?"
Kensi: "Yes, It is what I will do"
GM: "OK, fair enough.. Kensi begins using diplomacy"
GM: "Next up is the enemies."
GM: "The enemies, start attacking your allies"
.... 10 rounds later ...
GM: "Ok your minute is up, roll your diplomacy"
Kensi: "26! I succeed!"
GM: "Great, they decide not to kill you.. However, your party now lies dead around you"
Kensi: "Hmpf.... I surrender"
Also, this debate was never really about whether or not you can use diplomacy on initiative, which per RAW is difficult if neigh impossible. What this has always been about, is WHEN initiative should be rolled. In both the OP's case and I believe yours, Artanthos, initiative should not have been rolled, as clearly Combat™ had not yet started.
Make everyone roll for initiative at the beginning of the session, then after each combat. You will have your initiative rolls ready but not knowing when it is going to occur. Saves a lot of time and helps preserves the story as you go.
Not a bad idea, but I think it would sap a little bit of the fun of the session if I knew ahead of time that I'd be as slow as a snail in my next combat.
You need to roll the dice either way, might as well do it when you're supposed to use it. And, others have pointed to certain initiative abilities that may be invalidated if the roll was setup ahead of time.
flip it around: Assume the two groups are out of initiative, no surprise and around 40' apart. One of the players says "Forget diplomacy. I cast fireball on them." The GM says, "Roll Init". The NPCs win. If they attack, are they starting the fight or reacting to the PC's attack? Would you yell at the GM for having the NPCs attack before you'd done anything?My experience is that when PC's initiate hostilities during a conversation, they demand a surprise round.
When NPC's initiate hostilities duration a conversation, PC's insist they were expecting trouble.
Tracking initiative during a potentially hostile social encounter addresses both side equally. It also gives a structured time line for the casting of spells, tracking the durations of active spells and class abilities and provide a means of moving PC's and NPC's in a coherent manner. It is what the rules are designed for.
If you are expecting trouble, nothing prevents you from readying actions or assuming a defensive stance. At the same time, nothing in the combat rules requires you to attack or bars the usage of social skills.
No one is saying you aren't allowed to use your first action to sit down and start a Craft: Basketweaving check. You're allowed to do that.
What I'm curious about is if everyone in an area intends to start making baskets, why are we tracking it in combat rounds? Wouldn't a non-combat skill... like Craft: Basketweaving... be a more appropriate check to determine who starts/finishes first, instead of an initiative check, which is modified by things like combat feats and Favored Terrain?
Perhaps the point I haven't made clear. If a person identifies a threat at a great enough distance, they could choose to go total defense (which would trigger initiative as a combat action under normal rules) in a position so that even if they lose initiative, a melee combatant could not reach them prior to them being able to act.Ah! I see what you're trying to do....cheat!
You're trying to say that, because you've already taken an action (Total Defence or moving or eating breakfast) then you're no longer flat-footed, and you're doing this to be immune to Sneak Attacks.
There are several things wrong with this rules-wise (I won't bother discussing the morality of cheating).
First, it is not the player's decision to roll init, nor tell everyone else (including the DM) when to roll init. You can say that you're drawing your sword and attacking, at which point your DM will decide if this is combat (it is), get the participants to roll skill checks (to check for surprise) and have everyone roll init.
You decide what your PC does, the DM decides if it's combat.
Second, you certainly can announce that your PC is going on 'Total Defence'.
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round.You can cast spells without being in combat, even if the spell is intended for combat. But these things do not, in and of themselves start combat. It depends what you do. If you cast a fireball at a bush to start a bonfire so that we can all toast marshmallows and watch the stars, then combat hasn't started. If the bush was actually a plant creature, then that would be combat.
If you try to stab someone, your DM is going to see that as combat starting and ask for skill and initiative checks. But if you go on Total Defence, that is not enough to start a combat. You can't deliberately trigger initiative unless you actually take a hostile act, and going 'Total Defence' is not a hostile act. Nor can...
If you can manage to suppress your righteous indignation long enough to go back and read what has been said you will see I have addressed some of your issues previously, some of your issues don't apply to the circumstances described, some of your statements are inaccurate by RAW, and you have committed a composition fallacy. I have no intention of individually addressing so many blatant problems.
Played a game with a new DM today. Walking through the woods. See some humans off through the trees. DM makes everyone roll initiative as soon as we spot them. I get highest roll and charge and attack.After session is over, DM is like "why the f#&% did you randomly attack people in the woods?"
I wouldn't have, but the "roll initiative" completely put me in the "BATTLE" mindset.
Is rolling initiative like that when no one has said they are going to fight a normal thing to do? Seems like it would put many players into a battle mindset when they otherwise wouldn't be...
I always check. If the players have first move they have a decision to make. Mine are used to it and tend to think before they act. I imagine you will next time. I can understand your action though, a lot of GMs probably only roll if they "know" a battle is imminent.
I always check. If the players have first move they have a decision to make. Mine are used to it and tend to think before they act. I imagine you will next time. I can understand your action though, a lot of GMs probably only roll if they "know" a battle is imminent.
Played a game with a new DM today. Walking through the woods. See some humans off through the trees. DM makes everyone roll initiative as soon as we spot them. I get highest roll and charge and attack.After session is over, DM is like "why the f#&% did you randomly attack people in the woods?"
I wouldn't have, but the "roll initiative" completely put me in the "BATTLE" mindset.
Is rolling initiative like that when no one has said they are going to fight a normal thing to do? Seems like it would put many players into a battle mindset when they otherwise wouldn't be...
Here's the thing, if combat isn't starting, why are you tracking actions via combat rules?
If "combat is imminent" you're superseding the surprise round rules by having everyone take an action (making everyone not flat footed, nulling various surprise round abilities, etc).
If combat isn't imminent, there's no need to track actions by rounds. If you're doing it to track time spent doing things, there are better things (like a stopwatch at the table to record how long a conversation lasts).
I understand the desire to discourage players from lobbing fireballs every time they hear a pin drop, believe me, I do. In my game the local authorities have begun tracking who is buying bat guano, because there's been a few too many "accidents".
My 2 cents is that if you roll initiative in social encounters, by extension you run into the situation where you are unable to speak because it's not your turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but feel that the people going "Why don't people just do Diplomacy after initiative is rolled" are kind of failing to understand just what game this is. This is a game where in a single turn my character can be killed, dominated, turned to stone, have their soul torn out, etc.. I know this, because in the past exactly that has happened. All because I let that kind looking old man go before me. The obvious response for any professional killer is to not give them that chance! This is John Woo starring in a Quentin Tarantino film; blink and suddenly all the guns are out and pointing at everybody's face. It's act or die.
Seriously, I'm just glad the PFS gms I've had understand when initiative is supposed to be rolled, and don't use it as misapplied psychodrama Or a means to punish players for wanting their characters to survive.
|
If you can manage to suppress your righteous indignation long enough to go back and read what has been said you will see I have addressed some of your issues previously, some of your issues don't apply to the circumstances described, some of your statements are inaccurate by RAW, and you have committed a composition fallacy. I have no intention of individually addressing so many blatant problems.
I can understand you not liking what I wrote, and it's okay if we have different opinions and it's okay if we post our cases and try to deconstruct each others' cases...
...but which of my statements are 'inaccurate by RAW'?
I would never use the 'it takes a full minute of diplomacy to have any impact on someone's attitude in combat' rule. If it makes sense for the character to stop attacking, they will.
In or out of combat, I wouldn't let them use Diplomacy to turn a hostile enemy friendly if the enemy has a good reason to hurt the players.
I sometimes think Diplomacy skill is the worst thing that ever happened to role-playing.
I can understand you not liking what I wrote, and it's okay if we have different opinions and it's okay if we post our cases and try to deconstruct each others' cases...
...but which of my statements are 'inaccurate by RAW'?
So the last time I tried to answer a rules question for you, I linked directly to a dev's multiple posts that clearly and concisely answered your question. You continued to argue for a week (it was to my great surprise people were willing to talk to you that long) and then a FAQ was released that repeated the idea I had already given you the link to. You continued to argue that the FAQ was BS.
Then you come in here with a tornado of nonsense phrased in what is likely the rudest post I have read on this site. Now you want to say "hey its cool to have a difference of opinion, let's talk rules."
As tempting as the offer is Malachi, I will respectfully decline. While I do think differences of opinions and the discussion of them are valuable things, I have the sneaking suspicion that is not the game you play.
Played a game with a new DM today. Walking through the woods. See some humans off through the trees. DM makes everyone roll initiative as soon as we spot them. I get highest roll and charge and attack.After session is over, DM is like "why the f#&% did you randomly attack people in the woods?"
I wouldn't have, but the "roll initiative" completely put me in the "BATTLE" mindset.
Is rolling initiative like that when no one has said they are going to fight a normal thing to do? Seems like it would put many players into a battle mindset when they otherwise wouldn't be...
I always check. If the players have first move they have a decision to make. Mine are used to it and tend to think before they act. I imagine you will next time. I can understand your action though, a lot of GMs probably only roll if they "know" a battle is imminent.
Here's the thing, if combat isn't starting, why are you tracking actions via combat rules?
If "combat is imminent" you're superseding the surprise round rules by having everyone take an action (making everyone not flat footed, nulling various surprise round abilities, etc).
If combat isn't imminent, there's no need to track actions by rounds. If you're doing it to track time spent doing things, there are better things (like a stopwatch at the table to record how long a conversation lasts).
I understand the desire to discourage players from lobbing fireballs every time they hear a pin drop, believe me, I do. In my game the local authorities have begun tracking who is buying bat guano, because there's been a few too many "accidents".
Simple really. Surprise has already been checked for when contact happens. If someone has that, they go first period. They have the choice of initiating combat or conversation (or evasion etc.). Failing surprise the question becomes whose choice is it? Initiative determines that. Up to the time of contact you are not "tracking actions by rounds". If there is a potential for combat, then you need to know who has the options, PCs or NPCs. If the situation is "edgy" and both sides are nervous you may need to keep track of movement / position until there is either a conflict, a peaceful resolution or simply an end to the contact. I run a sandbox game and it isn't always clear who is violently hostile and who isn't. It's about interaction / action / reaction at that point. It's pretty much how I've always done it from OD&D on.
|
|
I can understand you not liking what I wrote, and it's okay if we have different opinions and it's okay if we post our cases and try to deconstruct each others' cases...
...but which of my statements are 'inaccurate by RAW'?
So the last time I tried to answer a rules question for you, I linked directly to a dev's multiple posts that clearly and concisely answered your question. You continued to argue for a week (it was to my great surprise people were willing to talk to you that long) and then a FAQ was released that repeated the idea I had already given you the link to. You continued to argue that the FAQ was BS.
Then you come in here with a tornado of nonsense phrased in what is likely the rudest post I have read on this site. Now you want to say "hey its cool to have a difference of opinion, let's talk rules."
As tempting as the offer is Malachi, I will respectfully decline. While I do think differences of opinions and the discussion of them are valuable things, I have the sneaking suspicion that is not the game you play.
Yeah, I was definitely rude to you, because I think you're doing an awful, awful thing! I apologise for any hurt feelings, but my view on the way you try and get round the flat-footed condition remains.
I try to agree/disagree with specific cases rather than specific personalities, so I'm afraid I don't remember any previous conversation with you. I'm quite happy to agree with someone I previously disagreed with on another topic (and vice versa) because I'm thinking cases, not people.
My point was that we obviously disagree on the subject of the morality of evading the flat-footed condition outside of rules considerations, but the RAW on the subject is much less about our opinions and much more about the facts. It would be a valuable contribution for this debate in general for everyone, not just the two of us, to nail down how the flat-footed condition comes into play rules-wise, and for that reason we can still debate the RAW of it without being tempted to continue a personal disagreement; we've already established our personal differences there and I feel no need to re-visit that bad feeling.
So, in good faith and for the general discussion, which of my statements was inaccurate by RAW?
|
|
2. You assuming every NPC mercilessly kills everything it sees immediately upon sighting, regardless of alignment, because of that meta-game state. No possibility of surrender or negotiation. An assumption that is patently false.No. I'm assuming that a creature that has an attitude of Hostile would actually be hostile. It's right there in the definition of the word.
It is also defined as possible within the Diplomacy skill.
It has an assigned DC of 25
|
|
In or out of combat, I wouldn't let them use Diplomacy to turn a hostile enemy friendly if the enemy has a good reason to hurt the players.
I sometimes think Diplomacy skill is the worst thing that ever happened to role-playing.
I could always use Bluff to walk through the dungeon, telling everybody the BBEG sent me to check up on them......
or that I have an appointment.
|
|
What I'm curious about is if everyone in an area intends to start making baskets, why are we tracking it in combat rounds? Wouldn't a non-combat skill... like Craft: Basketweaving... be a more appropriate check to determine who starts/finishes first, instead of an initiative check, which is modified by things like combat feats and Favored Terrain?
Rereading the example situation I gave.....
Nobody in the party made any decisions before initiative was rolled. The first action taken dictated all subsequent actions, which resolved into a non-violent solution to the encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple really. Surprise has already been checked for when contact happens. If someone has that, they go first period. They have the choice of initiating combat or conversation (or evasion etc.). Failing surprise the question becomes whose choice is it? Initiative determines that. Up to the time of contact you are not "tracking...
Played a game with a new DM today. Walking through the woods. See some humans off through the trees. DM makes everyone roll initiative as soon as we spot them. I get highest roll and charge and attack.After session is over, DM is like "why the f#&% did you randomly attack people in the woods?"
I wouldn't have, but the "roll initiative" completely put me in the "BATTLE" mindset.
Is rolling initiative like that when no one has said they are going to fight a normal thing to do? Seems like it would put many players into a battle mindset when they otherwise wouldn't be...
I always check. If the players have first move they have a decision to make. Mine are used to it and tend to think before they act. I imagine you will next time. I can understand your action though, a lot of GMs probably only roll if they "know" a battle is imminent.
Here's the thing, if combat isn't starting, why are you tracking actions via combat rules?
If "combat is imminent" you're superseding the surprise round rules by having everyone take an action (making everyone not flat footed, nulling various surprise round abilities, etc).
If combat isn't imminent, there's no need to track actions by rounds. If you're doing it to track time spent doing things, there are better things (like a stopwatch at the table to record how long a conversation lasts).
I understand the desire to discourage players from lobbing fireballs every time they hear a pin drop, believe me, I do. In my game the local authorities have begun tracking who is buying bat guano, because there's been a few too many "accidents".
There are other ways to gain surprise, hidden weapons and hidden allies. Just because I'm in the open doesn't mean there isn't a rogue working his way around you and I'm just stalling until he gets there. I can even track that, both as a GM and for my players doing the same, without using initiative.
I can do "edgy" without tracking combat rounds. I have the players place themselves on the map all the time and keep track of positioning regularly, all without rolling initiative.
Rolling initiative isn't required to do any of this. When someone says "I do _____" and ____ is clearly a hostile or combat related move, we roll initiative, because it is clear we are now engaging the combat rules.
Not rolling initiative actually heightens the tension. If both sides are ready to fight and one side flinches, they aren't guaranteed to go first, because initiative hasn't been rolled.
People can be doing things, but if they aren't directly opposing each other it doesn't really matter the exact order.
Let's say two wizards are having an arena battle. They are allowed 3 rounds to prepare and cast spells. You CAN roll initiative right away, which means each side knows who goes first 3 rounds from now (during the 3 rounds they can cast spells, just not on or at each other, so the spells are unopposed). Or you could roll initiative once they actually start going after each other. To me, that is more interesting because up until the moment combat ACTUALLY starts, it is unknown who goes first.
What I'm curious about is if everyone in an area intends to start making baskets, why are we tracking it in combat rounds? Wouldn't a non-combat skill... like Craft: Basketweaving... be a more appropriate check to determine who starts/finishes first, instead of an initiative check, which is modified by things like combat feats and Favored Terrain?Rereading the example situation I gave.....
Nobody in the party made any decisions before initiative was rolled. The first action taken dictated all subsequent actions, which resolved into a non-violent solution to the encounter.
From the core book:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Would you consider attacking this round to qualify as "the immediate future"?
If you're trying to make it not hostile, that takes 1 minute to complete, which is 10 combat rounds. If you don't continue during those 10 rounds, the skill check automatically fails, because you didn't complete the action. You're welcome to make the check, but you're not doing anything else for 10 rounds. Never mind the fact that the DM is basically allowed to say "nope, doesn't work, they want to hurt you right now", per the rules. But he technically doesn't have to say that until round 10, I'd be nice and warn you though if I were the DM.
|
|
What I'm curious about is if everyone in an area intends to start making baskets, why are we tracking it in combat rounds? Wouldn't a non-combat skill... like Craft: Basketweaving... be a more appropriate check to determine who starts/finishes first, instead of an initiative check, which is modified by things like combat feats and Favored Terrain?Rereading the example situation I gave.....
Nobody in the party made any decisions before initiative was rolled. The first action taken dictated all subsequent actions, which resolved into a non-violent solution to the encounter.
Which is fine, but if the NPC had actually wanted to attack, your Diplomacy wouldn't have had time to do anything.
All you would accomplish is letting him get the first attack in.
And in the example I provided, the man was confused, frightened and slightly crazy, but neither evil or psychotic.
They only reason people can provide for my not being able to calm him down is the GM had the group roll initiative. A meta-game reason the characters would have no knowledge of.
I don't think it is a meta-game thing.
Initiative is a measure of reaction time (in round 1 at least). If you're rolling, it's because there is something to react to, if there isn't anything to react to, there is no need to roll initiative.
Just because you're in combat doesn't mean you need to kill the guy. And it is possible to make requests, but if the request doesn't interest the other side (or they're trying to hurt you right now), it's going to fail. There's a spell that's really handy, Calm Emotions, I've used it to end fights as a player before. As a martial character, I've done subdual damage to people because I didn't want to kill them, even though they tried to kill me.
Best case scenario, even if a DM allows a diplomacy check (despite the imminent desire to cause harm aspect), it still takes 10 rounds to change attitudes. That's 10 rounds of your opponents taking actions. You're allowed to try, but going first in round 1 doesn't really make much difference, as you still need 9 more full round actions to complete the process.
2. You assuming every NPC mercilessly kills everything it sees immediately upon sighting, regardless of alignment, because of that meta-game state. No possibility of surrender or negotiation. An assumption that is patently false.No. I'm assuming that a creature that has an attitude of Hostile would actually be hostile. It's right there in the definition of the word.
It is also defined as possible within the Diplomacy skill.
It has an assigned DC of 25
Reading all of the rules for Diplomacy would help in understanding them.
The DC of 25 vs. Hostile is for the Influence Attitude action which takes at least 1 minute.
The only thing you can do with Diplomacy in a single round is make a request. And, pre RAW, you can not make a request of a creature that is Hostile.
|
What I'm curious about is if everyone in an area intends to start making baskets, why are we tracking it in combat rounds? Wouldn't a non-combat skill... like Craft: Basketweaving... be a more appropriate check to determine who starts/finishes first, instead of an initiative check, which is modified by things like combat feats and Favored Terrain?Rereading the example situation I gave.....
Nobody in the party made any decisions before initiative was rolled. The first action taken dictated all subsequent actions, which resolved into a non-violent solution to the encounter.
Which is fine, but if the NPC had actually wanted to attack, your Diplomacy wouldn't have had time to do anything.
All you would accomplish is letting him get the first attack in.
And in the example I provided, the man was confused, frightened and slightly crazy, but neither evil or psychotic.
They only reason people can provide for my not being able to calm him down is the GM had the group roll initiative. A meta-game reason the characters would have no knowledge of.
My gunslinger drew his gun because we rolled initiative.
You've yet to explain /why/ he has been able to do that, and instead keep going off the handle on that reacting to the initiative roll is like a guy suddenly trying to find bad guys because he failed his perception roll.
When a character fails his perception roll, the character did not gather information. /that/ is metagaming.
when a character rolls for initiative, it is because he is reacting to combat. Hence why the Oracle of /Battle/ has war sight, Why the spell is called Anticipate Peril, why the Gunslinger draws his gun as part of the initiative roll, why Improved initiative is a combat feat, why reactionary is a combat trait, why it is called Warrior of Old and not Quick talker.
I could just see it now.. The group is going to go into the magic keepers shop...
"Alright, lets go purchase items from the shop keep. Their might be other customers in there, so I need to cast my divination spell to let me anticipate the peril we are in!" Says the divinationist wizard as he starts casting..
"We we slaughter him today with our cut throat negotiation tactics!" says the oracle of battle with a tongues curse.
"Well you all can take care of that, you have the knowledge of magic and stuff." replies the gunslinger
"I like swords" says the fighter.
They step into the building.. ROLL FOR INITIATIVE!
Gunslinger draws his gun. "THIS IS STICK UP!"
"I LIKE SWORDS!" screams the fighter beating on his chest
"AalarK SLARK vARkle!" tries to say the Oracle of battle
"I hate you guys." says the wizard who ended up still going last
What I'm curious about is if everyone in an area intends to start making baskets, why are we tracking it in combat rounds? Wouldn't a non-combat skill... like Craft: Basketweaving... be a more appropriate check to determine who starts/finishes first, instead of an initiative check, which is modified by things like combat feats and Favored Terrain?Rereading the example situation I gave.....
Nobody in the party made any decisions before initiative was rolled. The first action taken dictated all subsequent actions, which resolved into a non-violent solution to the encounter.
Which is fine, but if the NPC had actually wanted to attack, your Diplomacy wouldn't have had time to do anything.
All you would accomplish is letting him get the first attack in.
And in the example I provided, the man was confused, frightened and slightly crazy, but neither evil or psychotic.
They only reason people can provide for my not being able to calm him down is the GM had the group roll initiative. A meta-game reason the characters would have no knowledge of.
So after reading the entire thread, and perusing the Diplomacy rules, there are only a couple of conclusions I can come to. Either your GM ran this encounter entirely incorrectly per RAW, meaning he called for initiative in a situation that did not (yet) warrant it. Or he allowed a 10 round action to complete in 1 round, again circumventing the rules. Or he allowed a request option of a hostile target, again, circumventing the rules. Alternatively, the encounter in question is horribly written, and the author explicitly called for an initiative roll in a situation that did not (yet) warrant it. If the old man was hostile and attacked and initiative was called, 6 seconds is not enough time for anyone (no matter their initiative or diplomacy) to prevent an attack. Being confused, frightened, or slightly crazy does not result in an initiative request. If confused, frightened, slightly crazy old man draws a weapon and swings/nocks and draws/starts to cast, then initiative is called.
A GM is always free to run his game how he wants and authors are free to write encounters the way they want. If you want to claim, or the GM wants to allow for miraculous events or awesome roleplaying, great! The situation you describe however, is completely and utterly unsupported by RAW.