|
Sorry folks, lost track of this thread (and my last response subsequently got eaten, so if it ever shows up again, i apologize for repeating myself).
Let me set a few things straight... although I appreciate all the feeback ...
I am not asking for a way to screw my player, or beat him up over his tactics. His being an occasional frustration is an aside I shouldn't have even brought up, and was used mainly to frame the context of our "table debate" and it's roadblocks.
I'm not asking for explanations about why SWAT tactics often work - I work closely with Law Enforcement, and know the principles.
We're running Rise of the Runelords, so although the less doors option is a funny one, I have to lay the door layout issue on Paizo.
For the record, let me re-frame what my player was/is trying to accomplish.
Get a "free" opportunity to damage an opponent -> start standard surprise round -> start standard combat. In other words, he wants to be able to unleash the crossbow bolt outside of the context of combat and essentially gain an un-opposed opportunity to cause damage.
With what I've gathered from other people's opinions on how this could be ruled, I'm inclined to agree with those who feel that the surprise round; exists for a reason. Regardless of what happened or didn't happen the milliseconds before the door/gate/curtain is opened, the instant there is an opportunity for threat by an opponent, the surprise round starts.
This leads to a few options (assume in all cases that the opponents fail their perception checks to see/hear/smell my player):
1) My player does all his stuff to a door that leads into an empty room. He wastes time, and a crossbow bolt on something that looks vaguely like an opponent.
2) My player does all his stuff, becomes aware (makes his perception check) of opponents on the other side (which gives him the option to participate in the surprise round), stops what he's doing and moves on. He only wastes time.
3) My player does all his stuff, becomes aware (makes his perception check) of opponents on the other side (which gives him the option to participate in the surprise round), opens the door to unaware and flat-footed opponents and gets to be the sole participant in the surprise round OR he tells his party and they all get to take their standard action. Standard combat follows.
4) My player doesn't do anything, kicks open the door to a room full of goons, no one is aware, thus starts standard combat.
My player still gets to use his tactics. He still gets his crossbow shot. He still gets to be all stealth-ninja-rogue. Heck, he even still gets to kick in the door. What he doesn't get to do is take free opportunities to use opposed actions, unopposed.
Now, the time commitment to do all of those actions is something I intend to focus on more heavily - if for any reason other than keeping the action moving forward, and to present a more organic environment, ie: "while you spent 20 minutes picking that lock, there was a shift change in the guard - who are now coming down the hallway straight towards you".
Anyhow, thanks again for all the thoughtful responses.
We're running Rise of the Runelords, so although the less doors option is a funny one, I have to lay the door layout issue on Paizo.
Which member of Paizo is holding the gun to your head?
What exactly do you want the rogue to do when faced with a door?
For the record, let me re-frame what my player was/is trying to accomplish.
Get a "free" opportunity to damage an opponent -> start standard surprise round -> start standard combat. In other words, he wants to be able to unleash the crossbow bolt outside of the context of combat and essentially gain an un-opposed opportunity to cause damage.
That changes things quite a bit. I would shoot that down in a heart beat. Attacking is part of combat. Attempting to attack starts the surprise round.
If he is still argueing this with you, then it sounds less like a rules problem (he should be well aware that this isn't according to the rules, or even close to it) and more like a lack of respect problem. I think you are close to the point where you need to say "either stop argueing or I will kick you out of the game". Personally this particular arguement I would stand for exactly once before giving him that option.
I've learned that some people aren't worth gaming with. You may want to do yourself and possibly your players a favor and drop him like a bad habit.
|
|
Which member of Paizo is holding the gun to your head?
Seriously? Really? .... Really?
Obviously none ... but if I'm running a published adventure with high caliber cartography and encounter design, suggestions like use more caverns/mountains/plains/oceans in place of the Catacombs of Wrath/Fox Glove Manor or some of the other door heavy environments is a suggestion that only goes so far.
What exactly do you want the rogue to do when faced with a door?
How about work with me to find a suitable progession of events that dosen't give him an "I hit the win button" solution to certain problems?
|
|
That changes things quite a bit. I would shoot that down in a heart beat. Attacking is part of combat. Attempting to attack starts the surprise round.
Ok cool! Sounds like we're all on the same page here then - that's a relief.
I've learned that some people aren't worth gaming with. You may want to do yourself and possibly your players a favor and drop him like a bad habit.
Luckily we're not here yet, and hopefully with some discussion we can come to a place where there isn't a me vs. the party and DM thing going on anymore.
It seems like everything is lined up now. Yes, his tactics are solid enough to potentially snag him a lot of surprise rounds. That is of course not taking into account any situations where the enemy notices his presence, or the time it takes to do his "door procedures" allows for a change in the enemy layout/situation.
What his tactics DON'T do is give him an EXTRA suprise round on top of the regular suprise round. Because there is no such thing, so obviously he can not acheive it.
Player personality quirks aside, seems like things are figured out.
|
I agree with The Black Bard. He wants to get three attacks before anyone else gets to do anything else, which is entirely unreasonable, especially with a crossbow. That would imply (in the context of the rules) that he is getting a full 18 seconds to shoot people with no one else even having a chance to so much as move.
Opens door = Chance for surprise round, everybody roll spot checks (including the monsters, which should have gotten listen checks int he first place when somebody was messing with the locks and fumbling around checking for traps).
Everybody who succeeded their perception checks = Roll initiative for the surprise round, in which they get to perform one partial action.
The rest of combat insues.
|
Agreed, trying to get an extra action prior to the surprise round is just trying to subvert the rules and spirit of their intent for one's own personal benefit. If this rogue attempted such a thing in one of my games, he'd soon find himself dealing with three NPC Rogues of sufficient level to repeatedly sneak attack him. To rub salt in the wound, I'd make them all Kobolds and deal only non-lethal damage, so that the party had to drag him around.
How about work with me to find a suitable progession of events that dosen't give him an "I hit the win button" solution to certain problems?
Have you approached him about it?
Yeah, it's not the tactic that is at issue, it is the time consumption elements that are so vital, especially when combined with the opposed roll requirements.
Can he potentially initiate a surprise round? Sure, not a problem. That's what his Listen/Perception check is for - to see if there's anything on the other side of that door to surprise.
In certain situations he'll get in a cheap shot attack roll; in others he'll be the one eating a cheap shot in return; in others he simply wastes a minute or two at a clip of game time; in others still he'll set off a trap or royally tank diplomatic possibilities. None of these are really different from the norm other than being stated as "I do this all the time, at every door, period".
The combination of trying to get in TWO cheap shots and the "all the time" aspect is generally a good way to get a GM riled up in a hurry.
I think you have the right take on it - strongly emphasize the time consumption with a secondary emphasis on "a surprise round only occurs once". I am quite certain that the PHB, Rules Compendium and PF Beta are all in consensus on how achieving surprise works in game terms, regardless of how it is argued "IRL".
I think you have the right take on it - strongly emphasize the time consumption with a secondary emphasis on "a surprise round only occurs once".
And finally, don't forget that fighting in room #1 generally makes a loud noise that might be heard in room #2.
If I have a player that does repetitive actions over and over again to try and gain some benefit, I try first to mix up the situation (like remove the door, make it jammed, make it a gate not a door, etc).
The way I might handle the situation you described (beside what I mentioned above) is to make it so the creatures inside get listen checks. If they succeed, they also act in the surprise round. Somewhere SRD it mentions "both parties surprised" in the combat section.
Or throw in the occasional silence spell on the door, to stop eavesdroppers (and confuse trigger-happy rogues).
Lots of ways to handle the situation with RAW mechanics and strategy.