|
The rules were unclear, though common sense dictated that he was wrong as wrong could be - his contention was that by closing a door and hiding behind it, a kenku could restart the combat with new initiatives, and because this door could be opened and closed as a free action (magic door), the kenku would get to act once for every action the party took, with the end result that everyone in the party (except this player's rogue) gets sneak-attacked by a kenku we know is there and who attacks the same way everytime.What.
You can thank Erik Mona for this one, he wrote the adventure (though I've been told the GM misread something).
There is a hallway. It is 5' wide and 30' long. At the midpoint of the hallway is a concealed door. The door can be activated telepathically as a free action, causing it to open or close. Behind the door is a kenku with a knife. When a person steps in front of the door, the kenku opens the door as a free action, stabs the person standing in front of them (sneak attack!) during the surprise round, and closes the door as a free action. The question then became this: Once the door is closed, is the combat over?
(I'm told that the door is not supposed to closed, and if that is the case, then the whole argument would have been avoided.)
The other player was of the opinion that the combat was over when the door is closed, so that when the next person in line steps forward the kenku again gets to open the door, stab, and close the door on an entirely new surprise round. Meaning that the kenku gets a surprise round for each character in the party, which means everyone in the party gets hit with a sneak attack. Since half the party was first level warriors with 5 hit points, this was going to kill half the party at least.
I was of the opinion that the combat did not end when the kenku closed the door because we we're all still aware that we were in danger. Thus I thought we should all roll initiative and run past the door - with someone standing next to it with a readied action to smack the kenku if he dared to open that door again.
But the stupid 3.5 rules were really unclear about when a combat begins and ends. They said that if you lost sight of an enemy and then encountered it again later, that combat ended and restarted when you re-encountered the creature. I don't have my 3.5 books available at the moment, but if you want to be really ridiculous you could read the rules as suggesting that a character who threw a sheet over his head in the middle of combat would cause the combat to stop, and get to roll a new initiative as soon as he pulled the sheet away.
Also, you can only ready an action if you're in combat according to the 3.5 rules, which means if you aren't in combat after the kenku closes the door, you can't ready an attack to hit it when it opens the door again. Because apparently it is impossible to play Whack-A-Mole in 3.5.
The DM refused to agree with either of us or make a ruling, and eventually the other player admitted that he was only arguing the point to get my character and his hirelings killed. That was when it got pretty ugly.
|
I don't have my 3.5 books available at the moment, but if you want to be really ridiculous you could read the rules as suggesting that a character who threw a sheet over his head in the middle of combat would cause the combat to stop, and get to roll a new initiative as soon as he pulled the sheet away.
Kid: *covers eyes*
Parent: Where'd I go?Kid: *uncovers eyes*
Parent: There I am!
the other player admitted that he was only arguing the point to get my character and his hirelings killed. That was when it got pretty ugly.
Did you mean to say "That was when it got really funny"?
Once the door is closed, is the combat over?
Surprise rounds are predicated on awareness of the opposition, which is most often resolved as a perception roll.
Even if closing the door somehow ended combat (it doesn't) the Kenku would not get a surprise round unless he very convincingly used Stealth, had Hide in Plain Sight, invisibility, or some other exceptional circumstance. But the rules for those kinds of things in combat don't actually grant extra surprise rounds.
Once the PCs are aware there is a hostile force attacking them, be it in the same room or behind a door, or whatnot, then combat continues until the engagement is completely mitigated. That's the GM's call, but I will point to the fact that both perception and disable device can be performed in rounds, and a specialized rogue could have discovered the door and opened it, allowing the rest of the party to give chase within 1-3 rounds. Even if nobody swings a sword or fires a bow or casts a spell for 10 rounds, the movement they choose is going to matter in resolving the fight. That is, unless they lose him altogether.
It is a gray area. I would say that once the surprise round took place, an initiative starts, and I would not stop the initiative until both sides had ceased acting against each other — which includes trying to bash or open the door and give chase to the ambusher.
The GM's ruling there gave extra actions to an NPC in a manner that can and will be subsequently abused by PCs. That makes it a bad call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. After wading through hundreds of pages on the kenku-door-dilemma back in the day, I had desperately hoped that the topic had been put to bed. Look back in the "Age of Worms" forum in the archives for every interpretation in the world for how this should work, with rules quotes, flaming, and all the attendant drama.
Ugh. After wading through hundreds of pages on the kenku-door-dilemma back in the day, I had desperately hoped that the topic had been put to bed. Look back in the "Age of Worms" forum in the archives for every interpretation in the world for how this should work, with rules quotes, flaming, and all the attendant drama.
Wait, this is a serious thing?
Oh man.
|
|
The GM's ruling there gave extra actions to an NPC in a manner that can and will be subsequently abused by PCs. That makes it a bad call.
Nah, you missed the point of the story. It wasn't that the GM made a bad call, it's that he refused to make any kind of call at all. He left it to the players (all two of us) to decide what the rules said, with neither of us having any authority the other would recognize, and he (the GM) wouldn't just (as the title of this thread suggest) homerule it and move on.
Kirth's right, there's really no need to discuss which ruling is correct or how it should be ruled. I was just sharing the anecdote because its an example of why GM's should take title of the thread to heart.
|
|
Ugh. After wading through hundreds of pages on the kenku-door-dilemma back in the day, I had desperately hoped that the topic had been put to bed. Look back in the "Age of Worms" forum in the archives for every interpretation in the world for how this should work, with rules quotes, flaming, and all the attendant drama.
One of the longest silliest bits of drama on the boards. I am so glad I but read it at the time.
Homerule it, and get over it! =)
Feels good.. lol
YUP!
Play the RAW and get over it.
:)
Come to think of it... just get over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get home and rule over it!!!
Is that what you tell Mrs. Zombie when you get home?
I'm old school when it comes to rulings. In games I run, if there is a dispute over a ruling I've made in session that doesn't agree with the player's interpretation of RAW and they voice the concern in the session...my stance is this, during the session, the GM's word is law, end of story. After the session, bring it up and we'll discuss it. Rules and rule disputes should NEVER, NEVER derail a session, nor wil I let it. I've lost players and gained players with this approach.
Naah, her aim with the frying pan is way too good.Get home and rule over it!!!Is that what you tell Mrs. Zombie when you get home?
Frying pan second only to a good old stick in terms of most dangerous weapons ever invented.
My wife is amazingly accurate with a paperback book, ranged attacks are OP ;P.
|
|
I think what Deinol is trying to say is that we need more ENFPs posting. Agreed!It turns out arguing about rules is way easier to do than discussing creative adventure ideas.
If you don't like the threads about rules stuff, don't read them. Start some threads about what you do want to talk about.
Just missed it, apparently I'm ENTP...
Does the existence of errata have anything to do with this thread, by any chance?
After hanging around the rules subforum for the last couple of days and with all of the recent monk arguments I think this needs to make its way back to the top again.
Its fun to dream.