I'm curious how other groups handle the following situations, and if there are any official rules I'm missing about it.
Question: If a character is within the threatened area of another creature, assuming no other prior knowledge of the creature - do they know it?
Example 1: A giant rolls up 10ft away from a wizard. The giant has 10ft reach. Assuming he has not seen the reach of the giant yet, does the wizard "Feel threatened" enough to know he needs to cast defensively?
Example 2: A fighter (without Combat Reflexes) moves up and trips a Wizard. The Wizard provokes an AoO from the fighter while standing. Does the Wizard "feel threatened" even though the fighter has no remaining AoO's? Does he know he can cast spells safely?
Example 3: A tenticle monster with Combat Reflexes and a huge reach is in range of a party of heroes. One of the heroes provokes an AoO from movement. Do the other heroes "Feel Threatened" if the creature can still take more AoO's? Do they know they need to Acrobatics to move safely?
My assumption is that during a battle a character always "Feels threatened". Anything else they wish to assume about the capabilities of the opponent is their choice.
|
These are really two different issues.
Q1) Do you know you're in a threatened square?
A1) Generally, I say "yes" if it's reasonable for the character to see that they are. They would know, for example, that the giant can reach them with a melee attack without moving based on the length of his arms and the length of the sword. The best way to ask this question is, "Do I think the giant can hit me from where he's standing?"
Q2) Do you know that your opponent has Combat Reflexes?
A1) Generally, no, unless you've already seen him take multiple attacks in a round. If you've fought a similar creature before, you can make assumptions all you want but you won't know until someone provokes a second AoO in the same round.
"Threatened" has nothing to do with the threatened creature's feelings. That said, perception does matter to the question of choosing actions.
1. Attempting to look at it from the wizard's perspective, it is likely that the wizard would take one look at the giant's general shape (if not the length of its arms, if visible) and conclude that he's in trouble. Defensive cast unless his personality is particularly oblivious or lacking in judgment (or suicidally arrogant).
2. That's probably up to the judgment of the wizard. There's no reason the fighter has to telegraph his abilities (or lack thereof), though the player or GM controlling the fighter is welcome to describe it with fluff if they want to.
3. I think just being in range of a bunch of tentacles writhing about and smacking heroes is more than enough to feel threatened, regardless of remaining attacks of opportunity. This goes with question 2: the hentai villain isn't obligated to inform the heroes that it is out of attacks.
The crunch behind all of this is that "being threatened" is not the same as "will be subject to AoO". Even if the threat has no more attacks of opportunity left, they still technically threaten their area.
Edit: Corrected a misstatement. You do still provoke, but you may not be subject to the AoO.
Example 1: Giants are big. With arms as long as your entire body. Yes you'd know they can b&$@&-slap you from where they're standing
Example 2: Yes you'd know you're in the threatened area. If he actually has any remaining AoO left or not doesn't matter. You can of course always risk it and find out if he got any left.
Example 3: Same as 2. Yes
Being threatened has nothing at all to do with the fact if he has any AoO left or not.
I'd say you can assume the normal reach for a creature of that size. 0' for tiny and smalller, 5' for small/medium. 10' for large(tall). Etc. Creatures that break the norm take a knowledge roll to know they have abnormal reach. As far as if they have combat reflexes, again a knowledge roll or seeing them make multiple AoOs in a round.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact that the 10 foot tall giant with a halbard can hit you from a fair ways off should be pretty obvious.
DMs should not hoard information from players. The DM is the only portal the players have into the world that exists largely in the DM's head.
You know when you're threatened, the War Shaper class in 3.5 had an ability that spelled that out in clear english, as they had an ability that let them surprise people with extra reach.
Do you know if you are threatened. Yes.
Do you know when there are no AoO's left? Perhaps, I could see this being described as "a brief opening or lull in the foe's offense."
Can you know a tentacles monsters reach or how many AoO's it has? I'd say yes. If you see it attack your buddy next to you, you know you are in a bad spot. Short of the above lull, you are likely acutely aware of the danger you face.
This goes with question 2: the hentai villain isn't obligated to inform the heroes that it is out of attacks.
An attractive Tien-Min female would always feel threatened in this situation. (Unless ...)
I allow my players to know whether something is able to use an AoO against them. If someone cannot use an AoO, I'll mention something like "That last swing has drawn him out of position to strike again."
For monsters, I would say you know your threatened if you've seen it attack with reach or someone in the party made a knowledge check to identify it. For NPC combatants, I would say you need to see combat reflexes or a lack thereof to know for sure. I'd allow a Sense Motive check to determine it without actually seeing combat reflexes in action. As for the tentacle monster, either would apply, with the appropriate knowledge check for the monster itself being easier, as it's much harder to read bizarre body language, I would think. That's generally how we play when it comes up.
The only way I would say No is if a creature had an ability that existed in 3.5 (Not sure if it does anymore) called 'Surprise Reach'.
What about an Aberrant Sorcerer using Long Limbs (Ex) and a readied action to shocking grasp the wizard from 15' away if he begins casting a spell? The wizard shouldn't know that he can get zapped until he's seen it happen.
"He's an unarmed human. Even if he takes a 5' step, I'm still out of reach. No defensive casting for me, huahua!" zap
As a house rule, you could always allow a Perception or Sense Motive if the player asks whether someone has attacks of opportunity left.
Edit: Damn mexican devil ninjas. ; )
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you know when there are no AoO's left? Perhaps, I could see this being described as "a brief opening or lull in the foe's offense."
"I know what you're thinking: Did he take six attacks of opportunity this round or only five? Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that this is a +5 vorpal greatsword, the most powerful melee weapon in the world - and would cut your head clean off - you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do ya, punk?"
It's worth pointing out that taking an AoO that someone just provoked from you is always a choice. It's perfectly reasonable for an intelligent NPC to say "I have 5 AoO's, but I'm only going to use three of them a round, until they let their guard down." There is no mechanical way to tell the difference between an AoO not taken because the guy is holding it in reserve and one not taken because the guy is unable to make it. (Obviously, the GM can fluff it however he wants, and can create said distinction.)
|
The only way I would say No is if a creature had an ability that existed in 3.5 (Not sure if it does anymore) called 'Surprise Reach'.What about an Aberrant Sorcerer using Long Limbs (Ex) and a readied action to shocking grasp the wizard from 15' away if he begins casting a spell? The wizard shouldn't know that he can get zapped until he's seen it happen.
"He's an unarmed human. Even if he takes a 5' step, I'm still out of reach. No defensive casting for me, huahua!" zap
Or a Witch with the Prehensile Hair Hex.
Do you know if you are threatened. Yes.
If by "yes" you mean "no", then yes, otherwise no. Witness invisible creatures. They threaten but you don't even know they're present.
What's fair is for a DM to describe a creature. It's reasonable to assume that Large creatures may threaten 10ft from them but it's not a given. It's reasonable to assume that creatures with tentacles can probably use them. It's reasonable to assume that creatures with long weapons like spears probably have extended reach. But without a Knowledge() check, you don't know for sure one way or the other.
Do you know when there are no AoO's left? Perhaps, I could see this being described as "a brief opening or lull in the foe's offense."
Meh, I wouldn't. And really, all of this stuff is going on in six seconds that it's probably not fair to talk about lulls and the like. The bad guy takes his two or three attacks, two of my friends provoke, giving the bad guy two more attacks, and there's still time for me to notice that he's not going to AoO me if I cast? Meh.
Can you know a tentacles monsters reach or how many AoO's it has? I'd say yes. If you see it attack your buddy next to you, you know you are in a bad spot. Short of the above lull, you are likely acutely aware of the danger you face.
Just opinion, but nope. Until the tentacles reach out, you don't know precisely how long they are. If you want to assume it has lots of reach and act appropriately, you've earned your life. But I don't see why as a DM I should be telling a player that "it can reach out 15 feet". I'll give reasonable hints like "it's got really long arms so you get the impression you don't want to be anywhere near it". If you interpret that as 10ft reach, so be it. If you interpret that to be 20ft reach, again so be it.
Do you know if you are threatened. Yes.If by "yes" you mean "no", then yes, otherwise no. Witness invisible creatures. They threaten but you don't even know they're present.
Meh, that's moving the goal posts. It's also a corner case. And we were obviously discussing it in the context of visible enemies.
Do you know when there are no AoO's left? Perhaps, I could see this being described as "a brief opening or lull in the foe's offense.""I know what you're thinking: Did he take six attacks of opportunity this round or only five? Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that this is a +5 vorpal greatsword, the most powerful melee weapon in the world - and would cut your head clean off - you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do ya, punk?"
Thread's over. Last one hit the lights on the way out.
Meh, that's moving the goal posts. It's also a corner case. And we were obviously discussing it in the context of visible enemies.
So you would let your characters know that the archer they are fighting threatens its nearby squares? (9th lvl zen archer)
What about if that character is unarmed, but has IUS? Do characters know that the adjacent square are threatened?
The easiest way, is that characters can assume reach based on creature size/weapons used. Creatures that don't fit the mold should take a knowledge check to know their reach is non-standard. Same for if they have combat reflexes.
Meh, that's moving the goal posts. It's also a corner case. And we were obviously discussing it in the context of visible enemies.So you would let your characters know that the archer they are fighting threatens its nearby squares? (9th lvl zen archer)
What about if that character is unarmed, but has IUS? Do characters know that the adjacent square are threatened?
The easiest way, is that characters can assume reach based on creature size/weapons used. Creatures that don't fit the mold should take a knowledge check to know their reach is non-standard. Same for if they have combat reflexes.
If the archer has a legitimate means of threatening them (natural attacks, armor spikes, or the confident stance of a martial artist) then yes, absolutely.
I think I would tell it to my players just to be fair, because, as a GM, I know the reach and the remaining AoO of each PC.
On a related topic, how do you handle readied actions?
|
|
I think I would tell it to my players just to be fair, because, as a GM, I know the reach and the remaining AoO of each PC.
I don't treat it as an adversarial game. It's not me against the PCs. It's me adjudicating what happens in the world around the PCs, and the results of their actions. I can't do that fairly if I'm playing "against" the PCs.
On a related topic, how do you handle readied actions?
The player says "If X happens, I do Y." Then, if X happens, I have them do Y and move them into the initiative order just before the acting creature's turn. If X doesn't happen, when I get back around to their turn, I say "It's your turn, what would you like to do?"
Snark aside, what were you asking about, specifically?
Specifically? If a NPC archer ready an action to disrupt the spellcasting of the PC wizard, will you tell the PC wizard about it (thus influencing his action) or will you just tell: the NPC archer is reading an "unknown" action?
I'm not an adversarial GM, but I play clever monsters, well, as if they were clever. I don't want to kill the PCs, but the monsters do, and I play them accordingly.
Specifically? If a NPC archer ready an action to disrupt the spellcasting of the PC wizard, will you tell the PC wizard about it (thus influencing his action) or will you just tell: the NPC archer is reading an "unknown" action?
The Archer has the bow drawn and is pointing his arrow right at the wizards head while holding the bow back. Unless he's invisible that should be pretty obvious.
If by "yes" you mean "no", then yes, otherwise no. Witness invisible creatures. They threaten but you don't even know they're present.Meh, that's moving the goal posts. It's also a corner case. And we were obviously discussing it in the context of visible enemies.
All I meant by it - and it's an important point - is that there's no mechanical rule that reveals that a PC is threatened. If there was, there would have to be exceptions for cases such as invisibility, and there are not.
I'm not moving the goalposts but rather setting a baseline. If we can agree that you don't know when invisible creatures are threatening you, we have to then find the rule that says "in the case of visible creatures, you DO know".
This discussion frankly comes down to simulationist versus gameist viewpoints. A simulationist points out that a human with IUS is visible indifferentiable from one without, depriving the threatened character any notable signals. A gameist points out "the rulebook tells you who threatens who, and the players are allowed to read the rulebook".
Me, I am of the opinion that the monster manual and the statblocks of bad guy NPCs are off-limits for my players. If they're not allowed to Just Know that a bad guy has resist fire 5 or a Reflex save of +15, they're also not allowed to know he's got IUS until he uses it.
Do you tell your players "this guy knows how to sunder without provoking an AoO"?
Specifically? If a NPC archer ready an action to disrupt the spellcasting of the PC wizard, will you tell the PC wizard about it (thus influencing his action) or will you just tell: the NPC archer is reading an "unknown" action?The Archer has the bow drawn and is pointing his arrow right at the wizards head while holding the bow back. Unless he's invisible that should be pretty obvious.
Really?
What if the archer use a readied action to shot the first enemy spellcaster on the battlefield who begins casting a spell. Does all the spellcasters on the battlefield would have an arrow pointed at their face? This seems physically impossible.
What if the same archer instead use a readied action to shot the first enemy on the battlefield who moves, draws a weapon, attacks, etc. Could the opponents tell the difference?
Now replace the archer by a sorcerer who wants to disrupt the spellcasting of the wizard with a readied fireball, he wouldn't even need to "aim" at the wizard for that, he would just have to include him in the AoE.
So the question is: does readied actions need to be spelled out openly so that everyone around the table would know what to do, our should I say what to NOT do, to not trigger the readied action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We play that while everyone knows that character did a "ready action" and is waiting for something, the conditions/action to be taken are not known.
This allows things like the archer to look "ready", which might cause the wizard to take cover before casting his spell. Or various other head games between creatures on the board. We find it more fun this way.
We play that while everyone knows that character did a "ready action" and is waiting for something, the conditions/action to be taken are not known.
This allows things like the archer to look "ready", which might cause the wizard to take cover before casting his spell. Or various other head games between creatures on the board. We find it more fun this way.
How do you avoid metagaming and, possibly, cheating? Do you ask your players to secretly write down their readied actions and triggering conditions on a small piece of paper?
What if the archer use a readied action to shot the first enemy spellcaster on the battlefield who begins casting a spell. Does all the spellcasters on the battlefield would have an arrow pointed at their face? This seems physically impossible.
He would have the bow pulled back and would be aiming it wildly back and forth at all the likely combatants.
I may have a few problems with the legality of that readied trigger: namely how can he tell who's casting a spell and who's cursing in draconic?
What if the same archer instead use a readied action to shot the first enemy on the battlefield who moves, draws a weapon, attacks, etc. Could the opponents tell the difference?He's still standing there with a knocked and drawn arrow ready to go.
Now replace the archer by a sorcerer who wants to disrupt the spellcasting of the wizard with a readied fireball, he wouldn't even need to "aim" at the wizard for that, he would just have to include him in the AoE.He's got his hands up and his mouth open.
So the question is: does readied actions need to be spelled out openly so that everyone around the table would know what to do, our should I say what to NOT do, to not trigger the readied action?I don't think you should spell out what he's waiting for , but at the same time any spellcaster with a knocked and drawn arrow pointed in their general vicinity knows the drill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you avoid metagaming and, possibly, cheating? Do you ask your players to secretly write down their readied actions and triggering conditions on a small piece of paper?We play that while everyone knows that character did a "ready action" and is waiting for something, the conditions/action to be taken are not known.
This allows things like the archer to look "ready", which might cause the wizard to take cover before casting his spell. Or various other head games between creatures on the board. We find it more fun this way.
How so? The GM knows what the bad guy is readying and, ostensibly, isn't going to be a dick and change it. The players don't get to know this.T
The players say what they are readying and, ostensibly, the GM isn't going to be a dick and use that information.
The situation asks no more of the GM than usual--play the bad guys from the bad guys' perspective with whatever knowledge and cunning the bad guys have--and of course, don't be a dick.
I may have a few problems with the legality of that readied trigger: namely how can he tell who's casting a spell and who's cursing in draconic?
Hand waving, visual effects (fluff, optional), material components being consumed.
He's got his hands up and his mouth open.
Casting a spell is, more often than not, a standard action and the action your a readying is also a standard action. When you want to cast a spell as a standard action, you don't need to have your hands up and mouth open prior to resolving your standard action, so I don't see why you should prior to resolving your readied action. Since "aiming" is not an action at all, the archer wouldn't be required to aim at the target of his readied action before resolving it: he would only require to have is target in his line of sight and a bow in hand. I think it all comes down to how you want to surround readied action with fluff. I'm not saying the ways you would handle the aforementioned situations are wrong, in fact this is how I would handle them too, but, as far as I know, none of them are supported by RAW and are instead related to playstyle, nothing else.
|
Why do I see this being played out, by a steely eyed, scowling Barbarian, standing over a wounded enemy...
"...Now, I know what you're thinkin'....you're thinkin', 'did he take two Attacks of Opportunity, or was it only one?'...and to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself...but being as this is a +3 Vorpal Great Sword, and can take your head clean off...you have to ask yourself a question...Do I feel threatened? Well...do ya, punk?!"
*Enemy thinks better of moving further past enraged Barbarian, then looks up to him and says "hey....I gots ta know!"
*schnicht*
Barbarian smiles and chuckles to himself...
How so? The GM knows what the bad guy is readying and, ostensibly, isn't going to be a dick and change it. The players don't get to know this.T
The players say what they are readying and, ostensibly, the GM isn't going to be a dick and use that information.
The situation asks no more of the GM than usual--play the bad guys from the bad guys' perspective with whatever knowledge and cunning the bad guys have--and of course, don't be a dick.
And this is the problem, this non-symetrical relation between the players and the GM. The GM's readied action is unknown to the players, so they will have to try to guess what it is and act accordingly (and, like you said, the GM shouldn't be a dick by changing his triggering conditions on the fly). On the GM's side, however, he can't even put himself in the skin of the NPCs who are trying to guess what the triggering conditions are, because he already know the answer, so he either acts purposely dump by triggering the readied action (which is 100% fine if he is playing stupid goblins, animals or golems) or he uses metagaming knowledge by negating the readied action. At least, if the triggering conditions were unknown to the GM, he could have guessed them right and negated the readied action "fair and square", but since he knowns what the triggering conditions are, he can't negate the readied action without being a jerk (even while playing supra-genius monsters like mind-flayers).
|
The only way I would say No is if a creature had an ability that existed in 3.5 (Not sure if it does anymore) called 'Surprise Reach'.What about an Aberrant Sorcerer using Long Limbs (Ex) and a readied action to shocking grasp the wizard from 15' away if he begins casting a spell? The wizard shouldn't know that he can get zapped until he's seen it happen.
"He's an unarmed human. Even if he takes a 5' step, I'm still out of reach. No defensive casting for me, huahua!" zap
This isn't even the same thing... but would fall into the same category as the surprise reach ability. The wizard would not expect that from the character unless he has already seen it done. the ability itself even says it doesn't increase your threatened area. Your sorc. appears to be waiting for something with a crackly hand (if you spellcrafted the shocking grasp you know he can't get to you). Perhaps he has some trick up his sleeve to hit you...maybe cast defensively just in case....not that it matters since you have a readied action to interrupt his casting... Fool me once shame on you...
And this is the problem, this non-symetrical relation between the players and the GM. The GM's readied action is unknown to the players, so they will have to try to guess what it is and act accordingly (and, like you said, the GM shouldn't be a dick by changing his triggering conditions on the fly). On the GM's side, however, he can't even put himself in the skin of the NPCs who are trying to guess what the triggering conditions are, because he already know the answer, so he either acts purposely dump by triggering the readied action (which is 100% fine if he is playing stupid goblins, animals or golems) or he uses metagaming knowledge by negating the readied action. At least, if the triggering conditions were unknown to the GM, he could have guessed them right and negated the readied action "fair and square", but since he knowns what the triggering conditions are, he can't negate the readied action without being a jerk (even while playing supra-genius monsters like mind-flayers).
The GM already has to do this all the time. He knows everything there is to know about the characters. Who they are, what their stats are, how many charges are left in their wand of lightning bolt, the fact that they even have a wand of lightning bolt, what feats the fighter took, whether the ranger is an archer or a switch-hitter, exactly what spells Dilbo over there has ready to toss. . . . It's the GM's job to pretend that he doesn't have this information during tactical combat and play it out like the bad guys would see it. PC readied actions are only a small part of what the GM must compartmentalize during game play.
It's no different than the GM having to be sure the adventure isn't handcrafted to kill the party magus. It'd be easy to do if he wanted to, but he doesn't, because his job is to present the bad guys as they are, for better or worse, not simply kill the PCs nor give them an easy victory. The players, in turn, trust that the GM is sufficiently compartmentalizing metagame knowledge so as to play fairly (i.e., play to the knowledge of the actors, not the GM, and don't give every bad guy the exact counter to the PCs' abilities). If they can't trust him to do that, how can they trust him to run a fair adventure at all?
It's never been an issue for our group. Sometimes the monsters know--or even guess right--and sometimes they don't. Once, I simply wasn't sure what the bad guy knew, so I picked a possible "wrong" answer and rolled Sense Motive against the readied PC's Bluff (tactical acumen versus unconscious telegraphing). It resolved the situation and we moved on.
It's the GM's job to pretend that he doesn't have this information during tactical combat and play it out like the bad guys would see it. PC readied actions are only a small part of what the GM must compartmentalize during game play.
It's no different than the GM having to be sure the adventure isn't handcrafted to kill the party magus. It'd be easy to do if he wanted to, but he doesn't, because his job is to present the bad guys as they are, for better or worse, not simply kill the PCs nor give them an easy victory. The players, in turn, trust that the GM is sufficiently compartmentalizing...
Try playing chess against yourself sometime. It will teach compartmentalization. :D
- Gauss
JohnF, of course you did, but you only lost half your games. Ill bet you won the other half. - Gauss
It's the GM's job to pretend that he doesn't have this information during tactical combat and play it out like the bad guys would see it. PC readied actions are only a small part of what the GM must compartmentalize during game play.
It's no different than the GM having to be sure the adventure isn't handcrafted to kill the party magus. It'd be easy to do if he wanted to, but he doesn't, because his job is to present the bad guys as they are, for better or worse, not simply kill the PCs nor give them an easy victory. The players, in turn, trust that the GM is sufficiently compartmentalizing...
Try playing chess against yourself sometime. It will teach compartmentalization. :D
- Gauss
Heh, no joke.
Stuff.
Honestly, it has never been an issue for my group either, but mostly because the players almost never use readied actions (shame on them). :P
Just out of curiosity, when the bad guys you played "guessed it right", what was the reaction of your players? And also, what is the "guess right"/"guess wrong" ratio that you use for the NPCs?
While there are no clear game mechanics for it, someone's planned "readied" action may be recognizable to onlookers...
[i]"The wizard has taken some sort of components out of his pouch. He stands stationary, his hands held ready for what may be the opening gesture of a spell."
"The orc's spear is drawn back, ready to thrust whoever next passes through the doorway before him."
Similarly, someone might read that their foe has been drawn out of position and can't strike (attack of opportunity) that moment.
Attacks of Opportunity are a side-effect of the fact that the rules are an abstraction: while the players are politely taking turns and attacking only once every six seconds, the characters are assumed to be continually wailing on each other by whatever means possible. Attacks of Opportunity happen when someone is distracted by other activities, and thus more of their opponent's attacks get through their defenses.
With that understanding in mind, I would say that you do definitely know what areas are threatened. A creature could theoretically take steps to conceal its full reach, but barring extraordinary circumstances it will usually be obvious.