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.
My comment was in reference to players claiming they should get a free round just because they say "I attack".
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. :)
The issue at its core is this: you have to "be aware of your OPPONENTS" otherwise there is the threat of a surprise round. You can be aware there is a creature standing there, but in order to be aware of your opponent, you have to be aware that this creature IS your opponent first.
There are two camps... one that thinks you have to do something sneaky or be in stealth to potentially cause a surprise round... and the other camp that thinks that creatures (usually the PCs) need to succeed at a Sense Motive or Perception check in some situations to determine if they recognize that someone that is just a jerk has now become a combat opponent. In the latter case, if you don't pass your check to recognize that the creature IS your opponent, you can't be aware of your "opponents" (as you don't know there are any) and, therefore, a surprise round is eligible to occur.
I think that when someone reaches for their weapon or starts to cast the other party is aware(init is rolled) unless they are completely trusting of the opposing party.
Essentially it boils down to trust. In such negotiations I would have everyone refrain from touching their weapons.
Essentially it boils down to trust. In such negotiations I would have everyone refrain from touching their weapons.
I think it's mechanically simpler to reflect that with a heafty situational bonus to a bluff check. Plus, that's a fairly rare situation. :)
The OP was talking about common situations, and in common situations, where both sides are aware of one another, the default is that there is no surprise round. Under a plain reading of the rules, they are aware of their opponents, so there is no surprise round. And I think that's a fine way to resolve things. I think this is a case of people trying to make the rules more complicated than the actual language.
The issue at its core is this: you have to "be aware of your OPPONENTS" otherwise there is the threat of a surprise round. You can be aware there is a creature standing there, but in order to be aware of your opponent, you have to be aware that this creature IS your opponent first.
I understand the position--it is against the rules as written, I believe. The text does not say anything about being aware of the intent of the opponents, or that they have a hostile intent. One side only has to be aware of the other side--not aware of their nefarious intent. This makes surprising people when they are aware of you, well, really damn hard. And that's fine. Pulling that off is a special situation of the rules, not the default. And that's how it should be.
other stuff...
I think that when someone reaches for their weapon or starts to cast the other party is aware(init is rolled) unless they are completely trusting of the opposing party.
Essentially it boils down to trust. In such negotiations I would have everyone refrain from touching their weapons.
Again, this isn't any boon to your side of the argument, but I don't have anything better to add to mine either.
You have made the determination that you assume that everyone should always recognize their opponents. I, and people in my camp, believe that you cannot always know your enemy. If you believe you always know your enemy, then surprise rounds will be very rare. if you believe that it is harder to tell when someone has become your enemy, they will be more common.
If you think it is realistic that you only are unprepared for combat when dealing with a trusted friend, I guess I can't talk you out of it. But in my opinion, and in my experience, and in television and movies and books I've read... your position doesn't ring true. I could come up with examples all day long of situations where there is potential for danger, but you don't know when or if combat is about to happen, and if you fail to recognize the moment where things go from potential of combat to combat, that is a SURPRISE. I gave some examples earlier, I don't think more case studies will sway you.
I am not saying you should automatically recognize your opponents.
There are basically 3 levels
Friends(most likely get a surprise round)
Associates(might get one)
Known enemies(no way at all)
I just have a tight restriction as to who gets into category 1.
I also don't think saying "I attack" should get anyone a free surprise round. If players want to do that I would do it as a GM, but conversations with my NPC's is less likely to happen because "I attack" is now a mechanical construct, and I would begin to treat it as one.
The bar guy most likely gets one if the PC is just there for social reasons. If he is there for mission related reasons I would expect his guard to be up, and some it should be more difficult for the bar guy to pull it off. I don't think his chances are too bad, but not as good as when the PC is just hanging out.
I agree with your 4th category also.
I also don't think saying "I attack" should get anyone a free surprise round. If players want to do that I would do it as a GM, but conversations with my NPC's is less likely to happen because "I attack" is now a mechanical construct, and I would begin to treat it as one.
I think this is the critical point, and I agree. Any interpretation that violates that principle is bunk.
And people in my camp would vehemently argue that it is NOT against the rules as written. Its a disservice to the English language to assume that you can be "aware of your opponents" if you don't know they are "your opponent".
Actually, no. Al and Betty are opponents. Al does not know that Betty is his opponent. Al is aware of Betty. Al is aware of his opponent. A person can be aware of an opponent without knowing their status as adversaries.
Your reading is adding something to the rules that is not there--which is fine, etc. But the rules as written obviate the strangeness the OP was concerned about. What you're describing is akin to someone trying to pull of a sucker punch in plain sight, which is like a bluff or somesuch.
Let's put it this way... let's say there is a wall. The wall is covered in smooth plaster. Underneath that plaster is brick. Are you aware of a "brick wall"? No, you are aware of a plaster wall. So, if you aren't aware of your opponent being an opponent, you cannot be aware of your...
I am aware of the wall and that is all that is required to obviate a surprise round; to avoid having it fall on me or to scribble upon it. I do not need to be aware of whatever adjectives or other traits describe the wall to be aware of the wall. Right?
I also don't think saying "I attack"...
I don't think anyone is arguing (unless I missed it somewhere above) that anytime someone announces they attack it should be a surprise round...
You are, by negative implication by adding this notion to the rules, that folks have to be aware of some nefarious intent or secret status as adversaries to avoid having to be surprised. In that situation, simply saying "I attack" does give someone a surprise round--unless you add various other mechanics.
Isn't the simpler reading both the more likely one, and usually, though not always, the better one? I think it's a straightforward categorical rule, not something fact-specific about intents and so on. And that simpler reading works on its own, with the rules as written. Clearly you don't like that reading, which is fine, but it seems to me the simpler and straightforward reading of the rules readily handle the kinds of common occurrences that the OP was concerned about.
A creature can be an opponent, or a creature can be a non-opponent.
Adding a knowledge of status is not part of the RAW. You can make the rules more complicated with forced or readings, sure, and there is some ambiguity--but that ambiguity is readily resolved by reading the rules in the simpler manner. Think about it from the drafter's perspective.
At this point, I am just repeating the points that you have not addressed, and so I will bow out. Best :)
I also don't think saying "I attack" should get anyone a free surprise round. If players want to do that I would do it as a GM, but conversations with my NPC's is less likely to happen because "I attack" is now a mechanical construct, and I would begin to treat it as one.I think this is the critical point, and I agree. Any interpretation that violates that principle is bunk.I don't think anyone is arguing (unless I missed it somewhere above) that anytime someone announces they attack it should be a surprise round... if that were the argument, every combat would be a surprise round, so, again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Maybe there was some misunderstanding of someone's post.
The critical point of contention is whether you have to be aware that the character for which the "I attack" statement is made is an "opponent" in order to be "aware of your opponents."
There really isn't a way to solve it in the RAW. Anyone saying it is or isn't RAW is wrong. The solution is in the English language and logic. It will depend on your interpretation of "be aware of your opponents", and people's interpretation of that apparently differs.
If the devs come out and say "You are aware of your opponents even if you don't know they are opponents", then it is RAW to not allow surprise rounds as long as everyone can see each other... but its still stupid and doesn't reflect reality in any way, shape or form, and I still wouldn't run my home games that way.
That is why in such a game I would have to take the mechanical affect of "I attack" into consideration. If not knowing who you can or can't trust might get you jumped then I should treat it just like being jumped by a potential ambush. I would be very careful.
In order to have an "opponent" you must have a contest.
Sure. But you do not need to know you are in a contest to either have an opponent, or to be aware of an opponent.
You have to be struggling against one another to be "opponents".
Sure. But you do not need to be aware that you are struggling against one another to be opponents.
I can be aware of my opponent without being aware that we are opponents. If my opponent wants to surprise me while I am aware of him, then that falls outside of the simple rules of the surprise round that the OP was describing.
That is getting very meta-gamey though.I also don't think saying "I attack" should get anyone a free surprise round. If players want to do that I would do it as a GM, but conversations with my NPC's is less likely to happen because "I attack" is now a mechanical construct, and I would begin to treat it as one.I think this is the critical point, and I agree. Any interpretation that violates that principle is bunk.I don't think anyone is arguing (unless I missed it somewhere above) that anytime someone announces they attack it should be a surprise round... if that were the argument, every combat would be a surprise round, so, again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Maybe there was some misunderstanding of someone's post.
The critical point of contention is whether you have to be aware that the character for which the "I attack" statement is made is an "opponent" in order to be "aware of your opponents."
There really isn't a way to solve it in the RAW. Anyone saying it is or isn't RAW is wrong. The solution is in the English language and logic. It will depend on your interpretation of "be aware of your opponents", and people's interpretation of that apparently differs.
If the devs come out and say "You are aware of your opponents even if you don't know they are opponents", then it is RAW to not allow surprise rounds as long as everyone can see each other... but its still stupid and doesn't reflect reality in any way, shape or form, and I still wouldn't run my home games that way.
That is why in such a game I would have to take the mechanical affect of "I attack" into consideration. If not knowing who you can or can't trust might get you jumped then I should treat it just like being jumped by a potential ambush. I would be very careful.
Not really. By not defining opponent, I am envisioning a game world where it is very easy to get jumped if you are not on your toes. In such a world it would make sense to be more guarded.
Even in my group , which makes it very difficult to say "I attack" and get a surprise round we don't trust people a lot. In a world that makes it much easier(in comparison to how I play now) to get a surprise round I would start listing protocols for discussions. Breaking these protocols gets the opposing party stabbed in the face.
An old man is standing on the side of the road. A young man walks up next to him. The old man sees the young man standing there. They stand in silence. The young man suddenly pulls a knife and slits the old man's throat.
Are they opponents?
Clearly--unless there are facts outside of the example that I am not aware of. Because you're fussing over the general definition of opponent--here.
Consider the Killer Klowns Klub. Members of the Killer Klowns Klub hate members of the Bubble Booger Boys. They are all opponents. Bob is a member of BBB and Ken is a member of KKK. Ken and Bob do not know that one another are members of those groups. Ken and Bob stand next to one another at the aforementioned bus stop.
Ken and Bob are opponents, and they are aware of one another, but they are not aware of one another as opponents.
Ken gets a text, "The guy next to you is in BBB. Kill him." Ken does not use any sneakiness or bluff. He starts combat against Bob. Initiative is rolled normally.
If Ken wants to surprise Bob in this situation, Ken can attempt to do so using something else. But that is not part of the RAW in the passage we are discussing. He could hide on Bob--get behind him or somesuch--so that Bob is no longer aware of him. He could try to sucker punch Bob, which might be a special part of the rules. He might just be plain faster than Bob on that day at that time--though Bob, being a trained Booger Boy, should get to roll initiative himself and take advantage of his improved initiative, particularly since Ken has a 7 Dex and a -2 on his initiative.
Follow? Simpler yes?
I like the imagery of two forces waiting to see who will swing first (as they'd prefer to avoid being run through or incinerated), and there are two ways I could see doing it simply.
1. Sense Motive
Each combatant on both sides rolls and those who beat a standard DC, such as 15 or 20, get to act in the surprise round.
2. Just Roll Initiative
Initiative covers these situations too, and the subtitles of a more sophisticated method will not be what you remember about your game in years to come.
To be an opponent, you must be in opposition at the time.
Correct. But you do not need to know that you are in opposition with someone to be in opposition with them. You're adding that requirement to both the English language and the RAW.
(Muscles, by the by, are not inanimate--or even creatures, and seem to be outside the scope of the rules of the game.)
You do not remain an opponent forever because you at one juncture were opponents.
True. And that is not part of my example or the hypos proposed by the OP.
If there is no recognition of "opponent" status, then there is no contest of wills or reflexes, and of course none of their physical bodies as well.
No. That's what the roll for initiative is reflects mechanically. The recognition is automatic unless something is done outside of the elementary and basic rules in this section.
Let's assume, for the moment, that both of our readings of the rules are plausible--that the rules are ambiguous. Why is my reading inferior to yours? Or are you saying that my reading of the rules is borked or goes against the text--that my reading is wholly impossible? You can force the rules into not working, sure--but why is my reading fundamentally flawed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snipI guess... its meta-gamey to assume all characters in all games should behave that way. If you are roleplaying a specific character that distrusts everyone and keeps his hilt hand on a hair trigger, that's fine... it shouldn't be the default assumption for any and all characters that exist though.
Anyone in the adventuring business would be that cautious(assuming any non-perceived opponent gets a surprise round)*. If not they probably won't be adventuring for long if it is that easy to get jumped.
It is not about having a hair trigger or distrust. It is about precautions.*Person that is plotting on you, but you don't know it yet.
PS:I am using the OP's scenario as the basis of my post which assumes a secret meeting of some sort. In a public setting I would be more relaxed since killing someone in public is generally a bad idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An opponent is an opponent whether you know he is your opponent or not.
As for the surprise round rules, I don't think they thought of unknown , but visible opponents when they wrote it.
Someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argument.
The opponent was already against you before he actually attacked. Just by working to set you up he is an opponent. The physical attack just makes it obvious to you.
I am saying "opponents" means for purposes of the game mechanics. One side wants to harm the other. They are opponents per se. You are saying "opponents" as in role-playing adversaries, and awareness and so on. I think your definition is outside the scope of the rule, and too narrow. If you accept my reading, everything makes sense. You can continue to cram the rules into failure, but that's by virtue of your reading, not the rules themselves.
Before he was killed, Osama Bin Laden was my enemy. Would you describe him as my "opponent"? No, that's ridiculous.
For purposes of the English language, yes.
Further, if you attacked him without him being aware of you, he would have been very surprised. Further, if he attacked you, without you being aware of him, you would have been rather surprised, I imagine.
What about an unknown terrorist?
Right. This is the aware of someone piece.
If I'm on the bus with a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest and I don't know it,
So he succeeded on some skill check for this subterfuge, which is outside of the scope of the section in question.
he is my enemy, but until I would realize that he is a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest is RIDICULOUS to call him an "opponent".
Not for purposes of the dictionary definitions you proposed above. He is not your opponent in combat, no. He is your opponent by your own definition above. He is struggling against you, and you, I imagine, struggle against people intent to kill you.
Two sports players are opponents on the field. Are they automatically opponents when they meet at a party later on?
Are they in a struggle against one another? Probably not--but if so, yes they are. I'm just using your own definition. The combat situation makes people on both sides opponents. The text in the rule is just a handy way of referring to different groups.
You have to meet one of two criteria to be an opponent. You either have to recognize that your counterpart is you opponent or be in physical opposition with them.
That is a considerably narrower definition that the definition you posted above, which has no such language.
It is too late once the determination of whether or not a surprise round happens to say that you are now opponents.
Only if you insist on your non-existent knowledge mechanic. =/
I am not saying that you should get some spider sense that allows you to recognize anyone that might attack you. I was just disagreeing with your definition of what an opponent was.
I agree that some circumstances can reasonably allow for a surprise round, but talking calmly for a few minutes, and being the first to say "I attack", which is basically what it seems the OP is discussing is not enough.
If one character decides to attack, he is the only one in the surprise round and can take one action. Then regular combat rounds start.
The question is when should a surprise round be given?
Do I have to know you are threat or do I only need to be somewhat suspicious to react(roll init) when you attempt to draw a weapon?<--Short version of earlier post.
When the DM says so.
The question is when should a surprise round be given?
When does the rules say the GM should give a surprise round? :)
Why do the rules need to?
It is their sole function in life to tell people what to do.
This makes surprising people when they are aware of you, well, really damn hard.
Actually, it makes surprising people when they're aware of you really damn impossible, since there cannot be a surprise round if they can see, hear, or smell you.
So a doppleganger mimicking a trusted friend could never get the drop on the party since they all get the benefits of a high level Wizard spell since they can see their friend.
A PC who has infiltrated the thieves guild can't get the drop on anybody since the entire room will know what the PC is going to do before they do it.
What's even better, if a group of PCs infiltrated the guild, once anyone, PC or thief, initiates combat, the entire group is exposed, since all the NPCs are aware of their opponents.
.
I also don't think saying "I attack" should get anyone a free surprise round. If players want to do that I would do it as a GM, but conversations with my NPC's is less likely to happen because "I attack" is now a mechanical construct, and I would begin to treat it as one.
I don't think anyone is arguing it does. Saying "I attack" doesn't automatically give a surprise round any more than being invisible does. The point is there has to be a roll, Perception, Sense Motive, whatever to notice your opponents.
What this means mechanically, is there are a lot more ways to sneak up on an opponent and get a surprise round than just Stealth.
Edit:
@Big M
'Opponent' isn't the the word you should be dissecting, 'Aware' is.
Aware: Knowing or conscious of something; cognizant.
So being aware of your opponent doesn't just mean that you can see, hear, or otherwise detect them, you have to 'know' that they are your opponent.
|
Why do the rules need to?
For consistency.
Edit: The longer this goes on, the more I'm with James Maissen. The rules actually make this pretty clear. "Initiator of combat" does not matter. Reaction time (in the person of the initiative roll + modifiers) and awareness that the person initiating combat even exists are what matters. Someone can initiate combat and someone else move more quickly than them, as long as they know they're there.
|
|
Suggest, not tell.Why do the rules need to?It is their sole function in life to tell people what to do.
Short of a gun being held to someone's head, that statement can be true for any implied authority. However, I assure you that my boss doesn't just suggest that I do something, even if she may phrase it that way. I don't HAVE to do it, neither do I HAVE to be employed. I don't HAVE to follow rules, nor do I HAVE to be playing Pathfinder. I can be playing "GM's Happy Fun Time" instead. But this is the rules forums, not the houserules/advice forum. GM fiat, you know, it's not looked at through rose colored glasses in this section of the messageboard.
Touche.
|
|
I actually agree with you pretty often, I've found.
Is there a surprise round in 85% of your combats, though? It sounds like there must be. Not that it's badwrongfun, I'm just curious.
Edit: I'm asking because it seems like you as the GM (saying "he attacks") and at least one PC (saying "I attack") would have to speak nearly simultaneously in order to avoid the surprise round. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?