The rules give a mechanic for combat starting without one side being aware of it: Surprise Rounds.
If combat is starting with Init being rolled, without any Surprise Round, both sides are supposed to be aware of it,
and if one side didn't initiate combat then logically the creatures that they can see must have.
(since if some un-noticed opponent was the one who initiated combat, that opponent would have already acted in the surprise round)
This goes for GM controlled NPCs as well as PCs, as I've written.It's not metagaming any more than characters acting in awareness of their own HP total or evading AoO threat zones.
If you want to play with players being unaware of their own HP totals and just informed by descriptions of wounds and health,
and being unaware of exact grid placement and just able to direct inprecise cinematic actions, go ahead.
But if all that information IS given to players, it's absurd to say they can't act on it, there's nothing unreasonable in somebody accepting the mechanical information given to them and roleplaying in conformance with that, in the case of Initiative being aware that combat was started and it was not started by your allies, and no surprise round happened, so it must be the NPCs you can see.
Apples and oranges. Your examples could easily be known things by the characters, just not worded in mechanical terms. While initiative may give characters a heightened sense of alert, which obviously translates into battle when you see a dragon, it doesn't give them divination about the intentions of other people.
In this specific incidence, I don't see anything wrong with starting initiative when something might be a battle and both sides are preparing for each other. I don't think it should be impossible to talk your way out of combat, and I don't think it necessary that some people always get caught flat-footed; it isn't very realistic in some circumstances. This doesn't mean that a player can't have some psycho tendencies to lash out at anyone he perceives as a potential threat, but I wouldn't expect the average person to act this way.
If it must be tied into written mechanics, I suppose the GM could have had the travelers go into total defensive during the surprise round a distance away (it wouldn't even be necessary for him to tell the players they are doing this) but why bother unless you have some players nit-picking with almost nothing to gain but force you to sterilize story or increase their ability to add out of game information to their in game characters.
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 had a similar encounter with a GM of mine, The NPC's approaches the group, and after some abysmal discussion the NPC shouts a threat and draws his weapon. We all roll initiative, I get the highest result, I'm a Paladin at the time, and the GM said I had attacked an innocent person and as such I should lose my powers... Needless to say I had a discussion about it then that lasted a while :p
I would say that if you encounter people in the woods, and the DM calls for initiative, a fight is breaking out.
Using initiative for social interactions is fine I suppose, but let the people know first.
I agree the GM should make it clear to the players if there is confusion.
That would be an iffy one with your paladin for me. If the NPC was just posturing and you cut him down, a very real possibility, then I may have thought the same way.
My 2 cents worth.
Having read the OP, I take it like this.
A) GM intended a combat, called for initiative.
B) Player won initiative by a mile beyond the NPCs.
C) Player charged into an attack with no in game knowledge he was in combat.
D) Combat played out.
E) GM later said 'WTF?', you are a Neutral/Good character, why would you attack innocent people in the woods? Why? [i]Because the character at that point had no knowledge of the impending attack[i].
The way I handle ambushes is they grant a +10 initiative if you get them off, and a +5 if your ambush get's blown (you were still ready to attack). But then, I roll initiative each round. If the PCs don't notice the ambush, the NPCs generally start it on their initiative, and any PCs who had higher initiatives were basically 'holding' doing other things, and act immediately after the NPCs. Or the other way around, if the PCs are ambushing.
So honestly, the OPs situation seems pretty normal to me. It's not a question of the GM trying to trick him. The GM was reacting to the disconnect between the character's perception of reality and the player's perception of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative shouldn't be rolled until at least one creature is attempting to do something hostile. Possibly also if a creature is stealthing/stalking and is noticed, at the instance it's noticed. While that doesn't always mean close up (if you see harpies dive bombing at you from 1000 ft up or a horde of mounted knights lowering their lances and barreling across a half-mile long barren field towards you, then yeah, combat's starting far away), but in most cases given the environments you often explore in (dungeons, urban, etc...), it will be fairly close.
What you DM is doing is way too far, and actively ****s over a rogue or other sneak attacker in the party, if any. Round 1, before the enemies have acted, is basically the ONLY time you're for-sure going to be able to get in a sneak attack and a full attack one, at that potentially (especially for ranged rogues). By being so trigger-happy with calling init, he's effectively nerfing the bejesus out of sneak attackers. The game assumes a rogue who scores good initiative is going to land some hefty alpha-strike damage at the start of the fight.
One of my current DMs has had a nasty habit of calling for initiative every time we perception/notice creatures' presence, even if we aren't sure what they are or where exactly. Like, aquatic monsters swimming up to the surface in a lake we've walked up to.
Me: "Perception?" *rolls a 25* "Woo!"
DM: "You can hear something coming from beneath the water... Roll Initative!"
Me: "...Buuuh...waaah.... can I like, intentionally hold off on that?"
DM: "No."
Me: *wins initative*
DM: "Ok, you're up first."
Me: "Well, since I still don't even know what the thing is or where it is, I can't really do anything, so I have to delay and let it go first. Man, I'm so glad I won initative, that really helped me out."
DM: "Ok, their turn, they pop out of the water to attack."
Me: "No kidding. Well, my turn, then. Don't suppose since I sensed them and won iniitative I can still get my sneak attack on, eh?"
DM: "'Fraid not. They've acted now."
Me: "....****ing wow. That's amazing. Those monsters are like metagame black belts! Can I like...next time...intentionally fail my perception check? At least then, they can't actually attack until they reveal themselves, either, and I can hopefully beat them at init and not have it all be a waste."
|
The rules give a mechanic for combat starting without one side being aware of it: Surprise Rounds.
If combat is starting with Init being rolled, without any Surprise Round, both sides are supposed to be aware of it,
and if one side didn't initiate combat then logically the creatures that they can see must have.
(since if some un-noticed opponent was the one who initiated combat, that opponent would have already acted in the surprise round)
This goes for GM controlled NPCs as well as PCs, as I've written.It's not metagaming any more than characters acting in awareness of their own HP total or evading AoO threat zones.
If you want to play with players being unaware of their own HP totals and just informed by descriptions of wounds and health,
and being unaware of exact grid placement and just able to direct inprecise cinematic actions, go ahead.
But if all that information IS given to players, it's absurd to say they can't act on it, there's nothing unreasonable in somebody accepting the mechanical information given to them and roleplaying in conformance with that, in the case of Initiative being aware that combat was started and it was not started by your allies, and no surprise round happened, so it must be the NPCs you can see.
Exactly this.
The game rules exist to describe the game world in as objective a way as possible. Invoking a game rule is essentially telling the players a bit about what the world looks like or what's happening around them. If you invoke one improperly, you're essentially lying to the players, and that's a party foul at minimum.
Initiative explicitly describes the beginning of hostilities. If initiative is being rolled, hostilities have been engaged. If you ask the players to roll initiative, you are telling the players that hostilities have already begun.
If you want to resolve orders without invoking a game rule, use a different term and a different check. ANY invocation of a game rule will be presumed a description of what's happening the game world. As it should be, since changing the relationship between the world's state and the game rules is effectively house-ruling, which is something you're supposed to hammer out BEFORE this kind of situation comes up.
@StreamOfTheSky: This is a perfect example of how house-ruling initiative by calling for it too early is a bad idea. Especially the bad blood that such discontinuity can cause.
This also reminds me of a PFS game where a giant spider lunges out of the dark at the party in a surprise round. A player informs me he always gets to act in the surprise round and he won initiative, so I dial back the spider to let the player act, but would not let him act as if he knew where the spider would be coming from. Just because he had won initiative, didn't mean he had a reason to shoot a magic missile into the darkness. At best he was on a heightened state of alert.
For reference, I have been thinking more about home games than PFS in my previous posts. I accept that PFS sacrifices some GM freedom to tell a good story for RAW.
Apples and oranges. Your examples could easily be known things by the characters, just not worded in mechanical terms. While initiative may give characters a heightened sense of alert, which obviously translates into battle when you see a dragon, it doesn't give them divination about the intentions of other people.
If it must be tied into written mechanics, I suppose the GM could... but why bother unless you have some players nit-picking with almost nothing to gain but force you to sterilize story or increase their ability to add out of game information to their in game characters.
I think our disconnect is that you see this "knowing somebody else initiated combat" as necessarily "out of game world" information. It doesn't need to be. The players passed the Perception checks to see what the other side is doing. The normal Init system imposes grossly unrealistic norms of sequentiality. But there's no reason to believe that 1) not being surprised 2) winning init when the enemy tries to begin combat doesn't exactly mean that you are able to see WHATEVER sign of beginning of hostile actions by the enemy, and you winning Init just means that you are able to quickly respond and complete your actions before the enemy can. Clearly, the rules don't SPELL THAT OUT, it doesn't give game mechanic objects to directly state that, but it's a plausible game-world-coherent explanation for what is indicated and allowed by RAW... We don't necessarily need game mechanical objects to motivate every roleplaying choice, we just want to remain compliant with what the game mechanical objects minimally indicate. And the Init system, rolled when combat begins, does in fact provide a minimal game-mechanical indication which we can conform to, just as we conform to more fleshed out game mechanical objects/events.
This doesn't mean that a player can't have some psycho tendencies to lash out at anyone he perceives as a potential threat, but I wouldn't expect the average person to act this way.
As I wrote, there's still plenty of options even if SOME characters will react with direct aggression to combat being initiated against them, some might go full defensive, some might try a last gasp diplomacy option (at great penalty), you can withdraw or go full defensive. Many people in fact will not react with full out aggression vs. some indefinite degree of aggression by another, unless their own death or serious injury is immediately threatened, which plenty of aggression doesn't actually do. In-game, neutral witness may very well swear that the Init-winning group drew their weapons first, and they may be liable for that in the courts or mob justice. But it's completely justified that in the Init-winning character's own mind, there WAS something in game which objectively let them know that combat was being initiated against them, even if the game mechanics don't spell out exactly what that is (because it may very well vary depending on the situation).
Should apprehensive players or NPCs that see a potential threat ahead of them not be able to go into full defensive? They have to either win initiative or walk half a mile up the road next to the person and be attacked by them before they can even add their dex to defense. This just doesn't make any sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that by asking for initiative, is in my opinion, the DM is implying that a situation has arrived that requires initiative; that is, combat. To say "There's a dude, roll initiative," is disingenuous, and preying on players' expectations. Initiative is designed for combat, and combat only, and using it outside of combat raises problems (The Wizard with +11 Init and 7 Cha needs to start every social situation? Talking makes being flatfooted a non-issue?). You can argue that knowing initiative has been rolled is metagaming, but I really don't think so. If used only in active combat situations, then requesting initiative rolls become less metagaming and more DM shorthand for "Something has made a recognizably hostile action, everyone roll to see how fast you react." Is the action in question not recognizably hostile? Then it's a surprise round! There's not even a problem of "divination" of what your opponent's doing. Treat like an "old west" situation others have mention earlier. The turn based combat is an abstraction of many actions happening, almost simultaneously. It's perfectly plausible to say that, even though you in fact made the hostile action that caused initiative, you telegraphed it, and everyone else saw it coming, and reacted first.
This isn't to say, however, that you should never, ever, make players take turn out of combat. Whenever there's a particularly complex situation, it'd make perfect sense to keep the players in a ordered fashion. For example, I'm currently DM Skull & Shackles. In the first book, each day, the players do jobs, and then take other actions, like examining rooms, or talking to people. I keep the players going in turn on a roster, just to keep track of them, and make sure no one gets forgotten. What I DON'T do, however, is tell them it's initiative. I'm very explicit that it's only for keeping track of them. When real combat breaks out, I don't use their tracking numbers, I make them roll real initiative. I told them they can perform their actions in any order they want; it really has no bearing on the game, and it's effectively happening simultaneously. As it happened, they had no preference either way, and just rolled initiative, but only as a decision making tool. And that's fine. If the players are in a room with a number of traps, for instance, all over the floor, it makes perfect sense to keep track of who's going first, since it'll affect who gets set on fire first. Just don't call it initiative, be prepare to throw the tracking numbers out if a proper fight starts, and initiative is really rolled.
This also reminds me of a PFS game where a giant spider lunges out of the dark at the party in a surprise round. A player informs me he always gets to act in the surprise round and he won initiative, so I dial back the spider to let the player act, but would not let him act as if he knew where the spider would be coming from. Just because he had won initiative, didn't mean he had a reason to shoot a magic missile into the darkness. At best he was on a heightened state of alert.
Normally, the only way they are acting is if they pass a Perception check and are not subject to Surprise Rounds.
An ability allowing them to act even when normally Surprised, i.e. fail Perception check,is inherently a supernatural sort of ability, and thus expectations for what you can do go out the window.
Even in that case they don't truly know where the attacker is (unless the GM goofed and revealed that info),
although it's more than plausible for a character who has a working knowledge of their supernatural Surprise Round ability
to make the logical conclusion that there's a good likelyhood that the attacker MAY be attacking from a nearby area of Darkness that they can't see into... although that assumption may very well be dead wrong when the attacker is actually Invisible and standing behind them, when the attacker is Earthgliding beneath them, when the attacker is on the other side of the door planning on shooting Fireballs thru the keyhole.
This also reminds me of a PFS game where a giant spider lunges out of the dark at the party in a surprise round. A player informs me he always gets to act in the surprise round and he won initiative, so I dial back the spider to let the player act, but would not let him act as if he knew where the spider would be coming from. Just because he had won initiative, didn't mean he had a reason to shoot a magic missile into the darkness. At best he was on a heightened state of alert.Normally, the only way they are acting is if they pass a Perception check and are not subject to Surprise Rounds.
An ability allowing them to act even when normally Surprised, i.e. fail Perception check,
is inherently a supernatural sort of ability, and thus expectations for what you can do go out the window.
Even in that case they don't truly know where the attacker is (unless the GM goofed and revealed that info),
although it's more than plausible for a character who has a working knowledge of their supernatural Surprise Round ability
to make the logical conclusion that there's a good likelyhood that the attacker MAY be attacking from a nearby area of Darkness that they can't see into... although that assumption may very well be dead wrong when the attacker is actually Invisible and standing behind them, when the attacker is Earthgliding beneath them, when the attacker is on the other side of the door planning on shooting Fireballs thru the keyhole.
In this case there were actually four different dark tunnels it could have potentially came out from. After I asked him to act only on in character knowledge he was cool with it. I can't remember if he did a buff spell or delayed.
The turn based combat is an abstraction of many actions happening, almost simultaneously. It's perfectly plausible to say that, even though you in fact made the hostile action that caused initiative, you telegraphed it, and everyone else saw it coming, and reacted first.
This is the perfect word for the concept.
In this case there were actually four different dark tunnels it could have potentially came out from. After I asked him to act only on in character knowledge he was cool with it. I can't remember if he did a buff spell or delayed.
Right, in that case it sounds like it got a bit out of hand, and you revealed information to the player that you shouldn't have... Knowing the player has that ability, when the Surprise Round begins the player would always be included in the Init roll to determine the order of who acts in the surprise round, and nothing would happen before the first person to act. Like I said, that ability necessarily indicates some supernatural premonition of danger/imminent combat, but they still shouldn't know the info re: exact location of un-seen attackers.
If I made such a screw-up, I might just announce "OK, the positioning of attackers is now randomized or not necessarily the same as it was before, go ahead with your first action due to supernatural premonition of surprise attack". Even if the location would create problems in relocating the attacker to another location, the players don't know that, so you can keep it in the same location without the player's previous knowledge of that presenting a problem of them exploiting that info. Now if there's only one 'un-seen' location (and the attacker can't be moved from it while maintaining position for surprise) the player could very well make the same conclusion re: location of attacker... although like I said, in several situations the most obvious conclusion may well be wrong. The player may be best off just taking a defensive action, or perhaps readying an action. Readying an action is sketchy because you don't yet know the nature of the attacker or their attack. (In your example, revealing that it is a spider is also an equally regrettable give-away, that hopefully the player can truly ignore... but if the scenario was properly played, it shouldn't have been a problem)
-Blood thirsty players who think they are playing World of Warcraft and when combat starts they have to attack what ever is in front of them. Your not playing a video game, when combat breaks out you have other options besides killing what ever you just encountered and taking there stuff.
Sensible players know that this is true in video games, too. Even in WoW you often have other optione than to kill. Depending on what you do it is often the only option to not fight.
@ the op rolling initiative normal would out me into combat mode but i would hold action just in case
He didn't. He attacked people in the woods because the GM invoked a rule that is, by RAW, only invoked at the start of combat. Nothing random about it.
The "random" part was a reference to the OP's original post. His words, or rather his GM's.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using initiative for negotiations keeps the loudest player from being the sole negotiator.
|
dude!!
why you just attack?i always ask for initiative at the beginning of the game to place actions in order highest first.
in game, at every new day i ask for initiative too, cause my table sometimes are full with 8+ players...
sometimes in combats i only follow the initial order of the initiatives, and sometimes i never ask for an initiative at all in the whole game session because the players react as they wish, sometimes they let the monsters or npcs act first or watch their behavior.
initiative is so random at all.
How do your rogues benefit from a surprise round if there is no surprise round?
How do they benefit from all the resources they spent getting the highest initiative score they can so that they can go first, if there is no 'first' because they rolled initiative when they woke up?
|
|
To those who use the initiative system to track the order of non-combat actions, that could work and even be useful. But only if you re-roll initiative and roll skill checks to see if there is a surprise round and who is surprised as soon as the s~$* hits the fan.
If you don't you've taken away the special abilities of a class simply on the grounds you can't be bothered to run this part of the combat system properly.
We've started adopting the policy that when it's a non-combat situation, (such as the OP scenario where they meet the NPC suddenly) we use initiative modifiers to determine who gets to "act" first. It's not combat until someone attempts to engage, and then we roll initiatives.
Using initiative for negotiations keeps the loudest player from being the sole negotiator.
A bit of Gamemastering can do the same.
Edit: sorry if that sounden a littel arrogant. What i mean is that using the combat system for social encounters sound sad to me.
I think there are legitimate semi-hostile situations where round-by-round actions would make sense. For example, if there's something out there and I think it might be dangerous, I could buff myself on my initiative, go total defence, launch a fireball into the darkness, or ready an action. Or when there's an enemy and we're deciding whether we want to fight, negotiate or flee. Cast a non-violent spell, and see if the other person responds cautiously or escalates.
Also, a player should be aware that situations may be more complicated than they appear. Let's say you meet forest bandits and they're running in your general direction with weapons drawn. Maybe they're Robin Hood and his merry men, and they've discovered one of their number is a traitor, and are chasing him, trying to take him alive so they can question him about what the evil sherriff knows...
The GM should give the PCs all relevant information. The players should remember to ask the right questions in case he doesn't.
To those who use the initiative system to track the order of non-combat actions, that could work and even be useful. But only if you re-roll initiative and roll skill checks to see if there is a surprise round and who is surprised as soon as the s&*~ hits the fan.
If you don't you've taken away the special abilities of a class simply on the grounds you can't be bothered to run this part of the combat system properly.
This is what I prefer. If players invest in initiative, it shouldn't just be in combat; they made a character designed to act quickly in any situation. If a social(or other non-combat) situation doesn't turn to combat in the first round(or second), initiative is rolled when everybody is calm and talking and the rogue decides a sneak attack is in order and takes a surprise round.
I wouldn't ask my players to roll for initiative for this kind of encounter. I would just ask them to roll a d20 and not tell them why.
Me: Roll a d20
player: why
Me: Because I want you to.
Players (roll) 15, 11, 1 and whatever.
Me: The group of humans see you and start to wave and are beckoning you to come over.
Or
The humans are in a group having an argument (or what ever they are doing)
Why do you have to let the players know what they are rolling for. As a DM you should have a copy of their stats and be able to check their rolls out of their sight.
In this case there were actually four different dark tunnels it could have potentially came out from. After I asked him to act only on in character knowledge he was cool with it. I can't remember if he did a buff spell or delayed.Right, in that case it sounds like it got a bit out of hand, and you revealed information to the player that you shouldn't have... Knowing the player has that ability, when the Surprise Round begins the player would always be included in the Init roll to determine the order of who acts in the surprise round, and nothing would happen before the first person to act. Like I said, that ability necessarily indicates some supernatural premonition of danger/imminent combat, but they still shouldn't know the info re: exact location of un-seen attackers.
If I made such a screw-up, I might just announce "OK, the positioning of attackers is now randomized or not necessarily the same as it was before, go ahead with your first action due to supernatural premonition of surprise attack". Even if the location would create problems in relocating the attacker to another location, the players don't know that, so you can keep it in the same location without the player's previous knowledge of that presenting a problem of them exploiting that info. Now if there's only one 'un-seen' location (and the attacker can't be moved from it while maintaining position for surprise) the player could very well make the same conclusion re: location of attacker... although like I said, in several situations the most obvious conclusion may well be wrong. The player may be best off just taking a defensive action, or perhaps readying an action. Readying an action is sketchy because you don't yet know the nature of the attacker or their attack. (In your example, revealing that it is a spider is also an equally regrettable give-away, that hopefully the player can truly ignore... but if the scenario was properly played, it shouldn't have been a problem)
If not knowing every ability of every character in pfs played with leads to asking a player to ignore metagame knowledge, and that constitutes things being "out of hand" and "such a screw up", I would say that I have never played with anyone that surpasses the level of ape throwing feces.
I wouldn't ask my players to roll for initiative for this kind of encounter. I would just ask them to roll a d20 and not tell them why.
Me: Roll a d20
player: why
Me: Because I want you to.
Players (roll) 15, 11, 1 and whatever.
Me: The group of humans see you and start to wave and are beckoning you to come over.
Or
The humans are in a group having an argument (or what ever they are doing)
Why do you have to let the players know what they are rolling for. As a DM you should have a copy of their stats and be able to check their rolls out of their sight.
Why let Them Roll at all then? You can make the Rolls just as well and then they dosent even know when they roll.
Me: The group of humans see you and start to wave and are beckoning you to come over.
Or
The humans are in a group having an argument (or what ever they are doing)
Why do you have to let the players know what they are rolling for. As a DM you should have a copy of their stats and be able to check their rolls out of their sight.
Why would an initiative roll need to be rolled here? The two options you have listed look more like a perception check to me.. In the first one they notice and wave them over.. in the second they don't notice.
After re-reading the OP, I think this is the scenario they fell under. He mentioned that they saw humans through the trees. (No mention of whether or not the humans saw the party).
If the NPC's weren't aware, then why bother rolling for initiative. Ask the party "What do you do?". If they say "attack" then you roll. There's really no point to rolling initiative until you need to track rounds.
If you want to know who goes first in non-combat scenario's, I like to use highest Init Modifier to "go" first. If one of the players really wants to go first (aka. they want to be the first to act among their party members) We would have an initiative roll-off between those who really want to "go" first.
But really.. save initiative rolls for combat scenarios.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a Lawful Good Oracle with the Tongues curse, initiative is very important to me. The curse only takes place when my character is distressed. Thus so, initiative is important in cases where something is happening that may be leading into combat. Saying of course we have yet to be openly attacked.
My character tries not to fight with people that have no reason or cause to think they are evil or doing something wrong. So Diplomacy is regularly used; however, diplomacy isn't exactly easy to do when I am only able to speak and understand a language not commonly used by the average joe. So initiative is great for me in knowing in social situations whether I have a chance to diplomacize before my greatly trigger happy party will cause something to definitely put the situation into a distressing tongues causing tone.
|
The problem is that by asking for initiative, is in my opinion, the DM is implying that a situation has arrived that requires initiative; that is, combat. To say "There's a dude, roll initiative," is disingenuous, and preying on players' expectations. Initiative is designed for combat, and combat only, and using it outside of combat raises problems (The Wizard with +11 Init and 7 Cha needs to start every social situation? Talking makes being flatfooted a non-issue?).
And as a counter example, my +13 initiative kensai actually has used his social skills to defuse a combat situation before anybody could attack.
|
|
Playing a Lawful Good Oracle with the Tongues curse, initiative is very important to me. The curse only takes place when my character is distressed. Thus so, initiative is important in cases where something is happening that may be leading into combat. Saying of course we have yet to be openly attacked.
The minimization of a negative class feature is a bad reason alter when initiative is rolled.
*Though I would probably not invoke it until weapons were drawn. Past that point, somebody else would have to be the diplomat.
And as a counter example, my +13 initiative kensai actually has used his social skills to defuse a combat situation before anybody could attack.
I'm assuming that initiative was rolled because combat was about to start, right? Kind of, "your enemies have started drawing weapons", scenario? It just happened that you used your high init and social skills to diffuse the situation before they could strike?
I would still consider that a combat situation that indeed required initiative rolls. I don't consider what the OP described as a combat situation, and believe the DM was wrong to call for initiative.
Playing a Lawful Good Oracle with the Tongues curse, initiative is very important to me. The curse only takes place when my character is distressed. Thus so, initiative is important in cases where something is happening that may be leading into combat. Saying of course we have yet to be openly attacked.The minimization of a negative class feature is a bad reason alter when initiative is rolled.
*Though I would probably not invoke it until weapons were drawn. Past that point, somebody else would have to be the diplomat.
I'm not saying that it should be changed because of that feature, just in my personal experience with our party and GM, I do like that initiative is used outside of just fighting and murder.
Playing a Lawful Good Oracle with the Tongues curse, initiative is very important to me. The curse only takes place when my character is distressed. Thus so, initiative is important in cases where something is happening that may be leading into combat. Saying of course we have yet to be openly attacked.
That is a pickle, but I wouldn't rule you in combat for rolling init to determine reactions to a situation; but if another player has higher initiative he goes first, and if he charges - then your ramblings start, because of the quicker actions of an ally, not an init roll.
Initiative is something a player can focus on, and it shouldn't just matter twice per session - I rarely do the "combat-combat-combat-combat-rest-combat-combat-..." sessions.
EDIT: just saw your post above, I may have misunderstood your point
:) no harm no fowl :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that by asking for initiative, is in my opinion, the DM is implying that a situation has arrived that requires initiative; that is, combat. To say "There's a dude, roll initiative," is disingenuous, and preying on players' expectations. Initiative is designed for combat, and combat only, and using it outside of combat raises problems (The Wizard with +11 Init and 7 Cha needs to start every social situation? Talking makes being flatfooted a non-issue?).And as a counter example, my +13 initiative kensai actually has used his social skills to defuse a combat situation before anybody could attack.
So you somehow managed to perform a 1-minute action in your first turn? That's impressive.
Seriously, if they're attacking you then their attitude is likely already "Hostile", and changing the attitude to anything less requires a 1-minute (or greater, if the DM wishes) action. This is placed there explicitly to prevent people from using it to tend fights once people start drawing weapons. You can't even use "Make Request" since that requires indifferent attitudes, but even that requires a minimum of a 1 round action (which means it doesn't finish resolving until the next turn, which is too late).
Stabbitty:
I respect your opinion here. On the other hand, I would suggest that if a situation is likely to be tense -- like, say, negotiating with an evil princess who is holding the dragon hostage -- then initiative rolls (but maybe not literal combat rounds) might help ratchet up the tension in an encounter a little bit.
I respectfully disagree. Initiative rolls is a great way to turn tension into outright hostilities as simply by declaring initiative I have effectively told the players that hostilities have begun.
Too many aspects of "initiative" are ingrained into the combat system for it to be useful as a non-combat turn order system. There are simply too many indirect consequences for it to be worth it.
If you wish to ratchet up tensions, then describe how people have their hands on their blade hilts, but haven't moved to draw. Describe the dragon's claw slowly pushing deeper into the princess's neck. Have people roll a sense motive to realize that negotiations are not going well. ANYTHING but rolling initiative.
I think there are legitimate semi-hostile situations where round-by-round actions would make sense. For example, if there's something out there and I think it might be dangerous, I could buff myself on my initiative, go total defence, launch a fireball into the darkness, or ready an action. Or when there's an enemy and we're deciding whether we want to fight, negotiate or flee. Cast a non-violent spell, and see if the other person responds cautiously or escalates.
I classify this as the player's paranoia triggering "hostilities" and ask them to roll initiative. If the PCs believe that hostilities have occurred and go into combat mode, then initiative is rolled even if that isn't true. In other words, by acting as though they are in combat, they have effectively already entered combat, even if there's no-one else to fight.
There is a subtle difference between "expect combat soon" and "combat has started", though. Buffing can easily fall into the former, which means no initiative (it's just combat prep, after all, not actual combat). Total defense and throwing fireballs, however, easily fall into the latter.
I'm not saying that it should be changed because of that feature, just in my personal experience with our party and GM, I do like that initiative is used outside of just fighting and murder.Playing a Lawful Good Oracle with the Tongues curse, initiative is very important to me. The curse only takes place when my character is distressed. Thus so, initiative is important in cases where something is happening that may be leading into combat. Saying of course we have yet to be openly attacked.The minimization of a negative class feature is a bad reason alter when initiative is rolled.
*Though I would probably not invoke it until weapons were drawn. Past that point, somebody else would have to be the diplomat.
I find it rather pointless to roll for initiative unless time is a factor. Most diplomatic events don't require you to track the number of rounds talking. They just require you to role-play.
Now I can see a scenario where one might say "I want to get in a few words before this rude dwarf (another PC)opens his mouth and ruins things". And, that is a situation where I could see an out of combat initiative roll. But in general, (and in particular the OP's problem), I just don't think it should be used too much out of combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just can't see how a Dexterity check (Initiative) can relate to the ability to speak sooner. And anyone who has been in a conversation knows that people often don't take turns in a stressful environment. They speak out of turn, over each other, and often at cross purposes.
The talking part of an encounter is easily accomplished by having the players talk. There is no need for abstraction here.
Initiative is for combat (as per RAW) where such abstraction is needed to make it work.
I just can't see how a Dexterity check (Initiative) can relate to the ability to speak sooner. And anyone who has been in a conversation knows that people often don't take turns in a stressful environment. They speak out of turn, over each other, and often at cross purposes.
The talking part of an encounter is easily accomplished by having the players talk. There is no need for abstraction here.
Initiative is for combat (as per RAW) where such abstraction is needed to make it work.
Don't get hung up on my interjection example. It could easily be a scenario where a long lost friend (of the entire party) is greeting you and you want to be the first to give them a hug/handshake.
I can see minor role-playing examples where a quick initiative check could be useful... But I agree, initiative should primarily be for combat. And if the DM is asking everyone to roll, then they can reasonably assume combat is starting.
|
|
And as a counter example, my +13 initiative kensai actually has used his social skills to defuse a combat situation before anybody could attack.I'm assuming that initiative was rolled because combat was about to start, right? Kind of, "your enemies have started drawing weapons", scenario? It just happened that you used your high init and social skills to diffuse the situation before they could strike?
I would still consider that a combat situation that indeed required initiative rolls. I don't consider what the OP described as a combat situation, and believe the DM was wrong to call for initiative.
What combat.
Nobody had a chance to draw weapons. No attack rolls were made. No spells were cast.
The encounter was resolved socially.
The OP was a different set of circumstances, involving an inexperienced GM.
I find that rolling Initiative is generally a good way to get my players in a pseudo-combat mindset. Like, I will have them roll initiative if they are about to enter an area where timing and movement are important. Like if there is a trap in the room, I might have them roll initiative to get them in the mindset of "we need to be moving our pieces, and acting in turn". Often this can be accomplished by just going around the table, and reminding people to move their tiles, but sometimes having an initiative is good for conveying tension, as they are expecting potential turn-based events and/or battle. In my mind, it is a tool for me to use as the DM to increase player tension, though I generally preface any not-clearly-combat roll for initiative as a "hey guys, roll initiative so I can track some stuff better".
I also consider not-obvious-combat initiative rolls to be perfectly legitimate at times. For example, if the party stumbles across a group of travelers in the woods, I might have them roll initiative because, unbeknownst to them, there are bandits moving in to ambush them and the travelers. The point being, after initiative is rolled, even if it is for combat, it might not be for combat with something you can see.
However, from a purely roleplaying perspective, I don't think initiative=combat makes sense. In the situation described by the OP, they saw some people, rolled initiative, and then he attacked. What is the in-character effect of rolling initiative? Is it a measure of preparedness to react to a situation? Is it intensity? I sincerely doubt that in character there is some huge noticeable affect of time slowing down, or flashing "Ready? FIGHT!" light. From the in character perspective . . . they saw the other people, they tensed up, perhaps sensing something amiss, and then decided that this tension was best resolved by attacking the people they just saw. Should the DM have been more descriptive? Likely (though we only have the player's version of events). Is "as a player I did something that almost always means combat" a good rationale for a character to start attacking people? No, that is clearly metagaming.
And as a counter example, my +13 initiative kensai actually has used his social skills to defuse a combat situation before anybody could attack.I'm assuming that initiative was rolled because combat was about to start, right? Kind of, "your enemies have started drawing weapons", scenario? It just happened that you used your high init and social skills to diffuse the situation before they could strike?
I would still consider that a combat situation that indeed required initiative rolls. I don't consider what the OP described as a combat situation, and believe the DM was wrong to call for initiative.
What combat.
Nobody had a chance to draw weapons. No attack rolls were made. No spells were cast.
The encounter was resolved socially.
The OP was a different set of circumstances, involving an inexperienced GM.
So what you're saying, is there was no need for initiative rolls, because there was no combat involved? What exactly did you roll initiative for?
|
|
Thats was an incredibly impressive thing to do in 6 seconds(a combat round)otherwise the initiative is moot as everyone gets to act after a round anyway. Initiative is a mechanic tied to rounds which in turn are too small a timeframe for pretty much anything other than combat. So whilst people won't talk over each other with rounds they will intertwine their words into meaningless. What I mean is that I say six seconds worth of words then another character does, then another and then finally I get to finish my sentence that I started in game a few seconds ago after a several minute real time delay. I can't imagine anything more stuttering and incoherent (not even this paragraph) than using combat mechanics for social encounters.The problem is that by asking for initiative, is in my opinion, the DM is implying that a situation has arrived that requires initiative; that is, combat. To say "There's a dude, roll initiative," is disingenuous, and preying on players' expectations. Initiative is designed for combat, and combat only, and using it outside of combat raises problems (The Wizard with +11 Init and 7 Cha needs to start every social situation? Talking makes being flatfooted a non-issue?).And as a counter example, my +13 initiative kensai actually has used his social skills to defuse a combat situation before anybody could attack.
Were you planing on stabbing an apparently unarmed but very obviously mentally disturbed old man in the back while somebody else is talking to him?
Alignment check?
And this was PFS, where characters whose alignment shifts to evil become NPC's.