|
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?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.
There would have been combat.
Had I not won initiative.
Or is there something in RAW that states once dice have been rolled for initiative all opponents must be beaten unconscious or killed?
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?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.
There would have been combat.
Had I not won initiative.
Or is there something in RAW that states once dice have been rolled for initiative all opponents must be beaten unconscious or killed?
Well there is something in RAW that prevents you from changing the attitude of opponents in a single round.
There's also the RAW that states "At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.", which makes the use of initiative the province of battle/combat. People are often beaten unconscious or killed as a result of combat.
So I'd say yeah...I'd say RAW has it covered.
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.
If timing is involved then it is indeed a good idea to be on initiative.
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".
This doesn't need to be an initiative order for this, Generally, we area in a "Marching Order" where one person is the trap scout, and it typically falls on his roll whether or not it gets tripped. (of course sometimes people don't follow him but that's a different animal)
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".
This is how the OP's DM should have handled it. But, I'd also add that the only things that need to be tracked out of combat are timing related things. If it's not timing specific, I wouldn't bother.
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.
I disagree with doing this. Initiative should be for tracking combat rounds or those rare role-playing "order of events stuff". You can roll the initiative when the bandits attack, doing it before makes no sense.
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....
I don't disagree too much here. The OP ran off and killed some people without really asking why. He probably shouldn't have done that. I can chalk it up to the correct assumption that "initiative=combat" combined with a new GM who:
1) shouldn't of had them roll an initiative in the first place.. and
2) should have made the player roll a sense motive after that player said "CHARGE!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There would have been combat.
Had I not won initiative.
Or is there something in RAW that states once dice have been rolled for initiative all opponents must be beaten unconscious or killed?
We're arguing semantics here. Combat™ was started once initiative was rolled, but then you ended it with social skills instead of a blade (although as others have pointed out, you couldn't do that in the 6 seconds you had)
You have six seconds to negotiate before its someone else turn
The six seconds covers EVERYBODY'S turns, whether it is two people or ten people.
Using initiative for negotiations keeps the loudest player from being the sole negotiator.
How? Talking may be done out of turn.
If you're actually waiting turns to talk, that will rather quickly run into different rounds (6 seconds).If you can't solve interpersonal problems with interpersonal interactions, your social scene is f@&~ed anyways.
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.
While you can do many many things outside of combat, like casting spells, I believe the consensus is that Ready Action is not one of those, and that is exactly the intended function by the game's design. Otherwise ANY and EVERYBODY can walk around readying actions, negating any potential attacker's Initiative and/or Surprise Round bonus, along with Flat-Footed (since you act first with Readied Action). Those have mechanics that govern them that you can potentially win, but ANYBODY isn't just supposed to bypass them completely like that, barring specific abilities which let one do so.
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'm sorry you took that as some kind of insult, I was saying "such a screw up" in the sense of "that kind of screw up" or "a screw up like the one you described". We all make screw ups, I hoped it would be obvious from my personal advice on how one can respond in the moment when that happens, that I'm familiar with making screw ups myself.
|
|
Well there is something in RAW that prevents you from changing the attitude of opponents in a single round.
There's also the RAW that states "At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.", which makes the use of initiative the province of battle/combat. People are often beaten unconscious or killed as a result of combat.
So I'd say yeah...I'd say RAW has it covered.
1. While it may take a full minute to alter the attitude of an NPC, Initiating a conversation is a free action.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
2. Influencing a hostile NPC is a DC 25 check. It is explicitly permitted under the rules for diplomacy. Note: if hostile NPC's automatically attacked, there would be no rule for using using diplomacy to modify their attitude.
3. Please show me something in RAW that states PC's are not allowed to make a diplomacy check after initiative is rolled. Please note: nobody has made an attack roll at this point. The concept of in-combat is meta-game knowledge.
4. People are beaten unconscious and killed because other people hit them with sharp objects, not because some funky music started playing in the background. You choose your characters actions, not the rules. You choose to attack somebody engaged in a conversation. There is no mandate.
|
|
We're arguing semantics here. Combat™ was started once initiative was rolled, but then you ended it with social skills instead of a blade (although as others have pointed out, you couldn't do that in the 6 seconds you had)There would have been combat.
Had I not won initiative.
Or is there something in RAW that states once dice have been rolled for initiative all opponents must be beaten unconscious or killed?
Unless your statement is hostile opponents always attack after 6 seconds, initiating diplomacy only takes the ability to begin communicating.
Since diplomacy is explicitly allowed to be used against a hostile NPC, as long as nobody is hitting him with a weapon, the rules permit me time to make that check.
Of course, if you see me start talking with the NPC and choose to attack anyway, there will no chance for me to resolve the situation. It will also mean you have attacked a person who was talking, not trying to kill you.
To be fair.. Diplomacy also say's this: Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future
And that influencing attitudes takes a minute.
Either way, it has no basis on the argument here that Initiative=Combat™.
Unless your statement is hostile opponents always attack after 6 seconds, initiating diplomacy only takes the ability to begin communicating.
Since diplomacy is explicitly allowed to be used against a hostile NPC, as long as nobody is hitting him with a weapon, the rules permit me time to make that check.
Of course, if you see me start talking with the NPC and choose to attack anyway, there will no chance for me to resolve the situation. It will also mean you have attacked a person who was talking, not trying to kill you.
I'm saying, that if initiative is rolled, Combat™ has begun, and you are now under attack. The fact that you managed to muster 4 words out does not in fact mean you influenced the opponents attitude. Or even make a request for that matter. You diplomacy ship has sailed.
Now you have all the time you need before Combat™ starts to try to influence attitudes, but that happens OFF of initiative.. So no roll is needed.
|
Well there is something in RAW that prevents you from changing the attitude of opponents in a single round.
There's also the RAW that states "At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.", which makes the use of initiative the province of battle/combat. People are often beaten unconscious or killed as a result of combat.
So I'd say yeah...I'd say RAW has it covered.
1. While it may take a full minute to alter the attitude of an NPC, Initiating a conversation is a free action.
Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.2. Influencing a hostile NPC is a DC 25 check. It is explicitly permitted under the rules for diplomacy. Note: if hostile NPC's automatically attacked, there would be no rule for using using diplomacy to modify their attitude.
3. Please show me something in RAW that states PC's are not allowed to make a diplomacy check after initiative is rolled. Please note: nobody has made an attack roll at this point. The concept of in-combat is meta-game knowledge.
4. People are beaten unconscious and killed because other people hit them with sharp objects, not because some funky music started playing in the background. You choose your characters actions, not the rules. You choose to attack somebody engaged in a conversation. There is no mandate.
Counterpoints:
@1: There is no guarantee that the person you attempt to initiate conversation with will actually listen. The "Hostile" attitude is one such case. There is no attitude shift until you finish the action, which is 1 minute, so they're free to keep stabbing you in the meantime.
@2: It is there in case you do something that prevents the hostile creature from responding properly, such as grappling, pinning, paralyzing or any number of other conditions that effectively take them out of the fight but don't change their attitude. It exists in the rules as a corner-case possibility, not to defuse situations that have already come to blows.
@3: The concept of in-combat is NOT meta-game knowledge. Someone has drawn a weapon and is attacking, adrenaline starts pumping, s+%! has gotten real. The fact that initiative is rolled means that the person you wish to talk to has ALREADY begun hostile action (or someone on your side did, either way it's no good). The easiest RAW way to show this doesn't work is to look at the action of changing a creature's attitude: "1 minute". The effects of actions never resolve until the time it takes to complete them is over. This means that your foe is hostile until that full minute is up, at minimum (it can be longer than that). So if you want to spend 10 rounds gabbing at the guy while he stabs you, just in case he might stop, go right ahead. I recommend beating him unconscious and/or grappling him, then tying him up before you try the gabbing.
@4: I don't think anyone is arguing you can't *try* to talk once combat has started, but I think what *is* being argued is that it is effectively pointless. Very VERY few fights last long enough to even hit the minimum necessary action time for diplomacy, and there are even fewer where you're likely to survive attempting to talk first rather than subdue then talk.
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.
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature.
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.
If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first).
If they are initiating combat against you/your allies as a whole, they are hostile, not indifferent, and intend to harm you (or your group) in the immediate future, even if you beat their Initiative. It is allowed to try to change the attitude of a Hostile character with Diplomacy, in combat and out, but that requires an entire minute of Diplomacy, during which time the opponent has 10 combat actions... thus the "generally ineffective in combat".
Making a simple Request only takes 1 Round, but that is only allowed if they are Indifferent or more Friendly towards you (which means not initiating combat vs. you and your allies), and due to how 1 Round Actions works (completing just before your next turn), that always leaves the opponent an entire turn before the Request/Diplomacy check is successful. So there is no way that Diplomacy can stop a combat before everybody else gets another turn to act, but if you are content you try to stop it continuing past that, there IS the possibility to use Diplomacy to Request they stop their hostilities vs. a 3rd party, as long as you personally are not considered a Hostile party - Which doesn't require that they plan immediate violence against you, but if they imagine that attacking your friends would mean you are Hostile, they would certainly view you as Hostile after initiating combat... That still leaves some situations, e.g. hanging around unarmed in a bar, they don't necessarily consider you allies-at-arms with your ally, vs. just somebody present in the area, etc.You can more succesfully pull off "Combat Diplomacy" if you can manage a Swift Action Charm Person (Charm Domain FTW) and then spend a 1 Round Action to persuade them with Diplomacy... although that still leaves them one turn to attack any other characters they are still Hostile to, i.e. allies of yours.
Otherwise, characters can certainly be Hostile towards you but NOT actually intending to initiate Combat in the near future, so you can try 1 minute Diplomacy out of combat/Initiative and they won't attack you in the meantime if they hadn't already decided to attack you or something else happens in the meantime to change their mind. The Hostile/Combat relation is more of a one way correlation, that if they are initiating combat they are Hostile, the reverse isn't necessarily true.
OTOH, there's nothing to stop you from saying something to at least temporarily stop the fight, to give you a chance to use diplomacy or other social skills. You just can't use you uber-Diplomacy skills that quickly. You have to just say something and roleplay out the reaction.
"Stop! We're on your side!"
"Wait! We mean you no harm."
Per RAW, you can only make requests like this if the enemy happens to be indifferent towards you. For example, guard patrol that just assumes you're bandits.
Even then it takes a round or more to make the request.
However, it could be argued that if these patrols are killing people on site, they may be considered unfriendly if not outright hostile.
Diplomacy is meant to be used before Combat™.
OTOH, there's nothing to stop you from saying something to at least temporarily stop the fight
You can't pull off a Diplomacy check to change their attitude away from Hostile in less than 10 rounds,
and you can't successfully persuade Hostile characters to accept a request at all,since that is another Diplomacy check with certain limitations.
What would be plausible would be a Bluff (or an undeniably true statement, but not relying on persuasion of Diplomacy) like:
"The room is going to flood with lava in 10 second! We should take this fight elsewhere!" :-)
They aren't going to change their fundamental attitude towards you, including their decision they want to attack you,
but they may believe you (especially if you are pointing out something they know of, but forgot),
and decide to modify their plan, even though they are still Hostile and want to attack you.
That could just mean they cast a Wall spell to trap you in the room and Teleport out themselves :-)
|
|
I'm saying, that if initiative is rolled, Combat™ has begun, and you are now under attack.Unless your statement is hostile opponents always attack after 6 seconds, initiating diplomacy only takes the ability to begin communicating.
Since diplomacy is explicitly allowed to be used against a hostile NPC, as long as nobody is hitting him with a weapon, the rules permit me time to make that check.
Of course, if you see me start talking with the NPC and choose to attack anyway, there will no chance for me to resolve the situation. It will also mean you have attacked a person who was talking, not trying to kill you.
Really?
What attack has been made? In game.
Your taking meta-game knowledge and trying to shoehorn it into in-game reality.
In game, rolling initiative does not denote any specific action being taken or any specific knowledge of intention.
3.5 allowed "rushed" diplomacy checks. It was a full round action and you take a -10 penalty. I was surprised it wasn't added in PF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, per RAW, is it absolutely impossible to stop a fight by talking? (At least without using up a full minute, by which time almost any fight I've been in in PF would be over.)
For example your hostile guards attacking on sight: "Don't shoot. We're on your side. We work for your king. We can prove it." <Pulls out paperwork signed by their boss>
No chance of working because it's a request and they're hostile?
Mind you, not even trying to use Diplomacy. Their attitude can stay the same at least for the moment. Hell, does "I surrender. Don't kill me." have any chance of working. Or is that also a request and thus automatically denied?
I get that you don't want the guy with a 45 Diplomacy to be able to shut down all the fights, but there's got to be some way, once combat has started to end it peacefully.
The demon has heard of the words of the great sage, who has talked a devil out of killing a child before. So, when the group steps into his hall and the sage opens his mouth, the demon orders his hoardes to attack and kill, no matter what.
The great sage falls on his knees and holds up his hands, and pleads "I surrender! Parlay!"
The demon reaches down, rips the sage's head off, and eats it, allowing the sage's body to fall over in a fountain of blood. After a belch, the Demon wiggles a claw into his teeth, dislodging a bit of ear. "Them parlay rules are more guidelines..."
So, yeah, sometimes you just can't stop the fight no matter what you say or do. Sometimes you can, and throwing your weapons down and surrendering works. And sometimes it doesn't. City guards who are nervous about attackers, yeah, you can probably succeed at that. City guards who just murdered someone for gold and think you are a witness... yeah, probably not.
So, per RAW, is it absolutely impossible to stop a fight by talking? (At least without using up a full minute, by which time almost any fight I've been in in PF would be over.)
I already wrote that besides the 1 minute Change Attitude usage, there is the 1 Round (which doesn't have effect for one whole round) Request usage, but that requires that you personally not be considered Hostile (even if your friends are considered Hostile).
For example your hostile guards attacking on sight:
"Don't shoot. We're on your side. We work for your king. We can prove it." <Pulls out paperwork signed by their boss>
No chance of working because it's a request and they're hostile?
Mind you, not even trying to use Diplomacy. Their attitude can stay the same at least for the moment.
Hell, does "I surrender. Don't kill me." have any chance of working. Or is that also a request and thus automatically denied?
If they are already hostile to you and with orders to shoot on sight, you can't use Diplomacy to change their attitude in less than a minute, and you can't make a Request either.
Now, if papers from the King is something that makes any sense and that they are in a sense expecting, they might decide to not shoot on sight, because that is in line with their orders: It is NOT that you are making a Request (which doesn't work in that situation), they are just reacting to the objective scenario without impact from any persuasion of yours.
If you're faking, that would be a Bluff check to Deceive that takes 1 Round to resolve, so you're relying on THEM being non-aggressive enough to at least suss your story and check your papers, which ultimately depends on their mindset and orders: it might not always work. By doing that (with your turn that you won Init for when combat began), you ARE demonstrating that you did not take hostile action against them when they already initiated combat, so they MAY be less likely to attack an 'innocent' or 'non-aggressive' person, enough to possibly consider evaluating your information... although that is up to their mind-set whether they would change their course of action at all, as per MDT's example of killer guards, such factors could be immaterial to them, true or false. On the other hand, if NPCs planned on attacking you and initiated combat, but you Polrmorphed into a 20' tall demon first, they might decide not to follow up with the attack, all on their own.
|
|
So, per RAW, is it absolutely impossible to stop a fight by talking? (At least without using up a full minute, by which time almost any fight I've been in in PF would be over.)
For example your hostile guards attacking on sight: "Don't shoot. We're on your side. We work for your king. We can prove it." <Pulls out paperwork signed by their boss>
No chance of working because it's a request and they're hostile?
Mind you, not even trying to use Diplomacy. Their attitude can stay the same at least for the moment. Hell, does "I surrender. Don't kill me." have any chance of working. Or is that also a request and thus automatically denied?
I get that you don't want the guy with a 45 Diplomacy to be able to shut down all the fights, but there's got to be some way, once combat has started to end it peacefully.The demon has heard of the words of the great sage, who has talked a devil out of killing a child before. So, when the group steps into his hall and the sage opens his mouth, the demon orders his hoardes to attack and kill, no matter what.
The great sage falls on his knees and holds up his hands, and pleads "I surrender! Parlay!"
The demon reaches down, rips the sage's head off, and eats it, allowing the sage's body to fall over in a fountain of blood. After a belch, the Demon wiggles a claw into his teeth, dislodging a bit of ear. "Them parlay rules are more guidelines..."
So, yeah, sometimes you just can't stop the fight no matter what you say or do. Sometimes you can, and throwing your weapons down and surrendering works. And sometimes it doesn't. City guards who are nervous about attackers, yeah, you can probably succeed at that. City guards who just murdered someone for gold and think you are a witness... yeah, probably not.
And by the statements made during this discussion, a lot of players have the same morality as that demon.
And by the statements made during this discussion, a lot of players have the same morality as that demon.
Yep, I've had quite a few murderous hobo's over the years. I'd like to think that they have left my games with a better understanding of why that's not the best type of game to be in.
This isn't a thread about whether after Initiative is rolled that means everybody on one side or another will be slaughtered.
That is up to character motivation, decisions, and other specific factors.
It is about the Initiative rules and what they imply about character knowledge of combat beginning,
and then it was derailed to the Diplomacy/Bluff rules, as an attempt to evade dealing with the Init rules.
Those rules can 'benefit' PCs or NPCs equally, I'm not sure why some try to twist the rules because they think the rules allow players to behave "badly". The rules cover games from PCs being LG Paladins to being CE Backstabbing Thugs, and similar types of NPCs can exist in all games. The Diplomacy and Bluff rules are clear, and nothing about Initiative is in conflict with ALL characters who passed their Perception checks recognizing that combat has begun, via 'telegraphing' or however you choose to visualize it.
|
|
This isn't a thread about whether after Initiative is rolled that means everybody on one side or another will be slaughtered.
It is about the Initiative rules and what they imply about character knowledge of combat beginning,
and then it was derailed to the Diplomacy/Bluff rules, as an attempt to evade dealing with the Init rules.Those rules can 'benefit' PCs or NPCs equally, I'm not sure why some try to twist the rules because they think the rules allow players to behave "badly". The rules cover games from PCs being LG Paladins to being CE Backstabbing Thugs, and similar types of NPCs can exist in all games. The Diplomacy and Bluff rules are clear, and nothing about Initiative is in conflict with ALL characters who passed their Perception checks recognizing that combat has begun, via 'telegraphing' or whatever detail you prefer, even if that detail isn't spelled out.
It was not a derail into diplomacy.
It was a direct reflection on statements stating that it was no longer possible to resolve a situation in a non-violent manner simply because initiate has been rolled.
A meta-game action is being used as justification for violence, with no possibility of any other resolution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Artanthos: I'm still unclear on exactly what legal use of Diplomacy your +13 Init Kensai was taking after combat was initiated by the other side? Even IF the attackers did not have a Hostile attitutde towards the Kensai themself, there doesn't seem any way to do so before the attackers can take their actions vs. other targets they are Hostile towards. If they were Hostile to the Kensai, there's really nothing to do, Diplomacy wise.
If you have non-violent means to resolve combat without violence, I'm all for it, and I pointed out how it IS possible to use Diplomacy/Request (1 Round Action) when the Diplomacy target is not Hostile to you specifically. ...But if you want to play by the rules, you have to follow them. Of course there's plenty of other options, like running away, dropping your weapons and surrendering, using non-lethal damage or spells, and so on.
Contrary to your attempts to characterize people who disagree with your understanding of the implication of an Init roll, making it all about what bad actions players get away with ("a lot of players have the same morality as that demon"), this really is just about the basic implications of the Init roll, which works the same for PCs and NPCs. When combat is initiated by one side but the other wins Initiative, that doesn't mean the side that wins Initiative is unilaterally triggering combat, rather they are reacting to combat being initiated by the other side, i.e. reacting to the opponents "telegraphing" their hostile actions, as another poster succinctly put it. Nobody is trying to change the status of un-provoked initiation of combat, they are just recognizing what the Init system implicitly means.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a thread about whether after Initiative is rolled that means everybody on one side or another will be slaughtered.
That is up to character motivation, decisions, and other specific factors.
It is about the Initiative rules and what they imply about character knowledge of combat beginning,
and then it was derailed to the Diplomacy/Bluff rules, as an attempt to evade dealing with the Init rules.Those rules can 'benefit' PCs or NPCs equally, I'm not sure why some try to twist the rules because they think the rules allow players to behave "badly". The rules cover games from PCs being LG Paladins to being CE Backstabbing Thugs, and similar types of NPCs can exist in all games. The Diplomacy and Bluff rules are clear, and nothing about Initiative is in conflict with ALL characters who passed their Perception checks recognizing that combat has begun, via 'telegraphing' or however you choose to visualize it.
Like most threads, this one has wandered.
To go back to the titular question: Yes, I'd assume it was a fight.
But I'd remember that was just an assumption and as a player, try to confirm. Normally I'd assume initiative was rolled in response to an attempt at an actual hostile action by someone. But I'd want to know what that was and who did it, if it wasn't already clear.It's the GM's job to make that clear, assuming it wasn't an PC action that started things. To describe the actions of the NPCs that he decided warranted initiative and to make it clear to the players whether those actions were overtly hostile or not. And if he's intending to go into initiative outside of combat, just to track actions more carefully and a player interprets that as "Combat has started", it's up to the GM to clarify. Obviously, the PC can still attack, but the player should know he's the one starting the fight.
To translate, because I think I agree with you: Calling for initiative was an indication to the players that hostility had started without them. If the GM did not want this to be true, he needed to indicate to the players explicitly that no hostilities had yet begun so that they could behave appropriately. As such, the primary fault lies with the GM for (essentially) misrepresenting the situation to the players. While the players could have cleared it up by asking explicitly, it is not their burden to do so.
I go one step further and assert that, due to bad rules interactions, the DM shouldn't call for initiative at all until hostilities have started, even as a house rule. By RAW he can't call for "Initiative" unless due to combat, but could call for an ordering of actions if desired for organizational purposes. (I recommend against using the initiative modifier for non-combat ordering purposes as many things give a bonus to it under the assumption that it's a combat-only thing.)
Right, barring being informed that combat isn't actually starting, that is the RAW correlation to Init being rolled.
That is independent of who acts first, and who is deciding to begin combat, combat has begun,
and ALL characters should be aware of that, for instance the Tongues Curse Oracle who can't talk normally once combat has begun,
even if they win Initiative and decide they want to cast a friendly buff on their allies.
|
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.
Sorry. My gunslinger with
Gunslinger Initiative (Ex): At 3rd level, as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point, she gains the following benefits. First, she gains a +2 bonus on initiative checks. Furthermore, if she has the Quick Draw feat, her hands are free and unrestrained, and the firearm is not hidden, she can draw a single firearm as part of the initiative check.
Had a chance to draw his single firearm as part of the initiative check. ..
My Oracle of battle has
War Sight (Su): Whenever you roll for initiative, you can roll twice and take either result. At 7th level, you can always act in the surprise round, but if you fail to notice the ambush, you act last, regardless of your initiative result (you act in the normal order in following rounds). At 11th level, you can roll for initiative three times and take any one of the results.Futher more its
Improved Initiative (Combat)
Your quick reflexes allow you to react rapidly to danger.Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on initiative checks.
Notice how Improved Initiative is a combat feat? Not a social feat? Notice how it says something about reacting to danger?
Don't sit there and try to be a 'clever' gm, then punish your players because you are telling them that their characters sense danger (Hence the roll of initiative) when there really isn't any danger at all.
Just because they walk into town is no reason for the GM to call out the need for initiative. Trying to 'catch' your players like this is metagaming in itself. Like telling everyone to roll reflex saves then getting upset that the rogue used evasion with it, or that one feat that allows him to roll again. After all the Rogue character had no idea he was going to fail. Why can he roll twice? Thats totes metagamin right there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying, that if initiative is rolled, Combat™ has begun, and you are now under attack.Unless your statement is hostile opponents always attack after 6 seconds, initiating diplomacy only takes the ability to begin communicating.
Since diplomacy is explicitly allowed to be used against a hostile NPC, as long as nobody is hitting him with a weapon, the rules permit me time to make that check.
Of course, if you see me start talking with the NPC and choose to attack anyway, there will no chance for me to resolve the situation. It will also mean you have attacked a person who was talking, not trying to kill you.
Really?
What attack has been made? In game.
Your taking meta-game knowledge and trying to shoehorn it into in-game reality.
In game, rolling initiative does not denote any specific action being taken or any specific knowledge of intention.
Why do you think things like Dexterity, Improved Initiative and Favored Terrain should apply to being first person to talk?
I understand using it as a short hand method of determining who goes first in all sorts of situations, but if no threat has materialized, why are you having people roll initiative? Why not just wait until one side attacks, and declare that the surprise round?
If a DM tells me to roll initiative and I go first, I'm going to ask to what exactly am I responding to that needs my response measured out in combat rounds? If you say something like "Someone is walking towards you" I'm going to ask questions like:
- are they armed?
- do they look like they want to cause me harm?
- do they look like they intend to harm an ally of mine?
- is it normal for someone to be walking towards me in this situation?
Basically, I'm asking you what is out of the ordinary that you need to know the exact initiative order NOW, as opposed to the 18 seconds prior to that exact moment. What changed? If nothing changed, then why are we rolling initiative? What would be different if we rolled initiative 6 seconds later in the story? If nothing, why don't we just delay the whole process until then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Espy Kismet, and others, have hit the nail on the head. Using initiative for social interactions has a lot of unintended consequences (amongst other problems).
I understand what your getting at, but how would you choose to run the encounter if the players wanted to do things as the scene was unfolding rather than just listen to the narrative?
I totally let them do it. If its not initiativeworthy I will give the elements in the unfolding scene the opportunity to observe if possible and react if possible (or to 'take' initiative thus forcing the opposing rolls from the player)... The answer is the same. I only force initiative if the players are being entered into combat without having chosen to enter combat themselves.
If all 5 (or however many) of your players wanted to take non-offensive actions, (retrieving items, readying weapons, moving around the area to more favorable positions should combat start, etc.) how would you arbitrate when and how these actions took place? What if a character wanted to cast a defensive spell with a duration of rounds per level? What, in your opinion, is the best way to track rounds outside of initiative?
I would decide if the observing npcs or enemy or situation had the ability to witness those actions and if they'd choose to see such actions as an opportunity to try and 'get the jump' on the party by 'taking initiative' first, thus again forcing the opposing roll. If all the party is doing is moving around an area, the enemy may or may not find those moves threatening, and will either continue not to take or will quite suddenly 'take initiative'
What if, instead of one Orc, it was 5? How would you arbitrate turn order for all 10 characters posturing and reading for possible combat?
Moving tactically does not incite combat. Its a pre combat conversation tactic... Are you still willing to not attack us if I stand.. here? How advantageous of a position will you let us get into before the npc would consider the situation threatening and decide to 'take initiative' to fight or even possibly run? If the players choose to 'take initiative' before the enemy does, so be it. If the enemy decides it doesnt like the cut of the player's jib, they can either run, also try to move to tactically advantageous positions, or 'take initiative' and instigate combat. Creates very interesting and intense pre combat tension at our table anyway...
Theres a level of dramatic tension involved in allowing a party member to flat out walk right up to the bad guys toes without initiative rolls taking place. Its bold and daring in that the enemy may choose to get in the first shot... It creates the possibility of a player marching right up to the enemy's toes and combat actually not happening... Not that such a thing is impossible when everyone rolls initiative from 120 feet back, but in my experience such a thing happens FAR less often one way than the other.
Thats just me. YMMV.
Exactly, re: pre-combat tactical movement, there's no need to resolve it on a Turn basis (even though actions are still limited based on time, measurable in 6 second rounds), meaning that at ANY point either side can decide to begin combat... Before then, it is not yet on combat Turns where you have whole Move actions that cannot be interrupted (without Readying), outside of combat turns there is no rule preventing interruption of movement like that, although as soon as combat starts, Init is rolled and Turns commence, with characters located where they are and with what they have in hand at that moment. Both sides can in fact be maneuvering for the most advantageous position to begin combat, with combat not beginning until one side wants it to. If you encounter a group of NPCs who prefer to avoid combat and just move away or to defensive positions, if you also don't want to initiate combat, then combat doesn't begin. Or sides might initially think they want to initiate combat, but not just yet, they wait for reinforcement, and the other side also brings in reinforcements, so in the end nobody wants to start combat... Or if they do, at that point Init is rolled within everybody in the location they are. Of course, a little bit less precise than in-combat initiative, but both sides are free at any time to begin combat against any foe they're aware of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes, and on another note letting your player decide if they want to instigate combat based on the knowledge that they won a pre combat initiative roll is metagaming.
I offer such playstyles my disrespectful shun.
Rolling before combat has started is in fact FORCING the meta of both knowing or being able to feel out your position in initiative order which is meta, and the fact that the situation has escalated to 'possible combat' based on an out of character 'knowledge that an initiative die rolls has been made.'
Its two scoops of meta fail in a single arbitrary call. Double disrespectful shun for such antics!!!
Sure, Init isn't supposed to be rolled BEFORE combat begins, it's rolled SIMULTANEOUS with it beginning "AT the start of battle".
At least one side always has to decide to begin combat before the roll is made.
(albeit some abilities make the roll nearly irrelevant, like ungodly Init modifier and re-rolls or just flat out Init check bypasses)
I agree rolling initiative should only happen once anyone involved in the encounter decides to do something 'combatty' and for me, drawing weapons or attempting to take up a tactically advantageous positions on the battlefield only qualifies in so much as it gives the one witnessing it an opportunity to say 'screw that hippie.. I'm not letting you just stroll up that close... lets roll initiative so I can make you eat lead for assuming you'd be allowed to do what you're doing unopposed.
While I do agree that theres no reason why conversation or surrender or parlay cant happen during combat rounds, it should not be used to justify the policy of rolling initiative before someone actually 'decides' to 'instigate combat'.
Put another way, if the players approach the heavily guarded by triggerhappy and uninformed gate guards of an otherwise friendly town that happens to be on high alert...
When the players are spotted by the guards do you
or
|
I've called for initiative outside of combat when the party can't decide on what they want to do with everyone wanting to do something different.
If they can't decide what to at any given encounter, I call for initiative and have them resolve what they are doing in that order.
This has saved some squabbles at the game table, and caused others. Because some players see initiative as a combat only mechanic even if the GM states you don't have the time to argue what to do, roll initiative to see who gets to act first.
Their excuse was they were not listening to the GM, heard initiative and attacked anything not the party.
I tend to give lots of hints about an encounter before the players roll their dice, but only players to listen actually understand what the encounter is and don't rush in straight away.
For me using initiative means a trick situation which could be the start of combat, or just something where timing is important, like a trap room puzzle, or convincing someone their not their enemy.
|
|
I've called for initiative outside of combat when the party can't decide on what they want to do with everyone wanting to do something different.
If they can't decide what to at any given encounter, I call for initiative and have them resolve what they are doing in that order.
This has saved some squabbles at the game table, and caused others. Because some players see initiative as a combat only mechanic even if the GM states you don't have the time to argue what to do, roll initiative to see who gets to act first.
Their excuse was they were not listening to the GM, heard initiative and attacked anything not the party.
I tend to give lots of hints about an encounter before the players roll their dice, but only players to listen actually understand what the encounter is and don't rush in straight away.
For me using initiative means a trick situation which could be the start of combat, or just something where timing is important, like a trap room puzzle, or convincing someone their not their enemy.
That may be what it means to you, but it's not what it means to the rules, and defying those assumptions causes too many head-aches with existing content to make it a feasible house-rule.
For non-combat timing, just use a dex check and don't say it's initiative. Or a wisdom check, if it's purely mental/social. Whichever floats your boat.
I also dont call for initiative to be rolled just because the players are indecisive unless the enemy they face chooses to use their moment of indecision as a tactical advantage in 'actual combat' as being 'look, they're puzzled! Now's the time to strike!"
Tactics is one thing, but if the enemy wasnt hostile until he realized the enemy was 'boring him' and he should just attack to speed things along, or roll initiative to let them know its time to speed things along....'
Thats more shunning from this peanut gallery.
If I were to liken how initiative should be handled to any other gaming mechanic you might be familiar with i'd characterize initiative as a pit trap...
What you do is wait till they step on the square or try moving their piece through the square and then you stop them dead in their tracks on the square. Youve interrupted their non combat action. The character doesnt find out its time to roll against the pit trap until he either finds it before it hits him, or finds it becaue it's time for it to hit him because he's stepped in a bad spot unknowingly and has become its possible victim. The player can 'choose to take initiative against possible pit traps by taking the initiative to search for traps, unknowing of if the situation actually calls for it or not'... but you dont start the roll before its TIME to start the roll.
I agree rolling initiative should only happen once anyone involved in the encounter decides to do something 'combatty'...
Right, as soon as anybody tries to begin an action that all parties aren't implicitly consenting to, then Combat begins, no matter what that intended action was (moving a rock 3" could qualify, if that is somebody's impetus for beginning Combat). Now, you can 'civilly' not consent to somebody doing something without beginning Combat ("I repeat again, don't move that rock, kind Sir.") and you can sue them in court later if you want, but until one party wants Combat to start, i.e. wants to over-ride the other side's consent rather than allow an action (or non-action) to take place, then Combat (and Init) doesn't start.
Like you said, if a creature is Hostile and intending to attack, and isn't specifically (in-character) trying maintain a non-Combat stance while seeing how close they can maneuver or otherwise get away with other actions, then they're just going to start combat: starting combat or not starting it is something creatures are aware of in-character. Although it may well be that the side technically starting combat is morally in the "right", responding to some 'violation' by the other side, e.g. some thug assuming their display of brawn would just let them steal the others' possessions without resistance/combat.
EDIT: Good pit trap analogy.
When the players are spotted by the guards do you
have the guards raise weapons and state 'who goes there'
or
roll initiative right then and there because [the conditions to begin combat have been met]
Exactly. At any point in the 'who goes there' scenario, the Guards or anybody can decide to initiate combat, and Init is rolled.
If Init is already being rolled, the Guards have already decided to initiate combat, that decision already happened,combat already began even if violent actions haven't yet been resolved mechanically.
Like I wrote, /characters the Guards aren't Hostile to/ (which at minimum means they are not attacking) CAN try a 1 round Diplomacy Request... But even if they win Init before the Guards, all the other combatants will get their 1st Turn of actions before the Request succeeds, per RAW. Now, that same Diplomacy action can be quickly done outside of Combat (by anybody who doesn't have a Hostile relationship to the target), but not having done it before combat began means the Diplomatizer missed their chance to prevent Combat from beginning, they are now reacting to Combat already having begun, and the first Round of Combat will proceed while they do their 1 Round Diplomacy (if they wish to). Of course, if some non-Hostile passer-by who won Init decided to run in between the hostile parties (blocking a melee), the flow of combat may well be impeded, especially if one or both sides have the moral stance not to brutalize people they have no valid conflict with.
I stated this earlier but it was glossed over, with the possible exception of someone mentioning some obligation to help out the rogue because they suck.
Why do so many feel the obligation to say someone must be caught flat footed in every combat?
What happens when two groups see each other at 400', perceive a possible threat, and one or more people choose to go total defensive? Are they not allowed this combat action because it will hurt the lowly rogue more than other classes? because it isn't combatty enough to trigger initiative despite being a combat action? Does the fact that someone puts their guard up and keeps walking mean the other side should automatically attack?
In this 'trap' analogy the 'trap' you're waiting to spring is called 'the surprise round' or 'someone actually choosing to roll for combat initiative' and either way should not be triggered before its time.
If its time is 'when the players declare that they're rolling for initiative' or when the players start doing something that the enemy doesnt like the look of enough to decide THEY want to start rolling for initiative...
Not even when 'we all got our weapons out and the tumbleweeds are blowing through and the bard has started playing the theme to 'the good, the bad and the ugly' and we're walking real slow around each other in a circle".... Even then it's still not time. I'll grant you that its not meta in a world where bard music has power that a bad guy would hear a bard START playing music, determine that is a thread, and decide to 'TAKE INITIATIVE'... but even then bard songs arent de-facto 'Roll Initiative time" in my opinion. Drawing a bow, lighting a bomb or pulling a pin on a grenade isnt de-facto roll initiative time... Unless the enemy see's it happening and decides its time to start doing something about it, or until you decide to throw the bomb, throw the grenade, or fire the bow, which is absolutely combat.
Its kinda complicated to say 'Only when someone on either side actually starts taking combat action in an attempt to initiate combat or when someone on either side decides they're going to try and do something about the other party's actions that would prevent those actions from happening.' but in truth, thats what it is... Or at least what I think it should be.
|
|
I stated this earlier but it was glossed over, with the possible exception of someone mentioning some obligation to help out the rogue because they suck.
Why do so many feel the obligation to say someone must be caught flat footed in every combat?
What happens when two groups see each other at 400', perceive a possible threat, and one or more people choose to go total defensive? Are they not allowed this combat action because it will hurt the lowly rogue more than other classes? because it isn't combatty enough to trigger initiative despite being a combat action? Does the fact that someone puts their guard up and keeps walking mean the other side should automatically attack?
If they declare they wish to initiate hostile action, there is nothing preventing initiative from starting at 400ft.
It would be a rather unusual circumstance, but perfectly legit. Someone might still have their flat-footed AC come into play if a long-range spell or other ranged attack is used.
Unless expecting enemies or stereotyping, few would start an aggressive charge at 400ft. Most would probably approach closer to see what's going on first. I have seen it happen, though. In this case it was a couple of trolls that the party spotted at a distance, with initiative being rolled closer to 300ft away.
If they declare they wish to initiate hostile action, there is nothing preventing initiative from starting at 400ft.It would be a rather unusual circumstance, but perfectly legit. Someone might still have their flat-footed AC come into play if a long-range spell or other ranged attack is used.
Unless expecting enemies or stereotyping, few would start an aggressive charge at 400ft. Most would probably approach closer to see what's going on first. I have seen it happen, though. In this case it was a couple of trolls that the party spotted at a distance, with initiative being rolled closer to 300ft away.
So total defensive is not allowed until someone attacks first?
If they declare they wish to initiate hostile action, there is nothing preventing initiative from starting at 400ft.
It would be a rather unusual circumstance, but perfectly legit. Someone might still have their flat-footed AC come into play if a long-range spell or other ranged attack is used.
I agree with this too. If the gm decides that the bad guys switch to combat mode 400 feet away from a party who havent even noticed them, its perfectly legit and signals to the player at exactly the right time when 'combat has started'... Seems foolish unless they've got some way to strike from that range but okey dokey.
By the same token if the party decides to 'start initiative' on an enemy 400 feet away who havent even noticed them yet... For the same reasons. If you have strike capabilities from that range and your action is to 'strike'... or you feel like you need the incremental round mechanics to dictate how you close distance and start your assault... More power to ya.
But until one side calls it, it ain't been called, and I think a GM taking the 'defacto' position that the npcs go into 'initiative mode' too early is missing out on a lot of emotionally more tense and more rich interactions and it is 'setting a tone of combat' far in advance of actual combat... And giving the players a meta trigger for combat even if unintentional.
Its still ok. Just a shame.
|
|
I stated this earlier but it was glossed over, with the possible exception of someone mentioning some obligation to help out the rogue because they suck.
Why do so many feel the obligation to say someone must be caught flat footed in every combat?
What happens when two groups see each other at 400', perceive a possible threat, and one or more people choose to go total defensive? Are they not allowed this combat action because it will hurt the lowly rogue more than other classes? because it isn't combatty enough to trigger initiative despite being a combat action? Does the fact that someone puts their guard up and keeps walking mean the other side should automatically attack?
Watch a bunch of people at a starting line in a race.
Even if they KNOW they are about to run, they don't know exactly when to run. They are waiting for the guy with the gun to fire it, signaling the start of the race.
Then the moment this guy fires the guy, they start to run. But do you think they all run at exactly the same time? Nope.
Some people are caught off guard even though they know its about to happen. Others might have anticipated it perfectly.
Another analogy is Football. Cause again, they KNOW of each other, and are aware of each others presence. They know the moment that whistle is blown, they are going to smash against each other. They know that the guy in the back is going to throw the ball, and that guys knows they are going to try to stop him.
The whistle blows, 'combat' starts, and everyone rolls initiative. They all don't react to the whistle at the same time. despite being ready for this, anticipating it, they are still caught off guard. Its why Racers and Footballers work to get their reaction time down, hence increasing initiative bonuses.