|
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.
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.
You can do total defense if you want, but it's pointless if there's no combat. You have nothing to defend against (that you know of). If you DO know of something you should be defending against, then initiative should have already been rolled. If for some reason you're pretty sure combat is about to start, but not 100%, and are trying to be safe, then you're likely going to trigger a hostile reaction by declaring total defense (as your stance changes to one that says "combat"), which means that asking for total defense is going to trigger initiative (and you can then take that action mechanically speaking when your turn arrives). If your DM is feeling generous or if you legit surprised your foe with your sudden shift to combat, you may act in the surprise round and declare total defense in that action.
If you ask for total defense when there is no know foe, it's obviously completely pointless as the defense boost is lost when attacked by a foe you hadn't previous perceived.
I wouldnt say its pointless to go total defense...
Just that going total defense isnt enough to start rolling for initiative and isnt a 'hostile action'... quite the opposite in fact.
I'm not up to speed on the particulars of how it would apply to a sneak attack but i'd be curious to see how the interaction between the two is written by RAW, if at all.
I could easily be convinced that a guy on total defense but not knowing 'against what' is still subject to sneak attack and surprise because if he's still snuck up on and surprised despite being freaked out and expecting death from any angle... It still basically doesnt NEGATE sneak attack and surprise IMHO... I can know SOMETHING bad's about to happen but if I don't know what, being worried about it isnt gonna give me any bonuses against it. I dont think thats how total defense is written but I could be wrong.
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.
So yes someone must be caught flat footed every combat? Remember your football players are inches away from each other and they seem to be ok by the time they hit each other, combatants are often up to 60' away and still being caught flat footed.
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 am not suggesting it should be an expected tactic every combat, but it is a tactic I would take if I'm in Cut/Smash/Burn land and we are passing an unknown group on the road; much like was described by the OP.
I wouldnt say its pointless to go total defense...
Just that going total defense isnt enough to start rolling for initiative and isnt a 'hostile action'... quite the opposite in fact.
It is a combat action, I would think it would require you to be following combat rules (read: initiative) to use it.
It is a combat action, I would think it would require you to be following combat rules (read: initiative) to use it.I wouldnt say its pointless to go total defense...
Just that going total defense isnt enough to start rolling for initiative and isnt a 'hostile action'... quite the opposite in fact.
And for a player who says they are using it as a combat action and in doing so are officially declaring their intent to 'enter into combat on the defensive... they have officially 'declared combat initiative'...
But I cant say i'd rule against the possibility of it also being used as a non combat action for a character who 'still wants to avoid combat and is playing it safe'.... requiring no initiative rolls but still getting the bonus.
The DM isnt functionally subject to the 'vagueries' of meta, neither knowing or not knowing the player's combat intent... At least not in any enforcable way. So thinking about the scenario backwards has very little practical purpose other than to enforce that combat initiative should only be rolled once anyone in the encounter officially chooses it, and that 'anyone in the encounter' definitely includes the npcs...
It is a combat action, I would think it would require you to be following combat rules (read: initiative) to use it.I wouldnt say its pointless to go total defense...
Just that going total defense isnt enough to start rolling for initiative and isnt a 'hostile action'... quite the opposite in fact.And for a player who says they are using it as a combat action and in doing so are officially declaring their intent to 'enter into combat on the defensive... they have officially 'declared combat initiative'...
But I cant say i'd rule against the possibility of it also being used as a non combat action for a character who 'still wants to avoid combat and is playing it safe'.... requiring no initiative rolls but still getting the bonus.
The DM isnt functionally subject to the 'vagueries' of meta, neither knowing or not knowing the player's combat intent... At least not in any enforcable way. So thinking about the scenario backwards has very little practical purpose other than to enforce that combat initiative should only be rolled once anyone in the encounter officially chooses it, and that 'anyone in the encounter' definitely includes the npcs...
I would be fine with a GM telling me your out of combat way of removing flat-footedness. I would also be ok with the GM that triggers initiative to to remove the condition, by a stated or implied use of total defense. It would not sit well with me where the GM said someone must be caught flat footed for the first hit no matter how much warning all participants have.
|
So yes someone must be caught flat footed every combat? Remember your football players are inches away from each other and they seem to be ok by the time they hit each other, combatants are often up to 60' away and still being caught flat footed.
Remember football players all take their turn at exactly the same time. There is no turn order. No attacks of opportunity, and no magic spells they use or anything like that.
Football players are also all relatively trained on getting their initiative to the point they have it almost all at the same reaction time to the whistle being blown.
You want an out of combat way of not being flatfooted? Play a class that has Uncanny dodge.
I think the intent of how I run it is that the npcs and the players both have not just the option to defend themselves in the purest sense of the word defend (as in no offensive actions) and at the same time BOTH the gm's npcs and the players have the option to stop any out of combat action at any time by declaring 'initiative time'... Even if that means it leaves them in a situation where they're bumping chests with the bad guy and 'combat hasnt started' and 'combat initiative still hasnt even been rolled'....
Being chest to chest with a bad guy can still end up with hearty raucous laughter at mutual respect between two front line fighters who honor each other's bravery.... How savory a mechanic to miss out on by declaring initiative rolls so early!
So yes someone must be caught flat footed every combat? Remember your football players are inches away from each other and they seem to be ok by the time they hit each other, combatants are often up to 60' away and still being caught flat footed.Remember football players all take their turn at exactly the same time. There is no turn order. No attacks of opportunity, and no magic spells they use or anything like that.
Football players are also all relatively trained on getting their initiative to the point they have it almost all at the same reaction time to the whistle being blown.
You want an out of combat way of not being flatfooted? Play a class that has Uncanny dodge.
It was your metaphor, I was just showing how it didn't serve your point.
I don't think a certain class is required to have a combat where everyone is actually ready for it. I am not making an argument for my characters, I am making an argument for what I can stomach as realistic.
I think the intent of how I run it is that the npcs and the players both have not just the option to defend themselves in the purest sense of the word defend (as in no offensive actions) and at the same time BOTH the gm's npcs and the players have the option to stop any out of combat action at any time by declaring 'initiative time'... Even if that means it leaves them in a situation where they're bumping chests with the bad guy and 'combat hasnt started' and 'combat initiative still hasnt even been rolled'....
Being chest to chest with a bad guy can still end up with hearty raucous laughter at mutual respect between two front line fighters who honor each other's bravery.... How savory a mechanic to miss out on by declaring initiative rolls so early!
You only miss out on that if players use the initiative gun instead of character knowledge to inform decisions.
Exactly. And these threads prove its very common to make meta presumptions about combat when a gm declares initiative inappropriately. Arguably more common than not. And so easy to resolve by a gm who cares about such things. Which is why my personal rule about declaring initiative on either side is to state up front what action you're taking to instigate it. Even if you're the gm. Such a rule removes the 'meta', because now the characters know they're under attack 'in character'. Resolve for possible surprise, resolve for possible flat footedness. Roll for initiative. You're good to go.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You only miss out on that if players use the initiative gun instead of character knowledge to inform decisions.I think the intent of how I run it is that the npcs and the players both have not just the option to defend themselves in the purest sense of the word defend (as in no offensive actions) and at the same time BOTH the gm's npcs and the players have the option to stop any out of combat action at any time by declaring 'initiative time'... Even if that means it leaves them in a situation where they're bumping chests with the bad guy and 'combat hasnt started' and 'combat initiative still hasnt even been rolled'....
Being chest to chest with a bad guy can still end up with hearty raucous laughter at mutual respect between two front line fighters who honor each other's bravery.... How savory a mechanic to miss out on by declaring initiative rolls so early!
The initiative gun IS character knowledge! The gun fires because someone has taken a hostile action! It is either them or the foe, but either way it is completely character knowledge (surprise rounds they do not participate in notwithstanding).
|
|
So yes someone must be caught flat footed every combat? Remember your football players are inches away from each other and they seem to be ok by the time they hit each other, combatants are often up to 60' away and still being caught flat footed.Remember football players all take their turn at exactly the same time. There is no turn order. No attacks of opportunity, and no magic spells they use or anything like that.
Football players are also all relatively trained on getting their initiative to the point they have it almost all at the same reaction time to the whistle being blown.
You want an out of combat way of not being flatfooted? Play a class that has Uncanny dodge.
It was your metaphor, I was just showing how it didn't serve your point.
I don't think a certain class is required to have a combat where everyone is actually ready for it. I am not making an argument for my characters, I am making an argument for what I can stomach as realistic.
No, the metaphor does serve its point. I'm showing a specific example where everyone is there, ready for combat. And yet still, NOTHING THEY DID, made them not flat footed for those few brief seconds.
Only, the real life does't serve your purpose.
So why does White always go before Black in chess? Because those are the rules. A certian class being required.. no, A certain ability is required. Because those are the rules of a game.
THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE.
This is game.
Why does it take a certain class to hit people in their weak spots? Or a certain class to train on how to fight a specific foe?
Because those are the rules.
Exactly. And these threads prove its very common to make meta presumptions about combat when a gm declares initiative inappropriately. Arguably more common than not. And so easy to resolve by a gm who cares about such things. Which is why my personal rule about declaring initiative on either side is to state up front what action you're taking to instigate it. Even if you're the gm. Such a rule removes the 'meta', because now the characters know they're under attack 'in character'. Resolve for possible surprise, resolve for possible flat footedness. Roll for initiative. You're good to go.
It proves that people have different expectations, but I think it goes to far to say the GM declares initiative inappropriately. You have a personal house rule to avoid being on the defensive triggering initiative, that doesn't mean others do it wrong. Perhaps in the first scenario only one of the people on the path would have attacked, perhaps there were 3rd party bandits, perhaps there was a bear. Players should not go hacking at the first thing they see just because initiative has been rolled, and it is putting the blame in the wrong place by saying they should be able to act on out of character knowledge or limit a GMs options.
The easier way to resolve to have players act on character knowledge, not just on the first round of combat, but all rounds of combat. They should be doing this anyway.
The initiative gun IS character knowledge! The gun fires because someone has taken a hostile action! It is either them or the foe, but either way it is completely character knowledge (surprise rounds they do not participate in notwithstanding).
You only miss out on that if players use the initiative gun instead of character knowledge to inform decisions.I think the intent of how I run it is that the npcs and the players both have not just the option to defend themselves in the purest sense of the word defend (as in no offensive actions) and at the same time BOTH the gm's npcs and the players have the option to stop any out of combat action at any time by declaring 'initiative time'... Even if that means it leaves them in a situation where they're bumping chests with the bad guy and 'combat hasnt started' and 'combat initiative still hasnt even been rolled'....
Being chest to chest with a bad guy can still end up with hearty raucous laughter at mutual respect between two front line fighters who honor each other's bravery.... How savory a mechanic to miss out on by declaring initiative rolls so early!
It fires because someone has taken a combat action, as previously stated, not all combat actions are hostile. Characters should respond to hostility, not mechanical game terms.
Initiative triggers the battle mindset in me too.
the funny thing is, it is easier to boost initiative than it is to boost attributes
a trait can add +2
a feat can add +4
certain familiars can add +4
Certain Weapon Properties can add +4
certain class builds add 1/2 their level in that class
high dexterity scores add to it
a 2 level dip in a specific base class can add your wisdom modifer as a bonus
a feat can swap cha in place pf dex for it
a particular oracle revelation lets you roll 3 times and take the highest result
a Dex/Wis based Sohei 8/Inquisitor 2 with 20 Dex and 20 Wis, Eldritch Heritage (Arcane), an agile duelists kama (light weapon enchantment for +4 initiative) improved initiative, and the right trait can have an initiative of +28
that must be one impatient sohei
No, the metaphor does serve its point. I'm showing a specific example where everyone is there, ready for combat. And yet still, NOTHING THEY DID, made them not flat footed for those few brief seconds.
Only, the real life does't serve your purpose.
So why does White always go before Black in chess? Because those are the rules. A certian class being required.. no, A certain ability is required. Because those are the rules of a game.
THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE.
This is game.
Why does it take a certain class to hit people in their weak spots? Or a certain class to train on how to fight a specific foe?
Because those are the rules.
Anyone caught off guard, or flat footed by a 300 lbs man is going to knocked over. They are not flat footed when they hit that fraction of second after the whistle.
So your argument is or isn't supposed to be rooted in realism? You seem to be flipping, but I think you are wrong on both accounts. Not only is it not realistic, you ignore the fact that even in game someone can take non-hostile combat actions by the rules.
I would hazard that when he writes "THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE. This is a game"
that he is rooting his argument in rules, not real life.
But when somebody avoids dealing with the basic rule, and just brings up case after corner case
in some attempt to use that corner case to dictate the general rule by hook or crook, people will either humor that approach,
and deal with corner cases and specific visualization examples, or blow off the poster who won't deal with the issue.
By the rules of the game, a Tongues Oracle has direct objective evidence that combat has begun regardless of what actions are resolved first in combat, or who takes them. That is not presented as a supernatural awareness of danger that others are not aware of, but as a reaction to stress of recognizing they are entering combat, that anybody else could also recognize. Init order cannot always be taken as hard sequentiality for everything, because more combatants do not speed up characters in relation to time, waiting for 10x the number of combatants to run their 300m as soon as the other finishes just can't take the same 6 seconds, the only other explanation is that Init order isn't really hard sequentiality in all cases, even if we allow it to represent sequentiality for some things.
Somebody or bodies did something to begin combat, even if that action ends up resolving after other people's. That initiation of combat is what everybody is reacting to with in-game knowledge, you are not denied awareness that you are reacting to whatever it is that triggered combat just because you didn't decide to begin the combat yourself. This isn't particularly different than a Readied Action interrupting the action that triggered it, whoever wins Init just happens to resolve their full turn before anybody else can complete any action. Any game mechanic isn't going to perfectly model every single scenario you could possibly imagine, but to play a game you need to accept it's rules for what they are.
|
|
No, the metaphor does serve its point. I'm showing a specific example where everyone is there, ready for combat. And yet still, NOTHING THEY DID, made them not flat footed for those few brief seconds.
Only, the real life does't serve your purpose.
So why does White always go before Black in chess? Because those are the rules. A certian class being required.. no, A certain ability is required. Because those are the rules of a game.
THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE.
This is game.
Why does it take a certain class to hit people in their weak spots? Or a certain class to train on how to fight a specific foe?
Because those are the rules.
Anyone caught off guard, or flat footed by a 300 lbs man is going to knocked over. They are not flat footed when they hit that fraction of second after the whistle.
So your argument is or isn't supposed to be rooted in realism? You seem to be flipping, but I think you are wrong on both accounts. Not only is it not realistic, you ignore the fact that even in game someone can take non-hostile combat actions by the rules.
Actually someone who was flatfooted by a 300lb man is still going to have to follow the laws of physics being that 300lbs of mass, smacking against another 300 lbs of mass is going to be a stopped 300lbs of mass as both forces are equalized.
Now you might be trying to do 'bull rush' but as bullrush still is BAB+STR+10 vs BAB+STR+1d20 you are only going to see someone go get knocked over by that man 50% of the time assuming both players are properly matched.
That is if Dex is even removed from CMD while flatfooted.
However if a player on team A, suddenly pulled out an AK47 from behind his back and shot at the guys on the other side...
My argument is based on /actual/ ability to react to a situation and that everyone starts off flatfooted, and that even those trained to be ready for a certain event, are in fact flat footed at the start. And the way Pathfinder has chosen to set its system is by a turn based combat instead of simultaneous combat which would allow even more reflection of real life.
If you want to be able to react, you need a class feature or feat.
So, if I was to recreate the front line blockers of a football team using the rules of the game, I'd make them all barbarians. Maybe urban, but as long as they get uncanny dodge. Give them combat reflexes too. Maybe some brawling abilities.
There. Now all the frontlines men are okay when they combat each other inches away.
Football with AK-47s. Yeah.
I would hazard that when he writes "THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE. This is a game"
that he is not rooting his argument in real life, rather than the rules.
Yet he has made several real life examples prior to that statement, and hence mine.
But when somebody avoids dealing with the basic rule, and just brings up case after corner case
in some attempt to use that corner case to dictate the general rule, people will either humor that approach,
and deal with corner cases and specific visualization examples, or blow off the poster who won't deal with the issue.
I wouldn't characterize having initiative prior to characters having full knowledge of what or how they should attack as avoiding dealing with basic rules.
I have never made any argument that all combats should be handled this way, rather I have repeatedly stated that there are some circumstances in which it makes more sense logically, and game mechanics support being in initiative but characters lack complete knowledge of what course of action they should take.
By the rules of the game, a Tongues Oracle has direct objective evidence that combat has begun regardless of what actions are resolved first in combat, or who takes them. That is not presented as a supernatural awareness of danger that others are not aware of, but as a reaction to stress of entering combat that anybody could feel, that goes along with recognizing when combat has begun. Init order cannot always be taken as hard sequentiality for everything, because more combatants do not speed up characters in relation to time, waiting for 10x the number of combatants to run their 300m as soon as the other finishes just can't take the same 6 seconds, the only other solution is that Init order isn't really hard sequentiality in all cases, even if we allow it to represent sequentiality for some things.
Just because they are in a state of heightened stress doesn't mean they know everything or should kill everything.
Somebody or bodies did something to begin combat, even if that action ends up resolving after other people's, and that initiation of combat is what everybody is reacting to with in-game knowledge, you are not denied awareness that you are reacting to whatever it is that triggered combat just because you didn't decide to begin the combat yourself.
So in this case, the best thing for the player in the OP to do would be to ask the GM what he sees that he is reacting to, rather than assuming it means he should kill all strangers.
Actually someone who was flatfooted by a 300lb man is still going to have to follow the laws of physics being that 300lbs of mass, smacking against another 300 lbs of mass is going to be a stopped 300lbs of mass as both forces are equalized.
Now you might be trying to do 'bull rush' but as bullrush still is BAB+STR+10 vs BAB+STR+1d20 you are only going to see someone go get knocked over by that man 50% of the time assuming both players are properly matched.
That is if Dex is even removed from CMD while flatfooted.
However if a player on team A, suddenly pulled out an AK47 from behind his back and shot at the guys on the other side...
My argument is based on /actual/ ability to react to a situation and that everyone starts off flatfooted, and that even those trained to be ready for a certain event, are in fact flat footed at the start. And the way Pathfinder has chosen to...
By physics a 300 lbs object striking another stationary 300 lbs object will result in both objects traveling in the original direction at half the original speed (assuming no friction and an inelastic collision.) The only way they would be equalized is if both have the same force behind their mass in opposite directions, which would require neither to be flat footed.
I am sorry I don't follow your premise; I simply don't see it that everyone must be flat footed for the first attack. You have explained it well enough, but I don't find it convincing.
In reference to the original question, I frequently have my players roll initiative at the end of a battle. That is the init they get whenever a new battle starts at any point in the future.
Yet he has made several real life examples prior to that statement, and hence mine.
The point is that you have engaged in throwing up all manner of corner cases rather than just address the basic rule head on, and he responded in kind, thinking that type of thing spoke to you more.
Just because they are in a state of heightened stress doesn't mean they know everything or should kill everything.
Who is saying that? Nobody.
It's a strawman invented in opposition to the idea that you ARE actually aware of what is causing non-surprise combat and init to begin.Who is saying players shouldn't ask to what they're reacting? Nobody.
This thread is the result of a GM feeling like they don't have to announce that,
and then guilting the player over making the assumption that the only visible NPCs had initiated the non-surprise combat.
In reference to the original question, I frequently have my players roll initiative at the end of a battle. That is the init they get whenever a new battle starts at any point in the future.
Yeah, people have already posted that approach, likewise responces were posted explaining why that is needlessly revealing metagame information that players shouldn't know, i.e. if it is very high they know they can start a fight and act first or even twice if they have a surprise round, or if is very low they know that they can't do that and they should probably cast more defensive buffs ahead of time, or decide to start some pointless fights with weak opponents until they roll high and that's when they seek out the Big Bad. Of course, good players would not do that, but there's no reason to put that information in their hands, and good players may even fall victim to not doing something they might normally have just because it happens to synergize so well with the pre-rolled Init.
I have done 'non surprise round' combats before. Usually because the PCs and the enemies are aware combat may start, they try to talk it out, agree it's not going to work, and then they all ready weapons and attack at the same time.
Granted, this doesn't happen often. Usually it happens when either the BBEG is lawful, or the enemy is a BBNG (Big Bad Neutral Guy) who really doesn't want to kill the PCs, but will if he has to.
It's a house rule, but it's not an uncommon one, I've had it show up in games for years (both mine and others).
Then I've also had surprise rounds in gladiatorial arenas. But usually only if the combatants have no way of knowing when the fight starts. For example, if they start on opposite sides of a 200ft wide arena, then there's no surprise round (or if you prefer, there is, but it's just moving closer). On the other hand, if they all walk out and have to wait for the big high muckety muck to drop a hankerchief, then there's a surprise round with DC 10 perception checks to notice the fight has started.
MDT, non-surprise round beginnings to combat is 110% non-house-rule,
it applies whenever all combatants pass the Perception checks to notice all other combatants..
I will repeat because apparently you aren't seeing it: Of course I have been talking about special cases, the Original Post either does or very well could describe one of those cases. Just because some here want to make a hasty generalization about how combat should start, does not mean I am not addressing the rules head on.
There are many posts in this thread with people defending the OP attacking strangers on the grounds the GM said to roll initiative, many of them trying to claim the initiative roll gives them enough in character knowledge to justify it. I am sorry I am not up for quoting them all right now.
MDT, non-surprise round beginnings to combat is 110% non-house-rule,
it applies whenever all combatants pass the Perception checks to notice all other combatants..
It is when you're not making them roll at all. RAW, you'd have to make your perception check even with everyone standing around saying 'Hey, let's fight', and some people never put ranks in perception and roll a 1.
It's also a house rule in the situation of waiting for the handkerchief to drop, but it's a logical house rule based on the intent of the rules. In that case, it's not that you don't know combat is about to start, you just don't know exactly when it's going to start.
|
|
Actually someone who was flatfooted by a 300lb man is still going to have to follow the laws of physics being that 300lbs of mass, smacking against another 300 lbs of mass is going to be a stopped 300lbs of mass as both forces are equalized.
Now you might be trying to do 'bull rush' but as bullrush still is BAB+STR+10 vs BAB+STR+1d20 you are only going to see someone go get knocked over by that man 50% of the time assuming both players are properly matched.
That is if Dex is even removed from CMD while flatfooted.
However if a player on team A, suddenly pulled out an AK47 from behind his back and shot at the guys on the other side...
My argument is based on /actual/ ability to react to a situation and that everyone starts off flatfooted, and that even those trained to be ready for a certain event, are in fact flat footed at the start. And the way Pathfinder has chosen to...
By physics a 300 lbs object striking another stationary 300 lbs object will result in both objects traveling in the original direction at half the original speed (assuming no friction and an inelastic collision.) The only way they would be equalized is if both have the same force behind their mass in opposite directions, which would require neither to be flat footed.
I am sorry I don't follow your premise; I simply don't see it that everyone must be flat footed for the first attack. You have explained it well enough, but I don't find it convincing.
Three hundred pound mass hits another. With cleats. So you have increased amounts of friction. And the bodies are placed in such away to maximize the effect of the friction as well.. Now this is where you go "See see! they can prepare to not be flat footed!"
And again, it wouldn't be. See the previous example of the AK47.
Football with AK-47s. Yeah.
You laugh. But Okay that is an m16. And where in the rules does it say you can't pull out an M16 in the middle of a football match? Probably no where. But its frowned upon in most places. The anime though often has people getting caught unawares, usually cause the enemy pulls out a manuver that is a bit surprising. While having a rather fancy element to it( especially with the guy who uses m16s when he wins) , most of the show is meant to be mostly mundane.
Oh recently found this gem of a show. Tell me that guy wasn't flat footed, despite taking a guarded stance.
Another video Its hard to tell if initiative was rolled. But I'd think the rolling guy possibly caught the other guy flatfooted. Just.. well he took combat reflexes, and the rolling guy failed his acrobatics check.
The OP's case is not a special case, beyond that the GM may have been not applying the RAW without announcing that fact.
The PCs did not begin combat. There were no other combatants.
It's exactly held up by the rules that you are aware of non-surprise combat beginning, and thus who/what caused combat to begin,
even if your high Init roll lets your turn resolve before the party that began combat.
By the rules, the only party that could have initiated combat was the sighted NPCs, as the OP inferred in lack of adequate description.
The OP's GM didn't want to recognize that, or didn't want to resolve the mismatch of their non-standard application of Init with the players' understanding of the standard rules, and instead they accused the PC's of acting without any rationale motivation, even though the PC's would have plenty of motivation if their characters were aware of who is beginning combat, per the straightforward understanding of the RAW that many posters have shared.
In that case the aggressor was not the PCs but the party that chose to begin combat, even if their crappy Init meant their actions resolved after the PCs.
That's just how Init goes, you can't rely on winning Init and your actions resolving first before anybody can recognize combat has started, even when you decide to begin combat yourself.
MDT, non-surprise round beginnings to combat is 110% non-house-rule...It is when you're not making them roll at all...
Sure, I understand that you may otherwise be playing with houserules, but your statement at face-value suggested non-surprise round combats are themselves a house-rule, although I'm sure that was due just to talking about several different things and scenarios. My clarification was as much meant for anybody reading your post who might not understand the rules as well.
It proves that people have different expectations, but I think it goes to far to say the GM declares initiative inappropriately. You have a personal house rule to avoid being on the defensive triggering initiative, that doesn't mean others do it wrong. Perhaps in the first scenario only one of the people on the path would have attacked, perhaps there were 3rd party bandits, perhaps there was a bear. Players should not go hacking at the first thing they see just because initiative has been rolled, and it is putting the blame in the wrong place by saying they should be able to act on out of character knowledge or limit a GMs options.
The easier way to resolve to have players act on character knowledge, not just on the first round of combat, but all rounds of combat. They should be doing this anyway.
Oddly you're agreeing with me but taking the tone that you dont. I dont want the characters to make meta decisions like the assumption that a fight is happening because initiative is rolled, or make choices on whether to attack or be peaceful based on meta knowledge of an initiative roll.
But my solution is dont roll initiative so dang early for no good reason. That may be where we disagree. By rolling initiative earlier than necessary, there are plenty of people who have a hard time not falling into 'combat time' mentality... Instead of trying to teach half the players on the planet that rolling initiative doesnt mean throwdown time, instead, just fix the problem. Stop rolling initiative so dang early. How hard is that? I'm not saying that they shouldnt... I'm saying that they do. In droves. And it can be fixed by the very simple act of not rolling it until the last possible moment, which doesnt seem like rocket science to implement. YMMV
If it were the GMs intentions to have the NPCs adopt a defensive stance in order to remove their flat footed condition, and the trigger happy PC mistook what would have been them moving to on guard as an actual attack position, I don't see anything the GM did wrong. If it was the GMs intentions to have the NPCs shoot first and ask questions later then his warning to the player after the fact to be aware that it may not always work out for him to be so edgy was clarification and possibly foreshadowing.
I ran a home game for a few years in which interactions with major villains was a pretty regular thing. Sometimes it would lead to combat and sometimes it wouldn't, but if both sides have all the time in the world to prep, I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone must be flat footed all the time. Perhaps I am looking for loopholes to make the rules conform to my sense of reality, but I haven't seen what strikes me as a good argument in game or out of game why it shouldn't be done.
Since I do spend a pretty fair amount of time with the rules, I try to make a conscious effort not to rules lawyer my GMs; I realize that most games are better for that level of trust between player and GM. Sometimes I fail in that endeavor. In this case, I see a lot of people trying rules lawyer the GM when I can't see anything he has for certain done wrong.
It proves that people have different expectations, but I think it goes to far to say the GM declares initiative inappropriately. You have a personal house rule to avoid being on the defensive triggering initiative, that doesn't mean others do it wrong. Perhaps in the first scenario only one of the people on the path would have attacked, perhaps there were 3rd party bandits, perhaps there was a bear. Players should not go hacking at the first thing they see just because initiative has been rolled, and it is putting the blame in the wrong place by saying they should be able to act on out of character knowledge or limit a GMs options.
The easier way to resolve to have players act on character knowledge, not just on the first round of combat, but all rounds of combat. They should be doing this anyway.
Oddly you're agreeing with me but taking the tone that you dont. I dont want the characters to make meta decisions like the assumption that a fight is happening because initiative is rolled, or make choices on whether to attack or be peaceful based on meta knowledge of an initiative roll.
But my solution is dont roll initiative so dang early for no good reason. That may be where we disagree. By rolling initiative earlier than necessary, there are plenty of people who have a hard time not falling into 'combat time' mentality... Instead of trying to teach half the players on the planet that rolling initiative doesnt mean throwdown time, instead, just fix the problem. Stop rolling initiative so dang early. How hard is that? I'm not saying that they shouldnt... I'm saying that they do. In droves. And it can be fixed by the very simple act of not rolling it until the last possible moment, which doesnt seem like rocket science to implement. YMMV
I agreed with most of what you had to say, saying the GM must have been the one in the wrong was the main part I disagreed with. In this last bit, just accepting players are going to act on metaknowledge is another.
I'm not sure why you keep hammering at the notion that the philosophy creates a situation where someone must be flat footed all the time. If you're in full defense you're 'in combat and thus not flat footed, but you're not on offense and rolling initiative. You're being cautious and leaving the possibility open that combat won't happen, which sounds like an awesome way to go about encounters.
I'm not even saying that the gm has done anything wrong. I'm saying I've got a way that works better for me to solve a problem that clearly a lot of people are having, which is exactly the nature of the OP's question.
If your only suggestion is 'he didnt do anything wrong so don't change a thing' well thats great. Opinion noted. The rest of the thread is about trying to solve what a lot of people (including the OP who specifically started the thread to address the issue) think is a problem, to which we've discovered there is a significant concern. Hopefully the thread can create solutions in a creative and interesting way that enhances the game experience. The OP of course indicated he may be interested in such solutions by posting in the 'advice' thread.
In a remarkable irony I'm not even suggesting that anyone 'break a rule'.... My suggestion is for the gm simply to either be fine with the players reacting to combat with combat, or to wait a little longer when it's appropriate (the case of innocent villagers in the forest that the OP mentioned, not just any old willy nilly randome encounter) and see if the players find another way out than killing every person place or thing in your world with the weak justification that they meta react and over react to a gm with a field full of enemies rolling for combat initiative, no matter how strongly you feel that they shouldnt.... If they shouldnt make meta decisions based on initiative rolls, dont give them the opportunity. Make them choose or make them lose the surprise round.
If it were the GMs intentions to have the NPCs adopt a defensive stance in order to remove their flat footed condition,
That's absurd, because doing that doesn't actually grant any advantage to the NPCs... they could just as easily do the same thing if they win Init when the PCs (or anybody) begins combat against them. Deciding to begin combat doesn't give you any advantage there, there's no correlation to deciding to begin combat and your turn coming first, not to mention the OP was clear that he WON Init, he didn't lose it to the NPCs.
If the first character to act is on the side that began combat, yet decides to cast a non-offensive buff spell on their allies, it is still just as clear that combat has been initiated, even if it's clear that the character who acted first didn't actually make an inherently aggressive action, but Init wouldn't need to be rolled if nobody wanted to do anything besides cast friendly buff spells (and the PCs didn't themselves decide to begin combat to prevent that).
What exactly the GM's discrepancy was is unclear, whether a misunderstanding of the implicit in-game knowledge of who is beginning combat (regardless of who wins Init), or not realizing that un-announced usage of non-standard non-combat Init is inherently misleading to people expecting normal rules.
The rules are dead clear that characters who have not yet taken their turn in combat are Flat Footed, if you can't deal with that basic rule, there is no point in disputing anything else. This isn't about rules lawyering the GM, this is describing how people themselves GM, and how the rules work equally for PC and NPCs, if the PCs decide to begin combat vs. NPCs and the NPCs win Init, the NPCs also know who began combat even though the PC's actions haven't resolved yet in Turn order.
Rolling Initiative is clearly a sign of impending combat
and PCs tend to be a little "trigger happy", "blood thirsty" or "aggressive" with the exception of those few who specifically alter their concept otherwise, whose concept will be modified to include aggressive traits over time.
even then, no such thing as a true pacifist, even Bhudda and Mother Theresa could feel hostility and even Christ could sin.
nothing is perfect, absolute, nor guaranteed. things can change over time, and often will.
Perhaps the point I haven't made clear. If a person identifies a threat at a great enough distance, they could choose to go total defense (which would trigger initiative as a combat action under normal rules) in a position so that even if they lose initiative, a melee combatant could not reach them prior to them being able to act.
Vincent, I realize you have an exception that works well for you, but seeing as it is the player asking for advice and not the GM, I am focusing my advice on how the player should square all this, not tell his GM how he thinks he should house rule it. My suggested solution to him is to do just what his GM asked him to, not make assumptions based on out of character game mechanics and claim his GM is doing it wrong (as many others, not you, are doing). If I were his GM and such a warning was disregarded, it wouldn't be long before a rightful authority was being escorted down the road and killing them for merely drawing weapons would have plot repercussions.
Should going total defense on sight happen walking through a town? Probably not. Should it happen in a dungeon? Distance probably isn't going to be on your side for any real benefit. Should it happen on a deserted road in the middle of no where, I think it a pretty prudent in character action in many cases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it were the GMs intentions to have the NPCs adopt a defensive stance in order to remove their flat footed condition, and the trigger happy PC mistook what would have been them moving to on guard as an actual attack position, I don't see anything the GM did wrong. If it was the GMs intentions to have the NPCs shoot first and ask questions later then his warning to the player after the fact to be aware that it may not always work out for him to be so edgy was clarification and possibly foreshadowing.
I ran a home game for a few years in which interactions with major villains was a pretty regular thing. Sometimes it would lead to combat and sometimes it wouldn't, but if both sides have all the time in the world to prep, I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone must be flat footed all the time. Perhaps I am looking for loopholes to make the rules conform to my sense of reality, but I haven't seen what strikes me as a good argument in game or out of game why it shouldn't be done.
Since I do spend a pretty fair amount of time with the rules, I try to make a conscious effort not to rules lawyer my GMs; I realize that most games are better for that level of trust between player and GM. Sometimes I fail in that endeavor. In this case, I see a lot of people trying rules lawyer the GM when I can't see anything he has for certain done wrong.
They are not flatfooted all the time.
After the combat starts, after they make their first action in combat, they are no longer flat footed. I've tried showing you a few real world examples, but then again in the real world everyone takes their actions simultaneously. Which you point out as invalidating the ability at realism. (Even though it isn't)
What you are wanting /is/ uncanny dodge. But you want it for free, without any one having to need to be a certain class.
You want an ability, a stance as you will, to allow a fighter to become immune to sneak attack. No? Ah, but you are. By creating a 'stance' or action, to allow a person to remove the flatfooted condition before combat starts, you basically kill sneak attack.
You are basically saying "Fighter sees Rogue, fighter uses non-combat action to remove flat footed condition before Rogue can react, regardless of current initiative. Fighter cannot be taken flat footed now and is capable of defending an attack from any direction, in any method."
So the fighter reacts before the rogue can, by simply ignoring initiative, because at this point it doesn't matter anymore.
Truthfully, initiative doesn't matter at all after the first round. Why? Because you can delay till you are were you /want/ to be in later rounds. You removed the importance of initiative by allowing a non-initiative action take place before anyone could roll it.
You might as well not roll initiative for your combats. Just have it monsters go first, then players. Or players then monsters. Or a mixture of them. Maybe round robin?
Cause well, there isn't a point to it anymore.
EDIT:
Pretty much in your game, in order to prevent myself from being flatfooted ever, I will always defer to the whole 'total defense' thing to never be taken flatfooted in the first round. After that, its a moot point of when I go first. In fact, I don't think I'd worry at all about initiative in your game.
They are not flatfooted all the time.
After the combat starts, after they make their first action in combat, they are no longer flat footed. I've tried showing you a few real world examples, but then again in the real world everyone takes their actions simultaneously. Which you point out as invalidating the ability at realism. (Even though it isn't)
What you are wanting /is/ uncanny dodge. But you want it for free, without any one having to need to be a certain class.
You want an ability, a stance as you will, to allow a fighter to become immune to sneak attack. No? Ah, but you are. By creating a 'stance' or...
EDIT:
Pretty much in your game, in order to prevent myself from being flatfooted ever, I will always defer to the whole 'total defense' thing to never be taken flatfooted in the first round. After that, its a moot point of when I go first. In fact, I don't think I'd worry at all about initiative in your game.
I am sorry I haven't addressed every example you have given, this discussion has gotten quite taxing for me and I didn't find your examples at all convincing. It wasn't to blow you off, I am just running out of stamina.
If the fighter sees the rogue 100 ft out and identifies him as a potential threat, I don't think the fighter owes the rogue the right to get a sneak attack on the first hit. If they are within range for the rogue to both win initiative and hit the fighter, great for the rogue, if not I won't pity the rogue.
I don't want uncanny dodge, I want all characters, mine or others, to be able to act realistically without false accusations bad play.
If you were to stay full defense all the time, I would create roleplay repercussions and/or address the fact that this sort of metagaming is no better than the type that was trying to be avoided at the beginning.
|
|
You don't find them convincing because you're not looking at them in the Pathfinder game mechanics for the situation, but rather through the view of all the turns happening at once, some other mechanics created for turn order
Like playing Neverwinter Online vs Playing actual 4th edition.
Or DDO vs 3.5
Or the Pathfinder MMO vs Pathfinder
Or Baulder's gate vs Second edition.
In your example the fighter has ided the rogue as a threat. But you speak not of what the rogue has seen. Is the rogue currently window shopping? Does the rogue see the fighter and also Id him as threat?
if the fighter sees the rogue and ids the rogue as a threat, and the rogue does the same, the fighter cannot take an action before combat begins to remove flatfooted. Both are attacking each other. Roll initiative.
if the fighter doesn't beat the rogue, well than that is too bad. You were slow on the draw there Haus, and that dastardly rogue moves first. However at 100 foot range, the rogue sure is gonna have one helluva time getting to the fighter for melee. The rogue would need at least a 50 foot movement speed to charge the fighter with a melee weapon.
And I'd say a rogue that can transverse 100 feet in 6 seconds is pretty damn surprising. Though its more likely they will attack at a range. Quick draw and all that you know? chances are they will not be able to get into 30 feet for sneak attack, but there are ways to get further, that is true.
However if the fighter spies the rogue and starts combat before the rogue realizes the fighter is a threat, then the fighter gets a round of surprise, where he can remove his flat footed condition.
|
|
.
If you were to stay full defense all the time, I would create roleplay repercussions and/or address the fact that this sort of metagaming is no better than the type that was trying to be avoided at the beginning.
There wasn't any metagaming that was trying to be avoided with this option, and its not that I would be like always in it. But the moment I spy a threat, Bam! Total defense.
...or they both identify the potential hostility at range, the rogue may want to play it cool but the fighter goes total defense, rogue sees the move for a weapon, wins initiative and makes a choice. He could attack at range, run up for future melee but not be able to catch his opponent flat footed, or since no commitment has been made to hurting each other yet he can try to not antagonize the situation.
.
If you were to stay full defense all the time, I would create roleplay repercussions and/or address the fact that this sort of metagaming is no better than the type that was trying to be avoided at the beginning.
There wasn't any metagaming that was trying to be avoided with this option, and its not that I would be like always in it. But the moment I spy a threat, Bam! Total defense.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Sometimes you won't get enough notice for it to help, but provided you do, it seems reasonable enough to me.
|
|
...or they both identify the potential hostility at range, the rogue may want to play it cool but the fighter goes total defense, rogue sees the move for a weapon, wins initiative and makes a choice. He could attack at range, run up for future melee but not be able to catch his opponent flat footed, or since no commitment has been made to hurting each other yet he can try to not antagonize the situation.
If they both id hostility, then they both roll for initiative.
If the rogue wins, the fighter is still flatfooted. If the rogue decides to try and play it cool after winning, the fighter is still flat footed. Then the fighter's turn happens, and he goes total defense. The fighter is no longer flat footed.
Its pretty much as simple as that. The rogue, unless he has a 50 foot movement speed, cannot possibly get into melee and strike the fighter. So while the fighter is flatfooted, the distance between him and the rogue put him in a safty zone.
I think you and I are on the same page now. Would you also agree after this happens that no actual attacks must be made in this "combat"? The rogue decides he can find an easier target and the fighter was just interested in not getting mugged. Both go off on their separate ways.
|
|
Possibly.
However the fighter would be using Metagamed knowledge to identify the profession of the rogue. Unless the perception check was made, and the rogue had failed it. Which honestly, the fighter making a dc whatever the rogue did +9 (Cause the if rogue is 100 feet away, +1 dc for ever 10 feet away)is quite impressive.
Unless maybe the fighter sees him and is like "This is a bad dude." cause the rogue has goatee or something.
The need for initiative being rolled though, may or may not have been needed.
|
Perhaps the point I haven't made clear. If a person identifies a threat at a great enough distance, they could choose to go total defense (which would trigger initiative as a combat action under normal rules) in a position so that even if they lose initiative, a melee combatant could not reach them prior to them being able to act.
Ah! I see what you're trying to do....cheat!
You're trying to say that, because you've already taken an action (Total Defence or moving or eating breakfast) then you're no longer flat-footed, and you're doing this to be immune to Sneak Attacks.
There are several things wrong with this rules-wise (I won't bother discussing the morality of cheating).
First, it is not the player's decision to roll init, nor tell everyone else (including the DM) when to roll init. You can say that you're drawing your sword and attacking, at which point your DM will decide if this is combat (it is), get the participants to roll skill checks (to check for surprise) and have everyone roll init.
You decide what your PC does, the DM decides if it's combat.
Second, you certainly can announce that your PC is going on 'Total Defence'.
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round.
You can cast spells without being in combat, even if the spell is intended for combat. But these things do not, in and of themselves start combat. It depends what you do. If you cast a fireball at a bush to start a bonfire so that we can all toast marshmallows and watch the stars, then combat hasn't started. If the bush was actually a plant creature, then that would be combat.
If you try to stab someone, your DM is going to see that as combat starting and ask for skill and initiative checks. But if you go on Total Defence, that is not enough to start a combat. You can't deliberately trigger initiative unless you actually take a hostile act, and going 'Total Defence' is not a hostile act. Nor can you say that you've been taking actions ever since you woke up so therefore you're not flat-footed.
Just to clear up a commonly held misconception: no-one is flat-footed outside combat! You are only flat-footed in the period between combat starting and your first turn in the initiative order, whether or not your first turn is in the surprise round or the first full round.
So, when you spot a group of people 300-feet away, you can take the Total Defence action if you want, but that will not trigger init as it's not a hostile act. (You could shoot an arrow at them; that would start a fight).
You can say that you'll take the Total Defence action every six seconds outside combat if you want, but it won't remove the flat-footed condition because you are not flat-footed until init is rolled.
When someone eventually does initiate hostilities, then skill checks are made to determine surprise and initiative is rolled. At that point, everyone gains the flat-footed condition (unless Uncanny Dodge), and remains flat-footed until their first turn.
And your fighter who's been taking Total Defence actions for the last five minutes is as flat-footed as everyone else until his first turn, and the +4 dodge bonus to AC from Total Defence does not help him while he is flat-footed, because you lose your Dex bonus to AC while flat-footed and any situation that denies your Dex bonus to AC also denies you dodge bonuses.
TL;DR: taking Total Defence actions outside combat will not start combat, trigger init rolls, get rid of the (non-existent) flat-footed condition or make you immune to surprise rounds or Sneak Attack.
|
I'm going to address this in two parts. Second part first.
If they were Hostile to the Kensai, there's really nothing to do, Diplomacy wise.
A hostile NPC is a DC 25 diplomacy check. It is not an automatic failure.
@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.
The specific circumstances had the party in a dungeon full of undead where we encounter an elderly man stumbling through a room talking to himself.
Immediately upon encountering the man, we are told to roll initiative. No surprise round, the party had light sources, making their approach obvious.
As the first action, I stepped forward and initiated a social encounter. The man is not evil, just mentally disturbed and confused. Since playing the scenario I have purchased it and am familiar with the details surrounding the gentleman's circumstances. While not intended as a social encounter, PFS rules do permit unexpected player actions to alter the course of an encounter.
In meta-game terms we are in combat. Initiative has been rolled. In game, no offensive actions have been taken by either party at this point. What, by RAW, is preventing me from initiating a social encounter instead of attacking?
|
|
I'm going to address this in two parts. Second part first.
If they were Hostile to the Kensai, there's really nothing to do, Diplomacy wise.A hostile NPC is a DC 25 diplomacy check. It is not an automatic failure.
@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.The specific circumstances had the party in a dungeon full of undead where we encounter an elderly man stumbling through a room talking to himself.
Immediately upon encountering the man, we are told to roll initiative. No surprise round, the party had light sources, making their approach obvious.
As the first action, I stepped forward and initiated a social encounter. The man is not evil, just mentally disturbed and confused. Since playing the scenario I have purchased it and am familiar with the details surrounding the gentleman's circumstances. While not intended as a social encounter, PFS rules do permit unexpected player actions to alter the course of an encounter.
In meta-game terms we are in combat. Initiative has been rolled. In game, no offensive actions have been taken by either party at this point. What, by RAW, is preventing me from initiating a social encounter instead of attacking?
Why were you told to roll initiative if combat hadn't started?