DM makes you "roll initiative" - do you assume it's a fight?


Advice

1 to 50 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Played a game with a new DM today. Walking through the woods. See some humans off through the trees. DM makes everyone roll initiative as soon as we spot them. I get highest roll and charge and attack.

After session is over, DM is like "why the f~&+ did you randomly attack people in the woods?"

I wouldn't have, but the "roll initiative" completely put me in the "BATTLE" mindset.

Is rolling initiative like that when no one has said they are going to fight a normal thing to do? Seems like it would put many players into a battle mindset when they otherwise wouldn't be...

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not normal, and it does put you into a battle mindset, but your GM was right. More GMs should actually be doing this more often, so long as it doesn't damage the time management of a game too much.

Players should be kept on their toes, and shouldn't feel forced to assume the game is making them take a specific action.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It does get me in a battle minsdset a little bit, but as a player I try not to metagame. My character doesn't know we're suddenly in initiative, after all.

As a GM, I will have characters roll initiative even if they're not obviously in combat. I know it could simply mean I want to keep track of time -- something may be happening soon, but it may not have anything to do with what the players see.

Dark Archive

paladinguy wrote:

Played a game with a new DM today. Walking through the woods. See some humans off through the trees. DM makes everyone roll initiative as soon as we spot them. I get highest roll and charge and attack.

After session is over, DM is like "why the f~$~ did you randomly attack people in the woods?"

I wouldn't have, but the "roll initiative" completely put me in the "BATTLE" mindset.

Is rolling initiative like that when no one has said they are going to fight a normal thing to do? Seems like it would put many players into a battle mindset when they otherwise wouldn't be...

Sometimes initiative is a good way to give order to a sequence of events so I might use it out of combat if simply going clockwise around the table will not due for some reason.

A simple sense motive check should be used to help clear up any ambiguity in a situation like the one you described, but all GMs do things differently. It might be a safe call in the future to ask to challenge sense motive prior to an attack if you continue in that group, or simply ask if the targets in question are openly hostile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm trying to think if I've ever called for initiative in the absence of a genuine or discernible threat, but I'm drawing a blank. I've certainly never done so when expecting an encounter to begin with conversation. My players would be paranoid and put on the defensive if I suddenly called for initiative in such a situation though.

Did your new GM offer an explanation of why they called for initiative if it wasn't meant to be a combat encounter?

EDIT: FWIW, I've not encountered any GMs running initiative the way some of the other posters have, but then I'm almost always the GM so...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

the OP didn't actually say that the GM said it wasn't meant to be a combat encounter ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We would take it the way you did.

At our table rolling initiative means someone has begun to attack. Even if the winner of the initiative isnt the aggressor, the presumption is that whatever actively violent action intiated the combat has begun - it's just that someone was able to respond before it was completed.

We take a pretty abstract view of combat though, so that kind of changes things - there's rather a lot of implied activity (and some silly consequences we just gloss over - like attacks we may not recognise as an attack but which we still respond to pre-emptively).


I'm a GM, and I actually side with the OP here. I also can't think of a situation where a GM would call for initiative when not setting up an immediate combat (unless they were saving the rolls for a later combat encounter).

Perhaps they were trying to set up who could say "Hi!" first? I don't know. Even assuming that, it would only really matter if the GM wanted to know whether the PCs could do something... before what exactly?? (Also, the PCs were the LAST group to spot the other -- the humans were apparently just skulking silently for strange some reason?)

Okay, so you said "I attack!" The GM, since he or she was so shocked after, should immediately have known that some kind of miscommunication had just taken place and said "They haven't attacked! Are you sure?" Or was the GM sticking you to your words? Hm. But I think it's okay to have "take backs" when the GM might have a wrong impression.


indeed, the nature of the actions system forces your hand in some cases.
to some extent we do say that initiative is sequential actions, but it's really modelling actions largely happening in parallel.
sometimes a sense motive vs. bluff may be more relevant than a perception check for a surprise round
if both parties are already spotted, but for determining if one group can quickdraw and unload on the other first.
in that case the sense motive establishes the awareness of intent for hostility even if the actual hostile act hasn't taken place yet.
i understand why the GM dislikes the players metagaming outside the in-game perspective,
but at the same time: why is the GM giving them the information that Init is being rolled if they aren't supposed to act on it?
there is also the option of not having players roll Init when it comes up, but pre-roll it .
(and have the GM adjust modifiers as necessary due to buffs/debuffs/etc... same for Perception/Sense Motive/etc)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM I use it to avoid what can be some wonky flat footed rules, currently under discussion in another thread. As a player I try to have my character act on character knowledge. For example in the last game we played, one of my mates went into a room and saw some enemies while the rest of us were walking single file down the stairs. I was second to act in initiative, but I said "I have no reason to push my way to the front of the line, I didn't see the enemy." There is no way I would attack someone in the woods because initiative was rolled.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

My 2 cts:

PRD wrote:

How Combat Works

Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence:

1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.


Yeah, generally I call for initiative when a character (PC or NPC) has decided to engage in hostilities. If it wasn't meant to be combat, but needed to have initiative for timing purposes I would state that no hostile action has been taken. If it wasn't meant to be clearly combat (as in, someone is trying to be deceptive, and not making a direct attack the first round), I would allow a Sense Motive or Perception check, as appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a player: Rolling initiative and going first would have me in combat mode and attacking as well. But I usually ask what I see first.

As a GM: I could ask players to roll initiative to see how they act in a situation instead of just reacting to it - because that's roleplaying. Like an encounter in the forest.

I may also ask for perception checks even if there's nothing interesting to notice.

On the rules quote above(2 up):
Yes, it says "when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative."
Not "when you roll initiative, everybody around suddenly becomes a combatant."

in logics: it's => and not <=>
;)

Grand Lodge

I CAST MAGIC MISSLE!

Actually, we have a guy who if you roll for a d20, he thinks we are doing combat.

Though admittedly its the only part of the game they are able to understand.

Well, if you roll for initiative, you are a combatant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:

On the rules quote above(2 up):

Yes, it says "when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative."
Not "when you roll initiative, everybody around suddenly becomes a combatant."

in logics: it's => and not <=>
;)

I disagree, unless you can point a rule in the core rulebook about calling for initiative which is NOT combat-related.

A DM who asked for initiative and then claims no combat was engaged is just tricking the players. Everything in the rules lets you assume the following:
[INITIATIVE <=> COMBAT]


When my players were younger and more Munchkinnish, everyone always tried to charge after the treasure first.
That's why I had them roll initiative to get to the loot first.

Silver Crusade

I3igAl wrote:

When my players were younger and more Munchkinnish, everyone always tried to charge after the treasure first.

That's why I had them roll initiative to get to the loot first.

PvP counts as combat. : )


Djelai wrote:

I disagree, unless you can point a rule in the core rulebook about calling for initiative which is NOT combat-related.

A DM who asked for initiative and then claims no combat was engaged is just tricking the players. Everything in the rules lets you assume the following:
[INITIATIVE <=> COMBAT]

You're right. That's a very fair point. And I am fully aware that there's no specific rule in CRB that allows a GM do whatever he likes to encourage his players to roleplay their characters and interact with the game world, not just react to it.

Meeting a group of strangers in the wilderness is a tense situation(god forbid; they could be the fabled Murderous Hobos), and to give the players that feel, rather than simply saying "you meet a group of strangers in the wilderness, this is tense, what do you do?" I prefer to say "you meet a group of strangers in the wilderness, roll initiative, what do you do?" Because then players would (rightly) expect combat, which is often tense.

It sets the mood.

Again, I want the players to take control, not just hop on the train and see the sights.

[I'm not even sure I'm spelling 'tense' correctly.]

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

If I tell players, "roll initiative," it means that somebody is swinging or nocking an arrow or what have you. "Roll initiative" means "lets see if you can gank the guys who are trying to gank you before they do." If nobody's trying to gank anybody yet, it ain't time to roll initiative.

Unless, of course, there's some other timing reason to have everybody go in sequence (e.g., a haunt). But then it's fair play to let everybody know that even though you're calling for initative, it's not combat yet.


if the OP's GM rolled init every time the PCs encountered any NPC, the OP probably would have mentioned that,
or would not have found the fact that the GM rolled it in this instance especially notable, which they did.
if the player responded similarly to every NPC they met (if init was always being rolled),
that likewise would either have been mentioned or this latest incident would just not be worth posting about (or worth the GM complaining about).

nothing posted here suggests anything besides that the OP's GM /was/ planning a combat encounter from the outset.
the GM ran the scenario by RAW, not choosing to introduce some mechanic to determine surprise round by sense motive/bluff,
and then act shocked when the PCs took advantage of winning init when combat round began.

the vagaries of the initiative system don't truly indicate sequential events for EVERYTHING, even if they may for SOME things.
characters do not increase their speed when more combatants are in battle.
but if each combatant can still run the same distance on their turn while waiting for more characters to run their distance during the 6 second round, they would have to be increasing their own speed in relation to the number of characters in order for real sequentiality to be upheld... which is nuts.
we need to use some semblance of sequentiality, but acting shocked that when combat starts and init is rolled (and the PCs happen to win), the PCs then take the most optimal aggressive action "contrary to their roleplaying character knowledge" is just a sham.

there's no real reason that, when you win init, with both sides aware of the other side and acting in the first round,
that you are not aware the other side is initiating combat, even though your mechanical abstraction 'actions' may resolve before the other sides' mechanical abstraction 'actions'.
that isn't really illegitimate metagaming as much as implicit correlation of game function to character knowledge,
just like it is not illegitimate metagaming to knowledgeably maneuver to avoid AoOs, be aware of your own HP total,
or a host of other things which could just as much be seen as purely metagame knowledge of abstract mechanics.

now, if the players here wanted to act more in conformance with role-playing character knowledge,
they might want to not initiate hostilities, and they could do so (if they win init) by readying an action.
(although that is still using 'metagame knowledge' in the same sense the GM accused the player)
but since it's not a surprise round, that leaves them at disadvantage vs. the enemies' full round.
so why really bother, since BOTH require not defining in-game immersion by literal sequentiality of abstact mechanics?

EDIT: the difference between standard and full-round goes away if you implement a surprise round. you could implement a special mechanic based on sense motive to determine surprise round, or just enforce that the first round in situations like this IS a surprise round, and the winner of it can just take their action if they are truly aggressive OR ready an action, which doesn't change much re: tactical advantage for them even though it maintains 'roleplay character knowledge coherence' for the side that wasn't looking to be aggressive but nonetheless won the init when they were aware enough to act in the surprise round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Djelai. Initiative shouldn't be rolled unless someone tries to initiate hostilities. Since the PCs know they didn't asking for initiative should mean an NPC did.


motteditor wrote:

It does get me in a battle minsdset a little bit, but as a player I try not to metagame. My character doesn't know we're suddenly in initiative, after all.

Perhaps he notices that he's suddenly able to do things he can't do out of combat like activating a style feat.


i feel... gangnam style...


A significant amount of the time, when I win the initiative count, I will not attack first, delaying until hostilities start. (If it is obvious that hostilities are breaking out I will attack or wait for the haste.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Initiative is an EXTREMELY metagame concept... Your character has NO IDEA that he just "rolled initiative".

I'm going to 100% side with your GM on this one - you metagamed and he let you know that doing so resulted in an unnecessary fight. Maybe next time you "roll initiative" against a stranger in the woods, she will be a 20th level Druid who will turn the entire party into Newts for attacking before having a clue what they're up against.

Just my 2 cp.


MechE_ wrote:

Initiative is an EXTREMELY metagame concept... Your character has NO IDEA that he just "rolled initiative".

I'm going to 100% side with your GM on this one - you metagamed and he let you know that doing so resulted in an unnecessary fight. Maybe next time you "roll initiative" against a stranger in the woods, she will be a 20th level Druid who will turn the entire party into Newts for attacking before having a clue what they're up against.

Just my 2 cp.

No. Next time they "roll initiative", they'll delay to avoid attacking innocents and get slaughtered in the first round.

There's no way to win, you could lose either way.

If the GM wants to handle non-combat encounters using initiative, he should make it clear that the other side isn't doing anything hostile.

Also that "isn't doing anything hostile" doesn't just mean "hasn't reached their initiative yet". Things are happening fast, you can see that they're starting to act, even if you're going a fraction of a second sooner.


My 2 cp.

Initiative is the first 'action' (in quotes to indicate difference from the game definition) of the combat sequence. Rolling it isn't some metagame concept at all - it reflects your character's reaction to quickly changing circumstance. Once initiative is rolled, something has gone down and your character has less time to react than it would take to articulate, which is why taking turns becomes important.

It's not necessarily combat, but calling for it just because the situation is 'tense' isn't an appropriate use of stopping to put things into combat timescale unless a player is declaring an action that would call for it (and thus starting a combat themselves.)


We sometimes end up rolling initiative as an encounter begins. Usually one where it seems as if combat could be happening so getting some structure with initiative order matters, but not with it being certain yet. The GM needs to be very clear on what is happening in that kind of situation though, as there's a big difference between using initiative to add some tension to meeting an ambiguous group and using initiative when the group is launching right into attacking the party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We were discussing this issue in this thread.

Most groups roll initiative only when someone wants to initiate hostilities.
Some groups roll initiative at the start of the encounter, and you can choose whether to talk or fight (or ready an action) on your turn in the initiative order.

Either way, the GM should be consistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both sides have a point. But the player should be asking, really.

1} As a DM, there have been events that needed to be strictly timed but weren't necessarily about combat. Usually it's stuff like traps or summoning or some invisible guy buffing somewhere but it's still not stuff that a PC should go into combat for.

2} What the player knows isn't what the PC knows. The PC doesn't know anything about "initiative". Going aggressive because of some meta dice roll isn't really great roleplay.

Bottom line is the player should have asked "has something changed that my PC would react to?" If no, there shouldn't have been combat... yet. If yes, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

Scarab Sages

Roll initiative for social encounters.

Just to ensure everybody gets a turn at interacting with the NPC's and conduct the dialog in an organized faction.

I also keeps players on their toes.

*I actually like this idea. Time permitting I might start using it.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
If the GM wants to handle non-combat encounters using initiative, he should make it clear that the other side isn't doing anything hostile.

Encounters are not always black and white. There are plenty of scenarios that have both combat and non-combat solutions.

Unless the PC's are simply looking for an excuse to murder everybody that even twitches funny, there are going to be circumstances where somebody else is going to initiate the hostilities.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jumping into initiative before actual combat kind of screws over the folks who have spent resources to be good at going first: things like Perception, Sense Motive, Stealth, and Improved Initiative.

GM: "Roll initiative."

PC goes on 24.

NPC goes on 3.

PC: "I attempt Diplomacy to change their attitude."

GM: "OK, that's a full round action. Roll at -10."

PC: "No thanks, I'll just let it take the full minute. We're not in combat yet, right?"

GM: "Well, nobody's attacked you yet."

Initiative gets to 3. NPC, who is still hostile attitude, attacks.

PC: "WTF?"

GM: "You said you were going to take a minute for Diplomacy. It's still hostile."

PC: "..."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Han Solo won initiative.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my experience, "roll initiative" is not synonymous with "there's no point in talking, kill everyone".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, guys. Another quote, maybe:

PRD - Getting Started wrote:

Common Terms

The Pathfinder RPG uses a number of terms, abbreviations, and definitions in presenting the rules of the game. The following are among the most common.
[...]
Initiative: Whenever combat begins, all creatures involved in the battle must make an initiative check to determine the order in which creatures act during combat.

Initiative is part of the combat mechanics.

No social encounter / roleplay / metamgame / whatever. Just the definition, plain and simple.
I understand why the OP thought a battle has started...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:

Jumping into initiative before actual combat kind of screws over the folks who have spent resources to be good at going first: things like Perception, Sense Motive, Stealth, and Improved Initiative.

GM: "Roll initiative."

PC goes on 24.

NPC goes on 3.

PC: "I attempt Diplomacy to change their attitude."

GM: "OK, that's a full round action. Roll at -10."

PC: "No thanks, I'll just let it take the full minute. We're not in combat yet, right?"

GM: "Well, nobody's attacked you yet."

Initiative gets to 3. NPC, who is still hostile attitude, attacks.

PC: "WTF?"

GM: "You said you were going to take a minute for Diplomacy. It's still hostile."

PC: "..."

Not quite: your putting forth a ridiculously structured scenario in an attempt to make the entire idea seem ridiculous.

Scenario: visibly disturbed gentleman in woods.

GM: PC 1, you won initiative, you have the first opportunity to speak.
PC 1: I don't have anything to say, I ready an action to attack he turns hostile.
GM: your gripping your weapons and are obviously ready for a fight (unless you make a bluff check)
GM: PC 2, your turn
PC 2: (speaks with disturbed man, attempting to calm him down)
GM: roll diplomacy, -2 circumstance penalty due to PC 1's aggressive stance
PC 2: I rolled a 1, total of 12.
GM: you failed your check by more than 5. Frightened by your appearance and further aggravated by your attempts to calm him, the disturbed man attacks.
GM: PC 1, you had a readied action.

After the fight:

Searching the corpse of the slain man, you find a locket with a picture of a young woman, you recognize her as the sad barkeeper. The one whose father went missing a few weeks ago at the start of the disappearances.


I think you were wrong there buddy. What if there where bandits you couldn't see about to attack those people and then they see you charging through the woods ready to slaughter some travelers. I bet they had a good laugh about it later =P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We have used initiative rolls in circumstances other than combat.

Everyone starts talking (or saying what their character is doing) at the same time. Then you start getting the "Well I wouldn't have walked right past the officer if Jim is going to start insulting him like that." So instead of scrambling to backtrack/undo/retcon all the time, we will just roll initiative to find out who is doing what in which order.

Sometimes in really critical negotiations or social encounters. The high diplomacy sorc might have a decent chance to use a bluff to placate the duchess. But if you Vorvane the Bug Ugly start talking first, the situation might be unsalvageable.


I have always used "roll initiative" when an encounter (combat or not) begins. Each action from the pcs will change the whole scenario. I have had so many players who instead of getting a handle on the current situation say instead "I drink a potion of haste" or "I cast mage armor". last week we had an initiative rolled as a npc was attempting to stop talking and run away. no initiative means free action arrows in his back. As I called for initiative, everybody all of a sudden had what they called free actions....."I trip him, I tackle him, I close the door before he can run away" Initiative = no metagaming


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Combat" isn't necessarily violent combat with weapons, though that's certainly a very common instance of it. Debate is a kind of combat. One could say that the "talking" before the fight is merely a kind of fighting happening before the kind with pointy metal sticks. However, there are some caveats and it is a heavy burden on the GM to make things clear and make sure they are understood.

Here's how I would have done it:

Presuming this is a non-hostile encounter, I'd give the players the option to roll perception or sense motive to determine the "attitude" of the encounter. If they pass their rolls, they determine that it's just a harmless group of travelers. If someone fails perception, they haven't seen any reassuring signs (still unsure of the intent of the NPCs). If someone fails sense motive, they might falsely believe the group to be a threat.

If there's no "third-party ambush" scenario set up, it's up to the players whether they want to "go in ready" or "go in casually". If any person decides to "go in ready", then all roll initiative, though actual melee combat hasn't begun yet. However, the NPCs now get their own checks and, if they perceive one of the PCs coming into the situation ready for a fight, it will lower their attitude. If all the PCs go in casually, then no initiative takes place and it's just a casual encounter.

Lastly, if a player who didn't detect something amiss decides to preemptively attack, the GM needs to ask for confirmation and make it clear that, so far, the NPCs haven't shown to be an overt threat.

If there is a "third-party ambush" scenario set up, players still decide to go in "casually" or "ready", but give a perception check for the ambush and if anyone fails the perception check but went went in "ready" to talk with the travelers, they get to act in the ensuing surprise round anyway, albeit at some penalty to initiative, greater if they falsely suspect the harmless NPCs are the threat.

This sets up some dynamic for gameplay. On the one hand, you could very well go in "ready for a fight" to any situation and, essentially, be immune to surprise attacks; but doing so hampers conversation as it will contribute a circumstantial penalty to any diplomacy checks and possibly start the encounter one level lower on the attitude chart than normal. In other words, you're ready for a fight, but that may damage your whole group's ability to talk and gather important information. But, if you're ambushed by a third party, you get to act in the surprise round and after the fight, the neutral travelers may understand why you came in ready for a fight (you sensed the fight coming while they, themselves, were unprepared) and that itself may actually set their attitude higher than it would normally default to.

Conversely, if the NPCs themselves are the hostile group but trying to "play it off" to get the jump on you, going in ready for a fight may let you act in the surprise round but it may also trigger them to drop all pretense and just attack your group straight away, whereas going in casually may give your face time to sweet-talk them and convince them to move along without incident.

So, in short, both the player and GM were wrong in this case. The Player presumed that initiative = combat and combat = fighting therefore initiative = fighting, not realizing that some combat = social combat. Likewise, the GM asked for initiative rolls and, on seeing one of the players likely misinterpreting the staging, didn't bother to clarify and ask for confirmation of the action. Yes, the character doesn't know initiative was rolled, but the character is the puppet and the player is the puppeteer. Part of the GM's job is to make sure that the player is getting correct info with which to direct his avatar in the game world and if he declares an action that, in context, would be questionable, it's the GM's job to question it; "Are you Sure? You haven't perceived any hostile action from them yet." To which the player responds, "Yes, my character is a very un-trusting type and needs evidence that they are harmless to stay his hand rather than evidence of hostility to engage. I follow through with my declared action." Or, "Oh, I thought you meant they made to attack. In that case, belay my last."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While initiative is uncommon outside of combat, I'll have my players roll it if there seems to be a reason to keep track of the order in which things happen. For example, if 2 PCs were trying to contradictory things, I'd have them roll initiative.
I do try to make it clear that initiative is about the order of actions, not just about combat.


As far as i undestand the initiative rules you dont Roll until combat has startet, if you dont get to act in the surprise round you dont Roll until next round. Doing the initiative before combat starts greatly reduces the value of having a High initiative. IMOP


Personally, I don't think initiative should be rolled until someone has actively declared that they *are* going to attack or otherwise engage in hostilities. Two groups could be face to face screaming and insulting and cursing at each other, with weapons drawn, but until someone actually says 'That's it, I'm swinging', no initiative.

The only other time I call for initiative is when one PC attempts an action ("I pull the lever.") and another PC tries to stop them physically ("I pull him away from the lever!")

Scarab Sages

Cap. Darling wrote:
As far as i undestand the initiative rules you dont Roll until combat has startet, if you dont get to act in the surprise round you dont Roll until next round.

Initiative rules may be located in the combat section, but there is nothing in the rules limiting initiative to combat only actions.

Quote:
Doing the initiative before combat starts greatly reduces the value of having a High initiative. IMOP

How so. The characters with a high initiative have the first chance to interact with the NPC's.

If the only form of interaction those characters are interested in is KILL, KILL, KILL, perhaps you should either more closely scrutinize their alignment choices or consider medication.

Liberty's Edge

I can definitely understand why the OP would have assumed that combat actions were the proper response, and I would have likely responded similarly, depending on what character I was playing.

On the other hand, I have used initiative out of combat on a number of occasions, but those situations were relatively obvious, or I would announce something like "we will use initiative to figure this out". In most cases, this is if the players describe actions that contradict or interfere with one another.


eakratz wrote:
Han Solo won initiative.

Han Solo got a surprise round.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

RAW, you roll initiative at the start of combat. Ergo, if the GM asks for you to roll initiative, per RAW it means combat has begun.

PRD wrote:


1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

Initiative is described nowhere else under the combat chapter, and specifically as a result of combat starting. So I can understand why you assumed the people you encountered were hostile. That said, I'd hope that the GM would have described whether the people you faced looked hostile or not, and that you geared your response to the description of the scene. I'm presuming he wasn't roleplaying people saying, "Please, no, don't kill us."

If he was trying to pull some GM dick move like forcing you to attack someone because he said "roll initiative" but then said "I didn't say combat had started, what are you doing?" you might point out he technically broke the rules and that the honorable thing for a GM to do is make his players aware of house rules he chooses to use before he activates them.

At the same time, I'd certainly suggest paying more attention to checking for hostile actions in future, before determining your actions.

Now, I have had people roll initiative when the players want to do a whole bunch of stuff all at once, and it is easier to have them do it in initiative order. When I've done that, I've made it clear, "this isn't combat, per se, this just makes sure everybody has a chance to act."

I've also kept initiative going sometimes after combat if certain things need to be resolved and it is easier, again, to do it in a certain order for clarity's sake. But again in those cases I am clear about whether there are known hostiles present, what the state of the people are in the room, etc.


Artanthos wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
As far as i undestand the initiative rules you dont Roll until combat has startet, if you dont get to act in the surprise round you dont Roll until next round.

Initiative rules may be located in the combat section, but there is nothing in the rules limiting initiative to combat only actions.

Quote:
Doing the initiative before combat starts greatly reduces the value of having a High initiative. IMOP

How so. The characters with a high initiative have the first chance to interact with the NPC's.

If the only form of interaction those characters are interested in is KILL, KILL, KILL, perhaps you should either more closely scrutinize their alignment choices or consider medication.

The initiative rules say what they do, and they do nothing else. This is the same thing as saying "Fireball doesn't SAY I can't use it to transform a giant into a frog, so I'll do that!" Spurious logic at best.


Artanthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If the GM wants to handle non-combat encounters using initiative, he should make it clear that the other side isn't doing anything hostile.

Encounters are not always black and white. There are plenty of scenarios that have both combat and non-combat solutions.

Unless the PC's are simply looking for an excuse to murder everybody that even twitches funny, there are going to be circumstances where somebody else is going to initiate the hostilities.

Of course, but if the GM is asking for initiative and not intending actual combat, he need to describe what the other group is doing clearly enough to avoid misunderstandings on the player level. Remember he's the only conduit of information to the players. The characters can see what's happening. The players can't. This is especially true if you're not running with a long established group where you all know each other's habits.

At the same time, the players should ask. Especially if playing with a different GM.
It's a reasonable assumption that the reason a GM asks for initiative when it isn't in response to a PC hostile action that it's in response to an NPC hostile action. It doesn't have to be.

And if you describe it well you can keep the tension up. Is the NPC knocking an arrow because he's about to attack? Or is he readying a shot in case you're hostile? Is he casting a buff? Or a fireball?

1 to 50 of 341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / DM makes you "roll initiative" - do you assume it's a fight? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.