PCs are behind the bad guys and have a surprise round. Due to distance they can do the obvious - either fire ranged weapons or close the gap during the surprise round.
The PC with the highest initiative has chosen to a) attract the bad guy's attention and then b) intimidate the bad guys (using intimidate as a skill not as part of a combat feat).
My questions are:
1. My logic says that calling their attention effectively ends his actions in the surprise round
2. More importantly, does calling the bad guy's attention to the PCs negate the remainder of the surprise round - as they're no longer surprised?
Not really, the bad guys might have their attention caught, but they could still be startled by the appearance of the PC and have to rally themselves to action etc.
If one of the PC's shot one of the enemy in the back of the head with a crossbow would you equally feel that the bad guys are now aware and cancel the rest of the surprise round? :p
Don't forget that a round (sum of all turns) represents 6 seconds. A surprise round, in which players can take a standard or move action, thus takes about 4 seconds.
Each player's turn is acted out within this 4 seconds and their turns occur more-or-less simultaneously (initiative basically representing an abstraction of the microsecond differences in speed). I don't know if you've ever been startled but 2 or 3 seconds is not enough to recover from that.
Also, like Shifty mentioned, according to your logic, the first attack in any other surprise round would end it. Being hit with a club kinda calls your attention. This would mean that nobody but the person with the highest initiative ever gets to act in the surprise round.
Not really, the bad guys might have their attention caught, but they could still be startled by the appearance of the PC and have to rally themselves to action etc.
If one of the PC's shot one of the enemy in the back of the head with a crossbow would you equally feel that the bad guys are now aware and cancel the rest of the surprise round? :p
You've hit the main focus of my confusion.
One person being hit in the back with a crossbow bolt may not alert anyone else in that group - or could alert them that something is up.
But it would not necessarily tell them there are 5 PCs standing 15 feet in a line behind them, about to fire further bows etc. - which is what the PC is about to do. It's like he's shouting - "Look over here, we're about to launch a surprise attack on you - oh, and please be surprised when we fire arrows at you."
I wan't to play to the spirit of the game as well as pay at least some homage to the letter of the rules.
I'd say that the bad guys walking along doing their thing might still be shocked and bewildered at being caught off guard by some angry fighter yelling curses and screaming at them out of the blue. There could still forseably be a couple of seconds where they try and work out what is going on and try get themselves together, shocked by the sudden outburst.
So no, it would still allow the rest of the surprise round, if anything they might be so absorbed by the angry shouty man that they don't even look at the archers.
Don't forget that a round (sum of all turns) represents 6 seconds. A surprise round, in which players can take a standard or move action, thus takes about 4 seconds.
Each player's turn is acted out within this 4 seconds and their turns occur more-or-less simultaneously (initiative basically representing an abstraction of the microsecond differences in speed). I don't know if you've ever been startled but 2 or 3 seconds is not enough to recover from that.Also, like Shifty mentioned, according to your logic, the first attack in any other surprise round would end it. Being hit with a club kinda calls your attention. This would mean that nobody but the person with the highest initiative ever gets to act in the surprise round.
Hopefully I answered my confusion with the second part of your post in my previous response.
My need for clarity from your first point is that we don't ask all PCs to commit to an action and then play them all out 'concurrently.' Instead we say to Highest Initiative PC. When he's acted and all players know the outcome, only then do we say to Second Highest Initiative PC,
PCs get the luxury of acting based on what the previous person has done. If the roles were reversed, I suspect the PCs would challenge if my first NPC declared out loud they were going to ambush them, pointed out where all of the NPCs were and then told the PCs they couldn't react.
I'm not being awkward - I just want to get this right in my head before I a) play it out and b) apply it consistently going forward.
If the PC's shouting would end surprise round, you'd also kinda have to allow the enemies to make Perception checks for the sounds of the steps of a charge, the 'twanggg' of a bow, the drawing of a sword, the vocal components of a spell etc. Making that check would end the surprise round in the middle of an action or turn!
You're kinda assuming Matrix-level reflexes
I'd say that the bad guys walking along doing their thing might still be shocked and bewildered at being caught off guard by some angry fighter yelling curses and screaming at them out of the blue. There could still forseably be a couple of seconds where they try and work out what is going on and try get themselves together, shocked by the sudden outburst.
So no, it would still allow the rest of the surprise round, if anything they might be so absorbed by the angry shouty man that they don't even look at the archers.
This works for me - so thanks for your quick responses both of you. I'll keep an eye on this thread in case someone else has a strong reason to challenge my new take on this conundrum.
Although 'getting their attention and intimidating them' is some six foot behemoth of a man covered in a hundred pounds of steel with a four foot blade and muscles on muscles screaming "Hey mother@#$%^&s! I'm a skin you alive! raaaar!" completely out of the blue while they were walking and having a chat - is it unforseable that it might take them all of three seconds to get their act together and start forming a response?
Thats all the surprise round is, three seconds of mayhem.
Oh, in terms of my first question, would you allow the attracting of the attention and the intimidation check?
I would say it was one and the same thing to be honest, shocking them with the sudden arrival of a screaming maniac :)
Oh, in terms of my first question, would you allow the attracting of the attention and the intimidation check?
Speaking is a free action you can take out of turn. Yes I would allow him to speak (or yell) something short and then make the intimidate check.
Thanks again to you all. I could unburden my 'if's' and 'buts' forever but I'm comfortable with the approach you've outlined and can apply it with confidence.
|
It's like he's shouting - "Look over here, we're about to launch a surprise attack on you - oh, and please be surprised when we fire arrows at you."
Think about how long it takes to say all that. There is no way a character could say that in half a round as a standard action.
Basically, he is yelling "YEEAARGGGHHH!!" and the NPCs are now aware of HIM. It doesn't mean they know who all the other PCs are, where they are, how many there are, and what they are doing. They are startled by someone screaming at them.
Turning around and looking doesn't mean they will instantly have situational awareness. That is why they are flat footed not only during the surprise round, but ALSO during the regular round, until their turn comes up in initiative. So even if there is no surprise at all, slower character still take a few seconds to get their bearings and react.
not only that, but I like rolling opposed perception for everyone in the NPC/monster party (or PCs if it is the NPCs sneaking up), partly for this very reason: maybe one or two of them will be able to act in the surprise round. It is a nice way of splitting the difference and making surprise a little more realistic. "one npc hears you kick a stone just before, and is just barely able to dodge the arrow"
My big question would be during the surprise round, can the targets "clearly see and hear" you? If they cannot, you can't use intimidate anyway.
In my opinion, the aspect of "surprise" would indicate that they cannot clearly see or hear you though anyone acting in the surprise round would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big question would be during the surprise round, can the targets "clearly see and hear" you? If they cannot, you can't use intimidate anyway.
In my opinion, the aspect of "surprise" would indicate that they cannot clearly see or hear you though anyone acting in the surprise round would.
They can't see you "before" the surprise round (which is why there is a surprise round), but I think it's a stretch to say they can't see the Barbarian partial charging them with a battle axe to the face. Once the surprise round starts, combat has been initiated and everyone is aware.
RAW, though, if you get the drop on the enemy, you get a surprise round. all the PCs that were aware get to act. Using your standard action to intimidate doesn't "spoil" the surprise round any more than using it to attack or cast a spell. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing you can do during a surprise round that would "spoil" it, including yelling "Hey, you're being ambushed!"
(Yelling that before the surprise round would spoil it, but once the surprise round has started it's too late.)
An interesting conversation I've started.
My dilemma (I know I promised to stop talking yesterday, but I can't help myself) is that the PC didn't want to shout and use that as his intimidation. Instead he wanted to deliberately draw the attention of the enemy and THEN initiate his intimidate. That was my point. The drawing of the attention was, in my mind, his surprise round action and the subsequent activity felt like a secondary act.
And was it enough to spoil the other PC's actions? If not - and I get the logic of the simultaneous actions - perhaps I was asking the wrong question. I now think my question should have been - can the PC fit exactly what he wants to do in a single round whilst the other PCs get on with their actions? With the benefit of this debate, I would lean towards giving him a choice - change his intimidation method to fit a single turn e.g. holler and run at the bad-guy - or take two turns to complete what he wants to do the way he wants to do it.
And I'm not really talking interpretation of rules here - just how it felt to GM that encounter. Cinematically the way he intimidated felt right and for that reason I allowed it to play out the way he wanted.
Thanks again everyone.
An interesting conversation I've started.
My dilemma (I know I promised to stop talking yesterday, but I can't help myself) is that the PC didn't want to shout and use that as his intimidation. Instead he wanted to deliberately draw the attention of the enemy and THEN initiate his intimidate. That was my point. The drawing of the attention was, in my mind, his surprise round action and the subsequent activity felt like a secondary act.
And was it enough to spoil the other PC's actions? If not - and I get the logic of the simultaneous actions - perhaps I was asking the wrong question. I now think my question should have been - can the PC fit exactly what he wants to do in a single round whilst the other PCs get on with their actions? With the benefit of this debate, I would lean towards giving him a choice - change his intimidation method to fit a single turn e.g. holler and run at the bad-guy - or take two turns to complete what he wants to do the way he wants to do it.
And I'm not really talking interpretation of rules here - just how it felt to GM that encounter. Cinematically the way he intimidated felt right and for that reason I allowed it to play out the way he wanted.
Thanks again everyone.
I'm not entirely sure what your player wanted to accomplish.
Although, whether or not you've rolled initiative and officially started the surprise round could play a factor. If the surprise round has been started, then nothing the barbarian can do can "cancel" it. He could shout as a free action on his turn, (or out of it, I suppose), then use his partial action to intimidate. Or, he could use his partial action to shout (again, I don't know why he would want to do this or what he's trying to accomplish) though he would get no benefit(that I'm aware of) from using a partial action to shout instead of a free action.
If the surprise round hadn't started, then shouting would have alerted the enemies, and initiative would be rolled, no surprise round. I really can't see any benefit of doing this either as all it would accomplish would be to spoil the ambush. I don't know what the barbarian was trying to accomplish.
Sounds legit. Ever seen a movie or series of SWAT team bursting down a door? That's using Intimidate in a Surprise round, by pointing guns and then and shouting to drop theirs.
I wish. My gunslinger can point his giant freaking gun at a coward's head right after killing all of the target's friends and threaten to blow the guy's brains out. But it's a straight Charisma-based skill check, and his Charisma is not good (goblin). I'm disappointed that being a more concrete and believable threat--with demonstrable proof--in no way contributes to your success at Intimidate checks.
I suppose a coward would simply spill his guts and Intimidate shouldn't even factor into the equation, but let's face it--in real life, you'll be way more afraid of the average-built farmer holding a shotgun to your face than you will be of the muscle-bound but otherwise unarmed meathead. It ought to factor in somehow.
On the topic at hand, I believe the intimidate check was allowable on the surprise round. That being said, it sounds like you played it out the best way you possibly could, so I wouldn't worry about whether the rules support it or not. Sounds like a fun game session. : D
I wish. My gunslinger can point his giant freaking gun at a coward's head right after killing all of the target's friends and threaten to blow the guy's brains out. But it's a straight Charisma-based skill check, and his Charisma is not good (goblin). I'm disappointed that being a more concrete and believable threat--with demonstrable proof--in no way contributes to your success at Intimidate checks.
There is nothing to say he HAS to make an Intimidate check in order to do that though, it now comes down to the enemy's morale at seeing all his friends ganked and him being most certainly next. Unless he is a 'fanatic/fight to the death' guy there is nothing to say he wont surrender when offered quarter - no check is required there, though if he IS a fight to the death guy then you MIGHT add an Intimidate check - or simply pull the trigger - as strikes your fancy.
The problem with Skills is that people start to believe that you need to use them for everything :)
Perhaps, but some situations aren't as clear-cut, and a skill check might be warranted; such a skill check should be modified if the threat is obviously not an idle one and will most likely be backed up. Otherwise, why have the skill in the first place?
...for when the situation is not so clear cut, as you yourself just said :p
In the clear cut case you illustrated, it is fairly certain no roll need be made. Where it is dicey you might need to make a roll. Likewise, your Goblin might be required to make a Bluff check, or even some sort of Diplomacy check to convince the guy that the Goblin (not known for their word) wont just kill him any way.
Hence we have many skills, but a check is not always warranted.
Walking up to a passing farmer and asking how far is it to the next town doesn't require a Diplomacy check, for example, though asking him to give you a ride might - if he isn't already going that way.
Unconvincing. Fortunately, the GM is empowered to make circumstantial modifiers to skill DCs, so the debate isn't of much import.
Really?
I suggest you go back and re-read what the Intimidate skill is there to do - it is to demoralise them and to get them to act in a certain way per your request and carry out an act they ordinarily wouldn't, if they were normally inclined to do something anyway (like surrender) why would intimidate be needed?
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."
Having the option of not being killed (because of a certain and tangible threat) benefits THEM.
See the difference here?
Bear with me for a moment, here's a parallel example.
Imagine my character (an elf) is on watch while the rest of the party is in camp. Being a fairly perceptive sort, I notice that there are 4 orcs who are getting ready to fire on my friends. Initiative is rolled, there is a surprise round, but I am not surprised because I was on watch and passed a perception check. I roll high on init and I get to go first. I yell out to my friends "4 orcs! Right over there!" and I point to where I see them. Is the surprise round now cancelled because my friends are no longer surprised?
It is not. The surprise round continues. The same is true for your situation. Those who were ambushed are aware of their attackers now, but that doesn't stop them from being surprised. The conditions for a surprise round need to be met *before* initiative is rolled. Once it's a surprise round, it's a surprise round.
I would also say that drawing attention to oneself and making an intimidate roll are effectively the same thing. If you feel differently, then what do you think -mechanically- happens when a player draws attention to themselves? Anything? If your answer is 'nothing' than this should not use up a characters action during the surprise round.
Really?
I suggest you go back and re-read what the Intimidate skill is there to do - it is to demoralise them and to get them to act in a certain way per your request and carry out an act they ordinarily wouldn't, if they were normally inclined to do something anyway (like surrender) why would intimidate be needed?
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."
Having the option of not being killed (because of a certain and tangible threat) benefits THEM.
See the difference here?
As I mentioned, there are times when a skill roll would be appropriate, and there is a subset of those times where evidence of obvious intent and ability unconnected with mere Charisma (or Strength, in the case of Intimidating Prowess) should be taken into account. Must I type an example?
Intimidate normally will not end a surprise round, but the way you described your players action would end his surprise round. The surprise round allows you to make your actions before the other side has a chance to react. If you wait for them to be able to react you have given up your action.
What I cannot figure out is why he did it that way. Intimidate is a lot more effective is the person is not aware of you than if they see you. Try walking up behind someone and who is completely unaware of you and yelling boo. Now walk up to that same person from the front being sure they see you and yell boo. Which one is more likely to startle a person? This is why I would give a +2 circumstance bonus to intimidate rolls in the surprise round.
Here's a good feat for a variation of this, if your GM allows monster feats. Unlike Intimidate, it stacks, though you may have trouble getting it to do so with such a short duration.
As I mentioned, there are times when a skill roll would be appropriate,
Except in the time you actually mentioned involving the Goblin and the gun. See that's the thing, a skill check isn't always needed.
Just as there are a lot of times it is, there are a lot of time's they aren't.
You came on all upset your Goblin couldn't intimidate someone he had in a no-win 'game over scenario', had it pointed out he didn't NEED an intimidate check for a coward to surrender in such circumstances, and then argued that you do.
In that sort of case, no you did not. People are capable of choosing their own actions without your influence. You can try exert your influence, sure, but it isn't always needed.
There is nothing to say he HAS to make an Intimidate check in order to do that though
You HAVE to make a Climb check if you want to climb a wall.
You HAVE to make a Stealth check if you want to move quietly.You HAVE to make a Craft check to make a sword.
You HAVE to make a Diplomacy check to negotiate with someone.
and You HAVE to make an Intimidate check intimidate someone.
If you want to have an interaction that doesn't involve intimidation, you do not have to make an Intimidate check.
If a person would be prone to being intimidated into surrendering, that would be represented by a bonus to the check, not dismissing the check entirely.
I am a bit lost on why you believe the Intimidation check is required.
The person is being offered (in the example given) the opportunity to do what their natural inclination already leads them to do, and have the option to save themselves from 100% CERTAIN DESTRUCTION.
Why would you need to coerce him further to make the decision he is almost certainly (100%) going to make of his own free will?
If you were about to be executed, and someone said "Hey would you like an option not to die?" are you REALLY expecting us to believe for a moment that they'd need to apply extra pressure and twist your arm to get you to say yes? And if they DIDN'T manage to pressure you into it you'd go AGAINST your own inclination and opt for a messy demise?
Really?
OK..
My dilemma (I know I promised to stop talking yesterday, but I can't help myself) is that the PC didn't want to shout and use that as his intimidation. Instead he wanted to deliberately draw the attention of the enemy and THEN initiate his intimidate. That was my point. The drawing of the attention was, in my mind, his surprise round action and the subsequent activity felt like a secondary act.
His calling attention was by the free action to speak. Their attention was reactive, but not an action. He then gets his standard action to Intimidate with all the enemy looking on.
In real life, I think people take about 1 second to react instinctively, such as hit the brakes in a car to stop from hitting a deer crossing in front of it. So a surprise round allowing a few seconds is quite reasonable.
There is nothing to say he HAS to make an Intimidate check in order to do that though
You HAVE to make a Climb check if you want to climb a wall.
You HAVE to make a Stealth check if you want to move quietly.
You HAVE to make a Craft check to make a sword.
You HAVE to make a Diplomacy check to negotiate with someone.
and You HAVE to make an Intimidate check intimidate someone.If you want to have an interaction that doesn't involve intimidation, you do not have to make an Intimidate check.
If a person would be prone to being intimidated into surrendering, that would be represented by a bonus to the check, not dismissing the check entirely.
You don't make a Climb check if the DM does not ask for one.
You don't make a Stealth check if the DM does not ask for one.You don't ....
See a pattern here? If the DM's story does not need a potential failure, or the DM knows your check will normally be good enough (Take 10 anyone?), then why call for a check?
I wish. My gunslinger can point his giant freaking gun at a coward's head right after killing all of the target's friends and threaten to blow the guy's brains out. But it's a straight Charisma-based skill check, and his Charisma is not good (goblin). I'm disappointed that being a more concrete and believable threat--with demonstrable proof--in no way contributes to your success at Intimidate checks.
The gunslinger's check should be against the standard DC, modified by the circumstance of the coward's friend's recent deaths. I would rate that modifier as pretty hefty. Possibly enough that I would not bother with a check.
In one example, my character had just killed a powerful bruiser, and then quietly said to the bruiser's minion "You want to live? Go back to bed." Minion turned around and went back to bed rather than fight. No check called for. Since it was night, and I was effectively invisible to the minion, and my voice dripped threat, the ploy worked great. That minion now works for me. :-)/cevah
It isn't a matter of whether they'll accept the offer. It's a matter of how much they believe the offer and how much leverage they think they can get.
If you have an enemy down and you threaten to kill him unless he gives you the information you want, succeeding the Intimidate check means he'll give you the information because he really believes you'll kill him if he doesn't.
Which, under normal circumstances may well make sense, but certainly isn't reflective of the original example given by the poster.
The given example was simply loaded to the enth degree to make a no-brainer situation, so one sided and clear cut that no roll should be required... and the person lamented that their goblin couldn't Intimidate - the argument is that in such a circumstance, WHY would he need to?
To say otherwise is re-creating the Haggling scene from Life of Brian. - believing that you always have to make a skill check just because the skill exists.
You don't make a Climb check if the DM does not ask for one.
You don't make a Stealth check if the DM does not ask for one.
You don't ....
Yep.
Bear with me for a moment, here's a parallel example.
I would also say that drawing attention to oneself and making an intimidate roll are effectively the same thing. If you feel differently, then what do you think -mechanically- happens when a player draws attention to themselves? Anything? If your answer is 'nothing' than this should not use up a characters action during the surprise round.
I take your points and agree with everything you say. There are two additional facts to consider however.
1. The PC wanted to attract their attention - it wasn't a shout, it was a cool and calculating s-l-o-w action. Then, and only then, he wanted to intimidate them with some fancy swordsmanship (which wouldn't have had any effect with their backs to him). The key here is that - he had the highest initiative - and he wanted to demoralize them. Which makes them shaken and affects their rolls in the surprise round.
2. What mechanically happens when a player draws attention to himself? Mechanically it allows him to do things he couldn't do otherwise e.g. intimidate them. I don't see them as the same.
As I said before, I have to balance the fun of the game versus a player stretching the crunch.
I prefer the prose over a simple dice roll but would prefer the prose to broadly match what the crunch allows.
Intimidate normally will not end a surprise round, but the way you described your players action would end his surprise round. The surprise round allows you to make your actions before the other side has a chance to react. If you wait for them to be able to react you have given up your action.
What I cannot figure out is why he did it that way. Intimidate is a lot more effective is the person is not aware of you than if they see you. Try walking up behind someone and who is completely unaware of you and yelling boo. Now walk up to that same person from the front being sure they see you and yell boo. Which one is more likely to startle a person? This is why I would give a +2 circumstance bonus to intimidate rolls in the surprise round.
Thanks for your input. As I've tried to show throughout the thread, I love the role over the roll but struggle when the role can't fit the roll. His approach was 'story-wise' more interesting - as his dice roll could have allowed something more along the lines of 'boo.'
Sometimes it's the thin end of a wedge. Once I let it go, I suspect it'll creep in more and more and it'll be harder to stop once it takes hold. I've already come across a second 'can they really do that?' in the same encounter.