i definitely see that as a chaotic action more so than evil, but i can see both sides argued and making sense.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two points.
1. I see it as dishonorable, but not particularly evil. Probably more chaotic than anything. The only ones who would need to worry about it would be paladins or clerics who are compelled to behave honorably. But your opinion as the GM at the table carries much more weight than ours here on the internet. Go with your gut.
2. If you do see it as an evil act, egregious enough to warrant marking on the character's chronicle sheet, then the player deserves a warning first so as to have the opportunity to change their action.
I would no longer worry about it at this point in time.
|
It sounds like there was a little bit of a miscommunication between you and the players. Some players role play it out and then wait for the DM to ask for a diplomacy check. The party WAS diplomacising them, the players just weren't making the checks.
Sounds more chaotic than evil. He surrendered, then changed his mind. Chaotic prerogative.
|
|
We had a similar situation come up in a *redacted* module recently.
One of the opponents had surrendered... between webbed, being blind, and prone he literally had no options.
And then the next round one of our casters attempted to 'finish him off' with a magic missile *after* they had surrendered.
Thankfully, the damage was not enough, and one of the other party members took part of their turn to yell "CHECK FIRE, CHECK FIRE, HE'S SURRENDERED!" and then quickly apply a heal-stick to them.
It didn't happen again in that scenario. Table variation and mileage may vary, of course.
Death-vagrants should be reminded gently that death-vagranting when the rest of the party is attempting to diplomance could be considered 'being a jerk', especially if the situation is coming to a peaceful resolution.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it becomes evil once the person who surrendered is helpless. For example, if they stripped & bound the evil cleric, and then during talks they just executed a coup de grace on the helpless cleric, I mean... even if the cleric survived, that's pretty terrible. That's basically an execution, but Pathfinders have no legal authority in that regard, so it's murder. You can't claim self-defense when you are not being attacked, so the PCs would be in big trouble if they executed someone like that.
But I think you already understand that, since you mentioned something about helpless victims not being the issue.
Something else I think might be interesting to highlight is that there are no surprise rounds if everyone is aware of each other. Like, not ever. There is nothing in the rules that says a PC can talk with someone and then whip out a blade and get an opening strike in. Believe it or not, even though that happens frequently, the rules actually expressly state that if the combatants are aware of each other, surprise is simply not ever possible.
What does that mean in terms of this forum discussion? Well, it means that when the magus says he's attacking, he doesn't get his attack. He just has to be sad, and suck it up. The rules say he can't do that. Instead, what happens is this:
- Magus: "I attack him."
- GM: "Okay, combat is back on. Everyone roll for initiative."
- Magus: "But my attack gets in first, right?"
- GM: "Only if you are first in initiative. Hope you have a big bonus."
Now, to be fair, anyone ahead of the magus in initiative will not have seen the magus do anything, so they should go about their business normally. They don't "know" that they're in combat. That's the metagame. So at the table, if player 1 & 2 are before the magus, then they should probably say, "I do nothing, or I'm just talking, because I'm not aware of what the magus intends." Then the magus's turn comes up, he attacks, and we're off & running.
"So wait a minute," you might say, "that doesn't look anything different from surprise, it's just normal initiative order is all, but you get the same result." Well, actually, you don't. Here's why: if the enemy cleric has an initiative number that is higher than the magus, then two good things happen for that bad guy:
- He isn't flat-footed when the strike comes in.
- He can use his turn to ready a defense or something similar to what he did when he cast Protection from Evil. In other words, you already had the cleric doing anticipatory behaviors, so having him continue that theme by... say... going into a ready to strike anyone who tries to strike him? That would make sense. You could even have the evil cleric attempt to use a readied action to make the attacker look even more evil than the player expects: the cleric could have a ready action to move 30' back, fall to one knee, drop his weapon, and beg for his life -- foiling the incoming swing, forcing the player to move his mini more and lose actions, and also making it doubly clear that the player is attempting to murder a surrendered person.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Something else I think might be interesting to highlight is that there are no surprise rounds if everyone is aware of each other. Like, not ever. There is nothing in the rules that says a PC can talk with someone and then whip out a blade and get an opening strike in. Believe it or not, even though that happens frequently, the rules actually expressly state that if the combatants are aware of each other, surprise is simply not ever possible.
There are even high level feats / rogue talents that basically exist so that you can start combat with an attack. (They usually say something like "If you have a weapon in hand, you can make an attack when rolling initiative."
While it is not *explicitly* called out in the rules, most GMs will allow a bluff vs sense motive to get an attack in the surprise round. Basically, you convince the opponent that you are not (currently) a threat.
Not all GMs allow this. So be aware of that.
You are also trying to construct an argument which doesn't stand the test of the combat chapter's actual rules. If someone decides to enter combat without warning, then the rest of the creatures who can see them are not necessarily aware they are about to enact violence.
Except that the rules don't require that standard. The rules require awareness that an opponent exists or is visible. It doesn't require that you are aware of their intention to commit violence. It doesn't require that you are aware they have a dagger in a wrist sheath. It simply requires that you are aware of the person. I would challenge you to post rules text otherwise, but I know for a fact it doesn't exist, because this topic has been done over & over again on these messageboards, and nobody ever came up with the text you're suggesting exists. The rule from the combat chapter says this:
When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.
Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds.
In the OP's case, the characters are aware of each other. They'd have to be blind idiots to not be aware of the very people they are interacting with. So they meet the standard: they are aware, there is no surprise round.
Hell, I'd suggest they even meet your more difficult standard -- the evil cleric just endured a beat-down, and unless he's completely deranged, he should be aware that he is talking to people who just visited violence upon him, and therefore should be wary that it could happen again.
There are even high level feats / rogue talents that basically exist so that you can start combat with an attack. (They usually say something like "If you have a weapon in hand, you can make an attack when rolling initiative."
I can't tell if you're posting that to support my case or suggest that what I said is wrong, but here's the takeaway I have: if a feat exists out there that says "if you take this feat then you can attack in plain sight and be in the surprise round" then that means that without the feat you cannot do that. It means that the normal game is to not allow that, and the feat makes an exception.
So unless the OP is suggesting that the players in his game have whatever that feat is, then they cannot be in the surprise round.
I'd love to know the feat, by the way. I'm sure it exists; I don't doubt you. I just want to read it and learn more.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I am walking the middle line between you two.
Without a feat or class ability, you cannot get surprise without winning an opposed skill check. But stealth vs perception is not the only skill that lets you do that. Bluff vs Sense Motive can also work for the classic "walk past him, smile, nod, and as you pass him, drive a knife into his side, and walk on as if nothing happened."
As far as Feats:
Betrayer Make an (unopposed) diplomacy check, and if you succeed, free quick draw and attack as an immediate action before combat begins.
I thought there was a higher level one, but now I can't find it, so I may have conflated something else and betrayer.
Rogue (Advanced) Talent
Whenever the rogue rolls initiative, she can also make a single attack with a ranged weapon as a swift action. She can use this ability only if she has a weapon in hand and it is loaded (if applicable). If more than one rogue has this talent, their initiative check results determine the order in which they make their attacks. After these attacks are resolved, the round proceeds as normal.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It occurs to me that a pair of rogue snipers with the quick shot talent and the lookout teamwork feat setting an ambush could be just devastating.
Quick shot (with poison) + Full attack.
Or if the quick shot is insufficiently devastating:
Quick shot (with poison) + Standard + Return to stealth and then sneak away to set up another ambush further down the trail and hopefully catch the party when the poison has had time to work...
Bluff vs Sense Motive can also work for the classic "walk past him, smile, nod, and as you pass him, drive a knife into his side, and walk on as if nothing happened."
Can you quote the rule text in bluff that allows you to do that? I was so surprised to see you write it that I reopened the book and read the text on bluff, but there isn't anything like that in there. It has an option to make someone flat-footed, but that appears to all rely on normal initiative, since it talks about people taking turns. So you couldn't open a fight with a surprise round doing that -- it has no text to exempt you from the normal rules.
This is why rogues are supposed to take Improved Initiative and Reactionary trait. The idea is to get init super high so that you can do what you describe, but just using normal "I go first in initiative" rules.
Betrayer Make an (unopposed) diplomacy check, and if you succeed, free quick draw and attack as an immediate action before combat begins.
Rogue (Advanced) Talent
Whenever the rogue rolls initiative, she can also make a single attack with a ranged weapon as a swift action.
Those are awesome, but they are awesome because they break the normal routine. Normally you can't do that stuff, so taking the feat is great to unlock that stuff.
Thanks for posting it. Those are awesome abilities that I didn't know about. I suspect that the OP does not have players with those options, but if he does, he can let me know and I'll change my advice.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Disclaimer: I am in a very bad mood right now over something else. I will try to make my comments constructive and not snarky.
There are even high level feats / rogue talents that basically exist so that you can start combat with an attack. (They usually say something like "If you have a weapon in hand, you can make an attack when rolling initiative."While it is not *explicitly* called out in the rules, most GMs will allow a bluff vs sense motive to get an attack in the surprise round. Basically, you convince the opponent that you are not (currently) a threat.
Not all GMs allow this. So be aware of that.
Bluff vs Sense Motive can also work for the classic "walk past him, smile, nod, and as you pass him, drive a knife into his side, and walk on as if nothing happened."Can you quote the rule text in bluff that allows you to do that? I was so surprised to see you write it that I reopened the book and read the text on bluff, but there isn't anything like that in there. It has an option to make someone flat-footed, but that appears to all rely on normal initiative, since it talks about people taking turns. So you couldn't open a fight with a surprise round doing that -- it has no text to exempt you from the normal rules.
It is an extrapolation or interpretation of the "surprise round" rules. As I said, not all GMs agree, but it is pretty common. I kind of glossed it before, but I will take it apart step by step.
Surprise
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised.
Determining AwarenessSometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
It doesn't anywhere in there say that the opponent must make a stealth check to get surprise, and it only lists Perception as one (of several) checks that grant surprise.
So here is where the divide happens.
Some GMs (camp A) read the above "If you are unaware that there are people who are enemies present, they get surprise." Other GMs (Camp B) read this "If you are unaware of someone's position, they get surprise.
GMs in camp A say if you can convince someone that you are not an enemy, they don't know that enemies are present.
Possible ways to do this are: Stealth vs Perception (obvious), Bluff vs Sense Motive (as I described above), Disguise vs Perception / Sense Motive depending on the situation (Appear to be someone or something non threatening. There are a number of monsters in Pathfinder that do this. )
GMs in camp B say that if you have been seen you can never be surprised, and point to things like the gargoyle, who has a form of the ability "hide in plain sight" and can take 20 on stealth to represent disguising itself as a statue, instead of, you know, disguise.
Both are reasonable interpretations of the rules.
In the above example I gave the last part "and walk away as if nothing happened" I was assuming an empty street, and that you have enough damage + sneak attack to reduce the opponent to bleeding out, and that he doesn't have friends. Otherwise, I would treat your stab as a surprise round, and then combat would begin.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
To further muddy the waters, the feat Surprising Combatant lets you make a (free action) bluff check vs sense motive after initiative has been rolled to insert a surprise round.
Camp B says this is proof you cannot use a bluff check to get surprise.
Camp A says no, the benefit of the feat is that you can make the bluff check as a free action (bluff is not usually a free action), and you can make it regardless of who initiated combat and regardless of what has happened before, and the existence of the feat is proof that you can use bluff to get surprise.
(Camp C says this feat is Prone Shooter all over again. Yet another feat that lets you do things you can do already without a feat.)
|
|
... so he (bluffing) surrenders ... Now at this point, no one had made any attempt at a sense motive ...
This may be part of what led to the issue.
If the NPC was bluffing, there should have been an automatic opposed check. (Yes, this might lead to meta-game issues, but it's better than expecting the players to be mind readers.)
While sense motive can be an extended action to try and get a feel for someone, in an opposed check situation it should be automatic.
I realize it doesn't address your main question, but this course might have prevented the situation, or at least, delayed it.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
whether it is on their faction card or not is irrelevant. They got rid of the faction mission-Nuremberg defense back in season 4.
That said, if your faction goal is to kill aspis, and you plan to kill the aspis, you should probably let your fellow pathfinders know you are not taking prisoners, and you should not be accepting his surrender.
Outshyn, the interpretation you are taking makes a bunch of things commonly used in GMing not work. As well as both existing classes (assassin) and playtest classes (vigilante).
You'll need to give me an example, because those classes are fine in my games, and I try to adhere to what I've read in the Rules forum exactly to the letter. So I don't know what you're referring to, nor how it interacts badly with what I wrote.
What does your reading add to the game which would not, when symmetrically applied to the players, hamstring storytelling techniques available to the GM even more?
I don't know if my reading adds anything, and don't care. This is a Pathfinder Society forum -- we are supposed to play by the rules, even if the rules are detrimental and make babies cry. That is of course hyperbole, but seriously, play fast & loose with the rules in a PFS forum and you will catch hell. The mandate is to run by the book so that everyone gets essentially the same game.
So all I can do in a PFS game is find out what a rule requires of me, and then I adhere to it as accurately as possible. "But it wrecks storytelling" isn't a valid defense for switching up a rule. "But it violates this rule text quoted here," is very compelling to me. I need that rule text when I'm at a convention and challenged to back up what I do.
Having said that, I've seen no problems from this in particular. Nobody has presented a "thing" that I miss from following these rules, and following the rules would have helped the OP. Right now, it's all benefit and no loss.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does your reading add to the game which would not, when symmetrically applied to the players, hamstring storytelling techniques available to the GM even more?I don't know if my reading adds anything, and don't care. This is a Pathfinder Society forum -- we are supposed to play by the rules, even if the rules are detrimental and make babies cry. That is of course hyperbole, but seriously, play fast & loose with the rules in a PFS forum and you will catch hell. The mandate is to run by the book so that everyone gets essentially the same game.
Actually the mandate is to use your judgement.
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play
campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all
players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the
same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive
script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master
has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with
unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely
unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience.
People use "PFS is RAW" as a club to end arguements in this forum some times, but the reality is that if there are multiple valid interpretations and Campaign Staff have not weighed in (which they try not to do) GMs are trusted to use the interpretation that is most appropriate to the table.
For example, I have a number of rules interpretations that I follow very stringently. However, they do lead to slightly longer combats. (For examples AC act on their own initiative.) Last Thursday I GMed a scenario I knew would run long with two PCs who had ACs. So I let the players just run their AC on their own initiative.
Nothing you've posted changes my post, though. You're suggesting that GMs must use due-dilligence to figure out the rules. People asked about my reading of the rules. I used due-dilligence to determine the rules, got to where I am, and like where I am.
EDIT: To build upon your example here:
For example, I have a number of rules interpretations that I follow very stringently. However, they do lead to slightly longer combats. (For examples AC act on their own initiative.) Last Thursday I GMed a scenario I knew would run long with two PCs who had ACs. So I let the players just run their AC on their own initiative.
...I don't know what the rule is that you're referring to about ACs. I assume that's animal companions, and I assume you are aware of some rule that mandates they be handled a certain way in initiative. And it looks like you're suggesting that due to circumstances, you changed your handling of it.
Now if the rule doesn't actually say something dumb, or if a FAQ corrects it, then I follow whatever the real text or FAQ says. So if it actually says "Jump near a cliff," then I do that and don't die. But if the rule tells me to die, then I intend to die, because that's what the leadership has said makes the best game. And they may be right. If they're wrong, they'll find out soon enough because guys like me run it by-the-book, and players become outraged, and the leadership gets an earful, and then they have to reconsider the rules as written. But maybe they like the rule as-is and don't care about the feelings of the players. Either way, I'm implementing what they suggest, and the game gets better as it moves forward and course corrects.
(I have found, by the way, that the rules rarely say anything dumb, and I do not have issues that others seem to. For example, the issue with what I said about awareness somehow "ruining" the assassin class? I don't see it. My assassins work fine. So my interpretation of the rules has thus far not destroyed the game, nor broken anything, so I feel great about it. But if the rules say "break stuff" then I guess I would break stuff. It just hasn't happened. Oh, wait, it kinda did. I hate the technologist feat, and want to violate it and discard it with all the black animosity my little black heart can muster. However, I'm running the Karamoss module in a couple of days, and I intend to do it by the book, no matter how crappy I think the leadership was on that stupid feat. It's there, it's intended to be there, and it mandates that most players flatly fail on technology-related issues. I intend to obey that, even though it is in my opinion absurd. I do that because PFS relies upon all of the GMs following the rules like that to keep the games evenhanded and fair across the board and across continents.)
If all of us just discarded rules because they were inconvenient, it may end up that the people putting out the products never hear back that a broken rule sucks, and they continue to build on that broken rule, because they think the player base is fine with it. I want to run the game as written and intended (both!), and let a true representation of the game be delivered to the players, and let them give feedback to the leadership about it. That way official corrections see the light of day.
In any case, we have now almost completely derailed the original discussion, which was not my intention. So I have put my text in a spoiler tag and wish the OP all the best in his efforts to deliver a good game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
ACs act on their own initiatives is one of those "They act on their own initiatives because the rules don't say they don't (unlike, for example, mounted combat.)
However, there are also guideline that say that the GM can group monsters initiatives together to speed up games.
Like so many things in Pathfinder it is a huge gray area, with valid arguments on both sides, and different GMs run it differently. And as long as it is being applied even handedly, it is fine.
For me, I would just follow the rule no matter what. ... If Moreland or Jacobs OR even SKR back in the day told me I had to jump off a cliff, then the answer from me is "Thank you, here I go to my death." Because that's the rule, and I follow the rule, even if the rule is dumb.
This is exactly the attitude Mike Brock often seemed to fight against, and was part of why he tried very hard not to make rulings unless they absolutely had to be made to keep the community from imploding. Even going so far as to say that if you could not be trusted to use your judgement, he didn't want you GMing.
(Wait, does that mean that if I find that post from Mike, and direct you to it you will be forced by your adherence to the rules to use your judgement instead of pendantically adhering to the rules?)
Again, spoilering all of this. We're totally derailing the OP's thread.
This is exactly the attitude Mike Brock often seemed to fight against, and was part of why he tried very hard not to make rulings unless they absolutely had to be made to keep the community from imploding. Even going so far as to say that if you could not be trusted to use your judgement, he didn't want you GMing.
I'm fine with that, because again I insist that this is me using my judgment. So let him tell people to not GM if they aren't using their best judgment. I will stand up and say that I not only am using my best judgment, but that I put a lot of time into it, and have printouts to back up my rulings, and spend hours on the Rules forum, and generally try to get everything not only right, but as the leadership intended. I'll cheer him on while he says that. And if he says to me, "Yeah, what you call your best judgment is what I call get the hell out, because you suck," then I will in fact get the hell out, because I certainly don't intend to run things any other way. So if my way is a failure for Brock, then he can tell me that, and I will stop running.
I will say at this point, that I have so far not ever, not once, received a single complaint about the 25 or so games that I've run. I think one person in particular didn't have a fun time at one of my games, but it wasn't due to bad rulings, and that player never passed along any feedback, so I'm just guessing. My belief is that the game was poor because I kept getting interrupted and lost control of the table and generally delivered a chaotic game, which I did not intend to do. Other than that person, I have received kudos and been told that my games drew other players in. I know more than a few GMs who did not follow the rules or bent them for the sake of delivering a more awesome game (in that GM's opinion), and they've been asked to step down. So at this point in time, I feel a little bit like "last man standing." The games go well, and I'm having success. But YMMV.
(Wait, does that mean that if I find that post from Mike, and direct you to it you will be forced by your adherence to the rules to use your judgement instead of pendantically adhering to the rules?)
I would obey that as perfectly as possible, but again, I don't see how that would affect anything under discussion here. I've... what?... 3 times now asked for examples or rules quotes that show how the game breaks when you strictly follow the rules under discussion, and nothing has come of that yet. I've got a fuzzy "assassins break" but no actual gameplay example and assassins work great in my games, so I don't see the issue. So, again, what are you objecting to? That I'm confident or uncompromising? That doesn't mean I'm wrong, nor breaking the game. If you're objecting to my tone, say so and move on. If you're objecting to something of substance, such as the game being broken by these rules -- which, again, only came up because it would have helped the OP with a positive benefit -- then I need to see that. What broke? What's the example you have that you feel would be unplayable? I would like to see that so that I can see if I would in fact run it in a broken way. Thus far, I wouldn't. I have no conflict.
However, there are also guideline that say that the GM can group monsters initiatives together to speed up games.
I would love to see that text, if you have it. I currently run them individually, or have them delay down so that I can cluster them, and it's a pain in the butt and a rule that I object to (but run as-is because rules are rules). If I had text backing me up when I run initiatives together, I would absolutely do that right away. This is in fact me putting my money where my mouth is -- I said I would run rules as-is even if they suck, so long as that's really what they say to do, and thus far I've seen that everyone must have individual initiatives, so I do it that way even though I feel it sucks. I would love an out, if you have one. If you don't, I'm committed to running the game literally the way the designers intended, even though I technically dislike it. And I suspect that Brock and others would be thankful for that. I could be wrong. I guess we'll see.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Again, spoilering all of this. We're totally wrecking the OP's thread.
** spoiler omitted **...
For the record, I am fine with you running your game your way. I just am just objecting to a perceived implication that you believe that the way you run it is the only way to run it RAW. There is ample RAW basis for running it either way.
As far as the assassin thing I am not familiar enough with the arguments to do them justice, so I will leave that to someone else, but all of the assassin insta-kill abilities have "if the target is surprised or does not recognize the assassin as an enemy."
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Oh, I just remembered the broken example
Lets say a thief hides behind cupboard. The party fails to spot him, So he gets surprise (they haven't spotted him.) He 5 foot steps up to them, and sneak attacks (standard)
Now lets assume a mimic. It has a plus 30 disguise. The party fails to roll high enough. As far as the party is concerned it is a cupboard. But it didn't use stealth, so by your rules, it does not get a surprise round.
So basically, you are saying that someone stepping out from behind the cupboard and stabbing you is more worthy of surprise than the cupboard itself attacking you.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
I can think of more scenarios than that, alone, where you can get attacked by female statues, and at least one where one of the faction missions is to observe the fighting style used by some statues of unknown sex.
And we won't even go into modules, which adds even more attacking statues, and a few that one thinks should attack, even if they don't.
And at least a couple of scenarios where break enchantment might allow some (now former) statues to attack.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
I have had several other characters attacked by statues, but while they are now wary of statues, he is the only one who is paranoid enough to treat all statues as "potential enemies." He has started messaging every statue he sees, to determine if it is a creature. (Message has a target type creature, no save, and no SR. If the spell succeeds, the thing you cast it on can kill you. Not fool proof, and subject to serious table variation, but moderately effective. And did I mention paranoid?)
If you click this spoiler text, you are going to get a massive 40 or so paragraphs of text. I apologize, but the rest of the gang here posted so much stuff that I kept writing multiple responses in multiple browser tabs until I finally decided to combine it here.
For the record, I am fine with you running your game your way. I just am just objecting to a perceived implication that you believe that the way you run it is the only way to run it RAW. There is ample RAW basis for running it either way.
If you're objecting to that, note that what kicked off this entire discussion was that I objected to exactly the same thing when this was posted to me:
You are also trying to construct an argument which doesn't stand the test of the combat chapter's actual rules.
That's not my text. I didn't write that. That's someone else in this thread saying that interpretations other than their own were just flatly not RAW. I then posted rules text to back up my assertions and asked for the same in kind.
So if the objection here is that people shouldn't be saying there is only 1 right way, then that should equally apply on both sides. If you got your hackles up because of the "1 right way" issue, well, now we understand each other. I got my hackles up because of the "1 right way" issue as well.
all of the assassin insta-kill abilities have "if the target is surprised or does not recognize the assassin as an enemy."
Nothing I've written stops surprise rounds, so nothing I've written interferes with anything in the assassin class. Anyway, since you said you don't know that class enough to engage on that topic, I just took it upon myself to read every sentence printed about the assassin class, and a full 0% of it is ruined/wrecked by the rules I follow. The rules work with that class 100%. So it seems like all of this is just a tempest in a teapot.
outshyn, you have in fact quoted the relevant rule on which I am basing my position:
Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds.The difference I perceive is that you are reading "characters are aware of their opponents" as "knows of the existence and position of a creature". I am reading it as "knows that this creature intends them immediate harm".
I understand. But look at that rule quote. This is not the rule text:
Determine which characters are aware of their opponents' intentions. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents' intentions, proceed with normal rounds.
Note the bold. That word isn't in there. This is the actual rule text, missing the bolded word:
Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds.
...so the word you are acting upon isn't in the text. If you want to operate from that position yourself, great, but you told me that my position isn't in the rules when in fact I am taking it even more literally than you are! I am right in the text doing exactly what I read there.
To put in an illustration of this, if there were a scene where the Paracountess was the briefer but was in fact a disguised succubus, and she propositioned a receptive character for a kiss, at what point would you roll initiative before generating the save vs. level drain? What skills might a PC roll to act in a surprise round, if one existed?
I think one of two things happens. First, I might run that completely outside of combat, and portray the kiss as a non-combat action that was sweet & lovely, but then give the player the bad news that he/she got level drained, and allow the players to initiate normal combat. After all, if this is a kiss that the PC leaned into and tried to accept, there is no attack roll or anything like that. The PC willingly failed a defense to accept an incoming benefit. Of course, that benefit turned out to be a lie, but reactions to that can only come after, so I'm fine to think of that as not even combat at all until the kiss is delivered.
Second, I might run it as a normal combat round but players with inits before the kiss are asked to not metagame. It turns out I have great players who go along with this kind of thing all the time. So we would be out of combat, discussing the kiss, and if the player went along with it, I would say, "Oh, you guys have such a nice make out session! It's great for a hot second, but that turned out to be a secret level drain, so let's roll for initiative and play it out. Don't metagame if you come up first." So for example, if 2 players acted before the succubus then they might say, "I didn't say I was stopping the kiss as we talked about it, so as it's my turn and the succubus hasn't yet done the deed, I am standing there happily doing nothing." (This has in fact happened in my games, and the players are great about it.) Then the succubus does the kiss. Then everyone after that init point acts, and combat continues as usual.
I might even not give the first PCs an option to metagame. I might say "everyone is aware so there is no surprise round, but the normal round starts after the point that the succubus delivers the kiss." And then get the inits and start mid-init.
That ends up looking a lot like a surprise round, but there is an important mechanical difference: some PCs may not be flat-footed, and the attacker cannot get double attacks (1 from the surprise, 1 from normal combat rounds). The attacker is stuck with normal actions in a normal round, and no more.
It's important to note that this is birthed from actual game play. That is, when you run a game with surprise rounds that are based on more than simple awareness that a creature exists, then that can often work against the PCs, and they can cite the rule text about no surprise rounds because they are aware, and then you're stuck trying to shove that surprise round down the throats of the players and the VC alike. I have in fact had players say that, and the answer was that I lost. So I play like awareness only means "aware something exists" because that's all that is in the text and I have been told not to go outside of that. And I don't mind; there isn't much to miss.
If you can get away with more than what I get away with, awesome. Good for you.
Now lets assume a mimic. It has a plus 30 disguise. The party fails to roll high enough. As far as the party is concerned it is a cupboard. But it didn't use stealth, so by your rules, it does not get a surprise round.
Hmm. I don't recall saying that using stealth was the only way to get a surprise round, but if I did, I immediately regret that decision and take it back. I believe the wording I used was actually a quote from the rules, which I can re-quote here:
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised.
The standard for me is not Stealth, but awareness. The main way to manipulate awareness is to use Stealth or full cover, but if we need to fall back upon raw "are you aware" then we do, and I will. So, by the rules, in the case of the mimic, you are not aware that an opponent or any kind of creature at all is even in the room -- that mimic appears to be furniture, so you're aware of furniture. So that mimic can start combat with a surprise round, assuming the PCs never figured out that the mimic exists.
However, in the case here? In this thread? The evil cleric versus the angry sorcerer? They not only know they are in the room together, but they also know that they were just in combat and are opposed. Fighting or not, they totally know of each other, and no way would I allow a surprise round there, unless they had some cool feat or trick that allowed the PC to get a surprise attack. Without that, the normal way to get the drop on someone is to max out your initiative, strike first, and get the enemy to be flat-footed.
In the more murky example of the sculpture or statue, I believe 3 things:
- If you believe a statue is a statue, then you are not aware it is a combatant, nor even a potential combatant, and therefore it can surprise ya.
- If you become wary of statues then I probably will not give the statue a surprise round. I would require that you have some story background for this -- you couldn't start the first day of a campaign by declaring that you believe every object on earth is a combatant and therefore can never be surprised. However, if you do have a background to support thinking statues are dangerous, then you are aware. Maybe wrongly aware a few times, but aware.
- Things can overrule that. If a module or monster listing says "special exception, run this with surprise because I said so," then I dutifully obey the author, even if the PC is wary. For example, look at the gargoyle. It has this text: "A gargoyle can hold itself so still it appears to be a statue. A gargoyle that uses freeze can take 20 on its Stealth check to hide in plain sight as a stone statue." This shows 2 things. First, it acknowledges that normally in plain sight you cannot do Stealth, but second it carves out an exception so that Stealth will work. It's a cool ability. So I will allow that gargoyle to surprise, assuming the Stealth check it mentions works out. However, even with that I will certainly allow a PC to stand away from the "statue" and bombard it with Fireballs, thus initiating combat himself or herself.
On that last point, if I allow a PC to bombard a statue, I again follow the rules -- the PCs are in plain sight, the gargoyle is aware of them, there is no way for the PCs to get a freebie of surprise bombing. However, the PC can certainly get close. First, when the PC does that we go into normal initiative, and even if the gargoyle goes first, that doesn't mean it interrupts the PC. On the gargoyle's turn, the PC has not yet done anything, so the gargoyle likely continues doing what it was doing all along (waiting), and then the PC's turn comes up, and the spell gets off. Or 2nd, the gargoyle's turn is first, so it readies a strike when someone approaches, but nobody approaches, so the spell gets off. Or 3rd, the gargoyle's turn comes up, so it readies a charge when it sees hostile actions, but the PC is outside of the charge distance, so the spell gets off.
I think that models "real life" in a fantasy world pretty well. If I am a gargoyle and a group of adventurers just appeared in my dungeon, and if I am frozen in place and aware of them, then it makes pretty good sense that I might be able to ready "a leaping attack the moment they are hostile or come close." So the PCs are in the room, see the statue, start casting -- that's not surprise, that's "someone is quick, and someone is dead." AKA, normal initiative.
To get back on track for the OP, let's answer one of his questions:
The short version is, if an enemy combatant surrenders, and the PC's accept the surrender long enough to go out of combat, but one of the PC's attempts to reinitiate combat against someone they know surrendered, with intent to kill, would that be an evil act?
SamuraiZero, I can't flatly say if that is or is not evil, but I can tell you what I did at a game table about 1 month ago. I ran Murder on the Throaty Mermaid. Some bad guys were defeated. Two of them survived and were bound. One player had a rogue who tried to press the bad guys for information. The player in real life is a sweetheart girl who couldn't come off as intimidating even if she tried. So when she sweetly asked for information and didn't get it, she was stymied. I could tell she was thinking like a polite, courteous person who expected courtesy to work. When it didn't, she was so frustrated and surprised that she just flat-out killed 1 bad guy. That right there should have been evil -- she killed a captive who had surrendered, just because asking a single question didn't magically get her everything. However, instead I was like, "Wow, really? That's not good!" and then I let it slide. Unfortunately, she then jammed a dagger under the fingernails of the next bad guy, started cutting him to inflict small damage but keep him alive (torture basically) and then said, "I kill him too."
At this point, I said, "Yeah, OK, but then you have to retire this character." She asked why. I said that repeating an evil act is going to take it from accidental or "heat of the moment" into deliberate, calculated murder. Undeniable evil, very difficult to do an end-run around that one. She was surprised that it was evil -- I suspect that she looked at it like a game where she was overcoming obstacles, and didn't really realize or role-play with the notion that she had just slit the throats of helpless victims, right in front of a bunch of people. Even still, after telling her this, she maintained that enemies are killable in any way she wishes, and that's not evil, because they're enemies.
At this point, there is nothing to do but decide something, even if it isn't what the player wants. She expressed that her evil acts are not evil because of a justification, and I now either buy it or I don't. My response to her? "Sorry, no. It is evil, and your justifications don't lessen that. The Venture Captain for the region happens to be playing here tonight over at that table. Go appeal this to him if you wish, but I am going to make it clear to him that you had ample warning."
That is a very tough thing to do. A player is sure that he or she is right and should be allowed to do something, and you are going to flat-out contradict that player and not allow him or her to do it. That's rough (although it is sometimes the job of a GM). Many people think that if they can justify something, they can do it, and they get really surprised or upset when they don't get their way. But if you believe that your judgment call is correct, then believe in yourself and make the ruling. Tell the player to go appeal it, and be confident that you'll be vindicated. If you are not confident, then maybe you should look at your ruling and be really sure that you are correct and gave everyone a fair shake. In my case, giving her initial feedback and then giving her an extra chance to back out was reasonable enough (to me) to decide that I would not budge more. It helped that the other players agreed with my take on it. So she left the captive alone, and watched as other players then pressed the captive for more information over the course of many questions and a few Diplomacy rolls. She got to see that being persistent was successful.
If I had been in your shoes, I probably would have given the player multiple warnings. That coincides with the rules text here:
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences.
The rules go on to say that if a player does a single evil act it can probably be fixed with an Atonement spell. So I'd probably even let the player do the coup de grace or murderous attack, but I'd tell them that they'd need an Atonement. I might even charge for the expensive version of Atonement, if I thought it was egregious.
Only if they did multiple evil acts and wanted to keep going would I say "OK, you can, but you have to retire your character." By giving the players some warnings and ways out, you can mitigate their objections and make sure they're not surprised at all with the results.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find the specific post I wanted, apparently it was not in the thread I thought it was in. It was in response to someone insisting that GMs should be given stricter guidelines on running, to which Mike countered that if they needed guidelines that strict, maybe they were not ready to GM.
You can also read his responses in the masterwork tools thread, his responses in the is torture evil (specifically the followup question of "what constitutes torture?"), his responses in various tactics threads, many, many other threads where he says variations on "don't make me make a universal ruling on this, it is situational, just be reasonable, and if you make me rule on it no one will like the rule I make.")
|
|
See also the discussion about electronic character sheets, where he was pushed until a ruling was demanded by the player base.
I like Mike, and I think he did a lot of great things for PFS. There is no doubt that PFS would not be what it is today without him. But that was not his finest hour. The whole, "You want a ruling? Fine! I'll give you a ruling! Happy now?" is not a great management style. And it cropped up in other rulings as well. I can tell you that it directly contributed to some individuals that are widely liked and respected leaving the campaign.
I hope that future campaign coordinators take the correct lesson from those events.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
See also the discussion about electronic character sheets, where he was pushed until a ruling was demanded by the player base.** spoiler omitted **