Something that has come up a few times is "when does combat start?"
The only answer I've found is the very unofficial, and unhelpful "when GM says so."
The problem is, there are rules about the start of combat that can make a huge difference based solely on when the GM considers to be start of combat, such as being flat footed before acting. But these rules sometimes do not make sense with how the GM starts the combat.
For example, if characters are about to duel, it does not make sense for one of them to be flat footed for the first attack since both know well ahead of time that combat will happen and are generally in prepared, defensive stances.
But since the rules say nothing of when combat starts, many GMs just consider the first attack to be start of combat, thus everyone being flatfooted regardless of whether they should be or not, also negating certain actions taken in preparation, such as taking a defensive stance.
Granted, this doesn't seem to come up very often for others, but it has on many times for me.
I'd allow anyone to go into initiative if they think a situation is likely to turn violent. You don't have to actually attack the other side - you can, for example, go Total Defense and talk to them. You can no longer get a surprise round, but you can ready actions. If the other side beats you on initiative, and they're aware of you, they can notice your threatening stance and get the drop on you if they want.
Well, I'm not really looking for how I can handle it as the GM. I have some houserules.
What I'm looking for is if there are any rules support I missed, errata, faq I missed, or perhaps plans to officially address the issue in the future.
I can share my houserule if anyone wants them though.
The rules are unclear. Combat starts when you roll initiative. Initiative start when combat begins.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The rules are unclear. Combat starts when you roll initiative. Initiative start when combat begins.
I wouldn't call it unclear. I'd call it not discussed.
There is no rule for when to go to Combat and roll init, because the GM is in charge of when that transition happens. So to the OP, ask your GM. You are GM? Ask yourself.
There are rules attached to a concept that remains undefined, a contingency with an undefined trigger. I'd call that a major hole in system design (it'd be different if none of the rules relied on it.).
The GM can fix anything, so that isn't exactly helpful.
Here's the solution I've found for my table that I assume most others use. When I tell you to roll initiative, combat has started. I thought that was just common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
combat starts when enemies see each other. If not all participants see the opposition then there is a surprise round. If you or they aren't instantly going to fight than you're not enemies yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, my time for rolling initiative is very close to DM Matt Mercer's. Google "Critical Role", and watch it on Youtube. Lots of good roleplaying hints in there.
DMing is an art, not a science. Everyone has there own way of doing it, and it functions in relation to the players you're working with. Similarly, I find I can get better at it through practice and by learning from others.
TL;DR - Watch Critical Role and other youtube campaigns to see how others do it.
Sorry, but the answer you've found is the only official one. It's up to GM fiat, and I very much doubt that will be changing anytime soon. Just use your best judgement.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'd call that a major hole in system design
You about the only one that believes that.
The rules are literally full of examples where the GM makes up the inbetween. This is one example.
If you are the GM, figure it out like all the other GM's.
If you are the player, ask your GM and do as they say.
If this 'hole in the rules' was ever filled I don't know if pathfinder would still be an RPG.
Here's why:
It seems to me that the decision to begin initiative is the boundary between freeform character Roleplaying, and the more structured combat aspect of the game. There are infinite variations in the situations where freeform and improvised RP needs to be arbitrated turn-by-turn, and the differences will depend on each group.
Some examples of when combat rounds might (or might not) start:
- The party enters a room with orcs in it (obvious)
- Two PCs start wrestling. Other PCs intervene.
- Two PCs start throwing food at each other.
- A PC touches a cursed item and enters a psychic battle with a spirit in the item.
- In a courtroom, a man in the stands pulls out a knife and starts yelling
- Two ships are sailing alongside each other, trading cannon fire at long range.
- the PCs are watching over a major battle from an invisible magic carpet. Occasional errant arrows fly past and could hit the party.
- PCs are in a race against time to defuse a multi-layered trap.
There is no possible way a rule set can decide when and if initiative should be rolled in many of these situations. It is up to the DM to decide what will keep the game flowing, what will make players feel that their PCs are most involved, and what is most fair. This depends on personalities in the room, the overall energy level around the table, previous rulings the DM has made, etc.
A DM is not working with a black-and-white set of rules in an RPG. They -must- be able to make decisions that the rule book can't cover.
Perhaps you can suggest some unclear ideas about when combat starts then? I'm not really having any come to mind myself, but perhaps some lack of clarity will help make your problem clear?
I'm saying that I don't start initiative at the same time given a particular situation. The set of rules would have to include player boredom, my desire to keep imminent danger a secret, using initiative and turn order to increase tension, etc.
You're asking for rules to things that are unrulable because it is the boundary between freeform roleplay and regimented combat. Where that boundary lies completely depends on play style, the multiplicity of in-game situations and many other things.
If a rule -was- given, we'd have even more players clamouring over the ambiguity because there would be more of an assumption that the rules should cover everything.
Check out some Roleplaying on YouTube. Even using the same rule set, people are all over the place in terms of the ways they apply rules. The decision of when to roll for initiative is sometimes an exciting event, precisely because players don't really know when it will happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my area GMs often rule that combatants aren't flat footed at the start of combat in situations where both sides are aware and ready for combat, such as a duel, or two groups facing off with weapons ready.
At least, I do.
In all my 30 years of Roleplaying I've never seen such rules. That doesn't mean they're not possible, but I think it's saying something that RPGs have come this far without it.
I strongly believe the rule isn't there for reasons I already stated. Boredom etc are small examples that you're picking at. The big issue is that you're looking for a strict boundary between structured rounds and unstructured play, and I do t think that's possible without foundationally changing the way the game is meant to be played.
I'm assuming we're talking about game design here, but it could be that some people reading the thread are simply wanting clarity because they're not familiar with RPGs. That's why I'm also suggesting that people check out the ways RPGs are played - lots of resources online.
Of all RPGs, I can understand why Pathfinder players would most want this kind of rule. It seems to have a rule for everything, what's one more rule?
I bet there are good paragraphs writing loose suggestions in various DMGs. Gonna look now.
The rules never have not ever will cover every possible situation. There are countless actual rules text within class abilities and feats and items and a dozen other things that have "Subject to GM discretion". Starting combat is ambiguous and left to discretion. If you don't like it, houserule it otherwise.
Here's another thread with various approaches:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nves?When-does-combat-begin
The only clear rule I could think to add would be something like:
"Players should describe their actions in whatever way they wish until the DM decides that it is time to Roll for initiative. This usually occurs when it becomes too difficult to fairly arbitrate and coordinate player actions, and when you need to know who acts first in a situation.
Once a DM decides that it's time to roll for initiative, he/she may also describe each PCs situation / position / condition using the combat rules. It is up to the DM to decide whether a PC has a readied action, for example, given the roleplayed actions that led up to the roll for initiative."
Something like that might eliminate rules problems that the OP described..? Ie it is up to the DM to translate between roleplayed actions and readied actions etc.
Like another post said - I'd be interested to hear what particular situations cause angst in your groups.
Seems to me the concern is more about DM fairness then. Can someone give a specific example of a situation where a problem has arisen? No one has been specific yet.
I've never had that problem in my games. Just have the Barbarian throw open the door, describe what the archer would see from his position in the 3-4 seconds he has to make a decision, then ask if he wants to fire a surprise round arrow. He will likely only have a limited view of the room and more often than not I'd bet the archer would actually wait before acting.
Players can bust into rooms this way all day if they like. It's my problem as a DM if I'm not giving them enough situational variety that they have to approach things differently.
Really I can't see how you can rule the way something like this would work in a single rule. Every situation is so different. Often the rules discussions (like the ones you're talking about) seem futile to me because people are trying to find universal solutions to problems that need to be resolved on the spot by a fair DM.
One interesting exercise would be to play-by-forum (right here) some situations where there would be a problem.
In the case of the readied-action archer, as the DM I say:
"Russ the Barbarian throws open the door and steps aside. You can't see the entire room, but from your position you can see a table with four orcs sitting around it. They turn quickly as the door opens and see you. You can take a surprise action if you like."
Fair enough? The idea is for the DM to support PC ideas and let them follow through without feeling frustrated. The rules should fade into the background if the DM does that.
Any suggestions for making the situation more complicated?
...
The big issue is that you're looking for a strict boundary between structured rounds and unstructured play, and I do t think that's possible without foundationally changing the way the game is meant to be played.I'm assuming we're talking about game design here, but it could be that some people reading the thread are simply wanting clarity because they're not familiar with RPGs.
...
On the contrary,
take a look at how I handle it, you'll notice that it gives a clear definition of when "start of combat" rules take effect, without making a sharp boundary between structured and unstructured play (not that I consider rounds to be all that structured), and even manages it without changing the existing rules or changing how the game is meant to be played. It simply defines something previously undefined.
A character may at anytime be considered "in combat" or "out of combat." Further, being considered "in combat" does not require explicit use of round by round play (it doesn't anyway, but explicit callout is good). The action the GM wants to use as the trigger for round by round play, is considered the first action for the turn of the character that took it if "in combat," or the last action of their turn if "out of combat," and that character is automatically granted the highest initiative (thus they must wait for everyone else to go before they go again).A character is considered in combat at any time they expect or are otherwise prepared for combat.
Thus, characters that are ready for a shady meeting to devolve into combat will not be flat footed when some folks start attacking others, because they were prepared for it in combat, and past their first round in combat, even if the round wasn't played out as a structured round of play by the players. Likewise, in an arena or a duel, the characters are in combat before the first attack because they are ready and expecting it.
It takes one round to go from out of combat to in combat, and does not take an action and happens automatically when a character discovers they are in danger, or decides to prepare for combat. This would be the first round of combat for those characters, who then suffer the associated penalties, such as being flat footed till they take an action. It is thus possible for one character to be in their first round of combat while others are not.
When characters who are in combat and not fighting each other, engage characters who are not in combat (such as during an ambush), there is a surprise round.
Also note how this still works with those groups who roll the next encounter's initiative at the end of each encounter (this doing away with the sudden break in drama by asking for initiative rolls).
It clarifies when to apply those "start of combat" rules in a way that makes sense while remaining flexible in terms of how and when playing by explicit rounds begins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've witnessed a few games with players that nit pick grey areas like this before. It's easy to look at the CRB and behold a vast wealth of rules for seemingly every situation, so I empathize, but there are times we have to remember that these games are abstract in many ways, and it is not the intent of the rules to fully encompass all possible scenarios. Perhaps the CRB could have done a better job of explaining this.
The game engine operates under the assumption that the GM and the players drive the game, not the rules. If you need the book to tell you what to do and when to do it, then you are a passenger and not a driver. Frankly, I appreciate that the designers have confidence in us to decide when to roll initiative, when to ready actions, delay, surprise, etc., as too many rules can be as bad as too many cooks in the kitchen.
I find rolling initiative to be rather intuitive, but I think we can agree that this can be a grey area for a few. In these instances you have to look to your table for the answer, use common sense, and just play.
AlicornSage,
That sounds like the way I rule combat preparedness and I appreciate that you've found a way to make it sound consistent. I'm not sure what you mean by "It takes one round to go from out of combat to in combat, and does not take an action" though. It implies that there are always rounds occurring.
This particular phrase leaves the definition of "rounds" pretty open. If it takes a round to go from non-combat to combat, then it sounds like you're leaving it to the players to say they are starting combat rounds? Who goes from non-combat to combat first? Aren't you left (as DM) resolving the same issues that the OP and others were presenting?
The biggest problem I have with the existing lack of official rules is that GMs sometimes make a houserule without catching all the implications where it can cause something awkward to happen.
For example, two cases where this was an issue,
In one case, my character along with other were in an arena and about to fight each other. We all took defensive stances, yet because the GM considered the first attack to be the start of combat, our defensive stances were meaningless, because were all considered flat footed, thus we had the same penalty as if we were taken by surprise, despite not only being aware of combat, but already having taken the total defense actions.
The second case was a character of mine who tried to talk to a group of people we met in the wilderness, in which I said that my character had a hand on her weapon and was ready to respond if these unknown people were hostile. She expected the possibility and was prepared for it, but was again treated as if she was caught totally by surprise.
"For example, the BBEG and us are all looking right at one another, everyone is quite aware and know each other are enemies. But the ranger asks to ready an action to shoot an arrow if he uses the word "and" anywhere in his monologue."
As DM I would say "we are not in combat. Before you even get to talk about readying an action, let's talk about what's happening in the room. You start to raise your bow. The Demon continues talking but is watching you. If you want to keep bringing up your bow, we'll roll for initiative because he may act."
Player: "my intent was to fire on him as quickly as possible. I'm not doing it slowly, I want to fire before he can do anything."
DM: "Since you're all staring at each other I'd say he's watching pretty carefully to see what you're up to. If you want to try to get off a shot, I'll treat it like a quick-draw between you and him. You'd each roll init. The other players won't roll yet because they don't know this is your intention."
Player: "I have quick draw and I'd like to Bluff to make him think I'm not going to fire."
DM: "Cool. Describe how you bluff then roll a Bluff check." If he bluffs well enough and beats the BBEG's Sense Motive I'd give it to him. Surprise shot then everyone rolls.
This wouldn't work in every situation again because as DM I should be presenting them with a variety of situations and required approaches. If it does become a standard tactic, I might start having people search him out to challenge him for duels, and he might earn the moniker of "Dirty Quick-Draw" over time, making the Bluffs less reliable etc.
Lots of room for interesting roleplay and story development there, that (again) I wouldn't want a strict rule set to interfere with.
Really the DM should be able to say "yes" to what players want to do and find ways to make it deepen the experience, add to the characters and the story. The DM should not be in opposition to what the players want.
AlicornSage, in both your cases it sounds like the GM was sticking to some definition of the rules too rigidly and not adjusting for the situation and your PCs' intentions. In both your examples I'm reading that the GM wasn't willing to adjust to the situation. You shouldn't have been flat-footed if it didn't make sense.
That's the GMs fault for not listening to you and being fluid and adaptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem I have with the existing lack of official rules is that GMs sometimes make a houserule without catching all the implications where it can cause something awkward to happen.
For example, two cases where this was an issue,
In one case, my character along with other were in an arena and about to fight each other. We all took defensive stances, yet because the GM considered the first attack to be the start of combat, our defensive stances were meaningless, because were all considered flat footed, thus we had the same penalty as if we were taken by surprise, despite not only being aware of combat, but already having taken the total defense actions.The second case was a character of mine who tried to talk to a group of people we met in the wilderness, in which I said that my character had a hand on her weapon and was ready to respond if these unknown people were hostile. She expected the possibility and was prepared for it, but was again treated as if she was caught totally by surprise.
Both of these cases are resolved simply enough by applying the ruling I described above (essentially eliminating flat-footed in that combat). Initiative just determines who is quicker to draw.
AlicornSage,
That sounds like the way I rule combat preparedness and I appreciate that you've found a way to make it sound consistent. I'm not sure what you mean by "It takes one round to go from out of combat to in combat, and does not take an action" though. It implies that there are always rounds occurring.
This particular phrase leaves the definition of "rounds" pretty open. If it takes a round to go from non-combat to combat, then it sounds like you're leaving it to the players to say they are starting combat rounds? Who goes from non-combat to combat first? Aren't you left (as DM) resolving the same issues that the OP and others were presenting?
Rounds are just a construct for precisely describing when things happen. They are in essence always occuring, but not always being seen by the players and GM.
Think of MS paint. There is a grid option so when zoomed in close enough, you see a grid that defines the boundaries between pixels, but as you zoom out, the grid goes away because the pixels are too small, but that doesn't mean the pixels are no longer discrete pixels, it just means that at the level you are viewing them from, it is not practical to show those boundaries. The same applies to rounds, the boundaries between actions are always there, but we only "zoom in" to explicitly see and use the boundaries between those actions at certain times, primarily when folks are attacking each other, or when time is very limited.
The statement about not taking an action just means that the players do not use up any action economy to become considered as "in combat," and that in some cases, they need not declare it either.
There is a difference between being "in combat" and playing "round by round." One does not require the other and indeed, I have seen GMs use the round structure without being in combat on several occasions where it was helpful. The rules don't claim them to be the same thing, though they do assume that if characters are attacking each other, you will use the rounds, but the rules do not assume the reverse.
Thus, this does not have the same issues. Quite simply, there are no rules for transitioning from no rounds to having rounds, thus no consequence for whether you are using rounds or not. The start of combat issue on the other, does have rules for the transition from no combat to combat, thus that transition needs to be defined, but the rules left it undefined despite that transition being a key point in the application of certain rules.
While, GMs have the ability to adjust when required, few are very good at it, and few have thought such cases through and far too few are willing to be flexible when circumstances call for it.
Rules are a tool, GM fiat is for when you do not have the right tool. Desiring an official tool is totally legit.
Leaving a tool in the system to rely on an undefined tool that is not in the system, is very bad design. In programming, it is so bad that computers can be devestated by such a design oversight and is one of the biggest things they start teaching you to avoid. Luckily, in an rpg, the world won't come crashing down, but that doesn't make it good design.
I've witnessed a few games with players that nit pick grey areas like this before. It's easy to look at the CRB and behold a vast wealth of rules for seemingly every situation, so I empathize, but there are times we have to remember that these games are abstract in many ways, and it is not the intent of the rules to fully encompass all possible scenarios. Perhaps the CRB could have done a better job of explaining this.
The game engine operates under the assumption that the GM and the players drive the game, not the rules. If you need the book to tell you what to do and when to do it, then you are a passenger and not a driver. Frankly, I appreciate that the designers have confidence in us to decide when to roll initiative, when to ready actions, delay, surprise, etc., as too many rules can be as bad as too many cooks in the kitchen.
I find rolling initiative to be rather intuitive, but I think we can agree that this can be a grey area for a few. In these instances you have to look to your table for the answer, use common sense, and just play.
I find rolling initiative to not be a good start to combat because if a character takes a total defense before the duel starts, but the initiative is rolled for the first attack, then that total defense action is wasted and it disrupts the connection between the rules and the narrative.
Further, one awesome trick to make combats start faster and keep up the tension and suspension of disbelief ia to roll initiative at the end of the previous encounter, so at the start of combat, who goes first is already known and everyone can just jump into the action instead of pausing to have everyone roll which puts a sudden stop on things, not to mention that asking for initiative checks is not a fun way to discover an enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AlicornSage said: "While, GMs have the ability to adjust when required, few are very good at it, and few have thought such cases through and far too few are willing to be flexible when circumstances call for it.
Rules are a tool, GM fiat is for when you do not have the right tool. Desiring an official tool is totally legit.
Leaving a tool in the system to rely on an undefined tool that is not in the system, is very bad design. In programming, it is so bad that computers can be devestated by such a design oversight and is one of the biggest things they start teaching you to avoid. Luckily, in an rpg, the world won't come crashing down, but that doesn't make it good design."
Me: We're back to wondering if we're talking about game design or questions about how RPGs are played.
My priority tends to focus on what happens around the RP table. I want people to become better DMs, and I think that is independent from rulesets. (D&D 5e has a celebrated ruleset, but is even less clear about the application of rules, but more explicit on the nature of a game that is fair, fun and flows well).
I think they're both important issues and I'm glad some of us are trying to come up with clear rules. I think it's equally important to acknowledge that the responsibility also lies with the qualities of the DM.
If, as you say, most DM's aren't flexible enough to deal with rules issues, then they need to learn how. It's a big part of being a DM. In a game where anything is possible, no ruleset can possibly account for every situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
If, as you say, most DM's aren't flexible enough to deal with rules issues, then they need to learn how. It's a big part of being a DM. In a game where anything is possible, no ruleset can possibly account for every situation.
You know, I tried to point this out in certain other places, yet no one seemed to understand the concept.
And while rules can't account for everything, they can be designed to to be flexible rules or strict rules, and a really bad design can have rules that rely on nonexistant rules (which is the case here).
Crimeo said it right. Far easier to drop undesired rules that to add god smooth ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crimeo: yup, sounds like we have different game styles. :) that's what's great about Roleplaying. My players would mutiny at your table too, or (more than likely) we'd all find a happy medium that works.
The Parhfinder rules can definitely support the well-oiled tactical machine-style you play, which is not something every system can do well. I appreciate that I can still run my style of game with it.
An aside: your post implies that my rulings are internally inconsistent. I suspect you think that because we're not sitting around a table actually talking about it, and we're both imaging different situations. If my rulings were internally inconsistent then I think I would have disgruntled or confused players, and I never do. Not in the last 20-25 years at least :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with, or at least understand, your view, and I am thankful we have such a fun game to play that is easy to adapt to our play groups.
It is impossible, I feel, to create one game system that pleases everybody, as a hobby is a subjective device/outlet. Luckily, we aren't beholden to the rules, the grey areas, and everything else inbetween, and the fact that each table can find its own solution is, I think, a testament to the design and those who utilize it for the purpose of positive creative output.
Imagination and creativity are a nebulous thing, a rather hard thing to define and mechanically nail to a page with ink, but I have yet to encounter an issue my group couldn't solve. I feel it is the intent of the rulebook to encourage this thought process, this freedom, if you will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An aside: your post implies that my rulings are internally inconsistent.Naw not really what I meant. But to the extent they're not, it sounds likely due to some complicated array of stuff going on under the surface that seems too difficult to predict well enough to know really well what to expect as a player ahead of time, which is still equally frustrating for that kind of player. OR we both have tons of variables we are considering that are each internally consistent, but just not the same ones. Again, still ends up frustrating for a player wanting to plan out tactics, because to do so, the variables need to line up to expectations still.
But maybe less of all that if thinking about exactly the same situation, sure.
Could be that I don't allow a tonne of out-of-game discussion of tactics or pre-planning. I have a long history of tactical war gaming (board games) so I'm totally down with tactics. More often than not I think that tactics in fantasy RPGs are difficult to plan before and during a battle because everything is quite fluid and chaotic at the individual level.
From that perspective I can imagine that your players would be frustrated with me as a DM because I don't go strictly into tactics once combat begins. My players and I do like cinematic Roleplaying and often do sub-optimal actions if it suits PC / NPC / monster motivations. Our combats are almost always rollicking good times with lots of laughing and "oh noooo" moments. We like it serious with a healthy dose of ridiculous.
My groups' play styles are very close to that of Critical Role on YouTube. A rule is rarely discussed for more than 5-10 seconds before we say "good enough" and move on, then check it later. We have a bloody good time and that's what matters. :)
Again - I see zero indication of player frustration in my games, so you may be making assumptions that aren't actually in existence around our game table.