Mostly agree, but better not to single out any particular player for their wacky play methods, whether they think they're RAW or RAI or otherwise. It's way too easy for any of us to be hoist by that petard, and it fosters an unnecessarily combative tone for the board. In an individual thread context, sure, RAW doesn't support that interpretation. Dragging that result into the next thread seems gauche and, intentionally or not, carries undercurrents of "oh look, there's so-and-so trolling/stupiding/badwrongfunning again."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no readied actions outside of combat. If you say "I want to attack him" then the GM calls for initiative to see if you get your attack off first. Players don't make the call for when combat starts, the GM does. "I said it first" does not mean you get a free action before combat starts. That's a surprise round, and you only get that if your enemy is unaware of your presence.
Anyone who is releasing prisoners of mine is a hostile threat.
There are no readied actions outside of combat. If you say "I want to attack him" then the GM calls for initiative to see if you get your attack off first. Players don't make the call for when combat starts, the GM does. "I said it first" does not mean you get a free action before combat starts. That's a surprise round, and you only get that if your enemy is unaware of your presence.
Very much agreed.
Casting a spell and swinging a sword are much the same as far as combat goes. If you're standing next to a Barbarian who is aware of you, you don't get to draw your sword and attack with a surprise round (let's assume you have Quick Draw). You declare your action to draw your weapon and attack, and that starts combat. Everyone rolls initiative. If the Barbarian comes up first in the initiative order, that just means "You went for your weapon, and he reacted faster than you."
The same rules apply to casting spells. You're in a verbal confrontation with an angry Barbarian. You start trying to cast a spell. This act is conceptually the same as drawing your sword and attacking. You don't get a surprise round. Battle starts and you act in initiative order. If the Barbarian acts before you, then "You started casting a spell, and he reacted faster than you."
You don't get a free sucker punch just because you say, "I hit you," before the GM said, "I hit you." This works both ways. The Barbarian doesn't get a surprise round if the GM says, "He hits you," before you said "I hit him." The Barbarian is starting hostilities. You roll initiative, and act in initiative order, because you were aware of him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thank everyone for these follow-up comments. I think regardless of what the rules actually allow for, I have an issue with the idea of "I said I acted first, so I get a surprise round." The issue for me is that if I allow my games to work that way, then it encourages players to rush toward saying "I attack first" so that they can always get a surprise round.
In other words, even if what Lady-J suggests is by the rules I still would hesitate to implement it, as it encourages the players to be murder-hobos even more than Pathfinder already is. If you get a material advantage from declaring hostilities first, then everyone will always declare hostilities, and much of the role-play will disappear into a bloodbath.
Because of that, my decision about how to handle this is easy: I think by the rules I shouldn't do that, but even if I'm wrong, there are these other reasons to avoid running the game that way. So I'm going to stick with the idea that surprise rounds come from ambushes. If a group of characters/monsters are all in view and hostilities break out among them, there is no surprise round even if someone kicks it off with a first action. It's just "roll for initiative" and follow that.
I will concede that I could totally see having players who are early in initiative having to role-play not knowing what is going on, and doing generic things with their turn, such as "I delay." You know, at least until the character that initiated combat comes up. But that honestly seems more like verisimilitude that the players would role-play. I'm not sure it's enforceable.
Thanks again, everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thank everyone for these follow-up comments. I think regardless of what the rules actually allow for, I have an issue with the idea of "I said I acted first, so I get a surprise round." The issue for me is that if I allow my games to work that way, then it encourages players to rush toward saying "I attack first" so that they can always get a surprise round.
I think you are spot on with your analysis. This is the point of rolling initiative for characters and having the ability to boost their initiative with traits and feats. If you want your character to go first, invest in it and you'll be more likely to do so. Barring specific circumstances, it's not about first declaration.
I would have rule it the same as you my good OP, but... There's one point no one has mentioned yet (that or I am blind as a mole).
Sometimes is hard to tell when 'combat' has already started, even when no clear hostilities are declared. You could have made the bard roll a passive Perception check to hear the Barbarian coming, or let the other player shout "He is coming guys!". Then let the bard ready a Charm Person the very moment the barbarian opens that door. All of it legal under combat rules.
This is by no means a "you did it wrong" post, because ye gods knows that I would have done it worst than you at that moment.
I would also like to point out that, as others have said, combat really starts when you decide to. This means that whatever you decide, if it is reasonable, you do it right. There's nothing wrong to rule it like Lady-J, because I also do it from time to time.
It leaves a good anecdote when the party opens the last door and the barbarian interrupts the "big bad guy speech" charging forward screaming "YOUR ASS IS MINEEE!"
|
I agree that the rules state that when an aggressive action is declared, combat begins. Many people state this is to prevent PCs from declaring "I ATTACK FIRST". However, I would like to point out that the rules in fact encourage the opposite - trying to avoid saying anything the DM can ever interpret as mildly aggressive in intent. It ends up playing a game of Schrodinger initiative.
I was in a game where we were going up against an Alarune. We did not know what she was at the time, it was disguised as a Person of Authority, but we knew she was fake. I know after the fact, from reading the module, that the Alarune wanted to sucker us in as close as possible, to get us with her calming spores. We were all riding the Giant Dino Wildshaped Druid in our party. The Druid player explained to our GM that the goal was to walk close, and then charge the fake POA. Because he expressed his intent to attack at some point, and despite that his attack vector was to do exactly what the NPC wanted, while 150 ft away when neither side wanted to initiate combat...we rolled initiative.
Schrodenger's initiative is where a person who has not initiated combat and is not disposed to make the first strike gets initiative. I encounter it often with my Lawful types - I have not yet seen clear need to fight, and because the actual triggering action hasn't in theory occurred yet, I have no idea what to do with my initiative round. I know, from the init roll, that the guy is actually a bandit that will attack me on his turn, but acting on it would be metagaming. It sucks. It never seems to be a problem for the opposition however. Ive had my injured monk about to jump into a pool of freezing water drinking a mage armor potion initiate combat, no bluff check that i was drinking another potion, they monsters *Knew* that i was in fact buffing myself for a fight, not drinking the endure elements before jumping in the lake.
I am not wishing to argue house rules, I recognize the RAW. My question to this thread would be how others reconcile Schrodinger's Initiative in their own game.
I agree that the rules state that when an aggressive action is declared, combat begins.
Do they, though? I know that the rules state that when combat begins, the players roll initiative. I have yet to see a definition for "combat begins", though, and there's room for reasonable disagreement about the plain English meaning of the phrase.