This should work, assuming that you beat all the relevant DCs involved.
Not only would you have to beat the initial 30+ DC check. But every enemy would get a free sense motive check against every single party member that knows what you're trying to do.
If anyone in your group instead plans to use the parley to gain a combat advantage, the opponents can attempt a Sense Motive check against each such member of your group to get a hunch, with a DC equal to either 20 or the result of that character’s Bluff check, whichever is higher.
If both groups are sufficiently large, it's very likely one of your enemies will catch on to what's happening.
as for the title of your post. I think the answer in both cases is no. Thanks to what's described under the special section of call truce.
If the parley would inherently result in the opponents surrendering or losing, if the opponents are mind-controlled or fanatics, or if there are other appropriate circumstances at the GM’s discretion, you might not be able to use this feat. For instance, if the opponents’ main advantage over your group comes from a short-duration spell that would end during a parley (see Calling for a Cease-Fire), you cannot use this feat.
If the enemy is trying to run away, they are doing so because they believe if they stay they will lose, so the 1st bolded clause would apply. If the opponent is casting a spell they would probably only stop if they could do so without losing the spell. If the spell or it's effects would be negated by a 1 minute pause in combat then the 2nd bolded clause would apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I think you need to understand how 'Call Truce' works.
Step 1: You call truce
Step 2: You allies go, if they attack or are hostile your call truce will fail.
Step 3: Your enemies go. They can do whatever they want, including beating you up.
(Steps 2 and 3 are intermingled)
Step 4: On the beginning of your next turn, Make a diplomacy roll. Combat ceases for 1 minute if you succeed. If anything hostile happens to the opponents (including antagonizing them possibly), combat will resume. Interestingly, there is no such clause for the 'call truce team' so technically the opponents could threaten your party all they wanted and if they could figure out some way to attack you without starting combat they could do that as well and combat would remain 'ceased.'
Along those lines antagonize simply won't work if it isn't considered a threatening action (this is unclear, is saying 'You're mother wears combat boots' threatening?) then the Call Truce opponents are prevented from attacking by Call the Truce. Call Truce would prevent Antagonize, ending the Antagonize effect. If Antagonize is a threatening action, then using antagonize will end the Call the Truce event.
It isn't clear exactly what is supposed to happen as far as initiative would go when the call the truce effect ends (either from time or from actions) but I would suspect it would either resume at the beginning of your turn where it left off or resume with a whole new set of initiatives without a chance of surprise for either side.
Note: I consider Call Truce a horrible feat, both because it should never have existed (characters can call for truces without having a special feat) and the mechanics are bad (DC doesn't account for HD, just CHR of opponents) along with the confusion over what can and can't be done during 'ceased' combat.
In theory the party that called truce can attack the opponents, since that is one thing that can end the effect but how they are supposed to do that if combat is 'ceased' is unclear. And if they can 'uncease' combat at will, then why can't the opponents? All the feat says is combat is ceased, not that the opponents are prevented from doing anything they want otherwise, and if combat being 'ceased' doesn't prevent attacks being made by the call truce team, then how does it prevent attacks being made by the opponents team?
Anyway, there are very few Paizo feats I would absolutely ban for any and all games, but this is one of them.