And normally I'd be okay with it. But even in the video on the subject that you posted by Basics4Gamers, the option is left open for those with a higher initiative being caught off guard by those attempting an attack that they had no information on.
If that is true for an unobserved Goblin in that instance, why wouldn't it be true for a sudden attack from the Barbarian?
Again, this applies to circumstances where everyone is aware of each other already. Negotiations that sort of thing.
Say you encounter a group of merchants on the road with a thrown wagon wheel. You approach and try to see if they need assistance. They break and attack. How do you resolve this sort of trap? If it had been a Hazard, the effects would lead and happen prior to initiative.
Why does that change when people or monsters are involved?
You can argue that the old surprise round doesn't exist anymore. And I agree that it doesn't. That doesn't mean that there should be no benefit to surprising your opponent.
An Ambush is an Ambush regardless of if it is handled in a surprise round, or if "combat" merely begins at the initiating persons turn in Initiative.
Leave reacting to a situation that develops to the actions that are designed to do so: Reactions.
RAW combat begins when the barbarian decides to attack, and everyone rolls initiative. But run it however you want.Sure. But what information does anybody but the Barbarian use to decide what actions to take?
Reading the enemy and any upcomming attacks is one of many skills you pick up you need to learn when doing martial arts, e.g. boxing. It therefore makes perfect sense to roll for initiative if both parties are actively looking for an enemy attack. The kings personal guards are not there for ceremonial purpose only. If anybody makes a suspicious move or reaches for his weapon they will try to interfere to the best of their ability.
However I only find this valid if both sides are roughly equal in terms of battle awareness and initial combat readiness.
So yes, in a duel in between two gunfighters rolling initiative to determine who goes first makes total sense. On the contrary I would not just roll for initiative if one of the gunfighters already has his pistol drawn, cocked and aimed and the other has not even removed his holsters safety clip yet.
And I have no problem with those guards using reactions to do so. I take issue with allowing them their full turns before the inciting action even begins.
You can't hold a player to their "intent" until they put words to action and commit their resources. Unless you are saying that declaring, "I'm going to attack the big bad." before their turn as being a binding statement. Which is absurd given that the situation could have greatly changed by then.
So unless you want to give the benefit of a Critical Success on Sense Motive to every "trained" fighter in the game when it comes to determining if someone is going to do something hostile, then those guards wouldn't have the warning necessary to step in on their initiative steps. The game abstraction that is turns and rounds doesn't allow for it.
You can't in good faith react to information your character does not have. If a door is opened after your turn revealing an enemy you "could" have attacked, then you don't get to go back and make an attack at that enemy. Not without readying an action to do so.
Why treat the Barbarian's sudden attack any different?
And I have no problem with those guards using reactions to do so. I take issue with allowing them their full turns before the inciting action even begins.
You can't hold a player to their "intent" until they put words to action and commit their resources. Unless you are saying that declaring, "I'm going to attack the big bad." before their turn as being a binding statement. Which is absurd given that the situation could have greatly changed by then.
So unless you want to give the benefit of a Critical Success on Sense Motive to every "trained" fighter in the game when it comes to determining if someone is going to do something hostile, then those guards wouldn't have the warning necessary to step in on their initiative steps. The game abstraction that is turns and rounds doesn't allow for it.
You can't in good faith react to information your character does not have. If a door is opened after your turn revealing an enemy you "could" have attacked, then you don't get to go back and make an attack at that enemy. Not without readying an action to do so.
Why treat the Barbarian's sudden attack any different?
Part of being an abstraction is that you can't use it to simulate reality and it won't always be the same thing in application of the fiction. Rolling low on a stealth check can mean a lot of different things in the fiction based on context, for example, ranging from a twig snapping to someone turning their head at the wrong moment. It still comes down to stealth vs perception DC. Treat Wounds is going to vary a lot based on what kind of wounds you are treating, but it still has the same DCs and mechanics.
Initiative is similarly varied. The fact that turn order works one way or the first round when initiative is rolled and another once the battle is joined doesn't really matter, because that is just how the rules work. We need to model our fiction to fit those rules. I think part of why we got skills to initiative was to encourage flexibility in how we begin encounters.
A barbarian can potentially get cut down mid-action on the first round of combat in the opening moments of combat, in a way they can't once the battle is joined. Turns work different ways some times than others. This is fine to most of us. You're not, and find it breaks your immersion, which is also fine.
Now the CRB does authorize you to do social encounters in initiative if you prefer, which seems to let you avoid this issue. That's great. For the rest of us, it doesn't seem worth it because we are ok with turns being less concrete.
I am simply defending my interpretation of the rules as it were. I have no problem with those that are fine with running initiative how they see fit.
I like to keep things as grounded in reality as the rules allow, with fantastical elements being relegated to feats and magic. To me, if I am being attacked suddenly, at best I will be able to react with the equivalent of a reaction in PF1. But then again I have worked jobs where combat was a possibility and attacking first was forbidden. Much prefer my current job anyway.
But I digress, I never intended to say that any person on here was wrong per se. Only that I disagree with their interpretations.
Whether you are being attacked by a rogue in the night, or struck by an angry barbarian while holding a conversation, to me the result is largely the same. The initiator initiates and every one else reacts. Action beats reaction.
That is not to say that Reactions can't happen, or you can't be prepared to fight back, like these theoretical Kings' Guards. But you won't have an entire turns worth of actions to do so.
The more I read this thread, the more I wonder if the issue is not actually about GMing style and about the difference between GM-knowledge and NPC-knowledge.
When encounter mode is initiated from exploration mode by the barbarian player saying "I charge the boss", the player reveals information to the GM about his plans. Once we are in initiative order, how the GM-run NPCs at the top of the initiative order act on this GM knowledge is very much a matter of GMing style. Many people here on this thread believe in this case the NPCs are able to tell the barbarian's plans by him "telegraphing" his intentions somehow. And thus can use their turns to prevent him doing that, even by killing him.
Others, most notably beowulf99 and myself, adhere to a different style: we don't think that "telegraphing your intent" is a thing at the start of combat anymore than in the second or third round of combat: your decision what to do is made and declared when its your turn in the initiative order and creatures going before you cannot predict what you are going to do, while creatures after you in order can only react (not the game term) to what you did. Thus, since there is no reason why the first round of combat should be any different from the later ones, we believe that GM-run NPCs should not be able to profit from the GM-knowledge that the player is going to charge when it's his turn.
In my opinion, at best I'd grant very perceptive NPCs the ability to get a tingling sensation that "something's about to happen" and have them ready actions. But they would not be able to profit from the GM-knowledge that a charge is about to happen.
To me that's kind of similar to requiring knowledge checks to have the PCs know certain things about the enemy, even if the players themselves already know. The same standards should apply to the GM's knowledge.
Let me provide another example:
The Party is in a throne roome, negotiating with the evil king. There are a bunch of guards in front of the king, while the manipulative evil queen is watching from her chair off to the side.
A) the barbarian player initiates combat by announcing "I'm going to charge the king".
or
B) the rogue player initiates combat by announcing "I'm going to quick draw my crossbow and fire at the queen."
In both cases, the initiative order is the same, with several guards going first, their primary intention being to protect and save the royal couple. In both cases, both the barabrian and the rogue are going to do the same thing and attack their respective targets when it's their turn. But in case A the GM knows only about the barbarians attack at that point, while in case B the GM only knows the rogue's intentions. Are you going to have the guards react differently if the "announcer" was a different character?
Edit: Or maybe have only one guard go first, then rogue and barbarian. Who's he going to go for in both cases, respectively?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, sure. My point is there's no real wrong answer here. There's the one I'd expect used in PFS, and one for people who don't care for it.
And my counter argument is simple: Initiative is an abstraction of who is the most passively observant or prepared. That is not what is up for debate.
I fully endorse and support the use of Initiative as the sole arbiter of who goes first in a typical encounter situation. Where both parties are reacting simultaneously to the others presence.
But what is up for debate is an atypical situation. Where both sides are aware of each other, but not actively in combat. Where everyone on both sides spend turns speaking instead of attacking. In this instance, whoever decides to use their turn offensively seizes the initiative.
They still have to contend with a "massive reaction pile-up" in some situations, but then the life of an adventurer is fraught with danger isn't it?
And I will note that reactions aren't exactly difficult to resolve. You have a trigger, then you have an effect. Seems much simpler than explaining why multiple Guards were able to deduce what the Barbarian was going to do then slew him where he stood before he even made a step, much less drew his axe.
To player meta-gaming, that depends. I would completely allow it as long as the players planned to do so ahead of time. If they did not, then no delaying your action. After all, your character is busy handling the negotiations, aren't they? I would allow them to ready actions so long as the readied action makes sense in context.
"Gaming the system" only happens to GM's who aren't prepared for it. If you allow meta-gaming of that magnitude, then that is your fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we do. I agree to disagree. :)
Action beats reaction.
Tell that to my readied action!
:pIt really looks like this debate is endless. Some defend the rule side, that being the initiator shouldn't give you an advantage otherwise players will fight to initiate. On the other hand, some defend the fact that the initiating action has to be made for the situation to be consistant.
Is it possible to find a house rule to get both these effects?
One possible example:
When the barbarian charges, the action is resolved. But then, everyone rolls initiative and plays in initiative order. When the barbarian turn comes, he doesn't play a full turn, he plays a turn minus his charge action (so only one action and MAP at -5). So, charging would not be much of an advantage to the barbarian, but at least we don't have this stupid situation of people playing when the charge hasn't been resolved.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole issue is that some of us believe that a player saying "I want to charge attack him" is really saying "I'm interested in starting hostilities" and in character that can be displayed many ways, without actually taking any actions (in the mechanical sense). The character can yell, pound his fist on the table, start to draw a weapon, etc. Exactly what is done is left to the GM and the table to describe.
But what happens mechanically is that you roll init and resolve actions based on that.
Some people believe that there is no possibility to have these non-mechanical actions be available for observation to other entities and that only the discrete mechanical combat options available should have any relevance.
Which is a lot of words to say that until the barbarian takes the Sudden Charge action he's done nothing that would indicate that he is going to attack (never mind that he doesn't have his weapon in hand during negotiations and probably can't draw it as a free action).
To which my counter argument is, if you want the barbarian to deceive the enemy about his intent to attack, you call for init and the barbarian rolls deception vs the enemy's perception, and if he beats them they didn't catch onto the tell tell signs of the attack.
In the barbarian/balor example, I'd let the barbarian change his declared course of actions, but not to cancel the fight. It would be obvious to all that he intended hostile action.
He could change targets, course, actions, or even try to de-escalate (as Malk stated) with some seriously hard checks, but he could not cancel the fight like it never happened. That would be meta gaming. Kind of like walking down a hallway, springing a trap, then saying you actually are going down the other hallway. Unless the fault lay with me (such as if I misheard/misunderstood your intent, you're not taking anything back.
"Seriously guys, it was just a joke. No need to bring a baler into it. Hehe."
|
The simpler solution is just for one party to ask, "Can we roll for initiative?"
Remembering that initiative does -NOT- mean combat is taking place. Just that timing is important.
Then people take their turns, doing whatever they would be doing, properly, with no foreknowledge on either side of what will happen when.
And remember that people are not 'delaying' generally... they are talking, or actually 'passing' their turns.
Even guards aren't going to be 'readied' in the game sense of readying actions. They will be alert, etc... but that's all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And also wasting half the players' time.
|
|
Which then gets us back to the meta game of we wait until the most advantageous players initiative is up and have him attack, so everyone who rolled higher actually loses their turn. Now the GM can do this too (but that would probably be considered a d*ck move) so we've not really gained anything apart from devaluing the entire point of the initiative roll.The simpler solution is just for one party to ask, "Can we roll for initiative?"
Remembering that initiative does -NOT- mean combat is taking place. Just that timing is important.
Then people take their turns, doing whatever they would be doing, properly, with no foreknowledge on either side of what will happen when.
And remember that people are not 'delaying' generally... they are talking, or actually 'passing' their turns.
Even guards aren't going to be 'readied' in the game sense of readying actions. They will be alert, etc... but that's all.
That is a problem with players metagaming, not a problem with how it works out. If your players metagame that much, work with them to stop it.
|
|
I have, by using the rules as written.That is a problem with players metagaming, not a problem with how it works out. If your players metagame that much, work with them to stop it.Which then gets us back to the meta game of we wait until the most advantageous players initiative is up and have him attack, so everyone who rolled higher actually loses their turn. Now the GM can do this too (but that would probably be considered a d*ck move) so we've not really gained anything apart from devaluing the entire point of the initiative roll.The simpler solution is just for one party to ask, "Can we roll for initiative?"
Remembering that initiative does -NOT- mean combat is taking place. Just that timing is important.
Then people take their turns, doing whatever they would be doing, properly, with no foreknowledge on either side of what will happen when.
And remember that people are not 'delaying' generally... they are talking, or actually 'passing' their turns.
Even guards aren't going to be 'readied' in the game sense of readying actions. They will be alert, etc... but that's all.
You commented "The barbarian can untense and try to de-escalate but combat has begun."
Which means, you are -not- using the rules as written. Combat was not begun by the barbarian. In the above examples of the barbarian, when the king's guards beat him in initiative and attack, THEY, not him, are the aggressors. By RAW, the party has done absolutely nothing wrong until they actually get to act.
Is doing it your way wrong? Right or wrong isn't really the issue here. But it's not using the rules as written. The rules have flaws and gaps. Which is why forums like this exist, where people discuss suggestions of what to do in those gaps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 498 states to roll initiative "when a creature on one side decides to take action against the other." So the barbarian player declaring hostile intent is by RAW when you roll initiative. That the barbarian regretted after the fact doesn't change anything.
Now it does lead to some grey area if someone was trying to prove who the aggressor was (such as maybe a legal proceeding after?) but that isn't really a downside of the rules. We see many such cases in real life, especially with things like law enforcement, where shooting first can be justified in the expectation of dangerous escalation from the other party.
You are absolutely correct in your quote... however, you are incorrect in your assumption of initiative meaning that combat has broken out.
Again, initiative doesn't mean combat. And action can mean skill action, such as Society. (Which is actually listed as an example of an action that might be taken under initiative during social encounters.)
The fact is, if you, as GM (or you, as player) are having the character you are controlling act based on OOC information, then you are (generally) cheating. Yes, GMs can cheat.
*note - I say generally because between magic, legendary skills, unique monsters, etc, sometimes the GM is forced to alter the rules to make things works. This isn't what I am referring to here.
As a side note, to the above...
A lot of people feel that the GM has final say in everything, but that's almost never been the case in any of the long term groups I have gamed with. A game may be a 6 players and a GM, but that also means that it's 7 -people- who come together to have fun together. In almost every campaign I have played in, or ran, many of which were hundreds of sessions, the players total contribution and work put into the game and overall story is considerably more than the GMs. By this I mean between backstories, stuff written about what happens during downtime, etc.
For us, it's a 'GM makes the immediate call' to keep the game rolling, but then the entire group talk about it later, with everyone's input mattering. And yes, if it doesn't violate the 'core principles' of the campaign, the decision can go against the GM. Which is fine. Because it doesn't matter. They are just niche little rules decisions. What matters is that everyone has fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative encapsulates everything that has to do with imminent hostilities. All of the narrative threads, all of the potential skill checks, all of the questions of hostile intent or subtlety or misunderstanding on the in-game characters' parts: it's all rolled up into an initiative check. Initiative is the rule that determines what happens when someone in real life, at the table, decides they're going to start hostilities in the game.
It used to be a single, vague score, but now P2e allows the DM to change what the operative skill is based on circumstances in order to give things relative advantages or disadvantages. It doesn't matter that it isn't called "Initiative" now, though; you still start combat the same way!
(1) Does a player or the DM want to initiate hostilities? If yes, then (2) roll initiative.
That's it. That's the rule. That's always been the rule. You don't have to go into the minutiae of who decides to act first or notices things first before you roll initiative, because that's what initiative establishes. Somehow treating characters as if they're standing stock still until they take an action in combat is a failure of imagination, not of the rules.
Noticing someone start to tense up or make a move for their axe during negotiations is a Perception initiative check. Realizing someone standing behind you is lying and going to immediately stab you in the back might be a Sense Motive initiative check against a Deception initiative check, not Sense Motive --the skill-- vs. Deception --the skill--. That time is passed, because the stabber has decided now is the time to stab, i.e. combat. You could alternatively let the person use Perception against Stealth for initiative, if you want to flavor it as seeing a shadow on the ground raising a knife or whatever.
The DM can give bonuses or penalties if they want to make something more or less surprising, or provide less ideal alternatives. But it's all there. It's all initiative.
Initiative encapsulates everything that has to do with imminent hostilities. All of the narrative threads, all of the potential skill checks, all of the questions of hostile intent or subtlety or misunderstanding on the in-game characters' parts: it's all rolled up into an initiative check. Initiative is the rule that determines what happens when someone in real life, at the table, decides they're going to start hostilities in the game. Etc...
That is a beautiful, well thought out and very long description of your interpretation of what Initiative is.
Mine is just different. RAW allows for both interpretations: if it didn't, you would be able to find a rule in the book that said something to the effect of, "A character who's initiative check beats another is able to tell what another character is doing that round, regardless of what has occurred in the round up to that point, since rounds are simultaneous."
But you know what you won't find? anything to that effect. I will still never tell anyone they are incorrect in how they wish to run initiative. I will simply reiterate that I don't see initiative as anything but a way of ordering turns.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have become genuinely frustrated enough from the discussion that ad hominens are really the first things coming to mind, so I'm going to step out after this.
I feel that the only correct way is to roll init when anyone wants to start hostilities and the highest init gets to go first, simple as that. I don't think you need separate rules for telegraphing intent,I believe that's clearly encapsulate in the concept of rolling for init, though not explicitly stated.
When I first read the combat rules of PF2E I was very surprised *pun pun* that they had removed the concept of the surprise round, simply because just acting faster at the start of combat does not count as a "surprise", at least not in my book (and apparently this is true for many others here).
I think the decision may have to do with the systems thight math as without a surprise round you may act first, but as long as the enemy has not been taken out by your actions he has a chance to act too. With a surprise round in place you will be able to act once before your enemy does and may be able to act twice if you win initiative before he can respond. Without surprise round it is not guaranteed that you will be able to act even once before your enemy.
There are good points for either side but the rules as written are clearly in favor of the "no surprise" camp and will be the way initiative will probably be enforced in organised play.
Nonetheless don't forget that we are still playing a roleplaying game, not chess or any other wargame. So personally as a GM in any homebrew campaign or adventure path I would apply the golden rule of roleplaying (aka never let the rules ruin an otherwise good story or scene) and appy some common sense on a case by case basis to determine if a player can do something out of the ordinary.
So if the scene is right and everybody in the group is "wow, this really is a surprise" then I would roll with it and probably grant some extra action(s). If however the tone of the setting is rather tense already, e.g. negotiating an armistice in no-mans-land in between two opposing armies, I would simply use the normal rules as the opposition will be on their guard too.