Order of actions in combat, > can a player or NPC react / talk out of inititive order?

[larsenex]

Greetings.

The rules are not clear on this and my game has an issue with what you can do out of turn.

Here is the example > Players initiative, he rolls to intimidate an NPC in combat. He declares he wants to know what happens next. I say, you have to wait until that NPC's turn in initiative to find out.

At this point the game devolved into arguing stating that the NPC or anyone can talk freely/surrender out of turn.

Now the rules are not entirely clear. It says if a player can act they can always say a few words here. My end of the argument is the word act, meaning you only get to act on your turn yet the players are stating they can act anytime.

This one trivial thing has upset me so much I am about to stop gaming over it. It allows for folks to cross talk and meta game while in combat when its not their turn.

What is the official stance on something like this? Does the NPC give up while its still the players turn or does the player have to wait until its the NPC's turn to act?

[Kasoh]

I don't believe there is an official answer to this question.

In your example, presuming that the PC is attempting something besides the demoralize action of Intimidate (because if they were, you could resolve the action by saying if they pass or fail and that they NPC is frightened 1 or whatever for X long)

So, the GM has to decide if the NPC would surrender based on their circumstance. If yes, there's no reason why the NPC wouldn't use their free action to surrender and you could leave initiative and handle it via roleplay.

If the NPC is not willing to surrender, even if intimidated, then the action has no effect and you can narrate that the NPC seems unmoved by the PC's threats.

I prefer actions to have discrete resolutions before moving onto the next thing so as to limit the amount of stuff to keep track of. You can't always, but as often as possible.

Ultimately it comes down you as the GM and if you want to draw it out. In calls to surrender, if there are multiple PC turns before the NPC, I'll let the initiative resolve to see if any of the other PCs will break the pseudo peace of a surrender offer by attacking.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

larsenex wrote:

Now the rules are not entirely clear. It says if a player can act they can always say a few words here. My end of the argument is the word act, meaning you only get to act on your turn yet the players are stating they can act anytime.

You only get actions on your turn; that's different from "you can only act on your turn" because you are still capable of exercising reactions. Basically "if you can act" means "if you are not paralyzed, petrified, or dead."

So yes, characters can talk a little out of turn (the rules say usually only a short sentence per round). That doesn't compel them to do so. The person running the character (that's the GM, for NPCs) has every right to wait until its turn to talk.

That said, if you feel the NPC's morale has broken or whatever, and especially if there are no other foes still up, consider taking the opportunity to shift into a social encounter. (I'm assuming there that if the NPC surrenders the PCs will respect that. If somebody is likely to shoot them anyway, you pretty much have to stay in combat until they're done.)

Also, while the GM is very strongly encouraged to get opinions on rules questions from the players and take them into account, the GM still has the final say according to the rules. So (if that were to happen again) after a few minutes of argument, tell them "we're going to play it without out-of-turn speech for now, and before the next session I'll/we'll pore over the rulebooks and figure it out for the long term."

[Ched Greyfell]

I let people say short phrases out of turn. Not give a soliloquy or anything.
But I do have to constantly remind them that their characters don't have telepathy with each other. So constantly hollering to the other players what they should do also alerts the bad guys. Not a big deal if it's an owlbear. But if, on the rogue's turn, the fighter starts saying, "No, don't step there. Go around behind him so we can block off his escape," the orc warlord is probably going to change his tactics accordingly.

[Ravingdork]

It's less a matter of rules and more a matter of play style.

Here are the relevant rules anyways:

Speaking
As long as you can act, you can also speak. You don’t need to spend any type of action to speak, but because a round represents 6 seconds of time, you can usually speak at most a single sentence or so per round. Special uses of speech, such as attempting a Deception skill check to Lie, require spending actions and follow their own rules. All speech has the auditory trait. If you communicate in some way other than speech, other rules might apply. For instance, using sign language is visual instead of auditory.

My advice? Go with whatever is expedient and fun for everyone.

In our games, that's demanding surrender (a non-action) and the foes responding (even if only in body language) as a non-action out of turn. If the all participants (PCs and NPXs both) are good with the surrender, initiative ends,otherwise it continues.

[Ubertron_X]

Some things need to happen out of initiative to make sense, respectively need to be described out of initiative to make sense.

"I crit him for 100 damage, is he dead?"
"You need to wait until his turn to find out!"

When faced with a situation as described above I would expect any GM to at least give the player an indication of what his character perceives as most likely going to happen.

"Clearly shaken by your words he seems ready to drop his weapons."
"Despite your warning he seems determined to fight to the bitter end."
"You can't really tell if your words had any effect at all and will need to find out the hard way (e.g. by giving him a chance to either continue fighting or surrender when it is his own turn)."

Obviously this information / impression might not always be 100% accurate, for example especially insidious enemies might very well fake their surrender just to surprise attack when it is finally their turn, however it is very important that each player can act on what their character is perceiving as a result of their actions.

[larsenex]

This thread and the answers posted are very helpful. I will change my position on this issue and rule in favor of 'talking out of turn'.

Thanks again Paizo Posters!