If the PCs stack up on a door, hear the enemy on the other side, are unnoticed by said enemy, and one of the players decides to pre-emptively cast a spell with a verbal component that the enemy can hear, what happens?
In a recent game I had everyone roll initiative, with the caster casting their spell on their turn. However, they didn't get to go first, and it ruffled some feathers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's reasonable.
It can feel weird, but if you let the caster go first you're effectively just letting whoever announces they're taking an action win initiative for free, which is real bad.
I know you said it ruffled feathers but would your players be happy if it went the other way and enemies just got to attack them for free outside of initiative because you decided they wanted to attack before the players said anything? I don't think that sort of process works well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is the classic example of Perception versus Stealth in initiative. With the enemies likely penalised (or the players bonused) due to the circumstances. Arbitrarily throwing out a +5 to players' Stealth for 'behind a door', their Stealth (or lack thereof) can tilt which way things play out.
I would have them all roll Initiative. In this case,the enemy would definitely use Perception and the PCs should probably use Stealth, since they are trying to be stealthy.
I would then use the Initiative of the enemy against the PCs Stealth DC, with any penalties that might apply due to door, cover, concealment or what not.
If they do not notice them and act before the PCs, then they would act, but not proactively. That is, if they were walking for the door, or what not, that's what they do. If they are not in a hurry, they might only make one action moves as they talk and joke about. They'd be flat footed too.
Of course, if the enemy does notice them, then they can do what they want if they go before the PCs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All combat turns happen simultaneously, initiative just shows who reacts first.
With a good perception roll, someone could hear the spell starting to be cast, or maybe some other telltale sound, and jump into action before the spell is finished (about 4 seconds in most cases). Someone who's bad at perception wouldn't hear the spellcasting early enough to react and can end up right in the middle of the fireball.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the CRB:
Monitoring Spell Durations
Spell durations are approximate values that codify the vagaries and eccentricities of magic into a convenient number. However, that doesn’t mean you can set your watch by a spell with a 1-hour duration. This is one of the reasons the passage of time outside of encounters is in your hands and isn’t as precise as encounter rounds. If a question arises about whether a spell has expired, you make the call. You shouldn’t be punitive, but you also shouldn’t treat characters like they move with clockwork precision and perfect efficiency between encounters.
There are two times these durations matter most: when players try to fit multiple encounters within the duration of a spell, and when they want to use a spell before a fight and keep it in effect during the encounter.
Multiple Encounters
A 1-minute spell should last for multiple encounters only if the encounters happen in very close proximity (usually in two adjoining rooms) and if the PCs go directly from one fight to the next without leaving encounter mode. If they want to stop and heal, or if the party debates whether to go on, the process takes enough time that the spell runs out.
Be more generous with spells lasting 10 minutes or more. A 10-minute spell easily lasts for one encounter and could continue for another if the locations are close. A 1-hour spell usually lasts for several encounters.
Before a Fight
Casting advantageous spells before a fight (sometimes called “pre-buffing”) gives the characters a big advantage, since they can spend more combat rounds on offensive actions instead of preparatory ones. If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative.
Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can’t hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party’s presence. In cases where the PCs’ preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.
So I guess it depends on whether you think casting the spells would give them away, which is the sort of judgement call left entirely up to the GM. Much like how far away an enemy can hear the sound of a combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Cordell said. It takes several seconds to cast a spell. From the moment someone starts casting a spell, until 6 seconds later, a lot can happen. In which order that 'lot' happens, is determined by initiative order, but for the story it happens simultaneously.
While the caster is casting a spell, the paladin or an enemy might burst through the door. If the caster is later in initiative order, they can choose to 'cancel their spell' (without any mechanical game rules) and do something else with their 3 actions, or continue doing what they were doing.
Initiative with Stealth vs Perception seems to be the correct way, and Captain Morgan posted quotes to support that.
Also, it can feel wonky if you're used to it the traditional way, but skill based initiative actually helps blend exploration and combat modes in a realistic way.
If you're allowed to start combat at your leisure, there are a whole lot of assumptions going on about the world that don't quite make sense. Like the enemies are entirely passive, not listening, moving, or getting a bad feeling. The new method is a structured way to allow the GM to interrupt prebuffing/setup without feeling like a jerk.
The major difference is that in PF1 the party might not have to roll a stealth check to get the drop and major advantage, whereas now they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What WaterLeshe said. Getting the drop on someone is now a function of how sneaky you are, usually based on your stealth or deception, rather than just declaring hostility first.
Ambushes can also provide advantages for things like Hunt Target or entering stances which saves precious actions.
Well there are a lot of factors. I think what you did is the most common occurence. There are specific feats that would let players cast spells before the enemies.
For the most part casting spells is impossible to do stealth in most circumstances since they are verbal imo, there is a feat called Silent Spell is a great example. Especially if you are 5 feet from them...
Even then it isn't a sure thing, if players are trying to be stealthy they should be rolling stealth vs perception DC against monsters. Without silent spell though I am pretty sure if you are near a monster and they don't notice any players as soon as you start to cast a spell initiative would start.
In general PF2 tried to prevent surprise rounds where PCs just kill the monsters in 1 round because they got the "advantage" or the other around too where players just cast all the buffs and win an encounter. Once players want to start combat you roll Stealth as their initiative rolls and those go against the enemies perception DC to see if the battle starting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on the spell in question this might be a good opportunity for those alternate skill initiative rolls; if your wizard wants to start combat with an evocative bang you could have him roll Arcana to prove he can get those verbal components out before anyone can react.
Maybe, except stealth is what prevents him from being noticed up to the point where he start casting.
When he starts casting, he's speaking loud enough that it would be conspicuous to anyone who could see him.
So I could see an argument to be made that Arcana might let him get the spell out "before others can react"...but I wouldn't guarantee it either. It feels more like trying to throw wizards a bone that anything, because they'll certainly be better at arcana than perception or stealth (generally speaking).
In my opinion, I have to ask "Why wouldn't this apply every time a wizard enters combat" assuming they want to start off combat with a spell (even a cantrip). And because there's no reason they couldn't start of every combat with a cantrip, it makes me say "No, this is too good, they're basically replacing perception rolls for init".
So I think there's room to justify it...but I need more justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, except stealth is what prevents him from being noticed up to the point where he start casting.
When he starts casting, he's speaking loud enough that it would be conspicuous to anyone who could see him.
So I could see an argument to be made that Arcana might let him get the spell out "before others can react"...but I wouldn't guarantee it either. It feels more like trying to throw wizards a bone that anything, because they'll certainly be better at arcana than perception or stealth (generally speaking).
In my opinion, I have to ask "Why wouldn't this apply every time a wizard enters combat" assuming they want to start off combat with a spell (even a cantrip). And because there's no reason they couldn't start of every combat with a cantrip, it makes me say "No, this is too good, they're basically replacing perception rolls for init".
So I think there's room to justify it...but I need more justification.
I kinda feel like the alternate initiatives being a skill the character is better at is the point? The Rogue who wants to ambush the enemy is going to be better at stealth than perception, the Barbarian who wants to kool-aid man through the wall is going to be better at athletics than perception. The way I've interpreted the rule is a way to reward players for finding thematic ways to engage the enemy.
That being said, "Why wouldn't this apply every time a wizard enters combat" is 100% a valid concern. I think I'd only award it in the case that the wizard is undetected for reasons that I wouldn't make them roll stealth for. Still, I could definitely see that as an argument not to do it at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stealth requires you to be taking the Avoid Notice exploration activity prior to combat to generally get that as "constant alternative" to perception. So that one is kind of an exception to the general rule.
Everything else needs to be justified.
As to why athletics isn't a problem...well there's just a lot less opportunities where athletics makes sense. Sure, if enemies are on the opposite side of a barrier that is thin/weak enough that the barbarian can break through it in a single check, I can be get behind letting them roll athletics to "surprise" the enemies behind. But that ones a lot easier to deny.
Arcana or other "mental" skills I have concerns about because they're often very hard to say a character isn't doing that thing. Should the bard get to roll diplomacy in place of perception for init just because they ask for terms of surrender as a free action on their turn? (Let's ignore feats, cause I think there is actually a feat that does this.)
I do agree that the alternative init skills are meant to be "rewards" to allow players to use their better skills than perception or stealth, but the opportunities where they apply need to be rather limited in my opinion or you approach a point where you've replaced them.
That said, I could definitely see if spell duel rules ever become a thing that arcana (or whatever you casting tradition skill is) would be the determining skill.
Edit: So actually, I guess that is an example where I could agree to arcana in place of perception. Even without spell duel rules, you could have a player challenge another character to a magic duel and use magic skills in place of perception.
But I don't think "I want to cast my fireball quickly" should generally let you use arcana instead of perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stealth requires you to be taking the Avoid Notice exploration activity prior to combat to generally get that as "constant alternative" to perception. So that one is kind of an exception to the general rule.
Everything else needs to be justified.
IMO it's less an exception to the general more and more an establishment of the baseline.
Normally you use perception for initiative, but depending on the circumstances and what you're doing you might use something else... Stealth (via avoid notice) is just the one specific example codified in the rules.
I guess that's fair. I shouldn't call Stealth an exception, it's more one of the two standard ways for initiative but requires you to be taking a specific action during exploration mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, except stealth is what prevents him from being noticed up to the point where he start casting.
When he starts casting, he's speaking loud enough that it would be conspicuous to anyone who could see him.
So I could see an argument to be made that Arcana might let him get the spell out "before others can react"...but I wouldn't guarantee it either. It feels more like trying to throw wizards a bone that anything, because they'll certainly be better at arcana than perception or stealth (generally speaking).
In my opinion, I have to ask "Why wouldn't this apply every time a wizard enters combat" assuming they want to start off combat with a spell (even a cantrip). And because there's no reason they couldn't start of every combat with a cantrip, it makes me say "No, this is too good, they're basically replacing perception rolls for init".
So I think there's room to justify it...but I need more justification.
I think you go too far away. We are speaking of a specific circumstance where the Wizard is unnoticed (because he rolled high enough in Stealth) and will perform an action that will make him noticed. Actually, rolling Stealth is the one that is illogical as you can't cast the spell stealthily. Rolling Arcana would be logical to represent the fact he's casting the spell hastily to surprise his opponents.
Now, the Wizard won't initiate many combats by casting a spell. Either combat fall on him or he initiates combat in a very different position (speaking, infiltrating or whatever). It's only if you are casting a spell while the combat starts that you roll Arcana. And that won't happen often.
So, as a DM, I would allow Arcana in this specific situation. First, it would give the Wizard a high initiative, which is logical to me: The only persons who can act before him are the ones with exceptional reflexes or lucky enough to roll very high. And it also rewards the player for succeeding at his stealth check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion:
Skills-as-initiative is about what you're doing before combat starts, not what you intend to do the moment it starts or even what you intend to do (but haven't yet) *just before it starts*.
I could see Arcana being used in a few situations, like if you're detecting magic and stumble upon a magic enemy that pings. Or if you're starting combat with a super long range spell, and stealth isn't really a factor so much as the distance. Or if you're in a Wizard duel and both of you are standing off readying to cast or dispel while watching the other. Or you're reading a magic inscription that activates the room's defenses when it's read.
It wouldn't be used if you're planning on casting in the first round of combat, any more than a druid could use Nature because they're planning on picking a flower in the first round. Holding an action, waiting for combat to start, is textbook perception initiative.
You also can't say "well, I'll plan on doing a backflip just before combat so I can use acrobatics as initiative, but otherwise I'm just standing there" because you're still waiting to perceive a trigger which is perception, and you can't know when 'just before combat' actually is.
I generally think the GM should be able to understand what players are doing and what skill is appropriate, and it's not up to the players to game that system.
Maybe, except stealth is what prevents him from being noticed up to the point where he start casting.
When he starts casting, he's speaking loud enough that it would be conspicuous to anyone who could see him.
So I could see an argument to be made that Arcana might let him get the spell out "before others can react"...but I wouldn't guarantee it either. It feels more like trying to throw wizards a bone that anything, because they'll certainly be better at arcana than perception or stealth (generally speaking).
In my opinion, I have to ask "Why wouldn't this apply every time a wizard enters combat" assuming they want to start off combat with a spell (even a cantrip). And because there's no reason they couldn't start of every combat with a cantrip, it makes me say "No, this is too good, they're basically replacing perception rolls for init".
So I think there's room to justify it...but I need more justification.
I think you go too far away. We are speaking of a specific circumstance where the Wizard is unnoticed (because he rolled high enough in Stealth) and will perform an action that will make him noticed. Actually, rolling Stealth is the one that is illogical as you can't cast the spell stealthily. Rolling Arcana would be logical to represent the fact he's casting the spell hastily to surprise his opponents.
Now, the Wizard won't initiate many combats by casting a spell. Either combat fall on him or he initiates combat in a very different position (speaking, infiltrating or whatever). It's only if you are casting a spell while the combat starts that you roll Arcana. And that won't happen often.
So, as a DM, I would allow Arcana in this specific situation. First, it would give the Wizard a high initiative, which is logical to me: The only persons who can act before him are the ones with exceptional reflexes or lucky enough to roll very high. And it also rewards the player for succeeding at his stealth check.
Based on your description the wizard should be rolling Stealth. It doesn't matter that the wizard is trying to cast a spell to start combat, the wizard is being stealthy before combat, which is what determines their init roll skill.
As I said before, otherwise using your criteria if the wizard wanted to make their first action in every combat to cast a cantrip and use arcana and it would be justified. But that seems obviously wrong, since that would replace the primary use of perception as init.
I think WatersLethe has the right of, that there are circumstance where you're doing something magical before combat, that causes the combat, and then it makes sense to use arcana. But if you're watching, waiting to react (or hiding) that is clearly perception or stealth.
|
There are plenty of explanations why a caster who wants to cast a spell might lose initiative to an enemy. Now, if they truly are stealthy and the enemy has no idea they are there, then if the enemy "wins" initiative, there is no reason for them to act. They would just continue to do what they were doing before the PCs (who it doesn't know are there) where there. If its a guard, they should get a Perception check since their exploration activity is to be Seeking enemies. Just like when PCs are stomping through the woods, someone who is Seeking might catch a glimpse of the ambush before it happens.
Whatever the initiative of the players turns out to be, everyone before the caster should delay so as to not spoil the surprise. Maybe one of them is going to ready to open the door as the caster completed the spell. If so, probably need to have that character make a stealth check to avoid rattling the handle or bumping into the door thus altering the enemy.
This is all just off-the-cuff. I'm sure I could reason out a lot more circumstances where the PC's ambush is spoiled by their enemy. The important thing is that you are fair. The players should have the same opportunities to sniff out an ambush as the enemies do. If the rules work to allow the PCs to succeed at their ambush most of the time, then it stands to reason that most enemy ambushes would also work. Try to strike a balance and everyone should be okay.
Based on your description the wizard should be rolling Stealth. It doesn't matter that the wizard is trying to cast a spell to start combat, the wizard is being stealthy before combat, which is what determines their init roll skill.
As I said before, otherwise using your criteria if the wizard wanted to make their first action in every combat to cast a cantrip and use arcana and it would be justified. But that seems obviously wrong, since that would replace the primary use of perception as init.
I think WatersLethe has the right of, that there are circumstance where you're doing something magical before combat, that causes the combat, and then it makes sense to use arcana. But if you're watching, waiting to react (or hiding) that is clearly perception or stealth.
I think I understand the reason of our disagreement.
Alternate initiative rolls is total GM fiat. So, you can't tell me I'm wrong in allowing an alternate skill as much as I can't tell you you should use an alternate skill in a specific situation.In this situation, I allow Arcana because the casting of the spell is what initiates combat. Which is very different from the Wizard first action in combat, it's actually the reason of combat. I allow it in this case because I want to reward the player for having succeeded in being unnoticed to the enemies before the combat starts. I also allow it because the character taking the action that actually starts the fight should have higher initiative, so it accounts also for that.
But, yes, I can't tell you that's what you should do. Even if I think it's what you should do, but that's another matter entirely :D
|
|
I would. IMO, casting a spell should not be treated any different than sneaking along, drawing a weapon, etc. Granted verbal components are meant to be announced loudly, but a cautious caster could try to mask those sounds with other ambient sounds, depending what they are. Would I always allow the stealth check? No, but neither would I never allow it. A heavy wood door between me and the enemy plus any ambient sounds from the enemy's side of the door, I could be persuaded to allow a stealth check albeit with a penalty. Perhaps with the hard or very hard adjustment.
When I saw that the enemy got to go first, despite the fact that the caster initiated things, I had him move up to the door, take a Seek action (to confirm he wasn't just hearing things) then use the Point Out action for his allies.
I also like the idea of allowing spellcasting tradition skills for initiative in certain situations as well. It makes sense to me as it's become a race between the enemy's reflexes versus the caster's casting speed.
Does this remind anyone else of the old, old ways of declaring actions first, then rolling initiative for the round? Because it feels a little like that, to me.
Based on your description the wizard should be rolling Stealth. It doesn't matter that the wizard is trying to cast a spell to start combat, the wizard is being stealthy before combat, which is what determines their init roll skill.
As I said before, otherwise using your criteria if the wizard wanted to make their first action in every combat to cast a cantrip and use arcana and it would be justified. But that seems obviously wrong, since that would replace the primary use of perception as init.
I think WatersLethe has the right of, that there are circumstance where you're doing something magical before combat, that causes the combat, and then it makes sense to use arcana. But if you're watching, waiting to react (or hiding) that is clearly perception or stealth.
I think I understand the reason of our disagreement.
Alternate initiative rolls is total GM fiat. So, you can't tell me I'm wrong in allowing an alternate skill as much as I can't tell you you should use an alternate skill in a specific situation.In this situation, I allow Arcana because the casting of the spell is what initiates combat. Which is very different from the Wizard first action in combat, it's actually the reason of combat. I allow it in this case because I want to reward the player for having succeeded in being unnoticed to the enemies before the combat starts. I also allow it because the character taking the action that actually starts the fight should have higher initiative, so it accounts also for that.
But, yes, I can't tell you that's what you should do. Even if I think it's what you should do, but that's another matter entirely :D
Yes, but no. It's true that using alternative skill rolls is up the GM, so there are no strict rules about when it is or isn't appropriate and what conditions it should happen under, except for Stealth when using Avoid Notice.
However, the examples you've provided thus far should be using Stealth in my opinion and you haven't given justification why Arcana would be appropriate when trying to cast a spell quickly, which is something that every caster could be trying to do each time they're entering a fight.
That's the real problem I have, is you have justified why your argument applies in this situation that doesn't extend to all instances of spell casters (who want to start combat with a spell) rolling the appropriate skill of their spell casting tradition.
And your argument of "the spell is what start combat" isn't a good one in my opinion. What about a rogue who is hidden and then goes up to stab an enemy to start combat? Should they make an attack roll for their initiative?
I mean obviously not because it's not a skill, and it would be worse than stealth (probably), which is what they should use, because that's what they're were doing before they decided they wanted to take any obvious aggressive actions.
I think the key thing here is, casting the spell doesn't happen before combat. Casting the spell is the action the player will take on their first turn, when it's their turn. Prior to that though, the player is being stealthy and should use stealth.
I can't stop you from your interpretation, but I don't agree with you train of thought whatsoever.
Also, I don't agree with the idea that the player that wants to start combat is the one that gets to go first. Just because they want to doesn't mean another player character can't act faster or that the enemy can't beat them to it.
Think about Han vs Greedo. Greedo wants to shoot Han, but Han beats him on init and pulls out his blaster and shoots Greedo first.
Edit: Of course Han was using deception vs Greedo's percpetion, but that illustrates the point even more in my opinion.
I would. IMO, casting a spell should not be treated any different than sneaking along, drawing a weapon, etc. Granted verbal components are meant to be announced loudly, but a cautious caster could try to mask those sounds with other ambient sounds, depending what they are. Would I always allow the stealth check? No, but neither would I never allow it. A heavy wood door between me and the enemy plus any ambient sounds from the enemy's side of the door, I could be persuaded to allow a stealth check albeit with a penalty. Perhaps with the hard or very hard adjustment.Except that there are specific feats for casting spells stealthily. So allowing anyone to do it renders those feats worthless. Conceal Spell and Silent Spell.
That's one of the reasons I ran it the way I did. The character in question didn't have Silent Spell and refused the option of distancing herself prior to casting, since she didn't want to give up marching order.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on your...Maybe, except stealth is what prevents him from being noticed up to the point where he start casting.
When he starts casting, he's speaking loud enough that it would be conspicuous to anyone who could see him.
So I could see an argument to be made that Arcana might let him get the spell out "before others can react"...but I wouldn't guarantee it either. It feels more like trying to throw wizards a bone that anything, because they'll certainly be better at arcana than perception or stealth (generally speaking).
In my opinion, I have to ask "Why wouldn't this apply every time a wizard enters combat" assuming they want to start off combat with a spell (even a cantrip). And because there's no reason they couldn't start of every combat with a cantrip, it makes me say "No, this is too good, they're basically replacing perception rolls for init".
So I think there's room to justify it...but I need more justification.
I think you go too far away. We are speaking of a specific circumstance where the Wizard is unnoticed (because he rolled high enough in Stealth) and will perform an action that will make him noticed. Actually, rolling Stealth is the one that is illogical as you can't cast the spell stealthily. Rolling Arcana would be logical to represent the fact he's casting the spell hastily to surprise his opponents.
Now, the Wizard won't initiate many combats by casting a spell. Either combat fall on him or he initiates combat in a very different position (speaking, infiltrating or whatever). It's only if you are casting a spell while the combat starts that you roll Arcana. And that won't happen often.
So, as a DM, I would allow Arcana in this specific situation. First, it would give the Wizard a high initiative, which is logical to me: The only persons who can act before him are the ones with exceptional reflexes or lucky enough to roll very high. And it also rewards the player for succeeding at his stealth check.
Actually, the wizard shouldn't need to roll stealth for initiative, because they already did. The Avoid Notice roll does double duty. And if Avoid Notice was successful that means the wizard rolled high and probably doesn't want to roll again, even with a better skill.
I'd argue that casting a spell non-Silently cancels the Avoid Notice activity.
That was my thinking as well.
Yes, but no. It's true that using alternative skill rolls is up the GM, so there are no strict rules about when it is or isn't appropriate and what conditions it should happen under, except for Stealth when using Avoid Notice.
However, the examples you've provided thus far should be using Stealth in my opinion and you haven't given justification why Arcana would be appropriate when trying to cast a spell quickly, which is something that every caster could be trying to do each time they're entering a fight.
That's the real problem I have, is you have justified why your argument applies in this situation that doesn't extend to all instances of spell casters (who want to start combat with a spell) rolling the appropriate skill of their spell casting tradition.
And your argument of "the spell is what start combat" isn't a good one in my opinion. What about a rogue who is hidden and then goes up to stab an enemy to start combat? Should they make an attack roll for their initiative?
I mean obviously not because it's not a skill, and it would be worse than stealth (probably), which is what they should use, because that's what they're were doing before they decided they wanted to take any obvious aggressive actions.
I think the key thing here is, casting the spell doesn't happen before combat. Casting the spell is the action the player will take on their first turn, when it's their turn. Prior to that though, the player is being stealthy and should use stealth.
I can't stop you from your interpretation, but I don't agree with you train of thought whatsoever.
Also, I don't agree with the idea that the player that wants to start combat is the one that gets to go first. Just because they want to doesn't mean another player character can't act faster or that the enemy can't beat them to it.
Think about Han vs Greedo. Greedo wants to shoot Han, but Han beats him on init and pulls out his blaster and shoots Greedo first.
Edit: Of course Han was using deception vs Greedo's percpetion, but that illustrates the point even more in my opinion.
I don't agree with you on a few things:
- You consider that allowing in this very specific case the Wizard to use Arcana means that he could use Arcana as initiative at every combat. I don't make such a conclusion. This is a very specific case we are describing, where the Wizard will be the initiator of the fight. It's something that never happens unless the party played it well. So it is not supposed to become a problem.- Allowing the Wizard to use Stealth serves no purpose. Actually, it kind of kills everything as the Wizard will roll Perception exactly like if he had opened the door and discovered the enemies on the other side. So I'm not rewarding the party for being stealthy or using advanced scouting technique. In my opinion, I just encourage the Wizard player not to care at all about detecting monsters unnoticed as the fight will start exactly the same way.
- I could allow the Rogue to roll attack for Initiative if it's his first action of the turn. As you said, it would be a bit of a stretch and certainly useless as he should have good Stealth anyway. Of course, the Rogue would have first to roll a Stealth check and succeed against all monsters, otherwise he will just have the choice of Perception for initiative. So I'm not sure he'll love it much.
- I'm not saying that the Wizard has to get first. But I find logical if he starts with a small bonus. But ultimately, anyone can play before him, it's up to the initiative roll.
Actually, the wizard shouldn't need to roll stealth for initiative, because they already did. The Avoid Notice roll does double duty. And if Avoid Notice was successful that means the wizard rolled high and probably doesn't want to roll again, even with a better skill.
Okay yes, that's a good point. You wouldn't roll again, because you've already rolled. But the general point I was making remains, which is the wizard was using stealth up until the point that start casting.
So stealth is what they used for init.
I don't agree with you on a few things:
- You consider that allowing in this very specific case the Wizard to use Arcana means that he could use Arcana as initiative at every combat. I don't make such a conclusion. This is a very specific case we are describing, where the Wizard will be the initiator of the fight. It's something that never happens unless the party played it well. So it is not supposed to become a problem.
- Allowing the Wizard to use Stealth serves no purpose. Actually, it kind of kills everything as the Wizard will roll Perception exactly like if he had opened the door and discovered the enemies on the other side. So I'm not rewarding the party for being stealthy or using advanced scouting technique. In my opinion, I just encourage the Wizard player not to care at all about detecting monsters unnoticed as the fight will start exactly the same way.
- I could allow the Rogue to roll attack for Initiative if it's his first action of the turn. As you said, it would be a bit of a stretch and certainly useless as he should have good Stealth anyway. Of course, the Rogue would have first to roll a Stealth check and succeed against all monsters, otherwise he will just have the choice of Perception for initiative. So I'm not sure he'll love it much.
- I'm not saying that the Wizard has to get first. But I find logical if he starts with a small bonus. But ultimately, anyone can play before him, it's up to the initiative roll.
But the circumstances in which the party successfully avoids notice could potentially happen often. You seem to believe that in any of those instances the wizard should have the option to roll Arcana, instead of using stealth, when the action they're using is Avoid Notice up until they start casting.
They were avoiding notice, that determines what they should roll IMO.
You still haven't provided something to me that justified using arcana when making an attack from stealth. Do you think a fighter should get to substitute his attack roll since he's charging into combat from stealth?
No. That would be silly. He's using stealth for init. Just like the wizard.
Also, it doesn't matter if allowing the wizard to use stealth serves no purpose, the default skills for init are perception and stealth. Certain situations can justify allowing another skill, but attacking from stealth from a spell just isn't one of those in my opinion.
The alternative init skill rules aren't supposed to be "Just roll whatever your best at when you feel like it". And I know you're not suggesting the rules be that lax, but the situations you're suggesting don't justify using Arcana either, IMO.
|
As a player, if we were ambushed by casters and the GM tells us they go first because their Stealth was better than our Perception, I would find this completely logical.
Also we have RAW to back this : "If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results)."
Perception and stealth from avoid notice seem to be how you do initiative when you stumble into unknown enemies. If you get the drop on enemies, say from a distance or shooting down from well above them, or however else might make sense in a case by case basis, then I think allowing skills can be justified.
Throwing a fireball 400 feet onto enemies that haven't spotted you, barbarian charging 100+ feet across a battlefield, ranger tracking their prey through a noisy city or near a waterfall. Arcana, athletics and survival. It shouldn't be easy to get skills for initiative, not something you can rely on, but very situational. Situations where going first might not even help you, and even using a higher bonus doesn't mean you go first, a bad roll and what ever interesting thing you were trying to do suddenly can be less beneficial to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that casting a spell non-Silently cancels the Avoid Notice activity.
Only in the sense that it cancels all Exploration activities and begins Encounter Mode. The spell would be their first action on their turn. That does mean their target wouldn't be flat-footed to it, and I suppose if an enemy won initiative it might make sense for the wizard to not start the combat unnoticed as would be the norm, but the Avoid Notice roll is still used for Stealth. It doesn't become a separate check or Arcana roll. I mean, it can if the GM wants it to, but it is a pretty blatant example of what you should generally not do.
|
|
Except that there are specific feats for casting spells stealthily. So allowing anyone to do it renders those feats worthless. Conceal Spell and Silent Spell.
If I treat those the same, sure, but I don't there is a difference between silent spell making no noise (Steal auto success) and someone attempting a Stealth check with a hard/very hard penalty. The former will almost always succeed. The latter will fail often enough to make taking the feat of value. These rulings don't occur in a bubble.
I say this often—no rule in the game is absolute and these random hypotheticals that spring up online rarely depict the full scope of the situation. They are one-sided perspectives or incomplete reports, etc. that make the responses easy to argue about.
|
|
As a player, if we were ambushed by casters and the GM tells us they go first because their Stealth was better than our Perception, I would find this completely logical.
If you weren't Seeking or similar during exploration, you don't get the Perception check. They just Stealth against your static Perception. Its perfectly reasonable for a unobserved caster to drop a spell on you from ambush, just as its perfectly reasonable for an archer to pop an arrow or two without your awareness. And its just as reasonable to be ambushed by a group of drow rogues in the dark as it is for you to "sniff" them out before they can spring the trap.
You still haven't provided something to me that justified using arcana when making an attack from stealth.
He isn't making an attack from stealth, he is unnoticed, which is pretty different in my opinion.
For example, he could have entered the room with Fly, Silence and Invisibility on, get on top of the enemies wait for Silence to wear off and cast his Fireball. He hasn't made anything that would ask for a Stealth check, why would I ask him a Stealth check?If he is unnoticed, the Stealth check is already a success. The monsters don't know he's here, whatever the reason (it may be stealth, it may be something else). So, the Wizard can start the fight the way he wants.
And that's why I ask for an Arcana check. The Wizard chooses how the fight starts, why would he choose a situation where he is at a disadvantage? Rolling Arcana is acknowledging the fact that the Wizard will make sure that the fight will start by magic and not by stealth.
Do you think a fighter should get to substitute his attack roll since he's charging into combat from stealth?
No, because his first action is Stride. But I would allow an Athletics check to enter the fight so fast that the enemies don't have the time to react.
The alternative init skill rules aren't supposed to be "Just roll whatever your best at when you feel like it". And I know you're not suggesting the rules be that lax, but the situations you're suggesting don't justify using Arcana either, IMO.
I'm not suggesting for the rules to be that lax but ideally I would like that. I find it way more entertaining to encourage players to find intelligent ways of entering a fight, especially when they have the advantage of surprise, than to force them to roll Perception checks. For me, Avoid Notice is not an exception, it's an example.
He's using stealth to be unnoticed.
Even if he's flying, silent, and invisible, he has to make a stealth check or enemies become aware of his presence, even with all that magic. Otherwise the DC to detect him is...I don't know. I don't think they actually establish one. But if you're not using stealth, enemies notice you.
Obviously we're not going to see eye to eye because I threw out the fighter example as something I considered ridiculous and ludicrous and you're saying "Yeah, I'll let him try athletics for it". We're simply no where close to having an agreement or understanding.
The encouragement (IMO) for players finding different ways to enter fights isn't that they get to roll something different for init, but rather that they can set up a situation that is to their advantage. Like the party stealthily approaching a check point, setting up members on both sides of the door. One opens it up, and another party member standing away from the door fires a ranged attack in to provoke the enemy into entering the kill zone. Which is an advantage, compared to the party walking in and 1 person must now take the brunt of the rooms inhabitants wailing on them.
The encouragement (IMO) for players finding different ways to enter fights isn't that they get to roll something different for init, but rather that they can set up a situation that is to their advantage. Like the party stealthily approaching a check point, setting up members on both sides of the door. One opens it up, and another party member standing away from the door fires a ranged attack in to provoke the enemy into entering the kill zone. Which is an advantage, compared to the party walking in and 1 person must now take the brunt of the rooms inhabitants wailing on them.
I've done that in the past, but I find this way of managing things unsatisfying.
Your example is a pretty good one. How am I supposed to react as a GM?Either I go in their direction and the enemies just get into the meat grinder. Victory for 0 effort.
Or I play the enemies intelligently (if they are intelligent) and they decide not to go into the meat grinder. And then starts an awfully unsatisfying combat that lasts for hours because noone wants to go through the door.
This way of managing combat is fine if you voluntarily put the players against unbeatable foes. So you force them to find intelligent ways of dealing with combat and you play the enemies as idiots. Because the challenge is far too high, the meat grinder is actually the only way to level the odds.
But in normal fights against normal enemies, as soon as you start giving your players a real chance of setting everything up before the combat, it ends up not funny. At least it's what I've experienced. And also, setting up an ambush always takes a lot of time as everyone has tons of different ideas.
So I reduce the preparation phase to its minimum to have less variables to account for and I never end up in such a situation. But it's a GM choice (we are anyway completely into GM territory in our discussion) and I'm not even sure it's something I'd advise as in my opinion it's a question of GMing style.
I guess I just don't find it to be a satisfactory response (personally) to instead just give the players the opportunity roll their best skill. Honestly, it probably doesn't make a huge difference in the overall flow of the game whether they roll perception or arcana. Until at least mid levels the d20 roll is going to be far more impactful than the choice of skill.
But my point persist that I don't agree with your logic on letting players roll arcana in the circumstances you've described.
However, it is your home game. And if you want to let everyone roll their best skill all the time instead of rolling perception...well it's ultimately not business and wont affect me.
Clearly, I think we are both aware we won't convince the other one.
I still think I make a difference between Avoid Notice and being Unnoticed that you don't make. You always speak about stealth which is not what is important to me.
If you roll Stealth, it means you roll initiative before there's any reason to start the fight. And because there's no reason to start the fight, the fight doesn't start until the Wizard initiative. So, basically, you put the Wizard on top of initiative and you proceed from here. I don't find that an acceptable ruling.
What starts the initiative is the Wizard casting. And as such, Arcana seems pretty straightforward. It's true it brings an issue which is what the Wizard does when his round comes, as he is supposed to be casting. But anyway, I expect the Wizard to cast during his first round.
There have been tons of discussions of this kind of case and it doesn't look like there's really a satisfying answer. Either the enemies have spider senses, or the guy who initiates always go first... I'm not sure there's a "perfect answer" to the problem.
|
|
IMO an encounter begins with awareness. If one party is aware and the other isn’t, even if the unaware party “wins” initiative, their action would be to continue to do whatever they were doing before the initiative were rolled. That takes us to the first person with awareness of the other. If that is the caster, then he casts his spell. YMMV
IMO an encounter begins with awareness. If one party is aware and the other isn’t, even if the unaware party “wins” initiative, their action would be to continue to do whatever they were doing before the initiative were rolled. That takes us to the first person with awareness of the other. If that is the caster, then he casts his spell. YMMV
That reframes it, but still leads to the same problem of allowing whoever decides to initiate hostilities getting to act first with no recourse, which circumvents the whole point of initiative, imo.
|
|
It’s not, no recourse. In fact it values exploration activities. If you want to get the drop on your enemy then you better be looking (Seeking) for them. If you are occupied with other things, then it’s your own fault when that enemy gets the drop on you. The key is awareness. If you are looking for enemies, you get Perception checks. If an encounter would start, even if you are unaware of the enemy, and you were Seeking, and won initiative, then it makes sense that you would take a Seek action. If you locate the caster, then you get to react before he can cast. If you fail to perceive him, then you don’t. It’s pretty simple. Without the idea of awareness, initiative especially when it’s a transition from exploration to encounter mode, makes no sense.
IMO an encounter begins with awareness. If one party is aware and the other isn’t, even if the unaware party “wins” initiative, their action would be to continue to do whatever they were doing before the initiative were rolled. That takes us to the first person with awareness of the other. If that is the caster, then he casts his spell. YMMVThat reframes it, but still leads to the same problem of allowing whoever decides to initiate hostilities getting to act first with no recourse, which circumvents the whole point of initiative, imo.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised that no-one's given the smart-alec answer of 'How do you start combat? ATTACK THEM!', but in a way that's kind'a how an ambush works. Or a battle. Technically, if the ambushers don't act, and the ambushees don't notice, then ... nothing happens.
Imagine a leopard in a tree waiting for the right prey ... and deciding that no, it won't pounce on the clangy shiny apes walking down the path. And the party all fail their Perception rolls to notice. Leopard's action, it sits there and licks its paws. Party's turn, they clank on. Repeat.
Silent Spell will let you STAY stealthed when you cast your spells, but anyone can crouch in a bush and then cast Fireball on an unsuspecting party. They know they're getting Fireballed, and the survivors know where that annoying wizard is, but they're still ambushed.