You're commiting to the same logic flaw you're pointing out :D
Just consider that your character started casting their spell and got interrupted because by the time they were not even at half of it the fight had escalated out of control.
But I see how all of this happening can question verissimilitude. I personally allow PCs to roll for their spellcasting skill in these circumstances (which is in general rather high so they end up more often at the top of the initiative chart than at the bottom). I may even give them a small circumstance bonus to help luck a bit (but it's mostly because I encourage skill resolution of encounters over combat resolution).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conceal spell exists for this exact set of circumstances. I think visibly using spells is supposed to be scary in world.
I invented a houserule for this start-of-initiative timing issue, because it came up about once every two levels in my campaigns.
The party was excellent at stealth, so they often scouted an enemy and decided to start with a particular attack, such as casting a fireball while the enemy was clustered together. Or in any party, sometimes a triggering action, such as opening a door and discovering armed and ready enemies in the next room, has to happen before any other action. My houserule is that that initial or triggering action happens in exploration mode before the first round of encounter mode.
For example, suppose a party in a dungeon crawl is clearing orc warriors out of a ruined fortress. They are at the closed door to the next room. This is in exploration mode, so no-one has initiative yet. The rogue silently checks the door for traps and determines that it is unlocked. The party members whisper to each other and plan to open the door and charge in. The rogue volunteers to open the door. The party clusters around the door and the rogue opens it. Then everyone, including the enemy orcs sitting in the room playing cards, rolls for initiative and encounter mode begins.
I allow one single activity that costs at most three actions before initiative. And the situation is where one side can plan ahead. The character taking the triggering action has no penalty on initiative. They could roll high and have their turn immediate after their triggering action for four actions in a row, or they could roll low and have the rest of the party taking their turns before the triggering character has another action. Both scenarios are believable.
In siegfriedliner's encounter under my houserule, siegfriedliner's character would cast true speech and then everyone would roll for initiative. Sadly, the encounter would play out almost the same, but without the paradox of siegfriedliner's character never casting true speech. The character with true speech would roll low in initiative so a fight would begin before the character could Glad-Hand quick diplomacy to prevent the fight.
My houserule is that that initial or triggering action happens in exploration mode before the first round of encounter mode.
I tend to allow that if the party can make the action stealthily (if they have Conceal Spell in that case). I also find that it makes more sense, I'm not fond of spider senses.
Similar situations have made me really, really, really miss surprise rounds.
Personally just a little embarrassed that casting a spell to avoid a combat lead to one and happy to leap on the idea that technically I didn't. It was such an obvious error but I was kind happy for a good opportunity to use the spell which had mostly been sitting in my repetriore un-cast.
Yeah, I understand you. As a GM, I'd have allowed you to speak to them if you roll high enough in initiative. But if everyone goes before you that's too late. That's why I give initiative bonuses to the PC in such a situation but I don't want to bend the rules too much as technically you are missing the one true feat to do that (Conceal Spell really has a lot of uses if you look for non combat resolution of encounters).
What's the RAW say regarding pre-emptive actions, such as the orc door ambush scenario above?
(I suspect I know the answer, and am only asking to promote discussion.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most correct answer is that the GM should have told you, once both you and the potential enemy were aware of each other, that you were in initiative turn order and that the enemy weren't doing anything obviously hostile and you hadn't done anything obviously hostile yet either. I think making that kind of distinction for everyone is an alert to say "this is a different and tense situation, let's think carefully about what we're doing".
Now likely what happens is your team mates try to pantomime "we mean you no harm" and maybe the NPCs skip their turns taking no actions, and then you cast your spell and now the enemy is upset, but you get a chance to say "we mean you no harm" before they act again.
It's important for everyone to remember that tracking rounds in PF2 isn't only done in combat, you can track rounds whenever it's important to keep track of what everyone is doing.
Even though the creatures perceived you were kinda casting/intending to cast, it'd likely be more reasonable for them to Delay or disperse, maybe Demoralize or threaten you to stop you, or perhaps perform a Sense Motive to verify their impression. Unless of course they were particularly on edge for whatever reason, in which case even a Subtle Spell might have issues due to Sense Motive existing (which in this case might need a crit failure because you have good intent).
One would think the true fear & violence of the casting shouldn't happen until after the casting (and intuitively I agree!), but PF2's initiative system developed from decades of DnD/PF1 experience with surprise rounds and how brutal & imbalanced they can be. Plus we're in the heroic fantasy genre where highly capable adventurers should occasionally intercept a villain's aggression before it's even actualized. That can come in many flavors, like preternatural ability, subconscious response, harmony with the Cosmos, or whatnot.
(I'm reminded of the Discworld barbarian catching a blade aimed at his throat...while asleep.)
Similar situations have made me really, really, really miss surprise rounds.
Surprise rounds aren't really applicable to this scenario though.
I would not have a truespeech spell set off a fight. I feel as though a caster can cast the spell in a way that would not cause lethal action to be taken making peaceful gestures unless the enemy wanted the fight to start with. I always like to error on the side of the PCs being smart enough to execute an action like this in a manner that would not cause an immediate hostile reaction.
I think there's a space here for responders to Ready actions too, not that it'd disrupt any spellcasting, but would punish any offensive spellcasting. Gets messy though.
I'm reminded of a situation where two high level PCs, due to feats, automatically detected the invisible caster lurking on the wall. So those two knew combat had begun, but how did the others? I went with Sense Motive to see the reactions on the face of those two that knew there was danger present. Any that go earlier are in a bind because they don't actually know what's happening, so does one Delay, buff, spread out?
---
While spellcasting should mostly be met with suspicion, I'm not feeling it that violence would always come first unless violence was already imminent. It's kinda like those scenes where a guy reaches in his jacket for...what? A phone, wallet, ID, cigarette? Or were these two crime gangs so one assumes a firearm and draws their own in response? Even then not typically firing unless trigger happy. Yes, we don't want free Fireballs, but in Golarion one would suspect that magic's also used often (likely most often) for utility and healing. Outside of the many warzones that is.
|
This seems like a good spot to allow the players a reaction to identify the spell since they aren't quite in combat yet. Misunderstandings can lead to conflict, but at least there is the opportunity to have the players base their recourse off the spell being cast or the fact that they don't know what spell it is.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The books tell the GM the right time to ask for initiative is when one side does something the other side has to react to.
So if you just start casting a spell, and they didn't trust you, yeah that makes sense. They're not willing to wait and see if it's a fireball or not.
There can be a bit of a "gotcha!" element if you as a player didn't think this would seem hostile, and the GM surprises you with it. But that's a difference in expectations between you and the GM, it's not the game rules. That sort of mismatch I think is something that's better handled by the GM saying "are you sure you want to do that? They seem anxious and might misunderstand". If the GM thinks something is "obvious" and the players are totally unaware, more communication is good.
Then maybe you decide not to risk it, or to risk it, or maybe try to reassure them first with some nonverbal Diplomacy gesturing.
It's crazy to me how often players presume that others know their intentions. Most places are going to have a ban on casting spells in public because the vast majority of people can't tell the difference between mind enslaving magic, light making magic and fireball. So you would likely react with fear or aggression when you see someone you don't know casting a spell.
When you live in a world where someone can take six seconds and kill a half dozen or more people with zero preparation to onlookers, your likely going to have many people that are on edge about such things.
I would have let you cast but not say anything until your initiative, so you'd likely have put yourself in hostile relations and then have a big hill to climb to get out of what you did.
The books tell the GM the right time to ask for initiative is when one side does something the other side has to react to.
So if you just start casting a spell, and they didn't trust you, yeah that makes sense. They're not willing to wait and see if it's a fireball or not.
There can be a bit of a "gotcha!" element if you as a player didn't think this would seem hostile, and the GM surprises you with it. But that's a difference in expectations between you and the GM, it's not the game rules. That sort of mismatch I think is something that's better handled by the GM saying "are you sure you want to do that? They seem anxious and might misunderstand". If the GM thinks something is "obvious" and the players are totally unaware, more communication is good.
Then maybe you decide not to risk it, or to risk it, or maybe try to reassure them first with some nonverbal Diplomacy gesturing.
I strongly agree with this, fwiw. I don't think most players in this situation would cast truespeech if they thought it'd start an encounter. A simple "would you want to walk away and cast this out of their sight? They might take it as a hostile action if you do it in front of them" from the GM would go miles in this kind of situation.
Starting to think this thread should be in Homebrew and House Rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the caster just started casting truespeech without letting the others know he was going to do so, then I could see a problem. I would think the party would make an effort to show they were peaceful and pantomime they were going to enable speech.
If the enemy was hesitating and making it seem like they wanted to communicate first, then not sure why they would not wait.
If they weren't hesitating, then why cast truespeech first.
Even if you roll initiative and wanted to talk, why not have the party hold back attacking and try to calm everyone down showing you don't want to fight?
Why doesn't the player do the following, "I'm going to cast truespeech, don't attack and if they attack don't attack back until we talk."
You can always stop the fight once they can hear you.
This whole set up seems odd. Why did the player think truespeech was appropriate to start with? Did the enemy seem hesitant to attack giving reason to think they wanted to talk?
This sounds like the DM wanted a fight and so it happened and the player without cause thought their might be negotiation when the DM intended to attack the entire time.
It also sounds like the player wanted to start a dialogue without informing the party he was going to do so.
It sounds like a setup not conducive to communication within the party or with the opponent. No coordination at all. A player deciding to cowboy the encounter themselves for no other reason than they could.
Starting to think this thread should be in Homebrew and House Rules.
I am the only one who suggested a house rule. The rest of this discussion is about interpretations of the rules as written, interpretations of the setting, and suggestions for the GM.
In my own games, I have found that sometimes the gameplay needs a transition between exploration mode and encounter mode. For example, combat ended and some PCs go into exploration mode to loot the room, but the healer is still on the turn-by-turn clock trying to remedy a poison affliction on a teammate. I improvise an intermediate mode that is not in the rules as written, but my players are okay with me fudging the rules for convenience.
Similar situations have made me really, really, really miss surprise rounds.Surprise rounds aren't really applicable to this scenario though.
My wife calls the pre-initiative action from my house rule "the surprise round."
Technically, no character was surprised when siegfriedliner's GM told the table to roll for initiative. But there was an action--casting truespeech--that would have been better placed in exploration mode or a surprise round rather than in ordinary turn order in encounter mode.
I believe that the GM decided that the spellcasting would be best played out in encounter mode so that the players could see the other side's immediate response to siegfriedliner's character casting a spell in front of them, and roleplay their own immediate responses. Under the rules as written, then anyone who rolled higher in initiative would say. "I ready an action to draw my sword if the strangers attack, but otherwise I try to look friendly." Half the turn would be spent waiting for the spellcaster. And then the real action starts.
The paradox is that from siegfriedliner's account, the GM essentially said, "Wait, don't cast that spell yet. Let us roll initiative first," and then had the NPCs react that turn to the spell that had not yet been cast. Not only was this a paradox, but it also robbed siegfriedliner of explaining the spell right after he cast it, "Hello, thanks to my spell I can now speak to you clearly," so that the other side would realize the spell was harmless.
So we encountered some creatura who we couldn't speak to and I had a spell that would allow me to do that and a bardic level diplomacy. So I may have gotten a little excited and thought yes finally an opportunity to use this spell which had ended being far more niche than I expected it to be.
Then they attacked rolled well in initative when the party rolled poorly went first attacked our barbarian who didn't appreciate being attacked and immediately counter attacked.
At that point it became a combat problem rather than a communication one.
So it was a more off the cuff encounter. Not intended to be a negotiation. I see.
I as a DM usually signal when an encounter may be better solved through diplomacy. And set that possibility up more so the player's aren't trying to ice skate uphill.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think first contact with a group you can't speak to is more common in Starfinder. Often I start by holding out open hands to show I'm not armed, sometimes even laying weapons down. giving both sides a chance to sense motive, before moving on to try things like spells to communicate. Sitting down to cast a spell would help to show it's not an aggressive spell. If I were GMing I'd even give an aid bonus to sense motive to the other side if the PCs took the actions I described above.
In a world where magic is common, if there are not more common everyday uses for magic then magic would likely be banned or heavily restricted. A merchant seen casing a spell shouldn't cause everyone to roll initiative, because the merchant was trying to cast bullhorn to announce a sale. So unless you are in a hostile environment or situation I don't think every reaction to seeing someone cast a spell should be to assume it's a fireball.
Where the encounter happens plays a big role in how each side acts. It's pure speculation but I suspect organized play scenarios are more likely to have options to talk yourself out of combat, especially if you are playing one that involves first-contact situations.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's crazy to me how often players presume that others know their intentions. Most places are going to have a ban on casting spells in public because the vast majority of people can't tell the difference between mind enslaving magic, light making magic and fireball. So you would likely react with fear or aggression when you see someone you don't know casting a spell.
When you live in a world where someone can take six seconds and kill a half dozen or more people with zero preparation to onlookers, your likely going to have many people that are on edge about such things.I would have let you cast but not say anything until your initiative, so you'd likely have put yourself in hostile relations and then have a big hill to climb to get out of what you did.
Look at it from a bit different angle.
If in your world most people react with fear and suspicion to a stranger casting a spell - sure, that's reasonable. But the player characters would know that, because they've lived in that world all your life. And you as the GM know that, because you made up this world.
But does the player know that? How could the player know that, unless you told them?
So you basically have two ways for the player to find out:
- You tell them OOC "Are you sure? Since they don't know you, they might not trust you to cast spells."
- You teach them an IC lesson by starting combat.
But if you take the second approach, you're kinda punishing the player for something that you know, their character would know, but they don't know, because they didn't read your mind.
Imagine if siegfriedliner had cast the spell and wasted the slot and the enemy still attacks. That would feel pretty bad for the player.
Look at it from a bit different angle.If in your world most people react with fear and suspicion to a stranger casting a spell - sure, that's reasonable. But the player characters would know that, because they've lived in that world all your life. And you as the GM know that, because you made up this world.
But does the player know that? How could the player know that, unless you told them?
So you basically have two ways for the player to find out:
- You tell them OOC "Are you sure? Since they don't know you, they might not trust you to cast spells."
- You teach them an IC lesson by starting combat.But if you take the second approach, you're kinda punishing the player for something that you know, their character would know, but they don't know, because they didn't read your mind.
Or maybe think about immersing your players in the world, encourage them to think first. The idea that you have a spell that will just fix the situation without any consequences is meta game thinking.
Like Driftboune said, all it takes is knowing how to deal with first contact type situations, make yourself look non-threatening.People often assume a lot about how things will work one way or another.
As a GM you should always give extra info when you see someone making a huge assumption about something or having vastly different expectations then you with certain actions.
Also think about the reverse situation, what would your players do if they came across a group of nephalim, giants or serpentfolk and one of them started casting a spell? There's no right answer to the situation, because you don't have enough information, so it more comes down to who your players are and what the characters values are.
Maybe the group will be hostile no matter what you do, maybe they only get hostile if you react, maybe they get hostile if you don't. If your a good GM placing these encounters in proper places with proper setup, it should feel like a "gotcha" kind of moment, it should just feel realistic.
I do have a rules problem with this situation though, and that's once combat has started even if you cast the spell it's supposed to be near impossible to change peoples attitude toward you. I would just say it's a very hostile diplomatic exchange and let you talk your way out of your mistake. You can look like an eager impulsive problem solver who acted before thinking. In that way you can make it a learning experience so long as you keep the stakes low. The other group could explain they have had run ins with hostile casters in the area so not only do they have a reason for what they did, but you learn about potential threats in the area.
As a GM you should always be thinking of ways to let your players succeed or fail forward even if they do very questionable things, it should never feel like punishment (unless the dice hate you, that's always punishment). To do this effectively you and your group need to be on the same page about tone, expectations, etc.
Back to the OP, even if we just started up combat I would not have let you change your mind on casting the spell, or at least heavily imply it would still work out. It was a good idea just not done in the best way, the real failure was changing your mind, because then combat and death were likely the only results of the encounter and that's a far less enjoyable outcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, when magic is a fact of life in the world, and while not exactly a common technology, common enough that a typical town will have a handful of people with some kind of magic capability (or even somebody with full on trained magic skill), I don't see how most people's first reaction would be immediate gripping fear of a dominate spell or fireball. Most people's typical impression of magic will be things like the village priest's heal spells, or the local witch's speak with animal spells.
This is not to say I would never have a group react to a sudden spellcast with hostility--context is key here. I just don't think most places are going to put a blanket ban on spellcasting in public. Most people don't go out into public and drop fireballs in town square, it's just not likely those people would have reason to expect it.
In any case, I feel like it's entirely reasonable that if you encounter some random creatures in the woods that they'd react to the sudden casting of a spell as if you'd drawn your sword on them--but also I wouldn't spring combat on my players for not just knowing out-of-character how their actions would be received. I don't assume they and I are always picturing the same thing in every case. Even so, there's a line before jumping immediately to initiative, even if you don't want to tell them.
It seems to me, if I wanted to reinforce the idea that random spellcasting could provoke a fight without necessarily tipping my hand whether the PCs should think of the foes as hostile, I'd just have the creatures get startled and grab for their weapons. No initiative is rolled, when the casting player presumably pauses, the creatures likewise freeze, hands on weapons, then through nonverbal means the groups sort out that the spell is not harmful or decide to come to blows regardless.
(especially since it's entirely possible these foes are here for a fight, although that being the case one would expect initiative to come before attempting to talk and cast spells in most cases)