Readied actions outside of combat

[Talakeal]

So last night we are playing PF. I am exploring the dungeon with my bow drawn, see the evil wizard. He starts to speak and I announce "I am shooting him". The DM tells me that I have to wait until he is done talking to initiate combat*. When he is done speaking I then go to shoot him, the DM tells me to roll initiative, I roll poorly, and end up going not only after the wizard, who now shoots me with a ray, but most of the rest of the party as well.

Is this actually how it works?

I know this is (yet another) case of bad DMing all around, but I am legitimately curious about this as back when I was in junior college about 10 years ago this a very frequent point of contention; how does readying an action outside of combat work? And further, what do you do when you have multiple people with readied actions? Are there any modifiers to surprise or initiative for having a weapon drawn or for having a longer range / reach than your opponent?




*Yeah, I know. Typical DM warning sign, but after 20+ years of gaming I am used to it as the majority of DMs do it and I was certainly guilty of doing it myself back in the day.

[Venger]

So last night we are playing PF. I am exploring the dungeon with my bow drawn, see the evil wizard. He starts to speak and I announce "I am shooting him". The DM tells me that I have to wait until he is done talking to initiate combat*. When he is done speaking I then go to shoot him, the DM tells me to roll initiative, I roll poorly, and end up going not only after the wizard, who now shoots me with a ray, but most of the rest of the party as well.

Is this actually how it works?

I know this is (yet another) case of bad DMing all around, but I am legitimately curious about this as back when I was in junior college about 10 years ago this a very frequent point of contention; how does readying an action outside of combat work? And further, what do you do when you have multiple people with readied actions? Are there any modifiers to surprise or initiative for having a weapon drawn or for having a longer range / reach than your opponent?

*Yeah, I know. Typical DM warning sign, but after 20+ years of gaming I am used to it as the majority of DMs do it and I was certainly guilty of doing it myself back in the day.

no, your DM is wrong and, as you said, cheating. if you ready an action and have a standard available, then the triggering condition activates it and it goes off.

you weren't in initiative, so sequence is irrelevant.

readying is very simple. here's the RAW below.

to my knowledge, this is not one of the things paizo changed:



The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).

Readying an Action
You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round.

1) burn a standard and name your triggering condition and your action
2) wait for your triggering condition to go off
3) when it does, you do your action. this happens BEFORE the triggering condition

e.g. triggering condition is "when the wizard casts a spell." action is "I shoot my bow" order is as follows:

1) you shoot your bow dealing x damage
2) wizard casts his spell (making concentration as normal)

reach/init has nothing to do with anything. adjudication depends on whose triggering conditions go off first. that's all there is to it.

[Urpriest]

Your DM and you were both wrong. As soon as you said you were going to shoot the Wizard, you should both have rolled initiative. If the Wizard rolled better, he get to continue his monologue. You don't get to choose to ready an action until it's your turn.

[Psyren]

no, your DM is wrong and, as you said, cheating. if you ready an action and have a standard available, then the triggering condition activates it and it goes off.

you weren't in initiative, so sequence is irrelevant.

readying is very simple. here's the RAW below.

to my knowledge, this is not one of the things paizo changed:

Your answer misses a key point of information - i.e. that Ready is a "Special Initiative Action." Thus his DM is correct on that point, you cannot ready outside of combat.

In other words, Urpriest's answer is correct.

[Talakeal]

Your DM and you were both wrong. As soon as you said you were going to shoot the Wizard, you should both have rolled initiative. If the Wizard rolled better, he get to continue his monologue. You don't get to choose to ready an action until it's your turn.

That's what I figured.

To further clarify though, there are no rules for gaining initiative or a surprise round based on how prepared you are?

It makes no difference if, say, you have a gun trained on someone and say "If you move I shoot!" vs. if you are walking along with your weapons holstered having a good time and suddenly your friend turns around and sucker punches you ala Clockwork Orange?

Both of these would be handled by a straight initiative roll with no modifiers to see who acts first? Neither grants a surprise round?

[Venger]

To further clarify though, there are no rules for gaining initiative or a surprise round based on how prepared you are?

It makes no difference if, say, you have a gun trained on someone and say "If you move I shoot!" vs. if you are walking along with your weapons holstered having a good time and suddenly your friend turns around and sucker punches you ala Clockwork Orange?

Both of these would be handled by a straight initiative roll with no modifiers to see who acts first? Neither grants a surprise round?
Preparedness has nothing to do with whether you get a surprise round.

If you are aware of your opponents and they are not aware of you (due to you being too far away for them to see you, invisible and they don't have special senses, etc) then you get a surprise round, otherwie not.

Yes. that's how initiative works.

[Psyren]

A surprise round still requires initiative, it's just that the ambushers get to roll it before everyone else. Without initiative, you can't take a special initiative action.

And standing in front of someone who is monologuing and aware that you are hostile would not count as lack of awareness anyway.

[Venger]

A surprise round still requires initiative, it's just that the ambushers get to roll it before everyone else. Without initiative, you can't take a special initiative action.

Right. Everyone rolls initiative normally, but only those who are aware during the surprise round get to act during it. (remember you only get a standard in a surprise round if you're aware)

the next round is adjudicated as normal with everyone acting on their action.


And standing in front of someone who is monologuing and aware that you are hostile would not count as lack of awareness anyway.
right, but if you're in front of them, it doesn't mean that you get a surprise round on them either, which is what it sounded like happened here: the DM didn't want them to put down his pet NPC, so let him go before the PCs

[Psyren]

Right. Everyone rolls initiative normally, but only those who are aware during the surprise round get to act during it. (remember you only get a standard in a surprise round if you're aware)

the next round is adjudicated as normal with everyone acting on their action.

Right, which means you roll initiative - and therefore you can't Ready until it's your turn in the initiative order (as Urpriest stated.)



right, but if you're in front of them, it doesn't mean that you get a surprise round on them either, which is what it sounded like happened here: the DM didn't want them to put down his pet NPC, so let him go before the PCs

To me it read like the NPC simply beat his initiative. "I roll poorly, and end up going not only after the wizard, who now shoots me with a ray, but most of the rest of the party as well." No surprise round needed there, he simply rolled badly.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, it makes a lot more sense than how we used to handle it in the 3.5 days (basically we would get hostage situations where everyone had a readied action continent on other people's readied actions and we would get these whole chains which we had no idea how to resolve and situations where person A would wait for person B who would wait for person C who would wait for person A with no way to resolve the loop).

Still, it seems odd that there is no way to represent a "sucker punch" or anticipating combat in 3.X.


Anyway, to go further down the rabbit hole, do you have to declare you action before rolling initiative? For example, in the above case, could I simply say "I want to roll initiative now" or do I have to say "I am going to shoot him"? If it is the latter, if I go to shoot him, he wins initiative, can I then change my mind and do something else when my turn rolls around?

[Psyren]

Still, it seems odd that there is no way to represent a "sucker punch" or anticipating combat in 3.X.

There is - that's the whole point of the surprise round. But it sounds like this guy had no reason not to consider you a combatant (you walked up with your bow drawn and everything) and he was certainly aware of you (not stealthed or invisible) thus you would not get surprise on him, nor he on you, based on the way you described the situation.

[Talakeal]

There is - that's the whole point of the surprise round. But it sounds like this guy had no reason not to consider you a combatant (you walked up with your bow drawn and everything) and he was certainly aware of you (not stealthed or invisible) thus you would not get surprise on him, nor he on you, based on the way you described the situation.

IMO a sucker punch is attacking someone who is aware of you but has yet to realize that combat has started. If I am reading this thread correctly you don't get a surprise round for that, only a legitimate ambush where they aren't aware of you at all.



right, but if you're in front of them, it doesn't mean that you get a surprise round on them either, which is what it sounded like happened here: the DM didn't want them to put down his pet NPC, so let him go before the PCs

No, he rolled. It just so happened that the NPC had such a high initiative modifier that none of use could have beaten him even with a natural 20. It just seems really weird that the person who initiated combat would act last. It almost seems like a situation someone would describe in one of those "why I don't use fumble rules" threads where someone does something inexplicably pathetic.

[Psyren]

IMO a sucker punch is attacking someone who is aware of you but has yet to realize that combat has started. If I am reading this thread correctly you don't get a surprise round for that, only a legitimate ambush where they aren't aware of you at all.

Nah - they can see you and not know you're a combatant. This is in fact the main principle behind the Sword Cane (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/swordcane) - they need a special perception check to know you're holding a weapon even if they can see you perfectly. Quick Draw it as a free action, stab in surprise round while they're flat-footed.

But walking around with a drawn bow is not going to require a check, anyone who sees you will be instantly on their guard and thus get to roll init.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

No, he rolled. It just so happened that the NPC had such a high initiative modifier that none of use could have beaten him even with a natural 20. It just seems really weird that the person who initiated combat would act last. It almost seems like a situation someone would describe in one of those "why I don't use fumble rules" threads where someone does something inexplicably pathetic.

You just have to see it as one of those western films, where the hero and is enemy are staring at each other down the road, and one of them draws first, but the other is quicker.

I'm assuming that everybody in that room, including the wizard, knew that there was going to be a fight. Even while you are talking, you are all watching each other, looking for the slightest hostile mouvement. Even if you moved first, you may have been a bit clumsy, or the wizard was able to see your intentions a split second before shot your arrow. The higher initiative is supposed to reflect that. He saw what you were going to do before you did it, and managed to start casting just before you loosened your arrow.

[Urpriest]

IMO a sucker punch is attacking someone who is aware of you but has yet to realize that combat has started. If I am reading this thread correctly you don't get a surprise round for that, only a legitimate ambush where they aren't aware of you at all.


Eh, I think if someone is unaware that you are a threat then you should still get a surprise round. But you don't really need one: if you just use normal initiative, then they won't act against you on their turn anyway because they still believe you aren't dangerous, so you still get to act first.

If you're training a gun on someone and threatening them, then they get a chance to act before you've raised your gun, and if they're fast enough you won't get a chance to. If you do get to act first then you can ready an action as normal.

[Blackhawk748]

Your DM and you were both wrong. As soon as you said you were going to shoot the Wizard, you should both have rolled initiative. If the Wizard rolled better, he get to continue his monologue. You don't get to choose to ready an action until it's your turn.

This, this is what should have happened. The moment you said "i shoot him" Combat started, roll initiative. He won, he keeps talking (like an idiot) everyone else apparently stands there and listens like its a frelling cutscene or something, you shoot him, now everyone realizes combat started.

In short a villain should only monologue when his is in a safe place to do so, a Balcony 100 feet or so away is usually ok, especially when your fighting his mooks. Across the room is not safe.

[Bucky]

This, this is what should have happened. The moment you said "i shoot him" Combat started, roll initiative. He won, he keeps talking (like an idiot) everyone else apparently stands there and listens like its a frelling cutscene or something, you shoot him, now everyone realizes combat started.

Talking is a free action. He should have won initiative, then finished his monologue, then started fighting.

[Blackhawk748]

Talking is a free action. He should have won initiative, then finished his monologue, then started fighting.

This depends on how long the monologue is. Remember he only has 6 seconds, and while you can take as many free actions in a round as you want, the DM has every right to cut you off. And lets be honest, no good monologue is only 6 seconds.

[Psyren]

This depends on how long the monologue is. Remember he only has 6 seconds, and while you can take as many free actions in a round as you want, the DM has every right to cut you off. And lets be honest, no good monologue is only 6 seconds.

Given that it's an NPC though, the monologue likely ignores the passage of time :smalltongue:

Similar to how a dying NPC can deliver an entire paragraph of information, or how a rogue can evade a burst in the middle of a featureless room.

[Venger]

Given that it's an NPC though, the monologue likely ignores the passage of time :smalltongue:

Similar to how a dying NPC can deliver an entire paragraph of information, or how a rogue can evade a burst in the middle of a featureless room.


Free Action
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.

roguespace is just how evasion works though, no chicanery there.

[Jowgen]

As other's have rightfully said, if both sides are aware of another, there is no surprise round; and you can not ready actions outside of combat. Still, you got screwed over in a different way.

First, initiative should have been rolled as soon as you said you were shooting the wizard, as that in itself initiatives combat. In this scenario, even though he beat your initiative, he should have had no knowledge of your intention to attack, and arguably would have spent his turn continuing his monologue. The wizard would not have been flat footed to your attack, but you would indeed have gotten to shoot him first. So yeah, your DM took away your character's agency so that his NPC could finish exposition and would not be at any disadvantage due to his choice to monologue.

In my games, I allow characters and NPCs sense motive checks against either DC 15 or as an opposed bluff for them to sense that the other party is about to attack (i.e. that initiative has been rolled). If the character is distracted (e.g. engaging in a different ongoing task, such as monologuing) I also like to give a circumstance penalty on said sense motive, but that's just me.

[Ashtagon]

If a player wants to ready an action outside of combat, they need to describe what action is being readied before the encounter. And more important, they can't do any action except that readied action unless and until they either drop the readied action or use it in the manner specified. A readied action is essentially a way to conduct an overwatch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwatch) action (among other things). It is not a free action to do; it is a standard action (even if the triggering event fails to occur, as per RAW).

This encounter began the moment the PC saw the wizard monologuing. What this player was doing was in effect asking to have already readied an action before the encounter had begun. If the player had said, before meeting the wizard, "I ready an action to loose an arrow at any guy who looks like a wizard I see monologuing and facing us." -- that would have been cool. But asking to ready an action after the encounter (even though initiative dice hadn't been rolled, the wizard dude was still encountered) has already begun? Not so cool.

If PCs want to walk around with actions readied in case of an encounter, that's cool. That does man that their standard action each round is being used to maintain the readied action though; assuming they are using their move action to walk, that presumably means that that character isn't checking for traps. Hopefully one of them is.

[Psyren]

roguespace is just how evasion works though, no chicanery there.

I mean that there are abstractions built into the rules and that it's the GM's job to turn them into specifics. They are unlikely to place limits like these on their own NPCs, especially when there is crucial information buried in the monologue, regardless of its real-time length.

[Blackhawk748]

I mean that there are abstractions built into the rules and that it's the GM's job to turn them into specifics. They are unlikely to place limits like these on their own NPCs, especially when there is crucial information buried in the monologue, regardless of its real-time length.

Thats if there actually is crucial info in there. Most of the time there isnt.

[Psyren]

Thats if there actually is crucial info in there. Most of the time there isnt.

Hence "especially" - meaning they likely won't shorten the monologue time even if there isn't :smalltongue:

It's just human nature, and honestly one of the perks of being the GM, you get to monologue. Every D&D webcomic makes fun of it .

[atemu1234]

Hence "especially" - meaning they likely won't shorten the monologue time even if there isn't :smalltongue:

It's just human nature, and honestly one of the perks of being the GM, you get to monologue. Every D&D webcomic makes fun of it .

I don't really. My players get crucial info from people they either aren't supposed to kill or from people they don't know they are going to kill.

[Grooke]

Actually, some DMs would probably enjoy letting you kill and NPC mid-dialog, missing out on crucial information.

"You will never defeat my master for his only weakness is -" <- arrow to the throat.
Or of course, the weakness is incomprehensible gurgling while you suffocate on your own blood.

[atemu1234]

Actually, some DMs would probably enjoy letting you kill and NPC mid-dialog, missing out on crucial information.

"You will never defeat my master for his only weakness is -" <- arrow to the throat.
Or of course, the weakness is incomprehensible gurgling while you suffocate on your own blood.

Speak With Dead is a spell, you know.

[Venger]

Speak With Dead is a spell, you know.

if you're playing with That DM, he'll find some way of ignoring that too.

[atemu1234]

if you're playing with That DM, he'll find some way of ignoring that too.

Inveigler. Third Party Template.

[Agincourt]

Speak With Dead is a spell, you know.

Yes but in that situation the players are spending a spell to get information they otherwise would have had for free.

[Talakeal]

Actually, some DMs would probably enjoy letting you kill and NPC mid-dialog, missing out on crucial information.

"You will never defeat my master for his only weakness is -" <- arrow to the throat.
Or of course, the weakness is incomprehensible gurgling while you suffocate on your own blood.

Tell me about it.

A few years back I had a multi year long campaign where the PCs had the climactic showdown with the BBEG and her armies. After they defeated her she ran to the top of the tallest tower and then sat on the ledge with her back to the door waiting for the PCs.

The plan was for her to hear the PCs coming and then give them the big reveal, that she was actually not evil, and all the terrible things she had done were for the express purpose of preparing the world from the true evil that was about to come and that she had realized long ago that she was not strong enough to face the real villain, and that she had been testing the PCs all along, hoping that their struggles against her would make them strong enough to take up the fight. She would then either let herself be killed by the PCs or throw herself from the tower.


Of course, the PCs come up and see her back and decide to sneak up behind her and then kill her by slitting her throat so she can't say anything. A couple of amazing rolls later and I am suddenly back at the drawing board scrambling to figure out how to save my plot.

[Psyren]

Tell me about it.

A few years back I had a multi year long campaign where the PCs had the climactic showdown with the BBEG and her armies. After they defeated her she ran to the top of the tallest tower and then sat on the ledge with her back to the door waiting for the PCs.

The plan was for her to hear the PCs coming and then give them the big reveal, that she was actually not evil, and all the terrible things she had done were for the express purpose of preparing the world from the true evil that was about to come and that she had realized long ago that she was not strong enough to face the real villain, and that she had been testing the PCs all along, hoping that their struggles against her would make them strong enough to take up the fight. She would then either let herself be killed by the PCs or throw herself from the tower.


Of course, the PCs come up and see her back and decide to sneak up behind her and then kill her by slitting her throat so she can't say anything. A couple of amazing rolls later and I am suddenly back at the drawing board scrambling to figure out how to save my plot.

Speak With Dead and Commune scrolls conveniently lying on the table?

[Talakeal]

Speak With Dead and Commune scrolls conveniently lying on the table?

Yeah, the problem is that they didn't even have a clue that she had something to say.

[Douglas]

Yeah, the problem is that they didn't even have a clue that she had something to say.
If it is truly important for the PCs to learn a particular piece of information, never have only a single way for them to get it.

[Talakeal]

If it is truly important for the PCs to learn a particular piece of information, never have only a single way for them to get it.

Oh sure, yeah, and they eventually would have gotten the information in a different way.

I just had this big dramatic epilogue scene planned and the players colluded with the dice to make sure it never happened and that kind of threw me.

I honestly cant remember how I did it, but I ended up breaking my own rules and fudging something to allow her to speak before expiring, and I think O made the right choice in hindsigt as the revelation was powerful enough that it literally Moved one of the players to tears.

Say what you will about DMing styles, but if you have a player crying about something that happens in the game they are certainly invested, which is at the end of the day the best thing a Dm cam hope for imo.

Still, The whole thing seems tainted by me having to fudge things to make it happen as I am normally a very versimilitude heavy let the dice fall where they may DM.

[Grooke]

She could have left a will, or have a Programed Image go off at her death, and giving the speech.

[Venger]

Tell me about it.

A few years back I had a multi year long campaign where the PCs had the climactic showdown with the BBEG and her armies. After they defeated her she ran to the top of the tallest tower and then sat on the ledge with her back to the door waiting for the PCs.

The plan was for her to hear the PCs coming and then give them the big reveal, that she was actually not evil, and all the terrible things she had done were for the express purpose of preparing the world from the true evil that was about to come and that she had realized long ago that she was not strong enough to face the real villain, and that she had been testing the PCs all along, hoping that their struggles against her would make them strong enough to take up the fight. She would then either let herself be killed by the PCs or throw herself from the tower.


Of course, the PCs come up and see her back and decide to sneak up behind her and then kill her by slitting her throat so she can't say anything. A couple of amazing rolls later and I am suddenly back at the drawing board scrambling to figure out how to save my plot.
what did you think was going to happen?


Oh sure, yeah, and they eventually would have gotten the information in a different way.

I just had this big dramatic epilogue scene planned and the players colluded with the dice to make sure it never happened and that kind of threw me.

I honestly cant remember how I did it, but I ended up breaking my own rules and fudging something to allow her to speak before expiring, and I think O made the right choice in hindsigt as the revelation was powerful enough that it literally Moved one of the players to tears.

Say what you will about DMing styles, but if you have a player crying about something that happens in the game they are certainly invested, which is at the end of the day the best thing a Dm cam hope for imo.

Still, The whole thing seems tainted by me having to fudge things to make it happen as I am normally a very versimilitude heavy let the dice fall where they may DM.

yeah, that'll happen sometimes. like a diary or something amongst her possessions when the players pressed E to loot her corpse probably would've worked too.

[Talakeal]

what did you think was going to happen?



yeah, that'll happen sometimes. like a diary or something amongst her possessions when the players pressed E to loot her corpse probably would've worked too.


She had already been beaten in combat and had her armies routed and "plans" foiled. I expected the players to either demand her surrender or challenge her to single combat to finish her off. Or heck, just attack her normally rather than sneak attacking her in a way that would make her unable to speak.

Yeah, a dramatic letter probably would have worked better, I just didn't think of it in the moment and instead just fudged an "only mostly dead" result.

[Psyren]

Yeah, the problem is that they didn't even have a clue that she had something to say.

That's the point - those two scrolls lying there would be a clue that maybe she does. And if they use the Commune scroll, their deity can flat-out tell them "hey morons, use the other one on her, and ask her this."

[Keltest]

I believe the rule of thumb is 3 separate ways of conveying the information? One can get missed by misfortune (dead NPC before it can speak) another can get missed by chance (not thinking to use the SWD scroll), which leaves the third being revealed by how the players acted to miss the first two (the journal, which should probably be destruction-resistant, just in case).

[Susano-wo]

Talakeal, I'm with you, man. Though Ur-Priest and Psyren (and others) are very right about RAW, the whole, "I have a a gun to their head, but can't just ready an action to shoot them" thing is silly. I'm all for some sort of special initiative or reflex check to see if they can dodge or shove you when your attention is turned, but having to sit there while they take a full turn of actions (or while their friends walks up to you and starts hitting you) is maddening.:smallfurious: One of the weaknesses of the system :smallsigh:

on the reflex save tangent, I can't find it, but I thought there was a rule consideration that said if the space you are in does not allow for what a reflex save represents, then you cannot make one?

[Venger]

on the reflex save tangent, I can't find it, but I thought there was a rule consideration that said if the space you are in does not allow for what a reflex save represents, then you cannot make one?

it's a popular houserule, because those darn overpowered rogues need to be taken down a peg but it's not a real published rule.

I think it might've been a sidebar or something somewhere, but I can't find anything on the srd, phb, or rc.

[Susano-wo]

i...because those darn overpowered rogues need to be taken down a peg...


Is that what the kids are calling "wanting a narrative that makes sense" these days? :smallwink:

Seriously, though, I know there are a lot of those sort of things in d&d, but each one makes me die inside a bit :D

[Venger]

Is that what the kids are calling "wanting a narrative that makes sense" these days? :smallwink:

Seriously, though, I know there are a lot of those sort of things in d&d, but each one makes me die inside a bit :D

everyone has magical powers in D&D. saying "no, you can't do that in real life" but only to mundanes is pure guy at the gym fallacy, stemming from the same place as fumble rules.

[Extra Anchovies]

everyone has magical powers in D&D. saying "no, you can't do that in real life" but only to mundanes is pure guy at the gym fallacy, stemming from the same place as fumble rules.

Also, Roguespace is a really fun concept. Characters with evasion are so good at dodging that they can actually cease to exist for brief moments at a time.

[KillianHawkeye]

Though Ur-Priest and Psyren (and others) are very right about RAW, the whole, "I have a a gun to their head, but can't just ready an action to shoot them" thing is silly. I'm all for some sort of special initiative or reflex check to see if they can dodge or shove you when your attention is turned, but having to sit there while they take a full turn of actions (or while their friends walks up to you and starts hitting you) is maddening.:smallfurious: One of the weaknesses of the system :smallsigh:

Maybe that's why D&D doesn't have guns? :smallwink:

That's not even a joke. Dungeons and Dragons as a game is not designed with enough granularity to properly handle weapons as quick and easy to use as hand guns. As you already observed, a 6-second round is too long when it doesn't even take one to pull a trigger. Normally, you would handle the classic Mexican Stand-Off with initiative checks in D&D, but making attacks with medieval weaponry are much more involved and time-consuming than using modern firearms. You have to swing a sword, throw a knife, and draw a bow. Even crossbows, the closest thing standard D&D has to a gun, can only be fired once a round without extremely specialized training.

Now, I can already hear the counter-arguments about how the d20 system has been exported onto a bunch of other games where guns totally exist like Star Wars, Deadlands, and d20 Modern; and, heck, even the Dungeon Master's Guide has like half a page about how much damage a gun or laser or flamethrower might do if you wanted to update Expedition to the Barrier Peaks or introduce futuristic weapons some other way. But this argument is missing my point, which is that these are all things that happened well after the basic combat rules were designed and, thus, were not taken into account by the system designers. The rules about initiative and readied actions, and even the 6-second round, are all based on the assumption of a medieval fantasy world filled with swords and kung fu and wizards and dragons, not lasers and Jedi or pistols and cowboys and SWAT teams.

How is it any surprise that the system starts to break down when you stretch it to accommodate things it was never designed to handle? :smallconfused:

[Extra Anchovies]

Even crossbows, the closest thing standard D&D has to a gun, can only be fired once a round without extremely specialized training.

That's not because they take a long time to fire; it's because they take a long time to reload. Firing a crossbow takes about as much time and effort as firing a gun.

If you have the point of a knife to someone's throat, the short motion needed to stab them also won't take much longer than firing a gun or crossbow.

Releasing an arrow from an already-drawn bow is perhaps even easier than either of the above, since all it takes is for you to let go of the string.

[Oko and Qailee]

Talakeal, I'm with you, man. Though Ur-Priest and Psyren (and others) are very right about RAW, the whole, "I have a a gun to their head, but can't just ready an action to shoot them" thing is silly.

You actually can. If you're ahead of them on initiative or you have a surprise round you can do exactly that.

It is not fair at all for you to go first against an enemy just because you say so. When you see someone pointing a gun at a stationary enemy until they move or something thats the equivalent of a readied action when their initiative was higher.

[KillianHawkeye]

That's not because they take a long time to fire; it's because they take a long time to reload. Firing a crossbow takes about as much time and effort as firing a gun.

If you have the point of a knife to someone's throat, the short motion needed to stab them also won't take much longer than firing a gun or crossbow.

Releasing an arrow from an already-drawn bow is perhaps even easier than either of the above, since all it takes is for you to let go of the string.

I understand all of that. The point about the crossbow was more about Susano-wo's complaint about characters getting a round's worth of actions in such a situation. And if anything, that's more a complaint on the nature of having a turn-based combat system.

As to your other points, my question to you is this: How did you get your dagger at someone's throat or your bow drawn and trained on them without either rolling initiative or catching them by surprise? The answer is, you didn't, plain and simple. If the opponent wasn't surprised, then drawing your bow or approaching their face with your melee weapon triggers initiative and gives them an opportunity to not get stuck in that situation.

The reason we have situations like the Mexican Stand-Off or even the classic quick-draw duel with pistols at high noon in popular media is because a) modern weapons are faster and easier to use than medieval ones, and b) you can honestly be killed or incapacitated by a single bullet in real life. Neither of those reasons work in a game like D&D, where hit points operate the way they do and overall lethality is low. The game, as I said, simply does not model combat time with enough granularity, nor wound lethality with enough realism, to properly represent the results of introducing firearms into a hair-trigger situation. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO!

[Earthwalker]

I think I fall into a category of bad GM.

In the situation presented in the OP I would respond to the

"I shoot him"

With

"I really want to do this monologue, do you mind me finishing and then starting combat ?" (I miss TORG and the monologue card)

If the players don't mind I would complete the monologue and then start combat normally, roll imitative. If they really didn’t want me changing the rules I would just go straight to rolling imitative.

You don't get to go first by being the person that says what action you want to take first. That’s not how the game works.

I also have to say DnD and the their ilk really don't handle Mexican stand offs or holding people hostage well at all. It’s not something that is expected from the game style I guess.

[Susano-wo]

everyone has magical powers in D&D. saying "no, you can't do that in real life" but only to mundanes is pure guy at the gym fallacy, stemming from the same place as fumble rules.

First off, I said narrative that makes sense. I didn't say "realistic" (because people mistake realism for exactly like real life), I said narrative that makes sense. Because this scenario--rogue walks into 10 by 10 by 10 chamber, has the door slam shut behind him, and a fireball trap go off at his feet, but evades so has nary a singed hair-- does not make any narrative sense. Sometimes these things are unavoidable, because its a game, and you have to sacrifice to maintain fun, but I want as little of them as possible.

And can we (or those of you who do) stop saying guy at the gym fallacy? Its not a fallacy, its a description of a mindset. And a pretty dismissive one.

@killian: Yeah crossbows are still the same category as guns to the head, as are knives to the throat. And I know its not what D&D is designed to do, thus why its an area the system is weak in. :smallwink:

I'm not trying to call out D&D specifically, but the clunky way the combat switches on and off sort of creates that sort of a disconnect, unless you go by round time, say, during every round of a hostage situation. Which I guess makes sense, and maybe I'm lamenting the way I've seen things run, now that I consider your last post. I've seen things in Mexican standoff mode, and then initiative happens, leaving the possibility that that sort of scenario could happen

So I will concede the point that if someone is in those sorts of situations, then initiative should already be started. (Of course, you could just allow readied actions whenever, which is how my group plays it. it makes more sense, I think--just becasue a combat isnt going on, does not mean a character can't be ready to do something :smallamused:) So then there's just the HP problem. :smallamused: (disclaimer, again, not ragging on D&D, just lamenting that the way the system works makes it difficult/impossible to simulate certain situations)

[Susano-wo]

[QUOTE=Earthwalker;19444652]I think I fall into a category of bad GM.

In the situation presented in the OP I would respond to the

"I shoot him"

With

"I really want to do this monologue, do you mind me finishing and then starting combat ?" (I miss TORG and the monologue card)

If the players don't mind I would complete the monologue and then start combat normally, roll imitative. If they really didn’t want me changing the rules I would just go straight to rolling imitative.QUOTE]

That doesn't make you a bad GM (or even, in less hyperbolic terms, a GM who runs one aspect of the game in a way I would deem wrong)--notice that you would only finish the monologue if they were cool with it. In that situation, were I the player in question, I would probably say, "Nope, Blagradius Majoris the archer is sick of this guys ****. He's heard enough." Then, initiative would be rolled as Blagdarius begins to raise his bow. If villain wins init, he can take appropriate responses, but would not just get to magically finish the monologue (though he might get 6 seconds of it if he was really intent on it :smallwink:)

[Talakeal]

Ok, so what do you do if a player declares they have their weapon readied outside of combat? Like if someone comes to a corner in a dungeon corridor and announces "I raise my bow, draw back and arrow, walk around the corner and shoot whomever I see?"

In this case I had my bow raised, aimed, and ready to fire the second he stops talking, and would have already fired if the DM hadn't asked me to wait until he finished his monologue.

I get from a rules perspective that this situation doesn't come up, but how do you justify that from a narrative perspective? How on earth is it possible that he reaches into his pockets, pulls out components, and does a bunch of chants and gestures faster than I can simply let go of the string?

Most of the examples above simply forbid players from readying weapons before initiative is drawn, which to me stomps all over both verisimilitude and player autonomy.


You actually can. If you're ahead of them on initiative or you have a surprise round you can do exactly that.

It is not fair at all for you to go first against an enemy just because you say so. When you see someone pointing a gun at a stationary enemy until they move or something that's the equivalent of a readied action when their initiative was higher.

If initiative has not been rolled and a player states "I point my gun at someone," how do you handle it?

I would personally roll initiative at that point. If the other guy wins initiative then he chooses what to do. If his choice is "keep monologuing" then he has forfeited the opportunity to attack first and is going to get an arrow in his butt before he gets a chance to attack because he chose to keep talking and not cast or even ready a spell.

Its not "just because I say so". Its because I stated my character was going to shoot him and rather than react and try and beat me to the draw he chose to continue his monologue. In effect, I go first just because HE said so.

[Ashtagon]

Ok, so what do you do if a player declares they have their weapon readied outside of combat? Like if someone comes to a corner in a dungeon corridor and announces "I raise my bow, draw back and arrow, walk around the corner and shoot whomever I see?"

In this case I had my bow raised, aimed, and ready to fire the second he stops talking, and would have already fired if the DM hadn't asked me to wait until he finished his monologue.

I get from a rules perspective that this situation doesn't come up, but how do you justify that from a narrative perspective? How on earth is it possible that he reaches into his pockets, pulls out components, and does a bunch of chants and gestures faster than I can simply let go of the string?

Most of the examples above simply forbid players from readying weapons before initiative is drawn, which to me stomps all over both verisimilitude and player autonomy.

I allow players to do this. However, they have to announce it as part of their standard marching orders. They can't announce that they had readied an action after they have met the guy.

[Talakeal]

I allow players to do this. However, they have to announce it as part of their standard marching orders. They can't announce that they had readied an action after they have met the guy.

I don't allow players to retroactively announce it, no. But if they see a guy and he is not attacking and a player wants to then ready an attack, what else am I supposed to do? Just smack them with a newspaper and tell them that's a bad Mr. PC?

[Ashtagon]

I don't allow players to retroactively announce it, no. But if they see a guy and he is not attacking and a player wants to then ready an attack, what else am I supposed to do? Just smack them with a newspaper and tell them that's a bad Mr. PC?

If the PC is readying an attack, the monologuing dude would notice, and at that point, it's a regular initiative roll.

[Talakeal]

If the PC is readying an attack, the monologuing dude would notice, and at that point, it's a regular initiative roll.

Agreed.


What happened in my case though:

I declared that I was readying the attack.

The guy kept up with his monologue for several minutes.

Then we rolled initiative, several minutes after I had already readied my attack.

The DM is basically saying "Some actions are forbidden outside of combat, and combat is forbidden outside of the time when I allow it".

[Ashtagon]

Talking is a free action. That monologue was instantaneous.

[Nibbens]

Oh sure, yeah, and they eventually would have gotten the information in a different way.

I just had this big dramatic epilogue scene planned and the players colluded with the dice to make sure it never happened and that kind of threw me.

I honestly cant remember how I did it, but I ended up breaking my own rules and fudging something to allow her to speak before expiring, and I think O made the right choice in hindsigt as the revelation was powerful enough that it literally Moved one of the players to tears.

Say what you will about DMing styles, but if you have a player crying about something that happens in the game they are certainly invested, which is at the end of the day the best thing a Dm cam hope for imo.

Still, The whole thing seems tainted by me having to fudge things to make it happen as I am normally a very versimilitude heavy let the dice fall where they may DM.

Save vs tangent - failed. Full damage: You made the right call then. Affecting your players with the powers of emotion is a win in every category, regardless of how badly you sully yourself with "fudging" a call. LOL.

Save vs tangent - failed. Full damage: There should be a bard class that optimizes dramatic monologues. I'm sure there are, but i'm too lazy to do the research at the moment. Finally, make that guy the villain of a game.

Save vs tangent - succeed. No damage: always remember the power of the "he/she/it is bleeding out but comes to consciousness just long enough to deliver the monologue after her/his/its "death" death. This is also another way to allow a DM to get a Monologue off without having to break the rules i think. Allowing a bad guy temporary use of the Diehard feat isn't a bad deal, I don't think.

Also, as a DM - I happen to be a fan of BEGs and BBEGs that don't speak. They let the environments and knowledge checks the players make speak for him long before the final duel. And instead of opening up with the bad guy dialogue when the PCs see him, he opens up a can of meteor storm or transmute blood to acid to glorious ends.

[Susano-wo]

Talking is a free action. That monologue was instantaneous.
No, the monologue takes as much time as it takes to say it, more or less.

Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

Yes, the GM can say, "bwahahaha, I can abuse my GM powers to make him monologue forever!" But that's silly. I doubt they would provide you the same luxury if you wanted a hero monologue. :smallamused: I've never had anyone pull this one me, so I don't know if I would leave the game, but it would definitely strenuously object. Its a huge immersion breaker. Honestly, it would make me feel like I'm playing a videogame or something.

Talakael: I would not allow someone to "move around the corner and shoot at whatever I see" if not in combat, and not aware specifically of anything there. any creatures around the corner would be in the same position you are: Suddenly, there is someone else there! However, I would allow you to ready outside of combat, so if you wanted to notch an arrow and ready to fire at anything that appears around the corner you could . (Yes, I know this is houseruling)

[Ashtagon]

Talking is a free action. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction)

[Venger]

First off, I said narrative that makes sense. I didn't say "realistic" (because people mistake realism for exactly like real life), I said narrative that makes sense. Because this scenario--rogue walks into 10 by 10 by 10 chamber, has the door slam shut behind him, and a fireball trap go off at his feet, but evades so has nary a singed hair-- does not make any narrative sense. Sometimes these things are unavoidable, because its a game, and you have to sacrifice to maintain fun, but I want as little of them as possible.

right. and the narrative is dependent on what superpowers the PCs and other characters have. if someone can walk through walls, then putting him in jail and saying he can't escape because "it's not realistic" (or if you prefer "it doesn't make narrative sense") is not good GMing, it's just picking on him to railroad him/have x specific thing happen.

it makes complete narrative sense because that's what evasion does. You wouldn't say "sorry conjurer, I just don't feel abrupt jaunt makes narrative sense. despite what the RAW of the abilities you invested character resources in say, I'm choosing to ignore them. orc crits with the falchion. roll a new character."

so why would you say it to a rogue?

it's because a lot of people have this weird double standard towards mundanes internalized from the 3.5 designers. that's all the guy at the gym fallacy is.


And can we (or those of you who do) stop saying guy at the gym fallacy? Its not a fallacy, its a description of a mindset. And a pretty dismissive one.

no? I call it that because that's the name for this line of reasoning (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy)

you may not think that it's wrong to pick on mundanes and let casters have free reign, like people who think that building an optimized character means that you will be a poor roleplayer may draw objection to the nomenclature of the stormwind fallacy, but we use common names for things so we know what everyone's talking about rather than having to rehash old arguments and points every time.


Talking is a free action. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction)



Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.
(emphasis mine)
fortunately D&D thought of this, to avoid this precise circumstance

[Susano-wo]

Talking is a free action. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction)

first off, as Verger said, they made concessions to not allow this. And as I had already referenced, the limits for talking are set to generally a few sentences.

AS far as guy at gym goes...


right. and the narrative is dependent on what superpowers the PCs and other characters have. if someone can walk through walls, then putting him in jail and saying he can't escape because "it's not realistic" (or if you prefer "it doesn't make narrative sense") is not good GMing, it's just picking on him to railroad him/have x specific thing happen.

it makes complete narrative sense because that's what evasion does. You wouldn't say "sorry conjurer, I just don't feel abrupt jaunt makes narrative sense. despite what the RAW of the abilities you invested character resources in say, I'm choosing to ignore them. orc crits with the falchion. roll a new character."

so why would you say it to a rogue?

it's because a lot of people have this weird double standard towards mundanes internalized from the 3.5 designers. that's all the guy at the gym fallacy is.

Because there is a reason that they are called mundanes? Seriously, if you want a game where everyone has magic superpowers, ok, that's fine (Hell, I love the Giant Robo OVA, and, with the exception of a few characters, everyone has superpowers). But that's not the core assumption of D&D. The Core assumption of D&D is that certain classes have magical abilities (and these as demarcated my calling them magical). Yes, especially at high levels, mundanes can do things impossibly well. That's different than, I dodge so well that something doesn't hit me. Why? Rogue!

Adding things to the mundanes to make them less mundane at higher levels? Sounds fun and fine. Trying to say that explicitly non magical abilities do explicitly magical things? That's wrong. You cant make the game what you want by trying to pretend that it already is that way.

And I know where the guy in the gym fallacy gets its name. I looked at that thread just before I posted to make sure I was remembering right. Its still dismissive. 'Realism' advocates don't claim (at least I've never heard anyone do so) that D&D characters are the equivalent to guys at the gym. People acknowledge that mundanes represent exceptional people, who reach, and sometimes stretch, the limits of what humans are capable. And they acknowledge (hopefully) that sometimes the game rules sacrifice realism for fun, and allow people to do things that they could not otherwise do because it would be less fun in that instance to try to realistically map things. So Guy and the Gym is intentionally dismissive and does not represent the argument is is trying to refute. Its, ironically, a straw-man fallacy in and of itself

And its not a fallacy. There is no logical error involved, its just a different mindset to classes. One that in the view of the adopters of the term hampers fun necessarily. And that's a fine view to have, but that doesn't make opposing views fallacious.

[Brookshw]

And its not a fallacy. There is no logical error involved, its just a different mindset to classes. One that in the view of the adopters of the term hampers fun necessarily. And that's a fine view to have, but that doesn't make opposing views fallacious.

Well it does use its conclussion as one of its premises so it is a fallacy, just one that usually goes by another name :smalltongue:

[Susano-wo]

Well it does use its conclussion as one of its premises so it is a fallacy, just one that usually goes by another name :smalltongue:

:smallbiggrin:Oh, in a similar vein to the above post, I forgot to add: the only reason to call it a fallacy is to imply that it is inherently incorrect, and, by contrast, that the opposing opinion is correct by default. Its disingenuous

[Venger]

first off, as Verger said, they made concessions to not allow this. And as I had already referenced, the limits for talking are set to generally a few sentences.

gary oldman is a talented actor, but my name's Venger :smalltongue:




Because there is a reason that they are called mundanes? Seriously, if you want a game where everyone has magic superpowers, ok, that's fine (Hell, I love the Giant Robo OVA, and, with the exception of a few characters, everyone has superpowers). But that's not the core assumption of D&D. The Core assumption of D&D is that certain classes have magical abilities (and these as demarcated my calling them magical). Yes, especially at high levels, mundanes can do things impossibly well. That's different than, I dodge so well that something doesn't hit me. Why? Rogue!

no, it's really not.

even mundanes gain magical powers very soon in the game. fighters can fall from orbit and not die. rogues can evade crappy spells like fireball, etc.

by "magical" I just mean "things that normal humans can't do in reality." no matter how many years I study kung fu, I can't lift a car or what have you because we don't get str scores that high in real life

you seem to be thinking I'm talking about ex/su/sp. I know evasion is ex. it still lets you do pretty cool stuff, like dodging a fireball in a 10x10 room, because that's how the real actual rules work.

it is absolutely the same thing.


Adding things to the mundanes to make them less mundane at higher levels? Sounds fun and fine. Trying to say that explicitly non magical abilities do explicitly magical things? That's wrong. You cant make the game what you want by trying to pretend that it already is that way.
I'm not talking about adding anything. you're talking about taking away the few meager things mundanes are thrown by the designers, like dodging fireball.

I am not talking about RAI, I am talking about RAW. rogues have evasion. they can dodge attacks that allow refhalf. saying otherwise is a houserule. you may feel rogue, a middling T4 as it is outside of Curmudgeon's hands, needs to be further hamstrung. I personally disagree, but my aim is not to change your mind, it's to get you to understand that I'm talking about the game as it stands. If you want to disable evasion in your games, fine, but that's not how the default rules work.


And I know where the guy in the gym fallacy gets its name. I looked at that thread just before I posted to make sure I was remembering right. Its still dismissive. 'Realism' advocates don't claim (at least I've never heard anyone do so) that D&D characters are the equivalent to guys at the gym. People acknowledge that mundanes represent exceptional people, who reach, and sometimes stretch, the limits of what humans are capable. And they acknowledge (hopefully) that sometimes the game rules sacrifice realism for fun, and allow people to do things that they could not otherwise do because it would be less fun in that instance to try to realistically map things. So Guy and the Gym is intentionally dismissive and does not represent the argument is is trying to refute. Its, ironically, a straw-man fallacy in and of itself

You are getting hung up on the name and ignoring the actual content. you said yourself in this very post that mundanes shouldn't be able to do things that people can't do in real life. D&D is not real life, so this doesn't even make sense. this is what I'm drawing objection to.

when you say "mundanes should have their class features taken away." and I say "I disagree with your assertion that mundanes should have their class features taken away," I don't see how that's a strawman.


And its not a fallacy. There is no logical error involved, its just a different mindset to classes. One that in the view of the adopters of the term hampers fun necessarily. And that's a fine view to have, but that doesn't make opposing views fallacious.
as I said in my earlier post, that's just its name, which is why I called it that. it is a fallacy because you're holding different players to unequal standards. you clearly disagree.

I'm not sure either of us is making headway here. rogues have evasion. you can take it away if you want, but it's a houserule and not RAW. that's all I'm saying. arguing it is RAW is fallacious.

[Oko and Qailee]

If initiative has not been rolled and a player states "I point my gun at someone," how do you handle it?

I would personally roll initiative at that point. If the other guy wins initiative then he chooses what to do. If his choice is "keep monologuing" then he has forfeited the opportunity to attack first and is going to get an arrow in his butt before he gets a chance to attack because he chose to keep talking and not cast or even ready a spell.

Its not "just because I say so". Its because I stated my character was going to shoot him and rather than react and try and beat me to the draw he chose to continue his monologue. In effect, I go first just because HE said so.

I do exactly what you do and roll initiative. Yes, he can choose to monologue and take no actions that aren't free, the point is that it is something that exists within the system.

Look at what I quoted

"Though Ur-Priest and Psyren (and others) are very right about RAW, the whole, "I have a a gun to their head, but can't just ready an action to shoot them" thing is silly."

My point is that you can. If initiative hasn't been rolled and the enemy is aware they have every right to monologue or to attack back. The quote and the OP are both cases of "I want to be able to ready an action to shoot someone despite the fact that they're aware of me wanting to shoot them", this in effect is "I want to shoot them because I said so".

If you want to ready an action to shoot someone they either get initiative or you need to have some reason for a surprise. My end point is, can you point a gun at someones head and ready and action to shoot them? Absolutely, and that''s what I was disagreeing with in the quote, because it's incorrect.

[KillianHawkeye]

Again I will say that if you want to get into a position where somebody is at your mercy (a gun to the head, a knife to their throat, whatever), there is absolutely no way of making that happen without catching them by surprise or giving them a chance to react.

If you can sneak right up to them with your weapon drawn, that's great! You now get a surprise round to ready that action just like you wanted to.

If you fail to sneak up on them, you go into normal initiative. If you win initiative, that's great! You can now finish closing the distance and ready that action just like you wanted to. If not, then it is up to the opponent whether or not you get that chance. Maybe they are a totally unarmed noncombatant, and there's no place for them to escape to, so they have nothing they can do to stop you from stabbing them in the back right to their face; but most of the time they can at least try to run away or dive for cover or ready some means of defending themselves from your overpowering urge to hold them hostage or murder them.



So, finally, to be perfectly clear, what we're talking about is not a failure of the game or the combat system. It's a failure of understanding when combat does and doesn't start, or of people's need to achieve some kind of dominance over their enemies that they haven't really earned (as if the bad guys ought to know they're going to lose and just give up when the heroes arrive brandishing weapons or some nonsense).

If the villain is giving his evil speech about how awesome his dastardly plans are and how his maniacal victory is all but assured, you are totally within your rights to cut him off and start the fight. BUT, you cannot get a free instantaneous action just for being the first guy to say "I attack," because you are not standing there with your weapon raised waiting for combat to begin. Rather, it is your act of raising your weapon with the intent of using it that triggers the initiative roll (provided, as mentioned, that neither side has surprise).

[Talakeal]

If the villain is giving his evil speech about how awesome his dastardly plans are and how his maniacal victory is all but assured, you are totally within your rights to cut him off and start the fight. BUT, you cannot get a free instantaneous action just for being the first guy to say "I attack," because you are not standing there with your weapon raised waiting for combat to begin. Rather, it is your act of raising your weapon with the intent of using it that triggers the initiative roll (provided, as mentioned, that neither side has surprise).

I agree with you.

But in this case that's not what happened.

I declared that I was raising my weapon with the intent to use it. That DID NOT start the fight, and when the fight did start 5 minutes later the fact that I had previously declared that I was raising my weapon and readying my aim was discounted and meant nothing.

[TheFurith]

So last night we are playing PF. I am exploring the dungeon with my bow drawn, see the evil wizard. He starts to speak and I announce "I am shooting him". The DM tells me that I have to wait until he is done talking to initiate combat*. When he is done speaking I then go to shoot him, the DM tells me to roll initiative, I roll poorly, and end up going not only after the wizard, who now shoots me with a ray, but most of the rest of the party as well.

Is this actually how it works?

I know this is (yet another) case of bad DMing all around, but I am legitimately curious about this as back when I was in junior college about 10 years ago this a very frequent point of contention; how does readying an action outside of combat work? And further, what do you do when you have multiple people with readied actions? Are there any modifiers to surprise or initiative for having a weapon drawn or for having a longer range / reach than your opponent?




*Yeah, I know. Typical DM warning sign, but after 20+ years of gaming I am used to it as the majority of DMs do it and I was certainly guilty of doing it myself back in the day.

You can't ready an action out of combat. But if I found a DM that told me I couldn't shoot a guy until he was done giving a speech and shot me first when I already had the bow drawn and pointed at him, I'd start looking for a new game.

[Earthwalker]

First off, I said narrative that makes sense. I didn't say "realistic" (because people mistake realism for exactly like real life), I said narrative that makes sense. Because this scenario--rogue walks into 10 by 10 by 10 chamber, has the door slam shut behind him, and a fireball trap go off at his feet, but evades so has nary a singed hair-- does not make any narrative sense. Sometimes these things are unavoidable, because its a game, and you have to sacrifice to maintain fun, but I want as little of them as possible.


The GM chooses the narrative when seeing how a fireball spell works. We know that it hits everywhere in the area, and it has a duration of instant. It can be easy to say that it fills the area over 2 seconds. Not just fill the area all at once. Fire lashes out at eye level and hits the far wall and bounces back covering the floor and roof. That’s what I am saying happens as GM.

This narrative makes sense with a rogue being able to evade it. It also makes sense for none rogues to save for half.

Making a rogue lose evasion is a choice by the GM just to ignore the rules because they want to not because it’s the only possible way in the world it can make narrative sense.


Ok, so what do you do if a player declares they have their weapon readied outside of combat? Like if someone comes to a corner in a dungeon corridor and announces "I raise my bow, draw back and arrow, walk around the corner and shoot whomever I see?"


The passive aggressive part of my Gming says the most likely outcome is

“You see four guards who have all got readied actions to shot anybody that walks around the corner performing an hostile act. So they go first”

Of course that’s not helping.

What you are describing is the surprise mechanic. It has nothing to do with readied actions. You go round the corner and if you are aware of them and they aren’t of you, you get surprise and fire first.
Readied actions out of combat gets stupid.

What your GM did, monologing and then rolling imitative is wrong if you want to shoot straight away. As soon as you and the mage were aware of each other and hostile it’s an imitative roll.

DnD is not a game that models holding people hostage at knife point. Or at gun point. It’s not designed to do that. If you want that as part of the game you are going to have to add in some new rules. (I can’t think of many games that model it well to be honest)

Holding a dagger to someone’s throat is just pointless in DnD.
Bob presses a dagger to Terry’s throat. “Don’t move or I will cut you !!”
Terry moves away and Bob attacks. D4 damage, rolls a 2. Ok Terry’s HP is now 103. Oh no what can Terry do. Draws his great sword and hits bob back for 34 damage.

[Susano-wo]

My apologies about the misspelling.


gary oldman is a talented actor, but my name's Venger :smalltongue:





no, it's really not.

even mundanes gain magical powers very soon in the game. fighters can fall from orbit and not die. rogues can evade crappy spells like fireball, etc.

by "magical" I just mean "things that normal humans can't do in reality." no matter how many years I study kung fu, I can't lift a car or what have you because we don't get str scores that high in real life

you seem to be thinking I'm talking about ex/su/sp. I know evasion is ex. it still lets you do pretty cool stuff, like dodging a fireball in a 10x10 room, because that's how the real actual rules work.

it is absolutely the same thing.

Ok, I gotta ask a question. (I'm tempted to wait until I get the answer to respond, because all this talky talk might be useless if the answer is yes). Do you think that D&D has its own set of physics? really? And I don't mean things like magic modifying them. I mean, do you think that falling damage rules indicate the physical laws of D&D, or do you think that D&D assumes normal physics in general, and makes rules like the falling rules to give a quick adjudication in game effects. Cause I have never seen anything positively indicating the former in D&D books, and every time I hear Devs talking, or references to similar subjects in the books, it seems to indicate the later (though I have never heard them address the question directly)

If the answer is yes, the rules indicate what physics are in the D&D universe, then we may be at a point of conceptual incommensurability where we have no way to reason with each other because our starting points are completely different

But even still, along with evasion, the examples you give are silly, silly and false, respectively. A Fighter, could technically survive by level 2, assuming average HP and a 16con. Oh yeah, and 20 1's. Though the average damage is 70, so until level 8 with the same assumptions, he could not have a 50/50 chance of doing so. Which is ludicrous, but also without applying reentry fire damage(because your point seems to be about how far a fighter can call, not specifically that they can fall from orbit) And with an 18 strength, you can only lift 600 pounds, barely. A human can, by 4th level, at maximum, lift up 700, and by 8th, 800. This might still be greater than humans are capable of, but its more in line with my aforementioned D&D norm, which is stretching the capacity for normal possibility, without outright ignoring it.

But my point with evasion and falling is this: the rules try to give quick ways of adjudicating effects, and sometimes, do to carelessness, or trying to preserve fun, or sometimes for game balance, they do not give accurate descriptions of what should happen. If you want accurate descriptions, you have to modify these rules. This is not the same as mundane classes having explicit and overt superpowers.



I'm not talking about adding anything. you're talking about taking away the few meager things mundanes are thrown by the designers, like dodging fireball.

I am not talking about RAI, I am talking about RAW. rogues have evasion. they can dodge attacks that allow refhalf. saying otherwise is a houserule. you may feel rogue, a middling T4 as it is outside of Curmudgeon's hands, needs to be further hamstrung. I personally disagree, but my aim is not to change your mind, it's to get you to understand that I'm talking about the game as it stands. If you want to disable evasion in your games, fine, but that's not how the default rules work.



You are getting hung up on the name and ignoring the actual content. you said yourself in this very post that mundanes shouldn't be able to do things that people can't do in real life. D&D is not real life, so this doesn't even make sense. this is what I'm drawing objection to.

when you say "mundanes should have their class features taken away." and I say "I disagree with your assertion that mundanes should have their class features taken away," I don't see how that's a strawman.

as I said in my earlier post, that's just its name, which is why I called it that. it is a fallacy because you're holding different players to unequal standards. you clearly disagree.

Ok, two things: I never talked about disabling evasion, I mentioned that I thought there was a rule somewhere that limited its applications in situations that just didn't make sense, such as the aforementioned 10x10x10 room. A huuuuge difference between that and disabling it entirely. I then mentioned that it makes me, I believe i said "Die inside a bit" when rules create results that cannot fit into the narrative (surviving ludicrous falls is on that list too). Never, after that first post, where I wondered if I was remembering right, made anything approaching the claim that the evasion ability as written did not produce results as you have described. I disagree that the evasion ability is supposed to represent a superpower in the same way you do. I think its a an area where the rules don't do a good job at simulating a reality that makes any sort of sense, and create narratives that don't make sense.

This is, again, not to pick on rogues, or try to de-power them. This is just not liking how evasion works in those corner cases. If its necessary to the rogues ability to keep up (which I doubt), then let them keep it as is, or add something else to represent the nerfing of that ability. Fine. No problem.

As far as adding things go, I think I was bleeding over a concept in the original GatG thread, where people suggested adding things at higher levels to make mundanes less mundane, like inherent magic gained from just being that good, which sounds cool and fun to me. Oh, and I never said "mundanes should have their class features taken away." I mentioned not liking a result in certain cases of one class feature shares by 2 (or mayb e 3) PHB classes. Don't put words in my mouth.

The straw man does not refer to your stements particularly, but the GatG nomenclature. If I refer to your point of view as the everyoneshouldflyandshootlasersoutoftheireyes fallacy, you would object to the name for several good reasons. It is not representative of your position, just the Guy at the Gym isn't representative of the position it describes, and is similarly dismissive. "That's just what we call it" does not justify calling it something that is, well, insulting. Would it really be that hard to call it, say the Mundane Mistake, or the Mundane Misconception? Or something else that doesn't alliterate?



I'm not sure either of us is making headway here. rogues have evasion. you can take it away if you want, but it's a houserule and not RAW. that's all I'm saying. arguing it is RAW is fallacious.


NO, I doubt either of us will make any headway, but I feel the need to press on at least a little more, nonetheless. :smalltongue: But I think I see one problem. You see to be equating fallacy with error, or wrong opinion. A Fallacy is a logical inconsistency. it is not simply any time someone is wrong. Calling it a fallacy degrades the position from simply an opposing position, to one of being objectively wrong by violating logic.

[Keltest]

NO, I doubt either of us will make any headway, but I feel the need to press on at least a little more, nonetheless. :smalltongue: But I think I see one problem. You see to be equating fallacy with error, or wrong opinion. A Fallacy is a logical inconsistency. it is not simply any time someone is wrong. Calling it a fallacy degrades the position from simply an opposing position, to one of being objectively wrong by violating logic.

Well, it kind of does. The rules have too many flat out inconsistencies between The Guy at the Gym and High Level Fighter Guy for there to be a logical association between the abilities of the two. To start with, Fighter Guy is going to have more strength than is humanly possible, even without any magical equipment. He will be superhumanly durable, and I don't just mean silly things like surviving a fall from high orbit if the friction damage doesn't kill him. They can swing their limbs faster than a regular human, without magical assistance, and they wont even get fatigued.

And all of that is in a party without any magic items or casters at all. When you start getting into equipment, you get pretty crazy. Past a point, characters naturally and routinely pass into the superhuman level of ability, and that point is easy to hit fairly early on. There simply isn't a logical relation between "Here is what you would be able to do" and "here is what they can do."

Sure, roguespace may violate the laws of physics, but so do a million and six other things about D&D and the mundane classes in particular.

[Susano-wo]

@Killian: If that was at me, I acknowledged that you were right about the surprise mechanic/being in initiative already takes care of the action part of that situation. It just leaves the problem of HP. Its a situation that is not handled well(read, at all) in 3.5D&D, or probably any edition of D&D, but yeah, it would be pretty much impossible if you start initiative counts when you should, to have the situation outside of combat, so that part is fine. not being able to handle that situation is still a weakness of D&D. That's ok, there's no such thing as the RPG that can do everything really well with no sacrifices :smallbiggrin:


@ Earthwalker: Its a fireball. Its a big ball of fire. If you, as a GM want to change the way it has been described every time it has been in the whole of freakin D&D, that's fine. That's kind of irrelevant to the point, though, since fireball was just an example. Change fireball to anything that has been definitely defined as covering a whole area and put someone in a confined space that is smaller than said area, and you get the same result. Saying its a choice because they want to is intentionally misrepresenting the motivation. The motivation every time I have seen it is to have a narrative that makes sense. You might be able to finagle another description that allows the evasion to make sense within the story, and that's great. Not interested in de-powering anyone.

[Earthwalker]

@ Earthwalker: Its a fireball. Its a big ball of fire. If you, as a GM want to change the way it has been described every time it has been in the whole of freakin D&D, that's fine.


A fireball for me is defined as a ball of fire that you can make a reflex save to take half damage from.
If you have evasion and make a relflex save you take no damage.

Please tell me if that defination of a fireball is the same as yours.


That's kind of irrelevant to the point, though, since fireball was just an example. Change fireball to anything that has been definitely defined as covering a whole area and put someone in a confined space that is smaller than said area, and you get the same result.


I have been unable to find the definition of this in the rules. I play Pathfinder if you please could give me a page number for this it would help me see where you are coming from.



Saying its a choice because they want to is intentionally misrepresenting the motivation. The motivation every time I have seen it is to have a narrative that makes sense. You might be able to finagle another description that allows the evasion to make sense within the story, and that's great. Not interested in de-powering anyone.

You are saying there is two naratives that describe what happens.

One that has a logical narative that follows the rules.
One that has a logical narative that doesn't follow the rules.

I personally believe that a narative that follows the rules works better.


Additionally I do believe that the world of DnD does not have the same physics as the real world. I believe we can use real world physics for alot of aplications but the rules are more important than physics. Modeling real world physics is too complicated and so must refer to simpler rules.

[Venger]

My apologies about the misspelling.
sfine




Ok, I gotta ask a question. (I'm tempted to wait until I get the answer to respond, because all this talky talk might be useless if the answer is yes). Do you think that D&D has its own set of physics? really? And I don't mean things like magic modifying them. I mean, do you think that falling damage rules indicate the physical laws of D&D, or do you think that D&D assumes normal physics in general, and makes rules like the falling rules to give a quick adjudication in game effects. Cause I have never seen anything positively indicating the former in D&D books, and every time I hear Devs talking, or references to similar subjects in the books, it seems to indicate the later (though I have never heard them address the question directly)

If the answer is yes, the rules indicate what physics are in the D&D universe, then we may be at a point of conceptual incommensurability where we have no way to reason with each other because our starting points are completely different

sure. asking questions is a good way to find things out.

Yes! D&D absolutely has its own set of physics that work completely differently from real-world physics. to say otherwise is just... weird.

in real life, if you leap out of an airplane, no matter how hard you exercise or how thick your skin is, you're going to die (yeah I know about people who occasionally survive without parachutes but I'm talking about the general tendency)

in deeandee, if you have at least 121 hit points, then you can fall from any height with absolutely no averse effects whatever.

this is the point of your philosophy that I object to. overriding actual RAW with what you think makes "narrative sense."

if I have a character with 121+hp, and I need to jump off a tower to evade a lich or something, I'll know that I am safe because it is impossible for me to be killed. you would then say "y'know, I just don't feel it makes narrative sense for people to be able to do amazing things in this whimsical fantasy games. even though it's impossible for you to take enough damage to kill you from this, I say you do anyway. roll a new character."

that is not fair, and it's ignoring the real actual rules of the game.

I thought I was making it perfectly clear that this was the case. honestly, whenever we argue about D&D rules, I assume we're not using real physics, because we can't really shoot fireball or violate the laws of thermodynamics and the falling rules don't accurately represent terminal velocity, etc. if you're assuming D&D physics is real physics... then I agree, there can be no real conversation between us.


But even still, along with evasion, the examples you give are silly, silly and false, respectively. A Fighter, could technically survive by level 2, assuming average HP and a 16con. Oh yeah, and 20 1's. Though the average damage is 70, so until level 8 with the same assumptions, he could not have a 50/50 chance of doing so. Which is ludicrous, but also without applying reentry fire damage(because your point seems to be about how far a fighter can call, not specifically that they can fall from orbit) And with an 18 strength, you can only lift 600 pounds, barely. A human can, by 4th level, at maximum, lift up 700, and by 8th, 800. This might still be greater than humans are capable of, but its more in line with my aforementioned D&D norm, which is stretching the capacity for normal possibility, without outright ignoring it.

they are neither silly nor false because D&D is not supposed to represent real world physics. in real life, people cannot shoot fireballs, nor can they escape to roguespace when you set off a bomb in the phone booth they're standing in. this is irrelevant because D&D is not a real life sim.

I feel like you're getting caught up on the minutae of the examples I give while ignoring the actual points I'm trying to make. I wasn't talking about a fighter being a peak human, I was talking about a hulking hurler throwing the moon. I'm perfectly aware that some olympic athletes and characters from chain emails can lift 1000 pounds, but no matter how many pushups I can do, I cannot throw celestial bodies, but characters in D&D can, because the game is not supposed to be like real life.


But my point with evasion and falling is this: the rules try to give quick ways of adjudicating effects, and sometimes, do to carelessness, or trying to preserve fun, or sometimes for game balance, they do not give accurate descriptions of what should happen. If you want accurate descriptions, you have to modify these rules. This is not the same as mundane classes having explicit and overt superpowers.
your point with evasion is that it will only function when you want it to, and I do not think that's fair. first, it's not how the rules work, and second, rogues really do not need to be nerfed.



Ok, two things: I never talked about disabling evasion, I mentioned that I thought there was a rule somewhere that limited its applications in situations that just didn't make sense, such as the aforementioned 10x10x10 room. A huuuuge difference between that and disabling it entirely. I then mentioned that it makes me, I believe i said "Die inside a bit" when rules create results that cannot fit into the narrative (surviving ludicrous falls is on that list too). Never, after that first post, where I wondered if I was remembering right, made anything approaching the claim that the evasion ability as written did not produce results as you have described. I disagree that the evasion ability is supposed to represent a superpower in the same way you do. I think its a an area where the rules don't do a good job at simulating a reality that makes any sort of sense, and create narratives that don't make sense.
you said evasion should not work in your mind in a circumstance where it explicitly works. this is disabling evasion.

oh, you thought there was a rule. okay, that's pretty much the whole thing we've been arguing about. there isn't, so I think we're pretty much done. I'm fine with you destroying rogues in your games as long as you don't say that's how the rules work, even if I disagree with your reasoning.



As far as adding things go, I think I was bleeding over a concept in the original GatG thread, where people suggested adding things at higher levels to make mundanes less mundane, like inherent magic gained from just being that good, which sounds cool and fun to me. Oh, and I never said "mundanes should have their class features taken away." I mentioned not liking a result in certain cases of one class feature shares by 2 (or mayb e 3) PHB classes. Don't put words in my mouth.
be that as it may, I never said a thing about giving mundanes nice things (since I know you'd dismiss it as blasphemy, and besides, that's not the topic of conversation at hand) saying I did is a strawman, and I don't appreciate it. you said evasion should not work in a circumstance where it works. that's taking things away from mundanes. you're putting words in my mouth, not the other way around.


The straw man does not refer to your stements particularly, but the GatG nomenclature. If I refer to your point of view as the everyoneshouldflyandshootlasersoutoftheireyes fallacy, you would object to the name for several good reasons. It is not representative of your position, just the Guy at the Gym isn't representative of the position it describes, and is similarly dismissive. "That's just what we call it" does not justify calling it something that is, well, insulting. Would it really be that hard to call it, say the Mundane Mistake, or the Mundane Misconception? Or something else that doesn't alliterate?

well, you called gatg a strawman, and it was the argument I was making, so that's pretty much the same thing. if you mean "I was insulting that guy and not you" then... okay? if you called it that, I would not care at all. "fallacy" is a meaningless term on the internet, like "epic" or "ironic." it's got an actual definition, but I'm perfectly aware most people use it to mean "person who disagrees with me."

"that's what we call it" is how we talk to each other. I call rogue's ability to dodge attacks "evasion" because that's what it's called. we call oberoni or stormwind those things to avoid having to talk through their points every single time the issues come up. if you don't like gatg fallacy's name, don't blame me, I didn't come up with it.

you can call it that if you like, but I'll stick with its actual name so people will know what I'm talking about.


NO, I doubt either of us will make any headway, but I feel the need to press on at least a little more, nonetheless. :smalltongue: But I think I see one problem. You see to be equating fallacy with error, or wrong opinion. A Fallacy is a logical inconsistency. it is not simply any time someone is wrong. Calling it a fallacy degrades the position from simply an opposing position, to one of being objectively wrong by violating logic.
sure, feel free. I feel like we're done here since you admitted selectively disabling evasion is not RAW (which is the only real solvable issue we were discussing) but I'd be happy to discuss the issues further if you like.

I know what a fallacy is. I don't appreciate your condescension. as I said earlier, gatg fallacy is a fallacy because you are not behaving logically. you are evaluating two separate castes of players on different metrics due to a dislike for mundanes rather than anything to do with actual rules. since this is a game, logically everyone should play by the same rules. if you say "rogue, I don't feel that you dodging a fireball makes narrative sense. roll a new character." but keep your mouth shut when the wizard uses abrupt jaunt to avoid the same fireball, then you are not behaving either fairly or logically, thus the name "guy at the gym fallacy" and not "guy at the gym wrongheaded opinion"

[KillianHawkeye]

If the villain is giving his evil speech about how awesome his dastardly plans are and how his maniacal victory is all but assured, you are totally within your rights to cut him off and start the fight. BUT, you cannot get a free instantaneous action just for being the first guy to say "I attack," because you are not standing there with your weapon raised waiting for combat to begin. Rather, it is your act of raising your weapon with the intent of using it that triggers the initiative roll (provided, as mentioned, that neither side has surprise).


I agree with you.

But in this case that's not what happened.

I declared that I was raising my weapon with the intent to use it. That DID NOT start the fight, and when the fight did start 5 minutes later the fact that I had previously declared that I was raising my weapon and readying my aim was discounted and meant nothing.

Yeah. :smallsigh:

Um, I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed with the fact that you should have been able to start combat when you raised your weapon. That was a fail on the part of your DM, and I don't think I've seen a single person dispute that. That is a separate issue from readying an action and how D&D handles initiative and the initiation of combat. The situation you described earlier, in which you raised your weapon with intent to attack but were not allowed to initiate combat, was clearly wrong. However, that incorrect implementation should not lead to the equally incorrect idea that you have a readied action for five minutes to shoot the bad guy.

My point was that raising your weapon in that situation should have started combat with an initiative roll, and that things should have proceeded on a round-by-round basis from there. You never stated anything about hiding from the monologuing villain, so he was not unaware of you when you raised your weapon, and therefore standard initiative rules should have dictated the course of events. The villain, if he beat your initiative, should have had a single round to react to you (or not, depending on his preferences). Nobody is saying that your DM was right to disallow you from starting combat, but equally are you not right to assume you have a readied action outside of combat just for stating your intent to take an action. Your situation was not handled the right way, but ignoring that fact, I am trying to tell you what the correct way to handle that sort of situation should be.

If you aim a weapon at an enemy, that ought to signal the start of hostility. How each individual reacts to the the initiation of hostilities is up to them, but when they react to it is determined by the rules of initiative.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so if a player wants to ready an action the proper response it to immediately roll initiative?


How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

[Keltest]

Ok, so if a player wants to ready an action the proper response it to immediately roll initiative?


How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

I would say initiative. Youre testing the guy with the shotgun's ability to act faster than his would-be assassin. Depending on the circumstances there may be a surprise round involved.

[Ashtagon]

Ok, so if a player wants to ready an action the proper response it to immediately roll initiative?


How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

I'd say that guy gets to have a readied action to whatever he had said he's going to do when someone opens that door.

The difference is whether you are trying to ready an action while the other person is watching.

[Earthwalker]

Ok, so if a player wants to ready an action the proper response it to immediately roll initiative?

How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

If the guy inside knows someone is coming. Hears him or sees his shadow under a door then the guy inside has surprise.
In this case then he does get one standard action when the door opens.

Seems the system can handle it quiet well.

It gives advantage to the person who should have advantage.

[Grand Poobah]

Ok, so if a player wants to ready an action the proper response it to immediately roll initiative?


How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

If the people coming to kill the guy in the chair know he's there (mechanically by spot/listen checks vs hide/move silently), roll initiative. If the they don't know he's there, shotgun man gets a surprise standard action assuming he himself is aware of their presence.

[Susano-wo]

Yes! D&D absolutely has its own set of physics that work completely differently from real-world physics. to say otherwise is just... weird.

Excuse me, sir I think there's been a mixup. I believe we picked up each other's arguments. You see, that there is my argument, so what I have here must be your argument.:smallwink:

Seriously though that's exactly how I feel about your way of thinking about it. Just replace "Yes!" with "No!" and add a "does not" after absolutely.

So yeah, there's that incommensurability I was talking about. I view, and have always the rules to be simulations of reality, except where it breaks from reality (spells, the plethora of monsters, etc). When the rules don't do this its because they are giving way for fun(as you said, simulating physics accurately would be too complicated and not fun), balance(which may be the case in something like evasion, where you feel it is unfair to a handful of classes to apply what I would consider some sense), and/or because they are bad rules (falling damage. There's no real reason to cap it at 20d6, at least not without applying a "after that you just die" rule).

So yeah, I think we have come as far as we can, I'll just make a few points I feel I need to make and we can stop derailing the thread >.>


this is the point of your philosophy that I object to. overriding actual RAW with what you think makes "narrative sense." That's the DM's job. Its the Dm's job not just to enforce the rules, but to choose when it makes more sense to not do so. But I guess this goes back to the rules are D&D physics base assumption. Under that assumption, the rules always make sense, because that's how the world operates.


if I have a character with 121+hp, and I need to jump off a tower to evade a lich or something, I'll know that I am safe because it is impossible for me to be killed. you would then say "y'know, I just don't feel it makes narrative sense for people to be able to do amazing things in this whimsical fantasy games. even though it's impossible for you to take enough damage to kill you from this, I say you do anyway. roll a new character."

that is not fair, and it's ignoring the real actual rules of the game.

OK, this is something I do have issue with. You consistently re-frame arguments to make them look silly or to put them in terms more easily refuted, instead of addressing those arguments as they were stated. You change narrative sense to realism, because you already have a case to make about realism, you change "in this case it doesn't make sense for the class feature to work" to "taking class features away," and now "y'know, I just don't feel it makes narrative sense for people to be able to do amazing things in this whimsical fantasy games," When I have said nothing of the kind. Amazing is great. You can do amazing things without resorting to, "sure you can fall from any height." additionally the level of whimsy is rather campaign dependent. I play in one campaign that has quest fairies and a holiday called halfling stomping day. I play in another campaign where we are in the aftermath of a magical plague brought on by the current ruler for various reasons, which he then swooped in to take credit for 'curing.' So, those games take on rather different levels of whimsy.



oh, you thought there was a rule. okay, that's pretty much the whole thing we've been arguing about. there isn't, so I think we're pretty much done. I'm fine with you destroying rogues in your games as long as you don't say that's how the rules work, even if I disagree with your reasoning.

be that as it may, I never said a thing about giving mundanes nice things (since I know you'd dismiss it as blasphemy, and besides, that's not the topic of conversation at hand) saying I did is a strawman, and I don't appreciate it. you said evasion should not work in a circumstance where it works. that's taking things away from mundanes. you're putting words in my mouth, not the other way around.

You may have been arguing RAW. I never was. This is clear if you read what I said. And let me be explicit, because it seems to be hard for you to understand me. I mentioned bleeding over from the other thread because I conflated statements made there with your own statements. This statement: "As far as adding things go, I think I was bleeding over a concept in the original GatG thread, where people suggested adding things at higher levels to make mundanes less mundane, like inherent magic gained from just being that good, which sounds cool and fun to me" was meant to clarify that I had made a mistake. Yes I misremembered what you said. Putting words in your mouth? Hardly. And again, you "know" I'll dismiss it as "blasphemy." Read what I said. I said I think its a cool idea, making the higher levels less "mundane." You keep jumping to conclusions. I love ToB, for instance, one of the most recognized 'giving mundanes nice things' supplement.




well, you called gatg a strawman, and it was the argument I was making, so that's pretty much the same thing. if you mean "I was insulting that guy and not you" then... okay? if you called it that, I would not care at all. "fallacy" is a meaningless term on the internet, like "epic" or "ironic." it's got an actual definition, but I'm perfectly aware most people use it to mean "person who disagrees with me."

"that's what we call it" is how we talk to each other. I call rogue's ability to dodge attacks "evasion" because that's what it's called. we call oberoni or stormwind those things to avoid having to talk through their points every single time the issues come up. if you don't like gatg fallacy's name, don't blame me, I didn't come up with it.

you can call it that if you like, but I'll stick with its actual name so people will know what I'm talking about.

GatG is not inherently a straw man. I never said that. I said calling it Guy at the Gym is creating a strawman out of the view it attempts to combat. pointing out a fallacy is not the same as insulting someone. I don't know what to tell you if you cannot see the difference.

You choose the terms you use. There is no authority enforcing the term, and if its inaccurate, it shouldn't be used. If the terminology changes, all it takes is for people to use the new terminology for it to serve the same function. You don't wanna do that, then don't. But its disingenuous to claim that you are not responsible for your usage of the term because you did not come up with it. (and to clarify, I don't think the usage of the term is the end of the world, but it is a bad term to use)



I know what a fallacy is. I don't appreciate your condescension. as I said earlier, gatg fallacy is a fallacy because you are not behaving logically. you are evaluating two separate castes of players on different metrics due to a dislike for mundanes rather than anything to do with actual rules. since this is a game, logically everyone should play by the same rules. if you say "rogue, I don't feel that you dodging a fireball makes narrative sense. roll a new character." but keep your mouth shut when the wizard uses abrupt jaunt to avoid the same fireball, then you are not behaving either fairly or logically, thus the name "guy at the gym fallacy" and not "guy at the gym wrongheaded opinion"

Well, sorry you felt I was being condescending, but that was not my intent. I really thought you didn't know what the word meant, because you consistently use it in ways that indicate something different. In other words, if you had used the word in is actual meaning I would have understood you and not tried to clarify.

once again putting words in people's mouths, btw, or in this case, assigning motives. You assume everyone who employs 'GatG' dislikes mundane classes, when I have nothing against them, and have never heard an advocate for that sort of play style say anything bad against them.

Everyone does play by the same rules with GatG. The classes work the same for everybody. Anyone who plays a rogue will have the same expectations as everyone else at that table who plays the rogue. Every fighter likewise. And yes, every wizard. If different classes and class abilities is unfair and playing by different rules, then you cant have classes at all, because no class can have different mechanics :smallsigh:


Well, that went on longer than I thought. In any case, we should probably either take this to PM if you feel you want to respond further, start a new thread(seems unlikely that that will accomplish anything, though), or just drop it.

RE: Talakeal's last scenario: Yeah, if they are both aware, RAW says no surprise round and roll for init. If one is aware, they get a surprise round, and if you allow readied actions outside of combat, which is not RAW, the shotgunner gets to shoot first.

[Venger]

Excuse me, sir I think there's been a mixup. I believe we picked up each other's arguments. You see, that there is my argument, so what I have here must be your argument.:smallwink:
no it's not. you have been arguing that the things should conform to real-world physics because they do not make narrative sense.


(falling damage. There's no real reason to cap it at 20d6, at least not without applying a "after that you just die" rule).
while you may feel that way, the rules are quite clear about how falling damage works. you can never take more than 120 damage from falling. it is against the rules.


That's the DM's job. Its the Dm's job not just to enforce the rules, but to choose when it makes more sense to not do so. But I guess this goes back to the rules are D&D physics base assumption. Under that assumption, the rules always make sense, because that's how the world operates.
okay, so you admit that you houserule mundanes to die when falling because you don't feel that the hp system is realistic (or as you prefer, "makes narrative sense.")

you don't get to say that I'm strawmanning you by saying that this is your opinion. you said these exact things in your own words.


OK, this is something I do have issue with. You consistently re-frame arguments to make them look silly or to put them in terms more easily refuted, instead of addressing those arguments as they were stated. You change narrative sense to realism, because you already have a case to make about realism


you change "in this case it doesn't make sense for the class feature to work" to "taking class features away," and now "y'know, I just don't feel it makes narrative sense for people to be able to do amazing things in this whimsical fantasy games," When I have said nothing of the kind.

you literally said both of those things in this very post, as quoted above. no further comment.


You can do amazing things without resorting to, "sure you can fall from any height."
you keep treating falling damage as though it's some kind of houserule I'm making up. it isn't. it's how D&D works. if you don't want to play by the rules, that's fine, but don't tell me that I'm playing the game wrong when I follow them.


I mentioned bleeding over from the other thread because I conflated statements made there with your own statements. This statement: "As far as adding things go, I think I was bleeding over a concept in the original GatG thread, where people suggested adding things at higher levels to make mundanes less mundane, like inherent magic gained from just being that good, which sounds cool and fun to me" was meant to clarify that I had made a mistake. Yes I misremembered what you said. Putting words in your mouth? Hardly.

saying I said stuff I never said is what putting words in my mouth means. again, you admit you did it, but get hung up on the phrase.


GatG is not inherently a straw man. I never said that.
Nope. you said that. here's you saying it.

So Guy and the Gym is intentionally dismissive and does not represent the argument is is trying to refute. Its, ironically, a straw-man fallacy in and of itself

everyone can see it. I don't get why you'd lie about that.


Well, sorry you felt I was being condescending, but that was not my intent. I really thought you didn't know what the word meant, because you consistently use it in ways that indicate something different. In other words, if you had used the word in is actual meaning I would have understood you and not tried to clarify.
"I'm sorry you were offended." nice apology there.

how is "I assumed you were too stupid to know what words meant" not condescending to you?


once again putting words in people's mouths, btw, or in this case, assigning motives. You assume everyone who employs 'GatG' dislikes mundane classes, when I have nothing against them, and have never heard an advocate for that sort of play style say anything bad against them.
you have been doing nothing but that the whole time.

when you don't think rogues should evade, their evasion doesn't work.

when you want to kill PCs, you ignore the cap for falling damage.

this kind of treatment will only hurt mundanes. casters can fly or teleport away without you saying "it doesn't make narrative sense." that's a rule you only apply to mundanes.


Well, that went on longer than I thought. In any case, we should probably either take this to PM if you feel you want to respond further, start a new thread(seems unlikely that that will accomplish anything, though), or just drop it.
I have no interest in taking this to PM with you. I do not want to start a new thread since you will not listen to my arguments. I will drop it if you will.

[KillianHawkeye]

How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

Ignoring the fact that you're once again bringing a gun to a sword fight, the problem with this scenario is that nobody can possibly maintain a state of alert readiness at all times for an entire night. Even if you don't require rest and thus cannot suffer from fatigue, eventually your mind will begin to wander and you'll lose focus. Even somebody who is actively standing guard has to make Spot and Listen checks or risk being caught unaware, and you have to understand the difference between suspecting that someone is there and knowing someone is there.

No matter what, there are only four possibilities in the rules for what happens when Waiting Guy and the Intruder meet:
Both Waiting Guy and Intruder know for sure that the other is just on the other side of the door. Neither one is surprised. Roll initiative to determine who's readiness was really higher.
Neither Waiting Guy nor the Intruder have detected each other, even though the Intruder is specifically looking for someone and Waiting Guy is just waiting around for an intruder. Neither one is surprised (or, I suppose you could say, both of them are surprised, but the point is that neither one gets a Surprise Round). Roll initiative to determine who reacts faster.
Waiting Guy, despite doing nothing but waiting for somebody to come through the door, wasn't attentive enough to see or hear the sneaky Intruder coming, while simultaneously being careless enough to give away his own position. The Intruder barges in suddenly and catches Waiting Guy by surprise.
Waiting Guy hears or otherwise senses that the Intruder is just outside, but he's holding still and being quiet and Intruder hasn't located him yet. Waiting Guy gets a Surprise Round and you get your readied action. This is the only scenario where Waiting Guy's plan to wait all night actually pays off.
That's it. Those are the possible results according to D&D's rules of initiative and starting combat, and to be honest, they seem to me like a perfectly reasonable and (dare I say it) realistic set of outcomes.



Now, if you want to come up with yet another edge case or unlikely scenario to try to thwart the game's rules, you're perfectly free to do so. Just be aware that you'd be arguing that the beginning of any fight between any two people under any circumstances doesn't immediately boil down to one of the four scenarios listed above. And, if that's the case, then nothing else I can possibly say will have any meaning to you.

Either way, I hope my posts in this thread have been informative or enlightening to anyone who bothers to read my many lengthy, overly-wordy paragraphs. And to all of you, I wish you the best.

[Venger]

How would you handle a situation like in Kill Bill 2 where (minor spoilers) the guy knows someone is coming to kill him so he sits in his chair all night with a shotgun pointed at his front door and his finger on the trigger?

Is this just a situation that D&D has no rules to handle and would just be a straight initiative check the moment the door was opened?

Or would you roll Initiative the moment the intruder declared their intent to open the door, even though she doesn't know someone is waiting on the other side?

the rules are very straightforward here:

each round, the shooter burns a standard to ready the action "when the bride opens my door, I shoot her"

a readied action is good for 1 round. if the bride doesn't come in that six seconds, you repeat.

she opens the door to the trailer and that triggers his readied action. readieds go off before their trigger, so he shoots her.

the bride wouldn't get initiative because she's not aware of the shooter. once the readied action went off, she would be aware of him, and you would adjudicate initiative normally.

[KillianHawkeye]

the rules are very straightforward here:

:smallsigh:

For a guy who claims to care so much about the rules, it surprises me how you don't seem to care that the ability to ready an action outside of combat isn't one of them.

It's funny, because anybody who house-rules readying actions when you're not even in initiative yet is only doing so because allowing makes "narrative sense" to them, which is something you seem to be against.

Anyway................


EDIT: See everyone? I actually CAN write short posts once in a while! :smallwink:

[Venger]

:smallsigh:

For a guy who claims to care so much about the rules, it surprises me how you don't seem to care that the ability to ready an action outside of combat isn't one of them.

It's funny, because anybody who house-rules readying actions when you're not even in initiative yet is only doing so because allowing makes "narrative sense" to them, which is something you seem to be against.

Anyway................


EDIT: See everyone? I actually CAN write short posts once in a while! :smallwink:

do I really need to explain that he had a raging badger in the corner of his trailer?

[KillianHawkeye]

do I really need to explain that he had a raging badger in the corner of his trailer?

No, but it might be courteous to at least explain what that has to do with anything. Is that some kind of euphemism? :smallbiggrin:

[Venger]

No, but it might be courteous to at least explain what that has to do with anything. Is that some kind of euphemism? :smallbiggrin:

euphemism?

sure, happy to help. it's a well-known trick/joke when it comes to effects that only last during initiative or a combat.

a badger that gets hurt flies into a rage until it or its opponent is dead. since his rage is up and he's uncontrollably trying to kill you, the combat last indefinitely.

so what you do is jam the badger in a cage or sack, poke him with a stick, get him raging, and then do whatever initiative -dependent things you wanted to do (such as ready) it's okay since you're in a combat with him.

(this is a joke, people don't do this in real games)

[Talakeal]

Ignoring the fact that you're once again bringing a gun to a sword fight, the problem with this scenario is that nobody can possibly maintain a state of alert readiness at all times for an entire night. Even if you don't require rest and thus cannot suffer from fatigue, eventually your mind will begin to wander and you'll lose focus. Even somebody who is actively standing guard has to make Spot and Listen checks or risk being caught unaware, and you have to understand the difference between suspecting that someone is there and knowing someone is there.

No matter what, there are only four possibilities in the rules for what happens when Waiting Guy and the Intruder meet:
Both Waiting Guy and Intruder know for sure that the other is just on the other side of the door. Neither one is surprised. Roll initiative to determine who's readiness was really higher.
Neither Waiting Guy nor the Intruder have detected each other, even though the Intruder is specifically looking for someone and Waiting Guy is just waiting around for an intruder. Neither one is surprised (or, I suppose you could say, both of them are surprised, but the point is that neither one gets a Surprise Round). Roll initiative to determine who reacts faster.
Waiting Guy, despite doing nothing but waiting for somebody to come through the door, wasn't attentive enough to see or hear the sneaky Intruder coming, while simultaneously being careless enough to give away his own position. The Intruder barges in suddenly and catches Waiting Guy by surprise.
Waiting Guy hears or otherwise senses that the Intruder is just outside, but he's holding still and being quiet and Intruder hasn't located him yet. Waiting Guy gets a Surprise Round and you get your readied action. This is the only scenario where Waiting Guy's plan to wait all night actually pays off.
That's it. Those are the possible results according to D&D's rules of initiative and starting combat, and to be honest, they seem to me like a perfectly reasonable and (dare I say it) realistic set of outcomes.



Now, if you want to come up with yet another edge case or unlikely scenario to try to thwart the game's rules, you're perfectly free to do so. Just be aware that you'd be arguing that the beginning of any fight between any two people under any circumstances doesn't immediately boil down to one of the four scenarios listed above. And, if that's the case, then nothing else I can possibly say will have any meaning to you.

Either way, I hope my posts in this thread have been informative or enlightening to anyone who bothers to read my many lengthy, overly-wordy paragraphs. And to all of you, I wish you the best.

Replace shotgun with crossbow if you like, it works equally well in this situation.

I guess what I cant wrap my head around is at the game lacks the granularity to distinguish between waiting there with your weapon pointed at the door and finger on the trigger and, say, bursting in with no warning while the guy is eating dinner with his weapon still in the holster.

I get that this is RAW, but it hust seems stange for such a crunchy and tactical game to just ignore so many factors.

[Susano-wo]

no it's not. you have been arguing that the things should conform to real-world physics because they do not make narrative sense. Oh for pete's sake. Never underestimate the internet, or people on it, to miss subtext. I thought the winking face was sufficient, but..it was a tongue in cheek way of saying that I find your basic assumptions as weird as you find mine. :smallsigh:


While you may feel that way, the rules are quite clear about how falling damage works. you can never take more than 120 damage from falling. it is against the rules.

Sure you can. Rule 0 is a thing. :smallamused:



Nope. you said that. here's you saying it.

everyone can see it. I don't get why you'd lie about that.

Wow, again with the ridiculous hyperbole and assigning motivations. I'm not lying. even if you were right that I made that claim, I wouldn't necessarily be lying. Again, why would someone lie about a previous post in a thread? But you aren't right, so let, once again, attempt to make this perfectly clear: The so called "Guy at the Gym Fallacy" as a concept is not necessarily fallacious. It simply starts from a different conceptual point. A point I personally disagree with, but that does not make it a fallacy. What I claimed was, and a poor, pedantic reading of my posts does not change this, that the term Guy at the Gym to describe the position that the "fallacy" describes is a straw man of that position.

So once again, the term Guy at the Gym? strawman. The concept that DnD characters are superheroes who should have to in no way follow the physical laws that govern 'our world.' Not fallacious.



"I'm sorry you were offended." nice apology there.

how is "I assumed you were too stupid to know what words meant" not condescending to you?

Oh. My. God. I didn't say that. I did. not. say. that.:smallfurious: this is exactly what I am talking about! You turn words around to fit your "refutation." You used the word wrong. Fact( a fact you acknowledged when you admitted to knowing what a fallacy is). This made me think you were mistaken about the word and I tried to clarify definitions so we could have an understanding. If that made you feel stupid, well, that's not on me. I didn't make you use a word in a way contrary to its definition.

It wasn't an apology, and I'm not sorry you are offended. Get offended if you like, I don't care. I was merely (noticing a pattern here?) clarifying.

And the rest of your arguments basically boil down to either not knowing, or willfully ignoring what words mean, combined with restating what you think my points actually mean rather than addressing them, so yeah, I'm done. subject dropped.

(Or maybe this is another one of those English-like languages with false-cognates i've heard so much about...hmm.)

@ Talakeal: Its basically because the combat game starts when initiative starts, which causes some hiccups in certain situations. Also, because the granularity to determine second by second readiness and all the factors that go into a scene in real time would be maddening to try to simulate in a pen and paper RPG. You would basically need a computer and exact, moment to moment control of the characters involved to really simulate that. In other word,s a video game :smalltongue:

[shaikujin]

Just a couple random thoughts while reading the thread.


There are actually several types of guns in standard (non-modern) DnD. I believe FR has a few blackpowder muskets or flintlocks.

DMG has rifles and even lasers (but it's meant for modern settings).

There's also a Kobold holding a shotgun (in one of the Dragon magazines I think). The shotgun is considered an artifact though.



As for readying an action outside combat, there are indeed no rules for this.

Which brings up a question, how does a character cast spells that require 1 standard action outside of combat?

In my group, we simply treat it as 6 seconds if we need to even keep track of it. I'd like to hear if that's the way it's handled in your gaming tables as well. Or are there times where you had to break up each 24 hour day into 14400 rounds?



Note to OP, if your character is allowed to ready an action, that would also mean the DM's NPC is also allowed to ready an action. And he can start doing that for ALL the NPCS you start encountering.



Next random thought I had -

DMG (pg 23/24) has rules on newcomers joining an existing combat and how to deal with the initiative, surprise rounds etc based on whether they are aware.

So, here's some super cheesy shenanigans just to see how we can ready an action (NOT meant for actual play, because the DM can do this much better than players):

Rather than a raging badger (which will mess with initiators refreshing maneuvers if I don't calm the critter down somehow), I hide a couple of fine-sized intelligent skip rocks (with the flying WSA, so they are now animated objects/constructs) inside my helmet's visor.

Have them start combat (but not actually attack), they roll initiative as does my character.

End and restart combat until my character rolls max on initiative. Then don't exit combat to keep that initiative roll :)

Have the constructs continuously ready an action to do something (aid me in spot checks maybe) each round. Constructs should be able to tirelessly maintain combat throughout the day, until I tell them to end combat. As long as my character is in combat, he can ready an action.

End combat to refresh maneuvers if required or sleep etc, then redo combat initiation again for best init rolls.

Any rules expert to see if the above actually works?



Taking this further, since the constructs are hidden in my character's visor, only he can see them in combat. Anyone else that come across my character will not see the constructs in combat. Not sure if this can be abused further with the DMG rules I mentioned above.

I'll see if I can work out how to apply initiatives and surprise rounds.

[Keltest]

Replace shotgun with crossbow if you like, it works equally well in this situation.

I guess what I cant wrap my head around is at the game lacks the granularity to distinguish between waiting there with your weapon pointed at the door and finger on the trigger and, say, bursting in with no warning while the guy is eating dinner with his weapon still in the holster.

I get that this is RAW, but it hust seems stange for such a crunchy and tactical game to just ignore so many factors.

It doesn't ignore them. Youre just overestimating the abilities of the average person to sit there, fully alert for the tiniest hint of action outside of his door. Even if he is sitting there waiting for precisely that to happen, he can still be startled by someone slamming open his door if he wasn't paying attention at that particular moment.

If both sides are equally aware of the other's presence before that door opens, youre testing their ability to act before the other, which is initiative. If they aren't equally aware, then one party is going to be surprised by the ambush, and its a surprise round.

Now, if your gunman had any sense at all, he would have rigged the door to pull the trigger on the gun as a result of it opening. Suddenly it isn't a readied action, but the other guys triggering a (very dangerous) trap, which the game also has rules for but is a lot closer to consistently providing you the outcome you seem to want.

[Earthwalker]

Replace shotgun with crossbow if you like, it works equally well in this situation.

I guess what I cant wrap my head around is at the game lacks the granularity to distinguish between waiting there with your weapon pointed at the door and finger on the trigger and, say, bursting in with no warning while the guy is eating dinner with his weapon still in the holster.

I get that this is RAW, but it hust seems stange for such a crunchy and tactical game to just ignore so many factors.

The guy with the crossbow pointed at the door has a massive advantage over the guy eating his diner.

Guy with crossbow. Gets perception tests to notice the door, I would imagine with a bonus or at least with no penalty and seeing a door handle move is a simple DC. When the door opens he gets a standard action (surprise round) it means he can fire his loaded cross bow and hit first.

The guy sat eating his dinner has a penalty on the perception test. He is distracted. Even if he notices he gets a standard action. To what ? Stand up and look dumbfounded. Maybe pick up a loaded crossbow but he can't fire it.

Setting yourself up ready does make a difference it is in the system as a surprise round. Not as holding your action out of combat.

Of all the problems in DnD this isn't one of them, and allowing people to hold actions out of combat just makes the game more stupid.

[Venger]

The guy with the crossbow pointed at the door has a massive advantage over the guy eating his diner.

Guy with crossbow. Gets perception tests to notice the door, I would imagine with a bonus or at least with no penalty and seeing a door handle move is a simple DC. When the door opens he gets a standard action (surprise round) it means he can fire his loaded cross bow and hit first.

The guy sat eating his dinner has a penalty on the perception test. He is distracted. Even if he notices he gets a standard action. To what ? Stand up and look dumbfounded. Maybe pick up a loaded crossbow but he can't fire it.

Setting yourself up ready does make a difference it is in the system as a surprise round. Not as holding your action out of combat.

Of all the problems in DnD this isn't one of them, and allowing people to hold actions out of combat just makes the game more stupid.

If the guy eating is also considered aware during his surprise round, then who would be considered unaware during one?

[KillianHawkeye]

The guy with the crossbow pointed at the door has a massive advantage over the guy eating his diner.

Guy with crossbow. Gets perception tests to notice the door, I would imagine with a bonus or at least with no penalty and seeing a door handle move is a simple DC. When the door opens he gets a standard action (surprise round) it means he can fire his loaded cross bow and hit first.

The guy sat eating his dinner has a penalty on the perception test. He is distracted. Even if he notices he gets a standard action. To what ? Stand up and look dumbfounded. Maybe pick up a loaded crossbow but he can't fire it.

Setting yourself up ready does make a difference it is in the system as a surprise round. Not as holding your action out of combat.

Of all the problems in DnD this isn't one of them, and allowing people to hold actions out of combat just makes the game more stupid.

Yes, this. Exactly this!

The advantage of keeping watch with a weapon in hand isn't to have a readied action available at all times, it's that you are more ready and less distracted if something does happen.

Also, Talakeal, it is well within a DM's power to give a circumstance bonus on the initiative check to a character if they're holding something as quick and easy to use as a gun or a loaded crossbow in order to represent how much less time and physical effort it takes compared to a weapon that you need to swing or draw or throw. I'm not at all convinced that that's necessary, but hopefully it is enough to alleviate your concerns, and it even has the benefit of being simple and unlikely to cause unintended consequences.

[Venger]

Yes, this. Exactly this!

The advantage of keeping watch with a weapon in hand isn't to have a readied action available at all times, it's that you are more ready and less distracted if something does happen.

Also, Talakeal, it is well within a DM's power to give a circumstance bonus on the initiative check to a character if they're holding something as quick and easy to use as a gun or a loaded crossbow in order to represent how much less time and physical effort it takes compared to a weapon that you need to swing or draw or throw. I'm not at all convinced that that's necessary, but hopefully it is enough to alleviate your concerns, and it even has the benefit of being simple and unlikely to cause unintended consequences.

But in most combats, won't everyone be holding their weapons? if it's something that everyone would get then not using it has the same effect

[KillianHawkeye]

But in most combats, won't everyone be holding their weapons? if it's something that everyone would get then not using it has the same effect

Maybe, maybe not. That's a complicated question with many possible answers. Not all combats take place in a dungeon where everyone is expecting danger. Sometimes an assassin strikes during the royal ball, or an evil adventuring party plane shifts into somebody's celestial love shack (as a totally original*, random* example).

* Examples not guaranteed to actually be original or random.

[Earthwalker]

If the guy eating is also considered aware during his surprise round, then who would be considered unaware during one?

I would say he still gets a chance. He certainly isn't automatically aware. He has a chance to hear the people breaking into his home. Of course most likely if he is sat eating the guys kicking open the door are the only people acting in the surprise round. What I was saying was even if he got a chance to act he would be out of luck compared to someone sat waiting watching the door.


But in most combats, won't everyone be holding their weapons? if it's something that everyone would get then not using it has the same effect

Yeah in normal combat use imitative rules, both sides are aware of each other and they act by who is fastest.
Oddly I really don't understand this comment its probably just me.

[Venger]

I would say he still gets a chance. He certainly isn't automatically aware. He has a chance to hear the people breaking into his home. Of course most likely if he is sat eating the guys kicking open the door are the only people acting in the surprise round. What I was saying was even if he got a chance to act he would be out of luck compared to someone sat waiting watching the door.



Yeah in normal combat use imitative rules, both sides are aware of each other and they act by who is fastest.
Oddly I really don't understand this comment its probably just me.
Makes sense to me. So he'd get a listen or something and if he failed be unaware but if he passed he could act.

Sorry, I could've been clearer . lemme rephrase:

Since initiative is relative, if everyone got the same numerical Bonus their order would not change so that bonus would not actually change anything

Is that better?

As mentioned this does assume people are mostly aware during combat such as in a dungeon crawl rather than a more intrigue based game where combat will often catch you unaware. If you were playing that sort of game I could understand the idea but still would not really recommend the rule

Characters without weapons are already at a disadvantage And will probably use part of their trim drawing them. It seems unnecessary to penalize them twice.