PDA

View Full Version : Complex Q&A



Rincewind
2007-06-05, 02:11 PM
Let's say our PC is waiting at the camp for a trusted friend and ally to return to the camp.

He, of course, isn't aware that the aforementioned ally is now under the control of a spell (or a creature) that is NOT friendly with the party and/or the fighter.

When the ally guy returns back to the camp, he and the fighter talk. The ally is intending to strike the fighter, surprising him, as soon as he can. Through the conversation, the ally is holding his sword in his hand, unsheathed, but the fighter does not think that's unusual. Anyhow;

Sense motive checks are made, but failed. (But this sense motive check is made too feel / sence there's something wrong with the ally. Not against the upcoming attack).

Suddenly, during the conversation the ally swings his blade to strike the PC. What's the course of action to follow?
Does the PC get another Sense Motive check as a instant / swift action to keep his Dex bonus to avoid being flat footed??
Does the ally simply rolls a hit DC against the flat-footed PC?
Or does the PC roll Sense Motive / Dex check / Reflex save to avoid the blow or being caught flat-footed?

Dizlag
2007-06-05, 02:20 PM
Since the Sense Motive checks failed, the PC is taken totally by surprise (is flat-footed) and the ally gets a surprise round to act (to swing his sword at the PC). Then, the ally and PC roll initiative to determine who acts next thus starting combat.

At least, that's how I would rule it as a DM.

Dizlag

Rincewind
2007-06-05, 02:22 PM
Since the Sense Motive checks failed, the PC is taken totally by surprise (is flat-footed) and the ally gets a surprise round to act (to swing his sword at the PC). Then, the ally and PC roll initiative to determine who acts next thus starting combat.

At least, that's how I would rule it as a DM.

Dizlag

Yeah, of course. A complex question, I want to hear as many other DMs' approach, thanks :smallsmile:

The J Pizzel
2007-06-05, 02:22 PM
Dizalg is correct in my opinion as well. That's exactly how I would have ruled it too.

Rincewind
2007-06-05, 02:23 PM
But the sense motive check is made too feel the ally is not right. It is not made to determine the ally's attack.

So you guys are saying, if the PC doesn't sense something is not right with his friend, he can automatically be taken by surprise attack? That doesn't sound entirely right...

Dark Tira
2007-06-05, 02:36 PM
But the sense motive check is made too feel the ally is not right. It is not made to determine the ally's attack.

So you guys are saying, if the PC doesn't sense something is not right with his friend, he can automatically be taken by surprise attack? That doesn't sound entirely right...

When being attacked I don't think you really need to sense motive to see you're being attacked. Doesn't stop flat-footedness though. How it is actually played out is up to the dm of course. Personally I'd rather be hit flatfooted to the face than Coup de Graced in my sleep.

Lòkki Gallansbayne
2007-06-05, 02:36 PM
Why doesn't that sound right? Sense motive isn't like other skills - e.g. open lock or bluff - where your character actively performs some action; it's a passive thing, to see if your character notices something unusual about someone's behaviour. Failing a Sense Motive check gives your character as much information as failing a Spot or a Listen check, i.e. none at all.

Given that, imagine you're hanging out with your friend and he's behaving exactly as he always does, as far as you can tell. Suddenly he punches you in the face. It'd take you by suprise, wouldn't it? Ergo, surprise round.

I'm not a DM, but that's my understanding of the rules.

Jasdoif
2007-06-05, 02:45 PM
Suddenly, during the conversation the ally swings his blade to strike the PC. What's the course of action to follow? "Suddenly" makes it a surprise round. The ally strikes the PC, who is flatfooted. Then the two (and anyone else who may be around) roll initiative. If the ally wins initiative, he can strike the PC again, who is still flatfooted.

Dizlag
2007-06-05, 02:53 PM
Lokki described it well ... the Sense Motive check didn't give the PC anything to go on or any reason to know a fight was coming from his "ally". The swing of the "ally's" sword did give him a clue. Question is, did the PC react fast enough to defend himself when the ally swung at him again? In other words, did the PC win initiative?

If the PC would've made the Sense Motive check, then I would've called for an initiative roll. Then if the PC won the initiative roll I would've explained the ally is raising his sword to attack. The PC could go full defensive, grapple the ally to the ground, or run away screaming for his buddies. :smallbiggrin:

Dizlag

Wolf_Shade
2007-06-05, 03:00 PM
I'd say give a reflex save. If succesful, you aren't flat footed, if failed you are.

The characters are (presumably) facing each other while conversing. They can both see one another and have some idea of what is being done. The question is, does the player's trust of the ally negate the fact that he is indeed seeing said ally swing a weapon at him.

I have friends that I trust, but if they move like they are going to hit me I still react to it (assuming I realise it in time).

So, will save or reflex save in my opinion.

Jasdoif
2007-06-05, 03:04 PM
I'd say give a reflex save. If succesful, you aren't flat footed, if failed you are.

The characters are (presumably) facing each other while conversing. They can both see one another and have some idea of what is being done. The question is, does the player's trust of the ally negate the fact that he is indeed seeing said ally swing a weapon at him.

I have friends that I trust, but if they move like they are going to hit me I still react to it (assuming I realise it in time).

So, will save or reflex save in my opinion.Thing is, you're flatfooted until you act in the combat. If you're rolling a save against the attack that starts combat, you haven't acted, and are thus flatfooted.

Lòkki Gallansbayne
2007-06-05, 03:13 PM
While I can see the justification for a Reflex save to become flat footed (if the character is fast enough they can react to defend themselves), it's not really consistent with the D&D combat mechanic IMO.

Reflex saves are to avoid things like traps and area-of-effect spells; avoiding attacks is done by AC. If you're flat-footed, it means you're not expecting an attack so you can't defend yourself from one, hence the loss of DEX bonus to AC. If a character - through training, life on the streets, preternatually good reflexes or whatever - is able to defend himself against even unexpected attacks, that's usually represented by things like Uncanny Dodge (retain DEX bonus to AC if flat-footed) or the Monk's WIS bonus to AC (which is retained when flat-footed). Giving people Reflex saves to keep their DEX bonus to AC doesn't fit in with that whole scheme and also makes such class features slightly more worthless.

The J Pizzel
2007-06-05, 03:45 PM
Damn...Lokkis good. UUhhhh, what he said. I couldn't agree more.

Rincewind
2007-06-05, 03:55 PM
Damn...Lokkis good. UUhhhh, what he said. I couldn't agree more.

Yep, I do so, too. My opinion was just like that, but I thought heck, "Why shouldn't I give my dear players more chances to save their sorry a..es"...

Rad
2007-06-05, 03:57 PM
I'll just toss my vote in too, but it is nothing new. If the sense motive roll failed your controlled ally gains a surprise round (and, in your example, uses the action to attack you). You get to resist that only with your AC as there is no other situation, even when you are fully aware of danger (and then should be able to function better) where you are able to avoid a blow from a sword with a reflex save. If it helps, try to think that if you are deceived you should have worse defenses than in an open fight, not better!
As per the normal rules, you are also flat-footed; then initiative is rolled and you are still flat-footed until your first turn.

Hope this helps

Rincewind
2007-06-05, 03:57 PM
I'd say give a reflex save. If succesful, you aren't flat footed, if failed you are.

The characters are (presumably) facing each other while conversing. They can both see one another and have some idea of what is being done. The question is, does the player's trust of the ally negate the fact that he is indeed seeing said ally swing a weapon at him.

I have friends that I trust, but if they move like they are going to hit me I still react to it (assuming I realise it in time).

So, will save or reflex save in my opinion.

Naah... I don't agree. You can't "Reflex save" from sword swings... That's be SO broken...

But 2 of my players actually think that can be done in this situation only...

Damionte
2007-06-05, 03:59 PM
I know you were just looking for second oppinions Rincwind, but diz got it right in the second post.

Had the fighter succeeded on his sense Motif, (the "ally" should have been making a bluff check to hide his intentions.) he would have had warning of the attack and thus could have rolled initiative as soon as the ally raised his sword. Since he failed his sense motive he was taken by surprise and din't get to roll initiative till after the "allies" surprise round.

Also it's not really a complex question or answer. This is a textbook case of how sense motif works when determining initiative.

Rincewind
2007-06-05, 04:00 PM
I'll just toss my vote in too, but it is nothing new. If the sense motive roll failed your controlled ally gains a surprise round (and, in your example, uses the action to attack you). You get to resist that only with your AC as there is no other situation, even when you are fully aware of danger (and then should be able to function better) where you are able to avoid a blow from a sword with a reflex save. If it helps, try to think that if you are deceived you should have worse defenses than in an open fight, not better!
As per the normal rules, you are also flat-footed; then initiative is rolled and you are still flat-footed until your first turn.

Hope this helps

Any and all of your ideas help :smallsmile:

Rincewind
2007-06-05, 04:02 PM
I know you were just looking for second oppinions Rincwind, but diz got it right in the second post.

Had the fighter succeeded on his sense Motif, (the "ally" should have been making a bluff check to hide his intentions.) he would have had warning of the attack and thus could have rolled initiative as soon as the ally raised his sword. Since he failed his sense motive he was taken by surprise and din't get to roll initiative till after the "allies" surprise round.

Also it's not really a complex question or answer. This is a textbook case of how sense motif works when determining initiative.

Yep, all seasoned DMs have the same opinion... Collective DM lore for the win.

Rad
2007-06-05, 04:20 PM
Any and all of your ideas help :smallsmile:

Thank you :smallredface:

Matthew
2007-06-09, 10:44 AM
I would have to agree with the general opinion. I would mention that any good fortune on the part of the victim could be modelled by his Hit Points (i.e. if he doesn't lose them all, then he probably wasn't actually badly injured or perhaps even at all). I might have allowed a Spot check over a Sense Motive check in this instance, but maybe not.