3.P - Combat-Only Actions?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I know readied actions and delaying actions can only be performed in combat, but what are some others?

Swift actions can only be performed "on your turn," and you only take turns during combat, but does that mean they can't be taken out of combat? So no swift action spells or powers or other activities?

Otherwise, I'm drawing a bit of a blank. What else?

[Kurald Galain]

Whether you're "in combat" or not is purely a metagame construct. I fundamentally disagree that there is (or should be) anything the PCs can do "in combat" that they cannot do "out of combat". This is not a video game with two distinct interfaces, after all.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Whether you're "in combat" or not is purely a metagame construct. I fundamentally disagree that there is (or should be) anything the PCs can do "in combat" that they cannot do "out of combat". This is not a video game with two distinct interfaces, after all.Sorry, but whether you like it or not doesn't have any bearing on the RAW of the situation. We have stuff that functions during your turn and manipulates initiative, and that unfortunately means that you can only do so when those things are in play.

[Kurald Galain]

We have stuff that functions during your turn and manipulates initiative,

That's easy enough within RAW; it just means that I (as a player) first declare that we're in combat now. Nothing in the rules says the DM gets to decide that.

[Talakeal]

That's easy enough within RAW; it just means that I (as a player) first declare that we're in combat now. Nothing in the rules says the DM gets to decide that.

I just went through this exact situation with my players.

Just because the rules don't say you can't do something doesn't mean you can; this isn't Air Bud. The whole reason you have a GM is to arbitrate situations that aren't covered by the RAW.

[RandomPeasant]

Trying to say "no you can't just declare you're in combat" is an exercise in futility, because if the players really care they can just have the Wizard take a barehanded swing at the Barbarian that can't hit and wouldn't do damage if it did. Then they're in combat and can do whatever it is they wanted to do.

[icefractal]

Whether you're "in combat" or not is purely a metagame construct. I fundamentally disagree that there is (or should be) anything the PCs can do "in combat" that they cannot do "out of combat". This is not a video game with two distinct interfaces, after all.Agreed with this.

You might say "declaring you're in combat for no reason is nonsensical", but I'd counter that not being able to cast swift action spells unless someone in the vicinity is fighting is more nonsensical.

[Phoenix Duck]

Why can't you ready actions outside of combat? Or delay initiative? Can I not say "I'll put gold in the merchant's hand as soon as he extends it?" Is that not the same idea as "I'll shoot the orc as soon as he comes around the corner?"

Initiative doesn't just "go away" once you're out of combat. It just becomes far less relevant because you're less likely to have multiple people competing to do the same thing first all at the same time. Thus, manipulation of initiative becomes less relevant. However, if multiple players try to do conflicting actions, it comes to the fore again. Say, for instance, the fighter is about to bust into a room guns blazing and the rogue wants to stop him - the fighter and rogue would roll initiative against each other to see if the rogue can grab the fighter before he tries to wreck shop.

There's no point preventing some abilities from being used outside of combat, certainly not for any flimsy RAW reasons.

[Darg]

Combat Actions outside Combat

As a general rule, combat actions should only be performed in combat—when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order. You’ll find obvious exceptions to this rule. For example, a cleric doesn’t need to roll initiative to cast cure light wounds on a friend after the battle’s over. Spellcasting and skill use are often used outside combat, and that’s fine. Attacks, readied actions, charges, and other actions are meant to simulate combat, however, and are best used within the round structure.

Consider the following situation: Outside combat, Lidda decides to pull a mysterious lever that she has found in a dungeon room. Mialee, standing right next to her, thinks that Lidda’s sudden plan is a bad one. Mialee tries to stop Lidda. The best way to handle this situation is by using the combat rules as presented. Lidda and Mialee roll initiative. If Lidda wins, she pulls the lever. If Mialee wins, she grabs Lidda, requiring a melee touch attack (as if starting a grapple). If Mialee hits, Lidda needs to determine whether or not she resists. (Since Mialee is a good friend, grabbing Lidda’s arm might be enough to make her stop.) If Lidda keeps trying to pull the lever, use the grapple rules to determine whether Mialee can hold Lidda back.

Attacks and charges are meant to be used within the combat system.


Whether you're "in combat" or not is purely a metagame construct. I fundamentally disagree that there is (or should be) anything the PCs can do "in combat" that they cannot do "out of combat". This is not a video game with two distinct interfaces, after all.

Actually it is 2 distinct systems of play: inside and outside of combat. There are references all over the place where the rules want you to use one over the other. Due to the way rounds are based on a specific frame of time that translates to real time it's easy to mesh the two, but it doesn't mean they were designed to always mesh.

That said, you can only use a standard action on your turn so nothing prevents a swift action spell from being cast out of combat as any other spell can be cast out of combat.

[RandomPeasant]

Dude the thing you quoted says "are best used within the round structure", implying that they can also be used outside the round structure.

[Darg]

Dude the thing you quoted says "are best used within the round structure", implying that they can also be used outside the round structure.

And yet it first says, "As a general rule, combat actions should only be performed in combat." You can make specific exceptions after that to accommodate rp.

[Logalmier]

The 3.5 DMG specifically prohibits readied actions outside of combat on page 26: "Don't allow the players to use the ready action outside combat." If you COULD use readied actions out of combat, you could just perpetually ready an action to attack anything that attacks you, rendering surprise rounds and high initiative orders meaningless. If players could decide when combat begins, then this prohibition would be nonsensical. Therefore, they can't. This is an unambiguous issue. If players are operating in bad faith and attempting to game the system, the DM can - and is explicitly instructed by the RAW to - shoot them down.

[RandomPeasant]

And yet it first says, "As a general rule, combat actions should only be performed in combat." You can make specific exceptions after that to accommodate rp.

So your contention is that my example of how it is not making a universal claim is that there is a different part of it that also describes how it is not making a universal claim? And you view this as somehow refuting my point?

[Darg]

So your contention is that my example of how it is not making a universal claim is that there is a different part of it that also describes how it is not making a universal claim? And you view this as somehow refuting my point?

It's a general rule. The statement, "are best used within the round structure," is not presenting an exception to that general rule, but merely a statement of fact. The attack action and charge action require designating an opponent to use. You don't have an opponent unless combat is initiated.

If some one swings at air because they're paranoid, you don't have them roll concealment and to hit. You just say, "You swing at air."

[Kurald Galain]

If players are operating in bad faith and attempting to game the system, the DM can - and is explicitly instructed by the RAW to - shoot them down.

Sure. But this thread is more about the opposite: the players want to use the explicit stated abilities of their character, and the DM is gaming the system by arbitrarily claiming that "no, you can't use that ability outside of combat".
So this DM is operating in bad faith and the forum users here are shooting them down. This is an unambiguous issue.

[Logalmier]

Sure. But this thread is more about the opposite: the players want to use the explicit stated abilities of their character, and the DM is gaming the system by arbitrarily claiming that "no, you can't use that ability outside of combat".
So this DM is operating in bad faith and the forum users here are shooting them down. This is an unambiguous issue.

I don't think you're representing the conversation accurately. The claims made by forum members were "there are no combat only actions" and "PCs can decide when they are in combat". These are incorrect claims. A DM that prohibits readied actions outside of combat and acts as the ultimate arbiter as to when combat occurs is following both RAW and RAI.

To make my position clear, I think that all actions except for readied actions can be used outside of combat, because otherwise the game wouldn't work. Swift actions only working "on your turn" is not something unique to swift actions, that's how all actions work, except for immediate and readied actions. Readied actions can't be used outside of combat because the rules specifically prohibit it. It doesn't matter whether Delay can be used outside of combat, because it only affects initiative, which is a property of combat.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Sorry, but whether you like it or not doesn't have any bearing on the RAW of the situation. We have stuff that functions during your turn and manipulates initiative, and that unfortunately means that you can only do so when those things are in play.

You really should have said [RAW] in the title here. Other guy is 100% on point, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You really should have said [RAW] in the title here. Other guy is 100% on point, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.Not liking the fact that initiative only occurs in combat and that manipulating initiative would likewise only occur during combat doesn't change the fact that any of the aforementioned is true.

[Telonius]

Combat-only actions would probably include intentionally striking somebody with a weapon. Hard to imagine that happening outside of combat.

I think part of the issue here is that the descriptions of actions are all listed underneath the "Actions in Combat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#swiftActions)" section:


The Combat Round
Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action.

Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)

For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

Action Types
An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.

Emphasis added on the last bit there. The "on your turn" thing is only true when the action's being performed within the framework of a combat round, and is generally used to distinguish it from an Immediate Action (which can be taken even when it's not your turn). If you didn't parse the rules like that, you'd get into a situation where it's impossible to let go of a shield, or talking, outside of combat. (Dropping a shield and talking are free actions, and if actions only happen in combat ...)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Combat-only actions would probably include intentionally striking somebody with a weapon. Hard to imagine that happening outside of combat.There's a psionic tactic that uses a power point-draining sap to whack one's psicrystal that allows one to restore one's power point reserve between combats.

Also, warblade maneuver healing.

[Darg]

Combat-only actions would probably include intentionally striking somebody with a weapon. Hard to imagine that happening outside of combat.

I think part of the issue here is that the descriptions of actions are all listed underneath the "Actions in Combat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#swiftActions)" section:



Emphasis added on the last bit there. The "on your turn" thing is only true when the action's being performed within the framework of a combat round, and is generally used to distinguish it from an Immediate Action (which can be taken even when it's not your turn). If you didn't parse the rules like that, you'd get into a situation where it's impossible to let go of a shield, or talking, outside of combat. (Dropping a shield and talking are free actions, and if actions only happen in combat ...)

The DMG says you'll find obvious exceptions to the rule that combat actions should stay in combat. If an action doesn't need initiative it's obviously an exception, like spell casting and skills. For example: curing an ally vs curing an undead. Same spell just in different contexts. Something like total defense is reliant on initiative to have an effect so it isn't an exception.

[Logalmier]

Combat-only actions would probably include intentionally striking somebody with a weapon. Hard to imagine that happening outside of combat.

To me, combat implies a level of reciprocal danger. An enervated rat hitting you for -1 damage each round probably shouldn't be considered "combat," nor should you be able to perch one on your shoulder to gain access to permareadied actions. A 20th level character attacking a limbless peasant probably shouldn't cause the DM to initiate combat either. This is invoking the same principle designed to get around the "bag of rats" problem - the judgement call as to what constitutes "combat" or "significant threat" should remain flexible and in the hands of the DM, so that they have a mandate to prevent silly situations. At the same time, PCs should be given the latitude to do things that make sense. Like swinging at air. Or executing defenseless peasants.

So:


And yet it first says, "As a general rule, combat actions should only be performed in combat." You can make specific exceptions after that to accommodate rp.

I agree with this.

[ciopo]

I'm reminded of pathfinder slayer, and studied target.
In the campaign where I have studied target, the world the GM made is rich and full of lore and there's not a session when some new detail is unveiled, and new npcs interacted with. So many opportunities to talk with all those npcs, even when they're clearly enemies, and end up trying to kill each other.

Of course, all that talking allows me to set up studied target, which is unequivocally allowed to be done out of combst, given how it gives also skill bonuses.

And yet, on the metric of "that's silly", isn't switching studied target to whatever new npc is on the scene, regardless of it being a potential enemy or not, just as much of a stretch (none at all, in my opinion) as swinging st air or ducking being a tower shieldor whatever, without enemies to be there?


In 3.5, how do we visualize the dodge feat being like? In a "pvp allowed" campaign, if I suspect a fellow player may be about to do some sudden but inevitable betrayal, but I'm unwilling to initiate shenanigans myself just in case the paranoia wasn't justified, setting his character as the dodge feet target is not a problem, is it? May exacerbate the mistrust and maybe push him toward that betrayal, but it's not doing anything actively threatening toward him. *Can* we set the dodge target to be a creature we're not currently hostile with? What are the ramifications for initiative? Would you disallow it out of combat? But then, if I do want to declare friend X as my dodge target,am I initiating combat, even if I have no intention to gets my hands dirty at that moment?

[Talakeal]

It's puzzling why this is so decisive.

AFAICT the text on page 26 is clear; that Readied and Delayed actions are not allowed outside of Initiative, and that other in combat abilities may be used outside of combat at the DM's discretion.

[icefractal]

Something like total defense is reliant on initiative to have an effect so it isn't an exception.How so? If there was a spell like:

Mordenkainen's Total Defense
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round
You gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

Then it would be castable outside of combat, the same way that other spells are. Probably not very useful to cast outside of combat due to the short duration, but still something you can do.

Outside of things that specifically modify initiative, what "combat only" actions even are there? Attacking? So you can't use your sword to chop through a rope unless you start a brawl first?

Heck, while the exact mechanical use of "Ready Action" is based on initiative, the concept still applies outside of combat. Say there's a trap where when someone steps in a certain area, a scythe comes out of the wall and slashes at them. Someone could "ready" to blast said scythe with an eldritch blast when it pops out, for example. And I don't think that would require even rolling initiative, much less inventing a reason to be "having a fight".


IMO, combat is for the most part a subset of non-combat, not a superset. As in, there are some things you can do outside of combat (all walk together in formation without readying actions, for example), that you can't do in combat, because combat is the more restricted case. You don't have more ability to do stuff in combat because you're still the same character with the same abilities, but you might have less ability because some things are hard to do while being shot at.

The exception would be that if you make "martial power" an explicit thing in the world, granted by the god of battle, the universal force of conflict, or whatnot, then you could have abilities that only work in combat, only work against "real threats", etc. AFAIK, no first party setting has such a force. 4E comes the closest by making Martial an official power source, but even it stays pretty vague about what that means and doesn't give it metaphysical backing.

[Talakeal]

So you can't use your sword to chop through a rope unless you start a brawl first?

I would say cutting a rope is a very good example of why you don't use the combat actions outside of combat.

The idea that you would need to roll initiative, move into position on the grid, declare a standard attack, roll to hit, and then roll damage vs. just saying "I cut the rope with my sword" seems pretty silly and straightforward to me.

[RandomPeasant]

It's a general rule. The statement, "are best used within the round structure," is not presenting an exception to that general rule, but merely a statement of fact. The attack action and charge action require designating an opponent to use. You don't have an opponent unless combat is initiated.

So does that mean you can't start a combat with a charge? There has to be some other thing that happens to turn on combat and unlock your charge action?


If some one swings at air because they're paranoid, you don't have them roll concealment and to hit. You just say, "You swing at air."

Suppose someone swings at the air because they're paranoid, and it happens that they do this right after an invisible assassin moved into a square adjacent to them. I would say it is, in fact, eminently fair to, in this rather improbable circumstance, roll a d8 to determine what square they swing into and then, in the event they picked the one the assassin was in, resolve the attack as normal for swinging blindly on an invisible creature. All this despite the fact that they are not yet in combat.


I would say cutting a rope is a very good example of why you don't use the combat actions outside of combat.

The idea that you would need to roll initiative, move into position on the grid, declare a standard attack, roll to hit, and then roll damage vs. just saying "I cut the rope with my sword" seems pretty silly and straightforward to me.

What if the party Rogue and the party Fighter want to cut the same rope, and it is for some reason very important which of them actually does so? What if it is a rope made of some special material sufficiently durable that the person trying to cut it might not do so automatically? You can elide some of those steps if they don't matter to the outcome (i.e. most characters have a high enough attack bonus not to need to roll to-hit explicitly), but you should in fact keep the process in mind in case some of the individual steps do matter.

[Talakeal]

What if the party Rogue and the party Fighter want to cut the same rope, and it is for some reason very important which of them actually does so? What if it is a rope made of some special material sufficiently durable that the person trying to cut it might not do so automatically? You can elide some of those steps if they don't matter to the outcome (i.e. most characters have a high enough attack bonus not to need to roll to-hit explicitly), but you should in fact keep the process in mind in case some of the individual steps do matter.

Does it matter? Is there some reason that they can't just keep hitting the rope until they succeed? Does anyone enjoy rolling over and over again until the fighter manages to get a high enough damage score to bypass its hardness?

If so, then the book gives the DM permission to use some or all of the combat rules. If not, then just narrate it.

[RandomPeasant]

Does it matter? Is there some reason that they can't just keep hitting the rope until they succeed? Does anyone enjoy rolling over and over again until the fighter manages to get a high enough damage score to bypass its hardness?

Potentially? The point is that the combat rules are still happening, so if the player happens to think that it is advantageous for them to resolve the situation as a long sequence of attack rolls, there is no RAW reason they can't.

[Talakeal]

Potentially? The point is that the combat rules are still happening, so if the player happens to think that it is advantageous for them to resolve the situation as a long sequence of attack rolls, there is no RAW reason they can't.

Ok then, I guess I see what the argument is about.

If the player comes up with some sort of "Bag of Rats" style exploit, the DMG does not explicitly give the DM permission to shut that down and instead uses softer words like "should" and "best."

[NichG]

RAW aside, there are things in tension here in the game design, and at least for me that would determine how I would rule moreso than any RAW consideration. Specifically, this is to do with the design choice to have multiple levels of resolution which could potentially apply to the same situation, and which potentially give different outcomes.

This is a very good thing to have, because it lets us streamline irrelevant parts of the game which would otherwise be very tedious. Things like taking 10, taking 20, being able to just abstract overland travel rather than doing it round by round, all of these things are places where this kind of multi-scale design is absolutely essential.

At the same time, whenever there are multiple ways to resolve a given situation and which have different outcomes, one of those ways will be to a given person's advantage. And the choice of which way to resolve a situation should usually be a meta-game thing, not an in-character thing, so I would want to avoid the case where that kind of decision is taken (or lobbied for by a player) in order to achieve a certain advantage, rather than for the purpose of streamlining play. Turning that into something which can or should be exploited means that now we can't take advantage of the convenience of having multiple levels of abstraction - e.g. now when writing rules I might have to make things more annoying to run or play in order to protect against that kind of thing, and that would be a point where I'd rather we all agree to make the decision of e.g. 'are we in rounds?' on the basis of smoothness of play and not on the basis of being able to get some buff out of it.

Swift actions outside of combat? I'd say go ahead, that doesn't seem to be in conflict with some other system or intent.

Total Defense all the time if you have Uncanny Dodge? I'd be much more willing to homebrew Uncanny Dodge to innately give a +4 AC on the first round of combat if players had an argument why Rogues and Barbarians should be more defensible in that way, than to implement it through 'yes you can technically walk around all the time with this up'.

[Crichton]

I would say cutting a rope is a very good example of why you don't use the combat actions outside of combat.

The idea that you would need to roll initiative, move into position on the grid, declare a standard attack, roll to hit, and then roll damage vs. just saying "I cut the rope with my sword" seems pretty silly and straightforward to me.



I think I might say it's a very good reason for the opposite. Objects in 3.x have AC and HP, so you have to make an actual Attack to damage them. I'm not saying you have to roll initiative, use the grid, etc, but it's clear that you can do 'combat-ish' things like make an actual attack, at any time.




As for the overall argument, I've always just assumed that 'combat' is just a subset of 'all the time' during which you pay extra attention to order of operations and the abstraction of normal time known as 'rounds and turns' that exists to adjudicate the juxtaposition of all the things happening in an overlapping, near-simultaneous manner. In other words, anything you can do in 'combat' you can do out of 'combat', you're just not paying as much attention to the minute gradations of time and of multiple peoples' actions all at once.


Time exists as normal in D&D, but Actions and Turns and Rounds are all just abstractions for measuring how you interact with each other in an orderly manner

[RandomPeasant]

If the player comes up with some sort of "Bag of Rats" style exploit, the DMG does not explicitly give the DM permission to shut that down and instead uses softer words like "should" and "best."

I do not see how you could structure things to give the DM that sort of out without making things massively worse in some other way. You should treat "no Bags of Rats" as a design constraint, not try to figure out how to give DMs a way to define around "attacking a rat starts a combat".

[Darg]

How so? If there was a spell like:

Mordenkainen's Total Defense
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round
You gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

Then it would be castable outside of combat, the same way that other spells are. Probably not very useful to cast outside of combat due to the short duration, but still something you can do.

As a DM, I would definitely push back on a player trying to waste a spell slot like that. There's already mage armor and shield that do very similar things. The difference between the spell and the total defense action is the character is doing nothing once the spell is cast to benefit from the spell. The total defense action is one a character is doing from one round into the next.


Outside of things that specifically modify initiative, what "combat only" actions even are there? Attacking? So you can't use your sword to chop through a rope unless you start a brawl first?

Why would you need to be in combat to cut a rope? Attacking an object is actually the sunder an object action which is a special attack. Using the attack action isn't legal because it requires an opponent.


Heck, while the exact mechanical use of "Ready Action" is based on initiative, the concept still applies outside of combat. Say there's a trap where when someone steps in a certain area, a scythe comes out of the wall and slashes at them. Someone could "ready" to blast said scythe with an eldritch blast when it pops out, for example. And I don't think that would require even rolling initiative, much less inventing a reason to be "having a fight".

A readied action happens just before the action that triggered it. If you ready an action to shoot anyone that shoots an arrow, your arrow lands before the arrow leaves their bow. That's why you can't use a readied action outside of combat. It can literally negate any surprise and action and makes it so you don't have to roll initiative. That said, if it makes sense that a character would be able to react in time (things can move faster than the human reaction) as it isn't combat I'd have them make an initiative roll against the first players initiative roll to determine if they can react in time.



So does that mean you can't start a combat with a charge? There has to be some other thing that happens to turn on combat and unlock your charge action?

If a character wants to initiate combat with a charge and no one is surprised, everyone rolls initiative. If the charger has surprised their opponents and possibly their allies because it came completely out of left field, then those that are aware roll initiative. The charger isn't guaranteed to be the first action in combat. The same could be said for shooting a fireball at an unsuspecting caravan. The party rolls initiative and when it's the wizard's turn they can cast the fire ball. The wizard does not get a free action fireball before combat and a surprise round.


Suppose someone swings at the air because they're paranoid, and it happens that they do this right after an invisible assassin moved into a square adjacent to them. I would say it is, in fact, eminently fair to, in this rather improbable circumstance, roll a d8 to determine what square they swing into and then, in the event they picked the one the assassin was in, resolve the attack as normal for swinging blindly on an invisible creature. All this despite the fact that they are not yet in combat.

In these situations you roll for the player. Combat hasn't started and the player doesn't actually know anything is out there.


What if the party Rogue and the party Fighter want to cut the same rope, and it is for some reason very important which of them actually does so? What if it is a rope made of some special material sufficiently durable that the person trying to cut it might not do so automatically? You can elide some of those steps if they don't matter to the outcome (i.e. most characters have a high enough attack bonus not to need to roll to-hit explicitly), but you should in fact keep the process in mind in case some of the individual steps do matter.

The DMG says to roll initiative to see who acts first.


If the player comes up with some sort of "Bag of Rats" style exploit, the DMG does not explicitly give the DM permission to shut that down and instead uses softer words like "should" and "best."

"Should" is definitive when made a general rule. The DMG gives the DM the authority to literally do what they want and then guides them from there.

[Talakeal]

"Should" is definitive when made a general rule. The DMG gives the DM the authority to literally do what they want and then guides them from there.

Right, but afaict this is a RAW vs. RAI argument.

Saying you should do something is implicit permission.
Saying you can is explicit permission.

For example, if I say nobody is allowed outside after ten.
People named Bob should be inside by midnight.
I have given implicit permission for Bob to be out after ten, but not explicit permission, and thus a rules lawyer could say it isn against the letter of the rules for Bob to be out between ten and eleven.

[NichG]

I do not see how you could structure things to give the DM that sort of out without making things massively worse in some other way. You should treat "no Bags of Rats" as a design constraint, not try to figure out how to give DMs a way to define around "attacking a rat starts a combat".

It's generally a bad idea to get into a pattern where its your sole responsibility as as DM/(home) designer to make a system of rules airtight, and any exploit discovered is fair play. For developing a product for public release, sure, but for a home game things work a lot better when everyone is working together in order to make the game functional, rather than getting into a metagame of 'see if I'm more clever than all my players combined when writing the rules, such that they survive the entire campaign; otherwise we get to have a dysfunctional game'.

If something really is a design constraint, its a lot better to say up front 'anything that would lead to this happening is forbidden, even if we haven't spotted it yet'

[RandomPeasant]

Why would you need to be in combat to cut a rope? Attacking an object is actually the sunder an object action which is a special attack. Using the attack action isn't legal because it requires an opponent.

You are splitting hairs at the subatomic level.


The charger isn't guaranteed to be the first action in combat.

But they could be, right? It's possible to win initiative and then charge. And it therefore follows that there is not some other thing that has to happen for you to be "in combat" and allowed to charge.


In these situations you roll for the player. Combat hasn't started and the player doesn't actually know anything is out there.

And you resolve it for the player as an attack, yes?


The DMG says to roll initiative to see who acts first.

Yes, that's my point. You're using the initiative rules, because those rules are applicable for the question of "determining the order of contested actions", rather than being rules for some special "in combat" state.


If something really is a design constraint, its a lot better to say up front 'anything that would lead to this happening is forbidden, even if we haven't spotted it yet'

It's not terribly difficult to spot bags of rats. I think "do not put anything on an on-attack trigger you are not comfortable having happen at-will" is a perfectly reasonable design constraint to ask people to operate under, especially since we do not believe it is impossible to simply have abilities that are at-will and balanced. If it happens that something slips through, the appropriate way to fix it is by changing the ability, not by constructing some definition where it is only contingently an attack to attack a rat.

[NichG]

It's not terribly difficult to spot bags of rats. I think "do not put anything on an on-attack trigger you are not comfortable having happen at-will" is a perfectly reasonable design constraint to ask people to operate under, especially since we do not believe it is impossible to simply have abilities that are at-will and balanced. If it happens that something slips through, the appropriate way to fix it is by changing the ability, not by constructing some definition where it is only contingently an attack to attack a rat.

The appropriate way to fix it for a home game, IMO, is to say 'lets not do that kind of thing, okay?'. It's useful to be able to say 'here's a thing that is available only when you're seriously fighting for your life'. It's very useful to have table norms where players don't try to exploit that sort of thing by setting up fake fights or technicalities. It lets you have a much richer game than if everyone always has to be a lawyer to everyone else, because you can take risks with introducing things which are much harder to spot the interactions that will blow up. Plus it means you can speak in terms of intent rather than only ever speaking in terms of mechanism, which is a very useful thing to be able to use.

Its not just Crusader maneuvers and the like. Games where, for example, you get opportunities to improve skills which you've used over the course of a session basically require this sort of table manners to be viable at all, because it's a guarantee that someone will try to contrive some situation that lets them make a hundred melee rolls in a zero-risk environment to grind up their melee skill overnight, unless there's an understanding at the table of 'that goes against the intent of what these rules are trying to achieve, so lets respect that'.

Which is the sort of thing you get to have and get to have work with no trouble when you aren't in an arms race or power struggle or gotcha-game with your players.

And at the far end of that, when everyone really is on the same page, you can even get away with things like 'bring whatever characters you want, whatever stats you want, whatever races or templates you want, and make sure you're all okay with eachothers' relative power levels'.

[Crake]

“Combat” is an irrelevant distinction. What actually matters is whether you’re in initiative or not, and the only actions that cannot be taken outside of initiative are the special initiative actions, delay and ready, because they, by definition, require initiative to function

Initiative is not limited to combat, it is initiated any time where either time is sensitive, or turn order matters and there is a conflict on which turns happen in what order

[Talakeal]

White Wolf books used to have the "Golden Rule" that said you were free to change the rules printed in the book. The problem was, they never said who this "you" that they were talking to was. Was it the GM? Any given player? The group as a whole?

This caused a lot of issues for us.

I think the 3.5 DMG has the same problem, not actually delegating who has the power to decide when the combat rules are used, although by context its pretty clear to me that it is meant to be the DM.


I have had players try and cheese the initiative rules by taking upon themselves to declare combat (and being shot down). Now that I think about it, I have had a few situations where a player wanted to use the combat rules to break an object instead of making a strength test like I told them to.

I have not, on the other hand, ever had a situation where a player objected to resolving something without the combat rules, for example telling them that they can just cut a rope or kill a prisoner.*

I have, however, twice seen a DM handle hunting by having a PC roll out combat against a herd animal rather than just making a survival role, both with hilarious outcomes.



*Actually, I take that back. I did have one player who told me he was going to massacre a village, and when I didn't want to roll out combat against a bunch of helpless civilians and instead just fade to black, he told me that I was robbing him of his agency and "forcing him to do evil things." This is the same guy who said that fading to black when he tells me he wants to sleep with an NPC amounts to rape because he isn't given a chance to maintain consent throughout, and not someone whom I really take seriously when it comes to either morals or game rules.

[loky1109]

What if the party Rogue and the party Fighter want to cut the same rope, and it is for some reason very important which of them actually does so? .

There is example in DMG. Short answer: roll the initiative.

[RandomPeasant]

The appropriate way to fix it for a home game, IMO, is to say 'lets not do that kind of thing, okay?'.

That only works for so long. And it only works if you can all clearly agree what "that sort of thing" even is, and frankly I'm not at all convinced you can do that here. It seems quite reasonable to think, for instance, that "we do some buffs before kicking down the door" is "smart tactical planning" rather than "abusively claiming to be in combat when you're not". These sort of problems are not generally "someone thinks really hard and does a broken thing from zero", but "someone incrementally assembles a broken thing in a way that results in mechanics being definitely established in their favor before the break happens". For instance, stacking two explosive runes is fine, and as a DM you could easily say "sure you can do that" when the PCs come up with a whacky plan to dispatch the big bad that way. But once you establish that precedent, there's no principled way of saying you can't stack twenty or two hundred.


It's useful to be able to say 'here's a thing that is available only when you're seriously fighting for your life'.

I'm not convinced that is useful, or that the best way to say it is by rigorously defining "seriously fighting for your life". The Barbarian's rage works fine for this. You can rage outside combat if you want, it's just dubiously useful, because you'll be fatigued after your rage ends. But if the Barbarian decides that he wants to Rage in order to kick down a door or lift a heavy rock, he can do that without having to finagle a way to be "in combat".


It's very useful to have table norms where players don't try to exploit that sort of thing by setting up fake fights or technicalities.

I would equally say that it is useful to have table norms where the DM does not feel compelled to precisely define what counts as "being in combat".


Games where, for example, you get opportunities to improve skills which you've used over the course of a session basically require this sort of table manners to be viable at all, because it's a guarantee that someone will try to contrive some situation that lets them make a hundred melee rolls in a zero-risk environment to grind up their melee skill overnight, unless there's an understanding at the table of 'that goes against the intent of what these rules are trying to achieve, so lets respect that'.

I think if you set up your mechanics so that advancement works like MMO level grinding, and then get offended when people start doing MMO level grinding, you have fundamentally misunderstood your job as a designer. People respond to incentives. If you don't like a behavior, don't create systems that incentivize it.

[rel]

I find you get some weird situations if you freely allow combat actions to occur outside of combat, so I recommend not ruling things that way.

[Crake]

Now that I think about it, I have had a few situations where a player wanted to use the combat rules to break an object instead of making a strength test like I told them to.

In fairness, there are two ways to break objects: in one act of intense strength with a strength check, or whittling it down with repeated attacks and overcoming its hardness/damaging it’s hp. Both are described by the rules, just depends on whether you have the time/freedom to spend repeatedly bashing at it until it breaks

[NichG]

That only works for so long. And it only works if you can all clearly agree what "that sort of thing" even is, and frankly I'm not at all convinced you can do that here. It seems quite reasonable to think, for instance, that "we do some buffs before kicking down the door" is "smart tactical planning" rather than "abusively claiming to be in combat when you're not". These sort of problems are not generally "someone thinks really hard and does a broken thing from zero", but "someone incrementally assembles a broken thing in a way that results in mechanics being definitely established in their favor before the break happens". For instance, stacking two explosive runes is fine, and as a DM you could easily say "sure you can do that" when the PCs come up with a whacky plan to dispatch the big bad that way. But once you establish that precedent, there's no principled way of saying you can't stack twenty or two hundred.


Well for one, you wouldn't look for a principled way of saying that. That's making a mistake, trying to solve what should be an out of game discussion about what kind of game everyone wants to be playing by instead trying to get there via manipulation of the rules.

What I would do is to stop game and say 'okay, if we go this direction, this is what game is probably going to be like - are we sure this is the kind of game we want to be playing?'. For example 'so if your enemies use this too, is that the kind of game you want to be in?' or 'okay, so given this you basically auto-win any combat you can prepare for, are you okay if we just skip combats from now on and say you win?'. Then we discuss and see if we're on the same page about that, and figure out what we're willing to do or not do within that, and decide whether the PCs stack twenty or two hundred explosive runes or whether the party wizard recalls 'oh yeah, I learned in academy that's a bad idea, they get unstable and explode randomly when you do that' - and the DM backing that up as needed - for whatever IC justification they need to not do the thing and not find it awkward.

I've had that kind of discussion with players engaged in a totally legitimate by the rules AC arms race between players - 'Yes, you can technically do that, it's allowed, but it also means that AC is going to become irrelevant since anything targeting AC basically might as well not be on the field, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time running things that basically don't matter; so I could fix it by changing how monsters work with to-hit, you could stop pushing your ACs so high, we could just have less combat - what would actually be good gaming for all of us?'



I'm not convinced that is useful, or that the best way to say it is by rigorously defining "seriously fighting for your life". The Barbarian's rage works fine for this. You can rage outside combat if you want, it's just dubiously useful, because you'll be fatigued after your rage ends. But if the Barbarian decides that he wants to Rage in order to kick down a door or lift a heavy rock, he can do that without having to finagle a way to be "in combat".

I would equally say that it is useful to have table norms where the DM does not feel compelled to precisely define what counts as "being in combat".

I think if you set up your mechanics so that advancement works like MMO level grinding, and then get offended when people start doing MMO level grinding, you have fundamentally misunderstood your job as a designer. People respond to incentives. If you don't like a behavior, don't create systems that incentivize it.

Or, get people on the same page as you about the game you'd all like to play, and actually discuss the 'why' of rules rather than just the 'what' of them.

[lesser_minion]

"In combat" in 3e is explicitly defined by the DMG as "when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order". Where 'you' means the DM. That's actually in the DMG quote that was posted earlier.

Strictly speaking, any action more involved than breathing is forbidden outside of this 'combat mode', but the DM is supposed to use their own judgement and skip over rolling initiative if the result will just go straight into the bin.

The main actions that you're supposed to always disallow outside of combat, if you're the DM, are special initiative actions -- ones that exist purely to interact with initiative and the turn order. By default, that's just delay and ready, but everything starts banned by default, so you can rule out other things if you feel they're in the same category.

The actual intended rules seem to be something like "don't allow initiative and the turn order to be manipulated in a meaningful way until after they've been established" and "call for initiative to be rolled if people are competing and it's become important who gets to do something first".

As for "bag of rats" stuff, 4e actually did introduce a rule that you can never gain a benefit from attacking/harming/killing a creature that hasn't been statted up as a significant opponent.

EDIT: corrected the quote.

[Darg]

You are splitting hairs at the subatomic level.

Very constructive.


But they could be, right? It's possible to win initiative and then charge. And it therefore follows that there is not some other thing that has to happen for you to be "in combat" and allowed to charge.

That thing required to be in combat and allowed to charge is to roll initiative.


And you resolve it for the player as an attack, yes?

And? You're allowed to sunder objects outside of combat. You never chop wood before?


Yes, that's my point. You're using the initiative rules, because those rules are applicable for the question of "determining the order of contested actions", rather than being rules for some special "in combat" state.

Except that is exactly what combat is: "when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order." DMG, pg 25. Rounds are there for characters to take turns, initiative is there to say who goes first.

[Crake]

Except that is exactly what combat is: "when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order." DMG, pg 25. Rounds are there for characters to take turns, initiative is there to say who goes first.

Combat isn’t necessary for initiative, you could roll initiative for a friendly, competitive obstacle course that an acrobat was participating in

[loky1109]

Combat isn’t necessary for initiative, you could roll initiative for a friendly, competitive obstacle course that an acrobat was participating in
It's a combat.

[Fiery Diamond]

It's a combat.

Can you provide a rulebook definition for combat that explicitly includes such things? Because that's not any real-world definition of combat, and saying "oh, if you're using initiative that makes it combat, because initiative is only used for combat" is circular reasoning, and unless you have a source quote, combat specifically means fighting.

[lesser_minion]

Can you provide a rulebook definition for combat that explicitly includes such things? Because that's not any real-world definition of combat, and saying "oh, if you're using initiative that makes it combat, because initiative is only used for combat" is circular reasoning, and unless you have a source quote, combat specifically means fighting.

The claim you're indirectly responding to -- "when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order" -- is already a direct quote from the DMG. The full context of that quote was posted earlier in the thread, here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25855465&postcount=9).

The rules distinction between combat and non-combat is strictly about how events are modelled, not what the events are.

[Fiery Diamond]

The claim you're indirectly responding to -- "when you’re keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order" -- is already a direct quote from the DMG. The full context of that quote was posted earlier in the thread, here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25855465&postcount=9).

The rules distinction between combat and non-combat is strictly about how events are modelled, not what the events are.

You are interpreting that clause (the one that comes after the dash) to be a definition of a rules term "combat." And then thus saying that "combat" always and forever means "when you're keeping track of rounds and the players are acting in initiative order," despite the fact that the term is used many, many times before being defined (according to you and the person I was responding to), despite that not at all being what combat means as a word. While there are words that have rules definitions that mean something completely different than what they actually mean, these are also generally very explicitly defined, usually at the beginning of whatever section is relevant to them in the rule book. There's absolutely no reason to think that was intended to be a definition of a term as opposed to a clarification of what was meant by "in combat" in that particular context. Especially since "in combat," as a state of being, and "a combat," as an event, are not the same construction, and the person I was responding to claimed an acrobatics competition was "a combat," not that being in such a competition meant the characters were in the "in combat" state, which would have at least been a reasonable claim to make if we acknowledge "in combat" as a rules-defined state that the aforementioned clause defines. Which I still contest: I think that the states are "keeping track of initiative and rounds" and "not keeping track of initiative and rounds," with "in combat" simply being shorthand used to refer to the former state so they didn't have to write out the whole thing every time they were talking about it, since the majority of cases of the former revolve around combat.

[lesser_minion]

I think that the states are "keeping track of initiative and rounds" and "not keeping track of initiative and rounds," with "in combat" simply being shorthand used to refer to the former state so they didn't have to write out the whole thing every time they were talking about it, since the majority of cases of the former revolve around combat.

That's exactly what I read it to mean.

The main reason to forbid actions outside of 'combat' is because they only exist to interact with initiative and turn order. Outside of 'combat', the things these interact with don't exist and you don't need to formally delay or ready an action to accomplish the sort of things those formal actions facilitate when you're in 'combat'.

[Crake]

That's exactly what I read it to mean.

The main reason to forbid actions outside of 'combat' is because they only exist to interact with initiative and turn order. Outside of 'combat', the things these interact with don't exist and you don't need to formally delay or ready an action to accomplish the sort of things those formal actions facilitate when you're in 'combat'.

Ready and delay are the ONLY actions that interact with initiative, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that ready and delay should be usable outside of initiative order (whether you define that as "combat" or not), we're strictly talking about... literally anything else.

I would not however define ready and delay as "combat only actions", I would define them as they're defined, "special initiative actions".

[Kurald Galain]

Ready and delay are the ONLY actions that interact with initiative, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that ready and delay should be usable outside of initiative order
Suppose a player declares, out of combat, "I will aim my bow at that thief, and if he moves from his spot, I'll shoot him." This won't affect initiative because we're not in initiative; aside from that, it sounds like something a character can do. How to deal with that, then?

(if a player wants to "delay" outside of combat I'd simpy interpret that as "my character does nothing for now", I don't see how that could be a problem)

[ciopo]

Suppose a player declares, out of combat, "I will aim my bow at that thief, and if he moves from his spot, I'll shoot him." This won't affect initiative because we're not in initiative; aside from that, it sounds like something a character can do. How to deal with that, then?

(if a player wants to "delay" outside of combat I'd simpy interpret that as "my character does nothing for now", I don't see how that could be a problem)

How i would resolve those kind of declarations is by going into turn mode, and treating that declaration as the player action during the surprise round.

Other actors might or might not get to act in the surprise round, and they might or might not act before you, depending on all the usual variables pertaining initiative and surprise round. Yes, that might mean the thief in question has noticed the player action, and act before it, because e.g. saw the drawing of the bow and aiming it at him, which is clearly hostile, etcetera.

"readied" with trigger being another player action, and I suspect the most common example is "I shoot into the room as soon as character Y opens the door", then same surprise round rules, but I require them to tell me the square they aim at before revealing the room.

if they "delay" to after Y opens the door, then that's effectively no different from them acting in the surprise round as normal.

long story short, I find that the best way to deal with ready/delay headaches out of combat is to start initiative when the trigger happen, and go "ok, the trigger is happening, you now get a surprise round to do your readied action" (or NOT get a surprise round if perception/sense motive/whatever reason, because INTENT is possibly not obfuscated)

the "burst a door with readied action" translates to "you burst the door, you get a surprise round, you don't need to tell me what you do beforehand, declare them during the surprise round", modulo getting the surprise round because of stealth vs perception or bluff vs sense motive or whatever resolution method you fancy best for resolving the subterfuge about getting the jump on some opponents.

I mean, in certain circumstances, the "I will aim my bow at that thief, and if he moves from his spot, I'll shoot him." would clearly be hostile, as an action, and so I would call for initiative if the thief clearly saw the archer taking aim (or beginning to take aim). if the thief wins initiative, and moves or whatever instead of deescalating with a "what are you doing? put that down!" or something like that, declaring "I aim" and declaring "I attack" are sameish, and "readied action" only really matter if they would interact with hostiles and thus requiring initiative.

Because if the declaration is "I stand below the window, ready to catch my friend when they jump out", that's a narrative action sequence/scene, and not a turn based/initiative sequence

[Crake]

Suppose a player declares, out of combat, "I will aim my bow at that thief, and if he moves from his spot, I'll shoot him." This won't affect initiative because we're not in initiative; aside from that, it sounds like something a character can do. How to deal with that, then?

(if a player wants to "delay" outside of combat I'd simpy interpret that as "my character does nothing for now", I don't see how that could be a problem)

This falls into the "not enough information, cannot provide an answer" column. Is the character acting deliberately, out in the open, and unchallenged? Is the character hiding and aiming, unknown to the others? Are the other characters allowing it to happen, or would they react as that action is taken?

If the action goes uncontested, then sure, they can do that, and if the rogue moves, they would get their shot off, and, as per the ready rules, their initiative would move to that spot (which would be the top of the round), and it would immediately go to whoever rolled next highest. They would lose the rest of their turn as a result, but they would get that opportunity to act first. In this circumstance, the party is effectively in initiative from the point that the arrow is knocked and aimed, but everyone is passing their turns except the person aiming the bow (and anyone else with similarly readied actions).

If the action DOES go contested, ie, the opponents would react to you raising your bow in the first place, then it would go straight to initiative just from announcing that action, giving the rogue an opportunity to run before the bow is even raised, possibly getting to cover.

If the ranger is hiding when declaring that action, then that would effectively be a surprise round, so it would, in practise, just resolve the same as the first outcome, due to the fact that the act goes uncontested by nature of nobody seeing it happen to be able to contest it.

[loky1109]

Suppose a player declares, out of combat, "I will aim my bow at that thief, and if he moves from his spot, I'll shoot him." This won't affect initiative because we're not in initiative; aside from that, it sounds like something a character can do. How to deal with that, then?

Roll the initiative when thief moves.

[Darg]

Ready and delay are the ONLY actions that interact with initiative, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that ready and delay should be usable outside of initiative order (whether you define that as "combat" or not), we're strictly talking about... literally anything else.

I would not however define ready and delay as "combat only actions", I would define them as they're defined, "special initiative actions".

Not true. You aren't going to attack a creature without rolling initiative. You aren't going to withdraw without knowing you are being threatened. You aren't going to turn undead without initiative being rolled. ANY contested action is going to have initiative being rolled if it's possible to interpret it as hostility.


Roll the initiative when thief moves.

If the rogue is aware of the threat, roll initiative when the archer wants to take a hostile actions. If the archer is hidden, roll initiative for the surprise round and then roll the rogue's initiative on the regular round.

[lesser_minion]

Suppose a player declares, out of combat, "I will aim my bow at that thief, and if he moves from his spot, I'll shoot him." This won't affect initiative because we're not in initiative; aside from that, it sounds like something a character can do. How to deal with that, then?

Check awareness for the thief, if they fail their check then the archer is the only participant in the surprise round and can use it to ready their attack. Otherwise, the thief rolls initiative and might have an opportunity to move first -- in which case the player making that original declaration is not forced to stick to it.

[Crake]

Not true. You aren't going to attack a creature without rolling initiative. You aren't going to withdraw without knowing you are being threatened. You aren't going to turn undead without initiative being rolled. ANY contested action is going to have initiative being rolled if it's possible to interpret it as hostility.

Coup de grace a sleeping creature. Turn undead the undead that the wizard controlled in the last fight to destroy them. Withdraw maybe, but thats less a product of “can only be done in initiative” and more “would only matter in circumstances where initiative would already be in place”.

Dont confuse “can only be done in initiative” with “only relevant while in initiative”.

[Darg]

Coup de grace a sleeping creature. Turn undead the undead that the wizard controlled in the last fight to destroy them. Withdraw maybe, but thats less a product of “can only be done in initiative” and more “would only matter in circumstances where initiative would already be in place”.

Why wouldn't you roll initiative to coup de grace a sleeping creature. You're making an attack that isn't guaranteed to nullify the need for combat.


Dont confuse “can only be done in initiative” with “only relevant while in initiative”.

Practically, they mean the same thing when the general rule is that you shouldn't use combat actions outside of combat.

[icefractal]

Coup de grace a sleeping creature.Which brings up a case where one party is definitely taking actions - multiple actions - without the other party being aware they're "in combat". Assassination.

For example, a Monk/Rogue/Assassin successfully sneaks up on a target, while invisible. Then they:
1) Get a wand from their Bag of Holding.
2) Use it on themselves.
3) Put it away again.
4) Study the target for three rounds.
5) Move up next to the target (silently).
6) Death Attack, via a Decisive Strike.
7) Only at this point does the target (if they're not dead) become aware of what's happening.

That's eight rounds worth of actions, and the last one can't even be considered the "surprise round" because it's a full-round action. And if the proposed way of handling is "the target somehow becomes aware they're in combat after the first action is taken", then that way of handling it is dumb.

[RandomPeasant]

There's another issue too. You can claim there is some sort of distinction between "making an attack" and "making a sunder attempt" (pay no attention to the description of Sunder as "a melee attack"), but there's clearly no rules distinction between "casting cloudkill" and "casting fabricate", despite the former being something you do only in combat and the latter something you do only outside it. This "combat/non-combat" distinction we are supposed to believe in is just not a categorization that can possibly be coherent.


Or, get people on the same page as you about the game you'd all like to play, and actually discuss the 'why' of rules rather than just the 'what' of them.

The "what" and the "why" of rules are not unrelated questions. It's certainly true that you can solve specific rules issues at specific tables by asking "why". But as I said, that doesn't scale. At some point, you have to have a "what" that implements your "why" or you haven't produced rules so much as a prompt for discussion.


Very constructive.

I mean, I thought it was, but the criticism doesn't seem to be getting you to improve your behavior, so I guess we'll have to keep trying.


That thing required to be in combat and allowed to charge is to roll initiative.

No, combat starting and rolling for initiative is a result of the player charging. Otherwise you get a nonsensical state of affairs where combat simply appears out of nowhere.


And? You're allowed to sunder objects outside of combat. You never chop wood before?

And you're allowed to attack stuff out of combat. They not have target practice where you come from?


Not true. You aren't going to attack a creature without rolling initiative.

As far as I can tell you have produced zero rules citations to this effect.


You aren't going to withdraw without knowing you are being threatened.

Why not? It might be dumb to do that, but the rules contain no prohibitions on doing dumb things. You could prepare read magic in all your spell slots. You could sunder all your equipment. You could play a Monk. All rules-legal, none particularly intelligent.


You aren't going to turn undead without initiative being rolled.

Why not? Perhaps you want to expend the turn attempt because you have some ability that benefits from doing so.


Practically, they mean the same thing when the general rule is that you shouldn't use combat actions outside of combat.

It amuses me that there's an entire side of this debate where the argument is "it says you shouldn't therefore you can't".

[Kurald Galain]

Practically, they mean the same thing when the general rule is that you shouldn't use combat actions outside of combat.
And based on reactions in this thread, the practical result is that you can use combat actions outside of combat just fine, only doing so will initiate combat.

And that makes total sense to me. If my character is capable of "readying", he can do so whether or not we are in "combat". If my "readying" results in rolling initiative, I'm fine with that; I just dislike being told "we are now in Game Mode X, and action Q can only be taken in Game Mode Y".

[lesser_minion]

In RAW pedantry land, the mechanism given by the rules for handling "obvious exceptions" to the no combat actions outside of combat thing amounts to the DM choosing not to enforce it. This is equivalent to rule zero, so despite there being a written rule, it's not one that you can use in this context.

That does lead to nonsense like needing to roll initiative to pick a twig up off the floor, but I think we all already knew better than to try and game in RAW pedantry land.

Beyond that, we seem to have had a three-page argument where I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. The relevant guidance in the DMG almost literally boils down to "you're the DM, figure it out, have some commentary and examples, hope they help".

[Kurald Galain]

Beyond that, we seem to have had a three-page argument where I'm not even sure what we're arguing about.

I think the OP's question was "should I prohibit PCs from using swift actions outside of combat" (to which the answer is a resounding "no") as well as the statement that "clearly PCs cannot 'ready' anything outside of combat" (to which answers vary between "no, as it would be clear abuse and munchkining", and "sure they can, just adjudicate it", and "yes, but doing so will initiate combat"). So the argument is mostly about the latter.