Do the initiative rules discourage parley?

[moritheil]

For starters, try this folk remedy: "Hey Bob, don't shoot him yet, I want to know what he's talking about!" (Adjust as necessary if your crossbow-wielding ally is not named Bob.)

We have that going on all the time IMC (we have a paladin in the group.) When the players ask me how on earth they were supposed to know something, like about an explosive rune trap that nearly slew the entire party, I smile and make passing references to enemies they killed that they could have easily captured instead.

They're starting to capture people more and more often, now.

Incidentally, part of the reason I come out so strongly in favor of emphasizing the DM control of initiative is, in another campaign I sat in on, the DM had some really neat three paragraph description of a major NPC's entrance. He was going to kick open the door, swagger into the room, SLAM a huge mallet down on the floor (leaving a dent), and start boasting of his deeds. It was pretty cool.

What wound up happening?

DM: "The door is kicked open, and a large man dressed -"
Players: "I shoot him."
DM: "Uh, OOC, calm down guys, you'll get your chance. It's just flavor text. A large man-"
Players: "We shoot him."
DM: "Look, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you or give him a surprise round. I just want to read -"
Players: "We shoot him already! Come on!"

Now, I'm not saying that the players can't do that, because you're right, they can. But to even interrupt the description of something happening is pretty far out. There's one NPC they got no help from.

 

[Len]

and that you can't ready an action until combat begins, not during your soliliquy.

You're allowed to talk during combat time. If someone wants to ready an action, fine. Combat starts then. The BBEG uses his turn to soliloquize, and everyone else gets ready to attack if someone makes a false move.

I don't think forbidding the players from attacking while the villain monologues is a good solution. If they don't want to listen, they'll just end up flipping channels and refilling the cheezies while you talk.

 

[moritheil]

Because this isn't the first time that someone has said something that seemed to imply that there was some other possibility, I just want to point out that if both parties are observing each other that under the rules no surprise is possible no matter how suddenly either side acts. So again, the above reads "No surprise is ever involved if both parties are observing each other."

Although I want to caution the reader that, in fact, surprise is possible if not everyone is aware of everyone else.

A party is aware of bugbears in the east hallway, and the two sides try to come to a deal whereby nobody has to die. Meanwhile, an invisible kobold sorcerer/rogue sneaks in from the west hallway, waiting for his cue to ambush the party. Both the party and the bugbears are aware of each other, and the bugbears are aware of the kobold. The party, however, is not aware of the kobold.

 

[moritheil]

I don't think forbidding the players from attacking while the villain monologues is a good solution. If they don't want to listen, they'll just end up flipping channels and refilling the cheezies while you talk.

Oh, I don't advocate expressly forbidding it; I just note that usually it's a very bad idea in my campaigns. I also have plausible workarounds for the party that deserves a chance at being saved from their own murderous impulses.

 

[Felon]

By the rules as I understand them, even if you're holding weapons on someone to threaten him, initiative is rolled when combat starts, and you've blown your chance at surprise. I realize a lot of DMs house rule this, but I'm interested in RAW. Am I missing something that would encourage my players to pause and talk to the Bad Guys before slaughtering them?

Except that this is not what happens in a game (or via RAW).

If as DM you allow everyone on both sides to ready an action, you run into the chicken and egg problem of who really goes first.

You also still have to roll initiative BEFORE characters on either side can ready an action.

But in these scenarios, one side has the drop on the other, so they do get the surprise round to ready their action and they effectively win initiative.

Now, if the bushwhackers tell their opponents not to make any sudden moves, and the opponents choose not to when their initiative count comes up, then voila! You have achieved the first step in parley.

One rule you may wish to estabilish with your party--and it is not so much a house rule as it is specifying one possible condition for triggering a readied action--is that if you catch an opponent flat-footed, you can ready an action to attack him if he moves, and that includes even the passive action of becoming un-flat-footed. All readied shots go off, then the targets get its Dex bonus (assuming it isn't dropped).

Of course, then you may find yourself coming up with house rules to allow characters to get the drop off them, such as allowing an opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check to foil a readied action.

 

[Celebrim]

For example, your party could sneak up on a sleeping collection of thieves. The party is all in position and alert. The party spokesman speaks, waking the thieves. They talk for 10 seconds, then somebody does something stupid. Initiative is rolled, and it turns out all the thieves go before any of the PC's. Even though the PC's are just sitting them, arrows notched, waiting for something.

You see?

That doesn't inspire a lot of talking.

It would be nice if the party in this case had "auto initiative", something like a presumed "20" on their initiative roll when things get ugly.

This is the opposite problem of thinking that whoever acts first gets a surprise round.

First, you can essentially 'take 20' on initiative provided you get a round to prepare. Unfortunately, this is a problem because the thieves can after a round do the same thing, which would favor the thieves I admit.

But, thieves lying on the ground need a move equivalent action to standup, and another move equivalent action to draw or pickup a weapon. So unless you are dealing with high level thieves with quickdraw and amazing tumble skills, the players would still get a full round of attacks on the thieves before they could do anything - and a full two rounds if the players win initiative.

Second, even if the thieves win initiative (as I pointed out above) they won't catch the party flat footed.

Thirdly, why doesn't someone in the party have the initimidate skill and intimidate these thieves into timidity? I would suggest that this is an example of something that would give a pretty high circumstance bonus to your initimidate checks.

Fourthly, if a player expressed a concern to me that this wasn't enough and/or the player seemed particularly careful to watch for any sign of hostile intent, I'd allow the players to make a sense motive check vs. the thieves bluff skill to detect the attempt of a thief he was covering to ready his combat action and give that player oppurtunity to respond using his readied action 'take 20' initiative before the thief can 'take 20' himself, thereby forcing the thief to beat the players initiative bonus + 20 - which would be hard for almost anyone improved initiative or not. For the record, I thought that the rules on this where alot clearer back in 3.0 when the Refocus action was specifically spelled out rather than made an aspect of the Ready action as in 3.5.

Fifthly, how did the thieves signal to each other that this was the time to go. Surely if they hadn't passed some gestures covertly to each other, one thief jumping up and attacking would catch the other thieves as much by surprise as it would the party.

And sixthly, whatever you think is a fair way to handle this, understand that the same is true for the party of thieves catching the player's unaware and sleeping. If the player's want some advantage, remind them that that same advantage can be used against them.

Lastly, and somewhat off topic, I don't think that D&D's initiative system is really all that unrealistic for having such a large random factor. Real life, things happen really quickly, and even people with agile reflexes can be caught blinking. Think of the times that NFL players catch each other off completely gaurd even after dozens of times facing each other in the same game and even though all of them are well honed atheletes and aware that the action is about to begin. Keep all this in mind the next time you are watching real combat footage.

 

[KarinsDad]

But in these scenarios, one side has the drop on the other, so they do get the surprise round to ready their action and they effectively win initiative.

Now, if the bushwhackers tell their opponents not to make any sudden moves, and the opponents choose not to when their initiative count comes up, then voila! You have achieved the first step in parley.

One rule you may wish to estabilish with your party--and it is not so much a house rule as it is specifying one possible condition for triggering a readied action--is that if you catch an opponent flat-footed, you can ready an action to attack him if he moves, and that includes even the passive action of becoming un-flat-footed. All readied shots go off, then the targets get its Dex bonus (assuming it isn't dropped).

Yes, you can ready an action to attack him if he moves. You cannot ready an action to "include the passive action of becoming un-flat-footed". That is a game mechanic concept, not a game action concept. The DMG specifies that you should be specific and "becoming un-flat-footed" is not a specific game action.

In fact, he becomes "un-flat-footed" on his initiative on round one automatically. It is not his choice (since it is a game mechanic), it just happens. So, your solution here is invalid.


And, what if the opponents ready actions to attack the surprising characters if they move?

Who wins the readied action when somebody finally moves?

That's the problem of having a boatload of "readied actions in surprise rounds". The opponents can ready actions in round one and then it is again the chicken and egg mess. The initiative rules are just not set up to handle certain fairly common game events.

As per the original poster's question, the initiative rules basically assume combat is starting, not that parlaying is about to happen (or that prepared characters have any more of a chance of winning initiative than un-prepared characters in round one).

 

[Celebrim]

Who wins the readied action when somebody finally moves?

The one with the higher initiative bonus. Effectively, what you have in this case is the 'gunfighter showdown' scenario.

Both sides stare at each other and ready for the first sign that the other acts. Effectively, both sides have taken 20 on thier initiative check (old refocus action, new ready action). The one with the highest initiative automatically wins no matter who flinches first.

I realize that some people might not like that answer, so I might allow someone who was facing someone who was previously (but not now) flatfooted to ready an action against someone else 'ready' action, provided that I could be convinced that the ready action was detectable (through subtle changes in posture, facial expression, muscles tensing, or whatever gives away the fact that you are preparing for action). This is not an obvious action the way readying an action in preparation for an actual attack is so I'd require opposing skill checks (bluff vs. sense motive). If you succeed, you are aware that the guy is steeling himself to attack. But that's a pretty extreme case, and I might want to allow for critical failures where the player just thought that the opponent was readying himself to fight, but actually was just nervous or had an itch or something.

 

[moritheil]

Who wins the readied action when somebody finally moves?

That's the problem of having a boatload of "readied actions in surprise rounds".

It strikes me as strange, though that people would choose to ready actions in a surprise round rather than attacking first. I typically see players "get in free damage" during a surprise round.

 

[thebitdnd]

It doesn't harm your free will at all. You're still perfectly free to listen to the speech; that's your choice to make and no one can unmake it for you. Whether that speech happens to end in a sudden wet gurgle is a whole other question.

But that's life isn't it? You're free to choose your actions, and so is everyone else. When you go adventuring or gaming with people whose worldview is not identical to yours, you will occasionally run into difficulty when their decisions conflict with your own. There's no way around it, unless you want to run a solo game for yourself.

You can't force your friends to make exactly the same decision as you, but there are ways to encourage their cooperation. For starters, try this folk remedy: "Hey Bob, don't shoot him yet, I want to know what he's talking about!" (Adjust as necessary if your crossbow-wielding ally is not named Bob.)

Well, I never said it harmed my free will, just trumped it. The word trump was originally derived from triumph which means 'to be victorious; to win over'. I think the action of slinging a bolt at the BBEG and stopping his speech means that my choice to listen is indeed trumped. However, I wouldn't dream of telling another player he can't sling a crossbow bolt when he feels like it. All I am saying is that it means I'll never hear what the BBEG has to say. His choice supercedes my choice the minute he starts slinging bolts. We RP any consequences his or my choice might have on the encounter after it's over. It's usually me saying something like:

"Bob, we could have at least heard what they guy had to say before you cut him down!"

Bob: "Eh, what's it matter, we all knew where this was headin'..."

I don't begrudge him a bit. That's his character. All I was saying I hope beyond hope sometimes that I'll hear the end of the speech. Hasn't really happened yet.


And just so it's clear, it won't end in a wet gurgle because if I notice the BBEG's eyes darting to the side and see his assassins moving around to flank us, I'll be the one slinging the bolts.