Combat actions before combat?

[Nytmare]

Well, I lost my post, but that's ok cause Draco managed to say most of what I was gunning for anyways.

First, how would you explain that, no matter what the character does, she'll always be able to achieve a higher defense in combat by taking Total Defense than she ever will out of combat. This really highlights the artificial absurdity of not allowing that action to be taken before combat.

In my eyes, there's nothing saying that a person can not take Total Defense outside of combat. BUT, the artificial absurdity is the round structure of combat, and the idea that, as long as you are "in combat mode" you can forge an unbreakable chain of Total Defense Actions.

The second point is a minor one: if you, like the most folks, have ruled that there are actions you can't take out of combat, it seems unfair to then turn around and say that only the DM can decide when combat begins.

Draco somehow managed to say, almost word for word, what I had written.

In a situation like this, the player is over ruling the DM, and insisting that the encounter is starting earlier than the DM just said it did. This is not a decision the player gets to make.

They can try to start an encounter all they want, the DM might even agree with the player and decide to go along with it, but the encounter does not begin until the DM says it does.

I think that a big part of this discussion boils down to the fact that people forget that combat is the abstraction, and that the rules that govern how the chaos of a fight is described are not meant to be applied to how not fighting is described.

You can not be 100% vigilant and Totally Defend from the time that you wake up, to the time that you pass out. Rounds do not exist outside of a fight. You can be cautious, you can be paranoid, you can hang back and let other people be in the front of the group, but you can still be surprised or caught off guard. This is what initiative is. I'm going to repeat that and give it its own paragraph because I think it's so important.

This is what initiative is.

Totally defend outside of combat all you want. Get that +2 bonus to AC and rest well knowing that you are Totally Defending and that you're a bad ass with big fat numbers for your defenses. When combat starts, feel free to keep on Totally Defending, but realize that the non stop string of Total Defenses you can do on one side of the line simply does not exist on the other.

Third, what would the problem be if players were allowed to take Total Defense and Ready Actions, within reason, outside combat? It seems to me that monsters would get just as much mileage from this option, and the 2 pip difference is insufficient to cause anyserious problems.

Hopefully I've explained my point of view well enough at this point.

For me, I don't see them as things that you "can't" do outside of combat, they're just trumped by initiative and are not meant to be used as a means of insurance for characters who are afraid that they're going to roll poorly.

 

[Nichwee]

Got to agree with Draco and Nyt here.

If you can go around on Total Defense all the time you should keep any previous initiative score you had, not regain an encounter powers you already used, etc. And how does a PC know when to Total Defense versus not - unless he assumes every corner, every door, every shadow, every corridor is a potential fight about to start - whcih means he never ends ana encounter cos he assumes life is a single long fight (just with patches where the enemy is waiting for him or her to relax).
The fact of the matter is that until you are aware of hostile activity it is just a way to cheat the numbers. By getting a bonus you don't have to pay for - as action economy is a huge issue in combats.

However, I would probably allow it if the player was willing to agree that any time he wanted to go Total Defense out of combat he burned a healing surge to represent the effort of going into/maintaining TD without the adrenaline of knowing a threat actually exists (and can only maintain it for 5 mins/surge - so the "I was on Total Defense the whole time" idea costs about 3 surges minimum between encounters, even in a packed dungeon). Then it becomes a "Well, I really believe this is important right now." response and not a "I can get free bonuses." issue.

I admit that it is a bit unrealistic to impose this restriction, but it is also unrealistic that everyone in a combat acts one by one 99% of the time - but the rules don't add up right if you ignore the abstraction.

 

[Ferghis]

If you can go around on Total Defense all the time ...

I don't think this would be a reasonable player's request. A lot of the responses here have addressed how to prevent this, and I respect them, but I sincerely think that this is an unlikely scenario, at least among the people I choose to game with. If you have this problem, you have other problems.

However, I would probably allow it if the player was willing to agree that any time he wanted to go Total Defense out of combat he burned a healing surge to represent the effort of going into/maintaining TD without the adrenaline of knowing a threat actually exists (and can only maintain it for 5 mins/surge - so the "I was on Total Defense the whole time" idea costs about 3 surges minimum between encounters, even in a packed dungeon). Then it becomes a "Well, I really believe this is important right now." response and not a "I can get free bonuses." issue.

This seems fair.

In my eyes, there's nothing saying that a person can not take Total Defense outside of combat. BUT, the artificial absurdity is the round structure of combat, and the idea that, as long as you are "in combat mode" you can forge an unbreakable chain of Total Defense Actions.

I'm not sure how this addresses my first point. Are you saying that they can have interrupted series of potentially useful Total Defense actions outside combat?

In a situation like this, the player is over ruling the DM, and insisting that the encounter is starting earlier than the DM just said it did. This is not a decision the player gets to make.

You misunderstand me. I'm simply saying that it's unfair, not that the DM doesn't get the final call. The DM is the final arbiter etcetera etcetera. But the DM's decisions are not automatically fair. This one kinda stinks. I'm not saying I'd walk away from the gaming table because of this: far from it. It just smells bad.

I think that a big part of this discussion boils down to the fact that people forget that combat is the abstraction, and that the rules that govern how the chaos of a fight is described are not meant to be applied to how not fighting is described.

It's an abstraction, sure, but it still refers vaguely to certain specific actions. You can't refluff cleave to say that you just bought a ticket to Bolivia. The abstraction still has an in-game counterpart that must be somewhat coherent and beleivable within the game environment.

You can not be 100% vigilant and Totally Defend from the time that you wake up, to the time that you pass out.

I think every single poster here agrees on that. I'm afraid that I've somehow given the impression otherwise. Let me clarify, again, that I would not play with anyone that assumed that to be the case.

Hopefully I've explained my point of view well enough at this point.

I'm crystal clear that (a) you (and others) don't think folks can use total defense all the time, and (b) you would allow players to take total defense out of combat, but those actions wouldn't have any effect in combat. Le me know if I've missed something.

First, how would you explain that, no matter what the character does, she'll always be able to achieve a higher defense in combat by taking Total Defense than she ever will out of combat. This really highlights the artificial absurdity of not allowing that action to be taken before combat. As I've said above, whatevere it is that earns the character the defense bonus, is probably something the character can do out of combat as well. Remember that there are no restrictions to the total defense bonus. It doesn't say that the bonus applies only against attacks the character is aware of. The player declares the action, and the bonus applies until the end of the character's next turn, without limitations.

It's not a matter of taking it outside of combat for me. It's taking it outside of the round structure that is the problem. Now, if you're in a situation where there's a surprise round, you cannot be in total defense, because to do so requires being in an encounter to begin with.

Outside an encounter, you cannot be 'at total defense' simply because you're not in a situation where you have an idea of what you're defending from. You don't need to be individually aware of every combatant, but to be able to -defend against something- you need a broad idea of what that is. That then allows you the defense which applies against the unexpected; you don't know that -particular- combatant shoots arrows, but you've got a general idea of what to expect being that people are shooting arrows at you.

But that's not how the game action works, is it? As I wrote above, there is no such requirement on the action. Nothing says "you must have a general idea that people might be attacking you to use Total Defense." You can have your character take a total defense action even if it is an uncontested fact that nobody intends to attack your character. The only requirement we're imposing, here, is that the characters must be in a combat situation. Or are you houseruling something else? Unless you have some other houserules that restrict these actions, this still fails to address the point you quoted. Why should a character in-combat be able to have better defenses than an equally alert and ready character out-of-combat?

The DM decides when an encounter begins.

As I said above, I don't dispute that fact.

Saying the DM's unfair for deciding when encounters start is like saying players are being unfair for deciding their character's actions.

I disagree. By limiting a character's actions out of combat, the DM is restraining character action. This restarint becomes more emphasized when a DM limits when a combat encounter can begin. That's unfair. It's not at all like saying players are being unfair for deciding their character's actions.

Third, what would the problem be if players were allowed to take Total Defense and Ready Actions, within reason, outside combat? It seems to me that monsters would get just as much mileage from this option, and the 2 pip difference is insufficient to cause anyserious problems.

It is a waste of players' and DM's time.

Seriously? I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you are saying that the negative impact on the game is that these actions would not advance the plot, and therefore should not be allowed. I guess you can take that position, and forbid all player actions that are unlikely to advance the plot, but I don't know anyone that plays that way. Or maybe that's not what you're saying, Draco. Maybe you're just saying that the negative impact on the game is that it wastes real time, but you're vetoing these actions for other, unrelated reasons. Still, the time wasted does not sound like enough reason to ignore the "say yes" policy that DMs are supposed to have, at least to me.

Regardless, if your player decides he's at Total Defense or Ready all the time, he's in an active combat stance and cannot benefit from a short rest. And that's when you move on to the next encounter, when he inevitably rests.

As I said several times throughout this thread, I don't think anyone should be able to take Total Defense or Ready Actions all the time.

 

[Ferghis]

Some uncontested points seem to be coming up repeatedly, and folks are posting as if I were contesting them. I'm going to edit the first post to address this. I hope nobody sees this as bad etiquette.

 

[kugelkj]

These doors are only open as far as the DM allows. To my mind, the issue at hand is action economy and resource management; specifically, the limited number of actions you can take on your turn. The issue is NOT, making sense of the "real world" and then translating that into game terms.

Stances have a duration in minutes, so obviously can be used out of combat. If you know a fight is around the corner, you'd be smart to take an appropriate stance beforehand. So that door is already open...

sure this is "possible" for a person to before combat begins... even intelligent. But the PC doesn't know the proximity of combat. Whether the PCs are exploring a dungeon, hiking through the woods, or resting comfortably in a tavern; combat is always around the corner.

Temp hit points definitely outlast an encounter (PHB page 294). You lose them when you take a short or long rest, so they could easily carry over between encounters. Also, the figurines of wondrous power have temp hp that may last up to 8 hours. So that door is already open...

Effects that last a whole game day not withstanding, temporary hit points will only last between encounters if you don't rest between encounters... that is a decision the players must make with their limited resources in mind, i have no problem with that. I do have a problem with a PC activating a utility power that gives temp hp between encounters because it ignores the action cost to the PC.

Healing word is a power that is often used out of combat. There are feats that modify it only when used out of combat. So it would be absurd to houserule a nerf to the power when used out of combat. So that door is already open...

healing power are often used during short rests, after an encounter is concluded, but the PC must conserve those powers during the preceding encounter. I also don't let my PCs take multiple short rests after an encounter to use their healing powers in an unlimited fashion.

I can't find the quote now, but I thought that unless specified otherwise, the duration of an effect was until the end of the encounter or a maximum of 5 minutes. If I'm not mistaken, that buff certainly can last beyond the encounter, albeit not too long. So that door is already open too...

At my table, 5 minutes is smallest increment of time that can pass outside of combat. If you do something before combat rounds begin, 5 min will always pass between the time the PC activates the power and the time when combat rounds begin... otherwise, you would have had to take the action during combat.

So, since these possibilities already opened the door pretty wide, does that mean that you would allow total defense actions out of combat?

Not at all. Its important to distinguish what might be smart for a person to do from what actions a PC can take outside of the round structure (hat tip to Draco). From where I stand, until rounds begin, actions taken that have an effect with a duration that would last until the end of an encounter, end of a short rest, or for 5 minutes ends right before the beginning of a combat encounter.

I don't take this position to limit my players ability to control their characters, it is to simplify the transition between the narrative game mode and the encounter game mode. We don't have rules that cover this transitional phase and while it makes sense that it exists in the real world... its not reasonable to make up new rules to facilitate it. It does grate against our common sense and when I started DMing 4E, I tried to allow my players this freedom, but it slows down combat when every PC and monster has to weigh the pros/cons of taking any action before combat... and it changes the whole balance of power effect vs. action cost.

Here's an interesting example: A stealthy warlock sneaks up on a group of unsuspecting monsters ahead of his party. Can he use his warlocks curse before combat beings? Start the encounter with a cursed target, then move and curse a new target in round 1 of combat?

 

[Nytmare]

I'm going to address your first post fresh, instead of dealing with the tangle of replies we've buried ourselves in.

The situation I see you describing is one where the unexpected side effect, regardless of whether or not you expect your players to act reasonably, is that everyone in every encounter starts by either retroactively defending the round before the encounter started (just in case something attacks), or starts waiting to attack something the round before the encounter started (just in case something shows up).

Furthermore, it completely ignores the rules governing initiative and surprise.

This is how I would handle the two different situations:

"I want to Ready an action to shoot someone if they open up that door." Start off with perception checks, with DCs dependent on the situation. The door watching player has an "easy" DC. Combat begins with a surprise round, and if the door watcher is not surprised, he gets to shoot the door opener with Combat Advantage.

"I want to kick open the door and Defend, Totally." If there are enemies on the other side of the door, have them make perception checks with DCs dependent on the situation. All of the PCs (automagically), and any enemies who make their perception check can act during the surprise round. The door kicker's limited action during the surprise round is spent kicking in the door leaving no action for Total Defense.

 

[DracoSuave]

One thing before we begin:

When I say 'It's an active combat stance' I do not mean 'Total Defense is a power with the Stance keyword.' I mean it's a gorram stance in the traditional non-power-defined way. And no, I can't think of a word that describes it better than 'stance'.

This is how I would handle the two different situations:

"I want to Ready an action to shoot someone if they open up that door." Start off with perception checks, with DCs dependent on the situation. The door watching player has an "easy" DC. Combat begins with a surprise round, and if the door watcher is not surprised, he gets to shoot the door opener with Combat Advantage.

Actually this one is easy. I'd not do a thing, and let the player do -exactly- what he describes.

Then, if an enemy manages to catch them unawares (which is difficult, admittedly, with the player watching the door, I'd give him a circumstance bonus to his perception if the monster were coming in that way, but a penalty against monsters coming in the other way) the surprise round hits.

One of two things happens.

If the guy is surprised, then his readied action doesn't matter, as he cannot take actions during a surprise round. This explicitly includes immediate reactions. He can cry 'But I readied' but he was still caught with his pants down. He hesitated. Whatever.

If the guy is NOT surprised, then he gets his readied action just fine, and then can take his normal action.

The thing to remember is that rounds -do- happen outside of combat (see skill challenges). Encounters begin as soon as the players have a challenge, regardless if they are aware of it or not.

The point here is that I actually don't want to punish what is inherently a good idea, tactically. It might not -work- (luck, his perception, different factors come into play), but at least he gets rewarded for making smart, specific moves.

But, if he doesn't have the Perception to pull it off regularly, he knows that's just not his character's strong suit. You want rangers and rogues doing this sort of thing.

"I want to kick open the door and Defend, Totally." If there are enemies on the other side of the door, have them make perception checks with DCs dependent on the situation. All of the PCs (automagically), and any enemies who make their perception check can act during the surprise round. The door kicker's limited action during the surprise round is spent kicking in the door leaving no action for Total Defense.

In this case, the door kicker may or may not be aware of enemies on the other side of the door. He can kick the door, and surprise awareness is determined using the usual methods. If he is not surprised, he can spend his surprise round going into Total Defense if he wants. I got no problem with that, and sometimes that's a really smart move.

 

[Ferghis]

I'm going to address your first post fresh, instead of dealing with the tangle of replies we've buried ourselves in.

Good call. I was at a loss of how to tie our posts back to the real issue myself.

The situation I see you describing is one where the unexpected side effect, regardless of whether or not you expect your players to act reasonably, is that everyone in every encounter starts by either retroactively defending the round before the encounter started (just in case something attacks), or starts waiting to attack something the round before the encounter started (just in case something shows up).

That's certainly one scenario, but I don't think I'd allow anyone to do anything retroactively. And I'm not sure what you mean by "waiting to attack something the round before the encounter started." Actions must be declared before. I'm not trying to fight you here, I'm just trying to be clear.

If you're worried about your players doing this too frequently, make them make a will check. Honestly, really don't think players will abuse it, but your game may differ.

Furthermore, it completely ignores the rules governing initiative and surprise.

I don't think so.

Folks entering the battlefield get to roll initiative to determine when they act. Surprise determines whether your character can act on the surprise round. In the scenario above, the characters expect the ambush, and the ambushers are aware of the characters, so there is no chance of surprise. Regardless of whether you allow the actions at issue to be prepared before initiative or not, you still roll initiative to determine when everyone acts during the remainder of the combat. Initiative and Surprise play out normally, AFAICT.

"I want to Ready an action to shoot someone if they open up that door." Start off with perception checks, with DCs dependent on the situation. The door watching player has an "easy" DC. Combat begins with a surprise round, and if the door watcher is not surprised, he gets to shoot the door opener with Combat Advantage.

So you're rewarding the player's preparation (and perception roll) with CA? That sounds good to me.

"I want to kick open the door and Defend, Totally." If there are enemies on the other side of the door, have them make perception checks with DCs dependent on the situation. All of the PCs (automagically), and any enemies who make their perception check can act during the surprise round. The door kicker's limited action during the surprise round is spent kicking in the door leaving no action for Total Defense.

So what happens if the person kicking the door open is at the receiving end of the readied attack above? What gets resolved first? If, however the decision is made, it's the shooting, does that mean that the guy opening the door doesn't get total defense? If that's the case, why did the shooter's preparation get rewarded, but not the door opener's preparation?

I have to say, even if I didn't want the character to take total defense before combat, I'd probably give them cover against the shooter. If they said they were opening the door while wary of an attack, I'd ask them to describe more precisely how, and they'd say something like "I open it from outside the doorway, push it open, quickly pull back my hand, and peek outside with my shield and weapon ready." That should warrant cover.

Since those situations can be solved that way, let's examine a different one. Let's picture something concrete. The players, expecting an ambush for in-game reasons, say that they prepare a bunch of ranged attacks and send one guy (the tank) down a corridor in total defense. I say that they can't because the encounter has not yet begun, and readied actions and total defense are actions that can only be taken once the combat begins. Since the characters clearly sniffed out the ambush and the ambushers knew of the characters, there is no surprise, and combat is done normally. One of the players, after the session is over so as not to interrupt the game, asks why couldn't they do those actions before combat if they could do them in combat. I can't find anything in the books that says why, so I come to enworld. Why?

 

[Nytmare]

Actually this one is easy. I'd not do a thing, and let the player do -exactly- what he describes.

We're basically doing the same thing just coming from it from different directions.

with the player watching the door, I'd give him a circumstance bonus to his perception

Instead of giving him a +5 bonus against a static DC, I'm using an easier DC. Let's pretend that they're all 7th level, so the possible DCs are "automatically/8/14/19/never." The guy watching the door has an 8, the guy rooting through the treasure chest has a 19, the guy in the closet looking for a secret door has a "never."

The point here is that I actually don't want to punish what is inherently a good idea, tactically. It might not -work- (luck, his perception, different factors come into play), but at least he gets rewarded for making smart, specific moves.

Exactly. It's a good idea, and one that fits into the rules that doesn't always work automatically and lead to players feeling the need to interrupt the DM after every sentence to let him know which direction they're pointing their bows.

In this case, the door kicker may or may not be aware of enemies on the other side of the door. He can kick the door, and surprise awareness is determined using the usual methods. If he is not surprised, he can spend his surprise round going into Total Defense if he wants. I got no problem with that, and sometimes that's a really smart move.

For a "going through the door like gangbusters" scenario, I don't think surprise would really an issue for the people going through the door. It's hard to imagine a surprise party where the people springing the surprise catch themselves off guard when they count to three, jump up, and scream.

The start of the encounter as I see it is a PC action, which (as long as the other players were clued in and expecting it) the other PCs will not be surprised by, and which would not leave the triggering PC an action to go into Total Defense (cause you only get 1 action during a surprise round).

I can imagine situations where kicking in the door could lead to a surprised bunch of PCs, but those wouldn't be the norm.

Kicking in the door and discovering:

• The evil dimension goateed version of the PCs kicking in the door from the other side.
• 723 clowns having a seltzer bottle and cream pie fight.
• Illithid Orgy (TM).

 

[DracoSuave]

For a "going through the door like gangbusters" scenario, I don't think surprise would really an issue for the people going through the door. It's hard to imagine a surprise party where the people springing the surprise catch themselves off guard when they count to three, jump up, and scream.

Actually, here's an example of how it would work.

Players are discussing their plans for the kick-down the door attack. Monsters on the other side make their perception checks,not only notice the players are there, but even overhear their plans. (The players were arguing loudly in this case. You'd be surprised how often that happens.) The bad guys then make successfully stealth checks to see if they can turn over tables as cover while the players discuss their battle plan, unaware of the orc ambush forming on the other side of the door.

Player kicks the door open, and instead of seeing Orcs playing poker (or what they expected) they see two orcs firing crossbows at them, an orc hexmage dude conjuring smokebats to confuse and disorient the party, and his imp familiar invisibly beside the door, ready to stabbums when the time is right.

Surprise doesn't mean 'you're aware there are monsters' it means 'you are aware specifically of -those- monsters.'