Combat actions before combat?

[Ferghis]

GM's call, but there are circumstances where I'd allow a PC to start combat with a total defense bonus. It's certainly not something you can keep 'on' all the time, but it could conceivably be something you could do right before combat started. Likewise I might allow readied actions like readying to fire X-bow to effectively grant a surprise round.

I don't mean to cause others to leap down your throat, so if you don't feel like posting it here maybe you can PM me: can you give me an example of a situation in which you would you allow a character to have a total defense bonus at the outset of an encounter?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Using full defense while opening a door with a large shield in one hand: OK! (There is basically one direction where the attack can come from)

Using full defense all the time: NO!

 

[S'mon]

I don't mean to cause others to leap down your throat, so if you don't feel like posting it here maybe you can PM me: can you give me an example of a situation in which you would you allow a character to have a total defense bonus at the outset of an encounter?

What Ungeheuerlich says - where the PC is explicitly anticipating a specific imminent threat and taking specific measures to guard against it. This makes sense within the 4e 'say yes' paradigm, and not negating player actions.

This would only be for stuff that's going to happen within the next 6 seconds, you can't do the equivalent of maintaining full defense or readied actions for lengthy periods outside combat.

The way I generally do is it is to grant some-not-all PCs surprise rounds, depending on their description of what they're doing immediately before combat starts. Most commonly, when PCs charge a door and break it down I'll grant a surprise round to the PCs who broke the door down; if another PC had readied to fire an X-bow or spell through the doorway I'd grant them a surprise round action too. Whereas PCs just hanging around waiting to see if the door breaks may not get one.

Other times all PCs may get a surprise round; if the monsters beyond the door are distracted - performing a ceremony rather than standing guard, say.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you, Ferghis - too kind!

Now to confuse things.


Personally, as a DM, I get just a little more complicated than that , but again, the design isn't precisely specified for these cases.

The example I like to use is, a two-man party is exploring along a North-South hallway, while two wandering monsters are wandering along the East-West hallway that intersects a bit up the way.

Able has a Stealth of +5 and a Passive Perception of 15.
Bob has a Stealth of +0 and a Passive Perception of 10.

The orc has a Stealth of +2 and a Passive Perception of 10.
His pet wolf has a Stealth of +4 and a Passive Perception of 17.

As they draw close to the corner, each makes a Stealth roll as follows:
Able 10, +5 = 15
Bob 12, +0 = 12
Orc 9, +2 = 11
Wolf 15, +4 = 19

The orc's 10 Perception does not hear either Bob or Able. The orc is Surprised, and does not participate in the surprise round.

The wolf's keen ears and 17 Perception hear both Bob and Able. The wolf is not surprised, and participates in the surprise round.

Able's 15 Perception hears the orc's boots on the stone floor, but not the wolf's quiet paw pads. Able is not surprised, and participates in the surprise round.

Bob's 10 Perception does not hear either the orc or the wolf. Bob is Surprised, and does not participate in the surprise round.

So, we have Able and the wolf both taking part in a Surprise round while their partners do not.

OK, but there IS something that is missing from this situation... COMBAT! Now, its possible that one of the creatures in the above situation will decide to take some action which warrants an immediate roll for initiative, but if the wolf and Able both hang back, then no battle has been joined as of yet. I would call this sort of mode 'tactical exploration'.

The situation warrants detailed tactical movement and either side MAY opt to take actions and initiate combat but if they don't do so then the situation can be handled in a more narrative fashion. There are good reasons for this as well. Suppose that the encounter doesn't develop into a combat? Perhaps one side or the other decides to try to talk or to simply avoid the other. Depending on what happens there is also a good chance nobody will end up being surprised.

Consider, the wolf bristles, it has sensed strangers. The orc, noticing his faithful companion's nervousness stops and listens, making an active Perception check. Meanwhile Able hangs back from the corner, readying his crossbow. Bob continues to move in the other direction, oblivious. Finally Able decides he had better get Bobs attention and whistles, knowing he'll loose any advantage he has but figuring that's better than letting Bob get 40' down the corridor in the other direction before something happens.

Remember, stuff happens fast too. Yes, there are certain restrictions on what can happen during the initial stage of combat, but these sorts of situations tend to be disorganized and chaotic. Decision making is usually split-second and it can be hard to effectively get the jump on someone when you weren't really prepared ahead of time.

On a related note: The only thing I can say about the whole 'total defense before combat' thing is that I don't really like the concept. In theory it sounds OK, but the problem is if you allow it for one PC once, then it will immediately become the standard tactic for ALL characters all of the time from then on. Effectively you may as well just say "everyone gets a +2 to all defenses in round 1 unless they're surprised." I think its equally valid to just assume that every PC is doing the smartest thing all the time already and it just comes out in the wash. Its simpler, makes things go faster, and really isn't going to materially disadvantage anyone. Remember, if the PCs are going to be doing this constantly, then the monsters darn well should be as well. If the party wants to cautiously await hostile action by the enemy then they can delay or declare total defense in round 1. Giving it a cost means its more of a choice and involves some tactics and doesn't devolve down to a default behavior that will just end up being assumed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe you are right and everyone going into the room alone will use something to shield himself from arrow fire when entering. But this is ok IMHO. The person going first needs all help to not been killed immediately.

It is just a surprise round when entering the room winning initiative automatically. (No other person gets it) It sounds right to me, because he is the one initiating combat by opening the door. Noone can be faster than that. Period.

Now all NPCs on the other side can now fire off their weapons after the PC entered. And all other PCs can react too. In order of initiative (if they like, or after all NPCs fired their weapons (if they delayed their action).

The person entering the room gave up his surprise standard action with his total defense and someone had to open the door for him giving up his surprise action too.

 

[PoorHobo]

Seems cut and dry, honestly isn't this why there are stealth checks? If a monster hears someone then, no, no surprise round.

If the PCs want to walk around the woods at stealth at all times to try and get the drop on things then, thats fine too. Thats what stealth is for.

 

[Ferghis]

Maybe you are right and everyone going into the room alone will use something to shield himself from arrow fire when entering. But this is ok IMHO. The person going first needs all help to not been killed immediately.

I'm not sure this is what you meant, but has anyone mulled over whether there is a real problem with allowing everyone to begin combat in total defense? This would obviously apply to monsters as well, and would be representative of an alert, armed combatant bracing for some kind of attack, moving cautiously, and playing it safe...

I'm not suggesting that everyone would be in total defense all the time, just when they state they are "advancing cautiously" or enter a heightened state of guard. If they want to move through an entire dungeon like that, so be it, but it will take them literally twice as long. I assume from the posts above that most will be opposed to this style of play. I guess the argument in favor of allowing this is that there are real actions that these mechanics reproduce, and those real actions can still be taken in absence of combat. I still find it strage that if you use total defense while initiative is running, you get +2 on all defenses against any attack, even one from an enemy you were completely unaware of. But if initiative is not running, no matter what mentally or physically prepared state the player has the character in, those defenses are lower.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh god, my grammar is terrible. I should stop editing my posts while still writing...

Yes, as I understand, AbdulAlHazred believes, that taking total defense before combat is a bad Idea, because if you allow it, you could as well asume, that PC´s do this all the time.

IMHO it is not abusive if you allow all enemies to use their readied (i.e. suprise round) action to fire at the first one entering the room.


If you however jump into the room, without your shield up, you would roll initiative normally and maybe you can act another time before you are shot or charged. IMHO both options are equally valid and depending on your AC and offensice capabilities one can be better than the other.

 

[Amaroq]

I'm not suggesting that everyone would be in total defense all the time, just when they state they are "advancing cautiously" or enter a heightened state of guard ... I still find it strage that if you use total defense while initiative is running, you get +2 on all defenses against any attack, even one from an enemy you were completely unaware of. But if initiative is not running, no matter what mentally or physically prepared state the player has the character in, those defenses are lower.

Okay. Let me try explaining it to you with a different approach.

Fundamentally, I don't think that "Total Defense" is about your mental or physically prepared state.

You've forgone your Standard action attack (for melee characters, your weapon attack) and are, instead, focusing on using your weapon to parry attacks.

Imagine the difference between a swordsman who is shuffling backwards and focusing on parrying, and one that is moving forward, trying to attack and push his enemy back. The former is in Total Defense, the other is not.

Yes, its a little odd that you may be able to "parry" an attack you weren't aware of, but the odds are 90% that you won't - in other words, that the +2 won't make the difference between the attack succeeding or failing.

On the other hand, "I go in with my shield up" has a very specific mechanic: you are using your shield to gain its defensive properties, e.g., +2 to AC and +2 to Reflex for a Large Shield.

Excellent.

That has nothing to do with the mechanics of "Total Defense" the way that I understand Total Defense.

In the same way, "I'm on alert, moving cautiously" doesn't mean "I can't be surprised" or "I'm in Total Defense". You've still got to spot, hear, smell, or feel the enemy's presence .. in other words, you have to make a Perception check to spot the enemy and avoid being Surprised .. and you still need to win Initiative to be able to enter Total Defense before the bad guy swings at you.

Seriously. Personally, I'd assume that any adventurer wandering through a strange dungeon and fighting unnatural monsters is going to be on alert, moving cautiously, keeping his shield up, and his weapon at the ready ... and I think all of that is built into his normal Perception, Initiative bonus, and Armor Class.

Sure, he can describe how cautiously he's moving, but that's flavor text, not game mechanic. If he wants to be in Total Defense, he's got to burn a Standard Action to do it once combat starts.

 

[Ferghis]

I somehow feel the need to clarify that I have not come down on either side of this issue, and am leaning against allowing these actions out of combat.

Yes, its a little odd that you may be able to "parry" an attack you weren't aware of, but the odds are 90% that you won't - in other words, that the +2 won't make the difference between the attack succeeding or failing.

This is a funny bit of reasoning, and in real life I've always made fun of people who employ it when negotiating. Your are stating that you find the benefit trivial. But you seem staunchly against granting it. Do you see the funny in that?

If he wants to be in Total Defense, he's got to burn a Standard Action to do it once combat starts.

That begs the question, why can't the player simply state that he is initiating combat? If it's because there are no visible enemies, the player is obviously preparing against enemies the character cannot see. Since you can, legally, fight invisible enemies, the character should be allowed to enter combat.

The other problematic point is that this prohibition gives characters in combat an advantage that doesn't make sense. They can use total defense, even to protect themselves from an unknown opponent, but those out of combat cannot. That's crazy. Why wouldn't an alert character be able to do whatever it is that a character who is in a fight be able to do? Or, better yet, why would an unknown attacker have better odds of hurting an alert and vigilant character who is not engaged in combat than one who is (and has used a total defense action)?