Combat actions before combat?

[Flipguarder]

Ok then king, explain to me where 4e explains how two different GROUPS of creatures expecting each other decide which of them "realizes the presence" of the other first.

 

[DracoSuave]

Ok then king, explain to me where 4e explains how two different GROUPS of creatures expecting each other decide which of them "realizes the presence" of the other first.

Well, if both are aware of the other, then there's no surprise round, initiative goes as normal.

Figured that was obvious-- the only time there's a surprise round is when there are combatants not aware of their opponents.

Notice, that's 'aware of their opponents' not 'aware of possible opposition.'

So, doing the kick down the door idea---

First the party rolls their perception to check if they are aware there's actually enemies behind the door. This is'd be a pretty easy roll to make, unless the other side is actually being stealthy themselves. The other side also does the same thing to them.

Any side that has a success can use free actions to alert the rest of the party.

At this point, if there is time, some creatures on one side or the other might go for cover, hide etc. This affords them a Stealth check against the passive perceptions of the opposition.

If the players are aware of general opposition, if they're smart (and not carrying light sources) they can be stealthed before the initial perception. That is where they have their chance to get their surprise round, by taking actions that make the opposition unaware of them, not by saying 'we're being more defensive' or kicking down doors or whatever.

 

[sev]

Regarding the example of the fighter using total defense while kicking down a door, and a ranger readying an attack for when the door opens:

Give them a surprise round (if the monsters didn't know they were about to be intruded upon). When combat starts, you can think of it as if everyone's readied actions are going off at the same time. Initiative just determines whose readied actions get to go first. "You readied for when combat starts? Great, so did all your enemies. Roll initiative to see who gets to use their readied action first."

If, like in the given scenario, the players catch the monsters unaware, then opening the door starts combat with a surprise round. The ranger's readied attack is then resolved as his action in the surprise round, while the fighter's action is resolved as using a total defense.

I adjudicate this slightly differently. IMC, the fighter's action is "kicks down the door", the ranger readies her shot, and a third character can use total defense. I agree with Kingreaper that kicking down the door is an action & so is total defense, so it wouldn't make sense for the same character to do both at the same time.

In effect, everybody's readying something to do after the door gets kicked down -- the third character is readying a total defense. When it comes to rolling initiative, I just let the door-kicker go first (because everyone's waiting for that action), those who readied actions go next (assuming that the door going down was the trigger they were readying for), and everybody else rolls. In practice, players rarely bother readying total defense for fear that it'll interfere with their ability to respond to actions as they unfold.

I wouldn't allow "walk down the hallway at total defense" because you can't ready an action and walk at the same time. Combat actions often require clearly defined enemies and allies, and that corresponds with when initiative is rolled. If the players don't know for certain that there are enemies on the other side of the door, they're not in combat yet and there's nobody to shoot at or defend against yet. They can ready an arrow or a defense for when their enemies get clearly-enough defined; whether they choose to do that depends on how sure they are that they want to be locked into their first action once combat actually starts.

 

[Saagael]

I adjudicate this slightly differently. IMC, the fighter's action is "kicks down the door", the ranger readies her shot, and a third character can use total defense. I agree with Kingreaper that kicking down the door is an action & so is total defense, so it wouldn't make sense for the same character to do both at the same time.

I'll agree with that. I tend to dislike making one player lose out on the surprise round because they opened a door, since it feels like I'm denying them part of their reward for being sneaky. I usually say that combat doesn't start until the door is open, which means that the surprise round happens after opening the door. That allows all party members to join in the surprise round. Not only that, but it removes all reason to have characters readying an action, which is where the confusion comes in. It's simpler and it makes everyone happy.

 

[sev]

I'll agree with that. I tend to dislike making one player lose out on the surprise round because they opened a door, since it feels like I'm denying them part of their reward for being sneaky. I usually say that combat doesn't start until the door is open, which means that the surprise round happens after opening the door. That allows all party members to join in the surprise round. Not only that, but it removes all reason to have characters readying an action, which is where the confusion comes in. It's simpler and it makes everyone happy.

That simplifies the case where there's a surprise round, at the expense of the case where there isn't one.

If the opponents on the other side of the door were ready, the door opens and the characters just stand there until their turn in initiative. People ready actions because they want to rush in the instant the door comes down. As they're on the same side of the door as the door-kicker (and assuming the opponents aren't actively watching the kick) it makes sense to me that they'd have a second more warning than their opponents & it's plausible that they'd go first.

Having read this thread, if the opponents are surprised I'd stick the door-kicker at the end of the surprise round, so they'd get the benefit of the surprise without having to shoehorn two actions in. In practice, in my experience, "bottom of the surprise round" and "top of the initiative in a regular round" don't tend to differ all *that* much.

My goal is an approach that remains mostly separate from the question of whether there's surprise.

 

[Kingreaper]

Ok then king, explain to me where 4e explains how two different GROUPS of creatures expecting each other decide which of them "realizes the presence" of the other first.

Well, if they both know when the fight will start, and how (ie. the advancing down an open plain scenario) then they have both realised long before combat proper commences.
So, no surprise round.


If the defenders know when the fight will start, and how, but the attackers do not (ie. the clanking loudly through a dungeon scenario) then the defenders get surprise.
note: This can be decided by stealth checks, as specifically explained in the DMG.

If the attackers know when the fight will start, and how, but the defenders do not (ie. the lazy guardsmen playing poker scenario) then the attackers get surprise.
Note: see stealth Vs. passive perception, as above.

If neither party knows when the fight will start, or how, then no-one gets a surprise round.


There are more complicated scenarios (some also in the DMG, and some not)

These include: Some members of each party are aware, some aren't (simply, those who made the perception, get to act)

There's a fight going on already and someone sneaks up on it (don't think 4e has this one covered in the DMG, not sure, I'd be inclined to go with "they get a surprise round, then get slotted into initiative")

Two fights accidentally collide, due to strange circumstances (very rare, and likely very noisy, so people are unlikely to be surprised)

tl;dr: stealth Vs. perception is the basic decider of surprise.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Simplicity is the best rule. Initiative is rolled and combat starts when one side or the other initiates it, neither before nor after. If say a PC wants to put up total defense before the door gets kicked down then they're going to have to have whoever goes ahead of them delay.

As far as surprise goes and exactly what happens, the truth is combat is unpredictable. Just because you came crashing in on someone doesn't always mean you really get a whole lot of advantage. Maybe the guy was polishing his sword.

True story that happened to a guy I knew once. He was sitting as his table polishing his sword. Some lunatic came crashing through his front door and headed straight for him. He certainly WAS surprised! Raised up the sword, ran the guy clean through before he even figured out what was going on. Killed him right there on the spot. Bad guy got a surprise round, good guy just plain rolled better for initiative. Some days it just goes that way.

 

[Amaroq]

That simplifies the case where there's a surprise round, at the expense of the case where there isn't one.

If the opponents on the other side of the door were ready, the door opens and the characters just stand there until their turn in initiative. People ready actions because they want to rush in the instant the door comes down. As they're on the same side of the door as the door-kicker (and assuming the opponents aren't actively watching the kick) it makes sense to me that they'd have a second more warning than their opponents & it's plausible that they'd go first.

Having read this thread, if the opponents are surprised I'd stick the door-kicker at the end of the surprise round, so they'd get the benefit of the surprise without having to shoehorn two actions in. In practice, in my experience, "bottom of the surprise round" and "top of the initiative in a regular round" don't tend to differ all *that* much.

My goal is an approach that remains mostly separate from the question of whether there's surprise.

The part, in Bold, seems to me to be precisely the definition of "have surprise".

They knew combat was going to start, they were ready, and they all rushed in together, coordinated. That's Surprise, just as it would be for an ambush or any other case.

If the defenders in the room are also aware that they're coming, they may be facing the door, weapons out, locked and loaded, ready to fire the instant the door opens.

If that's the case, there's no surprise, and you use the normal Initiative rules.

First, because they're the rules.

And second, because they actually make sense. If eight defenders have "actions readied on the door opening", which one goes first? If the four attackers also have "actions readied on the door opening", do their actions happen before or after the actions of those in the room?

No. You don't even play that game. You have everybody roll initiative, and tell you what they're going to do.

Any attempt to "ready an action on combat starting" is an attempt to shoehorn oneself into a Surprise round via a different mechanic than those explicitly stated in the PHB and DMG. So is, in my opinion, the effort to take a combat action outside of combat, e.g., declaring "Total Defense" before opening the door.

That's why I argued - back in Post 15 of this thread - that a key role of the DM is adjudicating descriptions into actions and game effects, and that in the particular case we're discussing, the proper adjudication is approximately "Nice role-playing. No mechanical effect."

 

[Amaroq]

Monsters are guarding a room under the impression that at some point during their guarding shift there is an 80% chance an enemy of theirs will come in.

PCs are dungeon crawling, aware that every room could be full of danger.

So who is aware of who in this situation? My rule is to nullify the importance of this question. The current rules have little to no explanation of what defines "awareness".

This may be one of the key points of contention in the discussion.

It is my opinion that the current rules have a very explicit explanation of what defines "awareness":

Line of sight to.

Perception check >= opponent's Stealth check.

Passive Perception >= opponent's Stealth check.

Full stop.

(See PHB section on "determining Surprise")

You're describing what the character is expecting, not what they are aware of.

The guarding monsters may be on alert, but unless they see, hear, or smell the PC's coming (LOS, Perception, Perception, respectively) they can still be surprised for the two seconds that the Surprise round lasts.

The players may be on alert, but unless they see, hear, or smell the monsters who are hiding in an ambush, they can still be surprised for the two seconds that it takes to unleash a volley of crossbow bolts.

Both sides may be on alert, but unaware of each other until the players come crashing through the door .. in which case, Initiative is the mechanic by which we decide who reacts to the situation most quickly.

That's why I keep coming back to the sentiment that, "Any attempt to 'ready an action on combat starting' is an attempt to shoehorn oneself into a Surprise round via a different mechanic than those explicitly stated in the PHB and DMG."

 

[sev]

The part, in Bold, seems to me to be precisely the definition of "have surprise".

Surprise is a red herring with regards to the original question -- all surprise does, is determine who acts in the first round and how many actions they can take.

If I may re-state the original topic, I would say: "What, if anything, in the rules supports a more intentional tactical situation at the beginning of combat?" If the answer is "nothing is required; the question is meaningless," then you're done. For those for whom the question has meaning, I believe that readied actions fill the space of players wanting to apply combat tactics to combat-start without actually breaking RAW -- or, as far as I can tell, RAI.

In practice, in my group, one character opens the door, one or two ready a ranged shot for as soon as they can see a known enemy beyond the door, and everybody else just waits and sees, and the extreme example you thought up just doesn't happen.

If everybody on both sides readied something, that's a situation for the DM to say "nice role-playing, no mechanical effect." I think what I hear you saying is that the only reason somebody might want to use in-combat actions out-of-combat is that the players are munchkins trying to cheese the rules. I'm not disagreeing that your answer is the right one for the situation you've posited. I am just suggesting that there's a more-reasonable situation in which some middle ground is available.