Combat actions before combat?

[Amaroq]

Hmm - I don't think Surprise is a red herring. I think the entire line of the conversation hinges around a complete understanding of Surprise.

I want to eliminate some of the confounding variables for an example:
- Without specifying which side are the PC's
- Without worrying about munchkin-ism
- Without having "obscured line of sight"
- Without the action of "opening a door"

Lets imagine an ambush situation:

Group A is traveling warily along a road, weapons out and on the lookout for an ambush. Group B is lying in wait, hidden along a ridge to the north.

Group B have their bows out, ready to fire down into the road.

Group B have effectively readied their actions: the trigger could be "on the lead wagon reaching point X" or the trigger could be "on our leader's signal", etc.

That trigger point is reached.

What happens?

I can see three possible answers:

1. You determine Surprise per the normal rules, with Group B's arrow volley constituting their action in the Surprise round, should they get a Surprise round.

Option 1-a: If any members of Group A make a Perception check to spot Group B before the ambush, there is no Surprise round.

Option 1-b: Any members of Group A which made a Perception check to spot Group B before the ambush join all members of Group B in a Surprise round.

2. You consider combat to have started, with a Surprise round, the moment after Group B unleashed the arrows. (Group B get to fire another arrow in the Surprise round, or come charging down the hillside, etc))

3. You consider combat to have started with Group B's arrow volley, and roll Initiative per normal rules - effectively allowing Group B an arrow shot "before combat starts", or allowing Group B a guaranteed Surprise round.

Have I missed an option?

#2 and #3 bother me.

I honestly don't mean to set them up as straw-men - but I don't see a RAW argument for either of them. If you do see a RAW argument for either of them, please spell it out for me!

If you support #2 or #3, would your support for that position differ if you were a member of Group A and a DM were allowing that to a group of monsters against you?

If you don't support #2 or #3, but do support the idea of entering Total Defense before a combat starts, please explain to me how that is mechanically different from #2 or #3.

This may be a case where we simply perceive the rules around the start of combat very differently from each other!

"What, if anything, in the rules supports a more intentional tactical situation at the beginning of combat?"

That's a good question - and I think the answer is all about Stealth, Perception, tactical positioning, and Surprise.

Use Stealth to approach an enemy unawares.
Use Cover.
Use Concealment.
Position your ranged/support troops behind Difficult Terrain.
(E.g., "taking the high ground")
Attack from an unexpected direction.
Tactical reconnaissance so you know what's on the other side of the door.
Set up mutually reinforcing positions.

 

[Ferghis]

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.

I don't think this is what the word awareness means, but I'm beginning to think that this is the easiest way to treat the issue. This means that I have to change my policy of not rolling for surprise when a PC or NPC is relatively ready and expecting a fight, but it's really the easiest way to determine surprise. Once you have "spotted" a hostile, you are in combat. I don't like it, but it's safer than allowing folks to take total defense out of combat. However, this has the ugly and annoying consequence of tracking (at least vaguely) combat rounds and actions even if the party is attempting to parlay, or engaging in other non-combat activities.

 

[Kingreaper]

I don't think this is what the word awareness means, but I'm beginning to think that this is the easiest way to treat the issue. This means that I have to change my policy of not rolling for surprise when a PC or NPC is relatively ready and expecting a fight, but it's really the easiest way to determine surprise.

Being prepared for combat means that you'll have bonuses to your perception (or at least, lack negatives) but if your players decided "we're going to sneak up on those guards, then ambush them" would you deny them a surprise round simply because the guards are kinda semi-aware there might be combat at some point in the next few days?

Sure, unlike guards playing poker, these guards won't have to draw weapons and don shields, but would you really deny your players any chance of surprising them?

Once you have "spotted" a hostile, you are in combat. I don't like it, but it's safer than allowing folks to take total defense out of combat. However, this has the ugly and annoying consequence of tracking (at least vaguely) combat rounds and actions even if the party is attempting to parlay, or engaging in other non-combat activities.

Not necessarily. Once hostilities have ceased (ie. both sides have started parlaying) combat is over.


If another combat starts later, then another combat starts later. Resolve that combat initiative normally. If there's a deliberate attempt by one party to surprise the other (while both are within vision of each other, but not necessarily aware of hostile intent) the existence of a surprise round would be determined by a Bluff Vs. Insight check.

 

[DracoSuave]

Being prepared for combat means that you'll have bonuses to your perception (or at least, lack negatives) but if your players decided "we're going to sneak up on those guards, then ambush them" would you deny them a surprise round simply because the guards are kinda semi-aware there might be combat at some point in the next few days?

Of course not, the players roll stealth, and those that succeed vs passive perception get to surprise. Those that do not are spotted, and do not get surprise.

Giving the players a chance doesn't mean giving them 100% of a chance.

 

[Kingreaper]

Of course not, the players roll stealth, and those that succeed vs passive perception get to surprise. Those that do not are spotted, and do not get surprise.

Giving the players a chance doesn't mean giving them 100% of a chance.

So, stealth versus perception determines surprise? Wow, that sounds like something I was saying.

 

[Nytmare]

So, stealth versus perception determines surprise? Wow, that sounds like something I was saying.

Not one single person has said that, or anything even approximating that, in this entire thread.

Stop being wrong all the time.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not one single person has said that, or anything even approximating that, in this entire thread.

Stop being wrong all the time.

*coughs*... actually... you did early on, page 2, I think...*cough*

 

[sev]

If you don't support #2 or #3, but do support the idea of entering Total Defense before a combat starts, please explain to me how that is mechanically different from #2 or #3.

This may be a case where we simply perceive the rules around the start of combat very differently from each other!

Ah. This may be where a misunderstanding occurs -- I do not support the idea of *entering* Total Defense before a combat starts. There's nothing to defend against, before combat starts. I would allow a readying of total defense based on a specific trigger -- say, if the group with the volley of arrows had party-members with no ranged attack, who wanted to enter total defense at the same time as all their friends shot the arrows.

Without the ready, it's not a volley of arrows; it's some arrows that plunk down spread out across the whole round. If the arrow-firers get to ready all their arrows to fire on a trigger, shouldn't someone be able to ready a different action against the same trigger?

Having an action readied to trigger at a specific thing that you believe will cause combat to begin meets the criteria of "not surprised" if that trigger does occur, which is why I think surprise is a separate issue. If they're surprised, then whatever it was they were readying for wasn't what happened, and no amount of attempting to ready a combat action before combat begins will help them.

It's not that I think surprise is a not-useful mechanic; it's that I think that surprise-or-not should be considered *as a separate question* from whether you can take combat actions outside of combat. My answer to the latter is "the combat action I allow outside of combat is the ready action." I think that answer keeps the original question ("can you take combat actions outside of combat?") from muddling up the discussion of whether or not someone is surprised. They're separate things to be separately determined.

 

[Ferghis]

So, stealth versus perception determines surprise? Wow, that sounds like something I was saying.

Thinking about this a bit more, and I'm still not resolved on it. Here's the scenario that troubles me now:

Two groups spot each other, and approach cautiously. They're openly hostile groups, and the fight would be a pretty even one, so it would be a carnage for both sides. The leaders of both sides would rather avoid the fight, but cannot back out of the engagement due to their obligations. So they parlay, aware that a fight could break at any moment. While they try to talk it out, the troops on each side take up combat stances. In plain view, some prepare (but do not fire) ranged attacks, and the frontline forms a tight row of shields to minimize the odds of being harmed if the other side attacks first.

In other words, while the leaders are talking, the front lines are taking full defense, and the second line has readied ranged attacks at various targets. Based on my considerations so far, the easiest way to deal with this is to go into combat time as soon as the groups spot each other, and stay in combat time until the situations is somehow resolved. It's annoying to me to track rounds while the groups are trying to parlay, but there seems to be no other way to allow the actions being discussed here. Anyone have a better solution?

 

[Kingreaper]

Like I was saying, you could break into combat time only when someone decides to take an offensive action.

At that point, everyone aware that they're going to take offensive action (ie. everyone whose insight beat the bluff of the first attacker) gets to participate in the surprise round, and then it's initiative as normal.

Note that this allows for the perfectly cinematic situation where someone thinks "I'm firing" and the enemy notice the look in their eyes showing they're about to fire, and shoot them down first.


Short version: when discussing (a social situation) replace "Stealth V Perception" with "Bluff (the social equivalent of stealth) V Insight (the social equivalent of perception)" to decide who gets to act in the surprise round.
Then go into initiative order.