Do the initiative rules discourage parley?

[Nail]

The flatfooted mechanic simply doesn't apply after the first few seconds of any encounter, regardless of whether people start hitting each other with sharp objects immediately.

I'm with you most of the way, bud, until you get here. This just doesn't have to be the case!

How many movies/T.V. shows/books etc have you seen in which two "sides" are aware of each other, talk to each other, and then one catches the other off-guard? It's a staple of fiction!

The Flat-footed mechanic works fine. The initaitive mechanic works fine. Leave it.

 

[Nail]

Alert, alert. Notify the Hobo Anti-Discrimination League. Patryn is pidgeonholing hobos into non-hobo slots.

We'll get right on that, sir!

...seriously, drop the "ever more dangerous" hobo schtick. You initially used the example to illustrate how even a pathetic weakling could beat experienced PCs. We've shreaded that example. You continue to add quailfiers to your Hobo, in a desparate attempt to keep your point alive. Valiant, but.......it's called bait-n-switch, and it's a poor debate technique. Knock it off.

Please.

 

[KarinsDad]

We'll get right on that, sir!

...seriously, drop the "ever more dangerous" hobo schtick. You initially used the example to illustrate how even a pathetic weakling could beat experienced PCs. We've shreaded that example. You continue to add quailfiers to your Hobo, in a desparate attempt to keep your point alive. Valiant, but.......it's called bait-n-switch, and it's a poor debate technique. Knock it off.

Please.

I'll post the way you want me to when you post the way I want you to.

 

[Nail]

I'll post the way you want me to when you post the way I want you to.

Done.

 

[Ormiss]

If there is any roleplaying system out there that doesn't penalize you in combat for making your presence known instead of attacking by surprise, it transcends the realm of fantasy and moves into the world of the bizarre.

On the other hand, parlaying has its own benefits, such as not having to slaughter everything you see on the horizon.

 

[moritheil]

It comes down to this, do the things in the game follow the rules, or do the rules follow the things in the game? Is your job as DM to make the game situation fit the rules, or is your job to make the rules fit the game situation?

As I have pointed out, I see no conflict between the rules and the "game reality" in this case.

Your question amounts to asking me whether I tie my shoelaces with the strand from the left side going over when I make the knot, or the one on the right.

 

[iwatt]

On the other hand, parlaying has its own benefits, such as not having to slaughter everything you see on the horizon.

But then you'll miss all the KEWL LOOT and XP

 

[iwatt]

It comes down to this, do the things in the game follow the rules, or do the rules follow the things in the game? Is your job as DM to make the game situation fit the rules, or is your job to make the rules fit the game situation?

Well this is the cause of most arguments in the Rules forum and the reason why House Rules are created. Take two smart people with a conflicting view of how to represent reality in a simplified tactical game, and you will have an argument

 

[Felon]

First off, the word "occurs" here means in the real world. It occurs on the table top first. The word "occurs" is talking about resolution order, it is not talking about from the viewpoint of the characters. Put the phrase "is resolved" in place of "occurs" and the sentence makes total sense

And once again, you are drawing your own inferrences and passing them off as RAW.

Seriously. In the course of this arguement up to this point, you disregarded what makes sense in favor of strict, semantically-based, literal interpretations of the rules, commons sense be damned. You have already asserted things like "a character cannot choose to be flat-footed because that's just a game mechanic" even though there is a very common-sense way adjudicate such a choice, and "a chararter cannot choose to be helpless because that's just a game mechanic" when commons sense clearly indicates otherwise (how about if the character closes his eyes, puts his head on a chopping block, and remains there motionless while someone tries to coup de grace him with an axe?). Why now be concerned about things making sense?

Do you think it might be possible that when the rules say "the action occurs just before the action that triggers it", that the word "occurs" refers to when the action in question has an actual impact on the game? Just enough of the action goes off to trigger the readied action, just as with actions that provoke an AoO (e.g. your start to fire a bow, but your opponent sunders it before you can shoot). or an action that would require initiative to be rolled (e.g. your hand reaches for a weapon, buit doesn't actually draw it unitl your initiative), but the results wait until the action is completed.

: The action is resolved just before the action that triggers it.

And it interrupts the triggered action, thus before the character initiating the action derives any benefit from it. Starting an action and completing an action are not the same thing.

And even if it was talking about from the viewpoint of the characters (which does not make sense),

It makes sense. The opponent twitches. I attack. The guy started to put his guard up, but I had the drop on him and got my shot off as soon he triggered my condition, but before he derived the actual benefit. We're describing something that can happen in reality, so saying it doesn't make sense....well, that doesn't make sense.

"Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."

You cannot just drop out sentences from the rules if they do not match your interpretation. The condition must start first in order for your character to respond to it. He continues his action afterwards, he does not start it afterwards.

I didn't see where he dropped anything, including your bolded text, but regardless it does clearly state that whatever trigger you were readying for is interrupted, and no distinction is made for free, move, or standard actions. It's interrupted.

If I start casting a spell, I have STARTED casting. You then, in response, interrupt with your Readied Action.

But before you complete the casting, and thus derive any benefit from it, right?

The triggering action HAS to start before the readying action is resolved. It does not have to finish before the readying action is resolved (and according to the rules, it does not).

Exactly. So the triggered condition is the opponent taking any action (and thus not being flat-footed anymore). The action's not completed. A character is flat-footed if he "has not yet acted during a combat".

So, since you are ignoring the rules as written which are inconvenient to your interpretation, I will repeat that the character triggering the action is STILL not flat-footed.

You are continuing to make your own interpretations, largely based on semantics, and passing it off as the only possible interpetration of RAW. Self-confidence is all good and well, but you are well into the territory of pretention.

 

[moritheil]

You are continuing to make your own interpretations, largely based on semantics, and passing it off as the only possible interpetration of RAW. Self-confidence is all good and well, but you are well into the territory of pretention.

There's no need for that, is there?

You have already asserted things like "a character cannot choose to be flat-footed because that's just a game mechanic" when commons sense clearly indicates otherwise (how about if the character closes his eyes, puts his head on a chopping block, and remains there motionless while someone tries to coup de grace him with an axe?).

I would handle that with the delay mechanic.