Do the initiative rules discourage parley?

[Nail]

Also, even if they ready an action, the hobo could also ready an action as well and then you get into the chicken and egg scenario described earlier.

You've said this before....why would you not resolve this by total initiative modifier, as has been suggested?

 

[KarinsDad]

Yup, that's the expectation; and that's the most likely outcome. See above.

Here is an example of initiatives in real world action. The guy comes in and attempts his intimidate. Everyone else then goes on their initiatives (not exactly on topic, but humorous nonetheless):


"The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree in Washington USA appeared to be the robber's first (and last), due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices:

1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms, A gun shop specializing in handguns.

2. The shop was full of customers -- firearms customers.

3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police patrol car parked at the front door.

4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup, and fired a few wild shots from a . 22 target pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9 mm Glock 17, the clerk with a . 50 Desert Eagle, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, several of whom also fired, The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics.

Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 gunshot wounds. Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons. No one else was hurt in the exchange of fire.

Here we are at the beginning of March and we already may have the 2005 winner of the Darwin Award. This guy is going to be hard to beat."

 

[Nail]

Rotfl!

 

[KarinsDad]

You've said this before....why would you not resolve this by total initiative modifier, as has been suggested?

First off, that suggestion is not in the rules (unless you are talking similar rule rule for tied initiatives).

Secondly, that does make it kind of static, doesn't it?

 

[Nail]

A new Example! Let's try to break it down using d20:

1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms, A gun shop specializing in handguns.

Robber rolls a 1 on his Profession(thief) check.

2. The shop was full of customers -- firearms customers.

3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police patrol car parked at the front door.

4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work.

Robber fails multiple Spot and Sense Motive checks, as well as another Profession(thief) check. The DM heaves a great big sigh....to no effect.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup, and fired a few wild shots from a . 22 target pistol.

Everyone rolls initiative, as no one is surprised. We could assume from this description that the Robber won; perhaps he got a circumstance bonus from a sadistic DM?

The Robber uses a free action to speak; noting the lack of the expected response, the Robber attacks with his wussy gun. He rolls poorly on his attack roll.

The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9 mm Glock 17, the clerk with a . 50 Desert Eagle, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, several of whom also fired.

Everyone else rolled well on their attack rolls, and used real weapons to attack. A few rolled some extra attack rolls after the Robber was down, they were so excited! The DM gives a few gentle reminders to the new players OOC about dice ettiquette.

The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics.

The Robber player pouts and says everyone was out to kill his character, and it all would have worked if his dice had rolled better.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup, and fired a few wild shots from a . 22 target pistol.

So, what you're saying is the would-be robber had a surprise round, "wasted" it by firing a couple shots into the air and making some demands, and then lost initiative in the non-surprise round ??

 

[Nail]

...that suggestion is not in the rules (unless you are talking similar rule rule for tied initiatives).

I'm using these two pieces:

"Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action...."

and

'Initiative Checks: .....In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions). If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other."

Seems legit to me.

 

[ElvishBard]

Err....isn't that the more realistic and logical way as well? I'm rather of the opinion that if you wake up the enemy to parley, you SHOULD suffer a tactical disadvantage.

Of course, if the party ISN'T willing to parley occasionally they really shouldn't maintain that nifty good alignment for very long either.

I have to agree with this. The system should penalize you if you wake someone up and fight them rather than killing them in their sleep.

I am also kind of confused as to why your party would attack the BBEG. It gives them no tactical advantage, just the loss of information. When the BBEG sees them pulling out a weapon or casting some type of spell he is going to initative combat as well which negates their advantage and only serves to waste their time and prevent any type of negotiation they might have had.

 

[Celebrim]

I've already explained to you that Take 20 is not allowed for initiatives in DND. You can continue to outline your house rule, but that will not change the fact that it is a house rule.

And I have already explained to you (twice) that you are wrong, both in 3.0 (for which I gave you the exact page number) and in 3.5 (for which you've seen several DM's have agree with me, but you'll have to rely on them for the exact page number if you are going to keep playing rules lawyer here). Why you persist in calling it 'my house rule' I have no idea seeing that I gave you the exact page number in the PH the rule could be found on.

Moreover, I'm right about how the problem is resolved whether you are talking 'taking 20' for initiative (as in 3.0) or whether we are not 'taking 20' for initiative but rather 'taking the top of the initiative order' (as in 3.5). If two players take the top of the initiative order for whatever reason, believe it or not, the game can resolve which goes first.

Actually, PCs are limited to standard actions in a surprise round, so no there are several things they cannot do.

Well, duh, yes obviously they can't take a full round or multi-round action (though they could begin one), but I think that it was pretty clear by 'action' I meant 'standard action' (or in 3.0 terms 'partial action') and/or one or more free actions (depending on the generousity of the DM). This objection in no way alters my point, and that is that the players certainly could take a 'ready' (or delay) action during the surprise round because ready is a 'standard' action.

Also, even if they ready an action, the hobo could also ready an action as well and then you get into the chicken and egg scenario described earlier.

And I've already explained to you how the 'chicken-and-the-egg' problem is resolved several times.

There is no solution to it other than the DM just adjudicating the situation and each DM might adjudicate differently. Hence, the rules do not handle it well because they do not really take it into account.

While there is never a solution to anything other than the DM adjudicating it, in this case the rules give clear guidance on how a DM should adjudicate it, and I find that the given guidance is adequate for most of the situations that come up.

Now, as far as what my actual house rule is, in this thread I've also tried to provide guidance within the rules for situations which I feel are implied but not explicitly covered. Namely, that I think that it is well within the intent of the rules to allow a Sense Motive check opposed by Bluff to discern from what a person reveals in thier posture what thier intent is - that is whether they are planning to resist and gathering themselves up for sudden action. While this is a 'house rule' in the sense that the situation is not expressly covered, it is a 'house rule' which lies firmly within the intent of the described skill. Quoting from the SRD:

"Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy. "

So my 'house ruling' isn't really that much of a house rule any way, and in particular it doesn't immediately have anything to do with initiative (contrary to what you keep bringing up) but rather relates to what somewhat abstract things one might allow a player to ready himself for. The 'default' rules for making a hunch use a DC 20 sense motive check, but by making it an opposed check with the target's bluff skill I am well within the bounds of very common optional rules for opposed skill checks.

At this point, I'm strongly getting the feeling that you are hanging on to some point which you've held for some time (probably long before this thread began) solely because it would be embarassing to relinquish an objection which you've hitherto been so bombastic about. You must be really disatisfied with your DM. I'm sorry if that's the case, but its a personal problem.

 

[Felon]

2) When a readied action goes off, not only does the triggering action have to have a specific action that it triggers on ("I ready if he does anything" is discouraged in the DMG because it is not specific), it also does not occur before the initiative of the character who caused it.

You have accused me of making up stuff, so allow me to ask you, where in the DMG is the passage you are you referring to? The section on Readying an Action (p. 25) does not state that the triggering condition must be a specific action, nor does it specifically discourage a condition of "I ready if he does anything".

It actually states that the ready action is "particularly open-ended" and recommends that the action that the character is readying should be very specific (e.g. the character should specify exactly what spell is being readied). But that's the readied action it's talking about, not the triggering condition. It then goes on to say the DM is "justified" in requiring a specific target to be designated, or could designate any foe that comes from a certain direction, but that's as far as the DMG's advice goes on the topic of triggering conditions, and that's not very specific at all.

Moreover, the DMG is just offering advice, so we're not even talking rules, just recommendations on how to apply them. The RAW's express requirement is that you "specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it". Notice the use of plural. Contrary to your assertions, not only is specificness not expressly required, but the rules implicitly allow for vagueness if you are permitted to identify a multitude of triggering conditions.

You cannot stop this. You cannot deny me the ability to no longer be flat-footed. Once I delay, I HAVE had a chance to act, hence, I am no longer flat-footed. Once I do anything, even though your Readied Action occurs before my action, I have had a chance to act and hence, I am no longer flat-footed. According to RAW.

You are clinging to the wording of the sentence "At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed." and dwelling on the phrase "chance to act" more than was likely intended. By way of clarification, here is what the glossary of conditions says specifically about being flat-footed:

"Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed."

So, if you do not act, you remain flat-footed.