Do the initiative rules discourage parley?

[KarinsDad]

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

These are not inferences.

These are RAW.

I quoted them for you.

You ignored them again.

You continue to look at one sentence and claim that it takes precedence over the other sentences in the same paragraph (and in the rest of the rules) and that it means within game from the character perspective when there is nothing in that paragraph to indicate that.

An "action" is a DND game mechanic.

Your fallacy here is that you are confusing actions with initiative (or turn).

You get to perform your actions on your initiative. Nobody else gets to perform their actions on your initiative with the exception of them performing a ready action on your initiative (or performing an action like Speaking which is allowed outside your turn). In order for the Ready Action to perform, your initiative has HAD to occur.

Just because their ready action can be resolved before yours on your initiative, it is still your initiative, not theirs. In future rounds, they are on the same initiative count and their turn is first. But, their turn is not on the current initiative. They cannot change their mind on what to do and decide to do something else. They cannot do a full round action. They are resolving the action that they declared during their initiative. It is not currently their initiative.

If Fred readies against Barney and Barneys initiative comes up and he starts performing an action that triggers Fred's ready action, it does not become Fred's initiative or Fred's turn. Fred's action is resolved, but it is NOT Fred's initiative, it is still Barney's initiative.

It is not Fred's turn, it is Barney's turn.

Barney still got to act, regardless of Fred negating that act in some way with his ready action. If Barney is casting a spell, he can STILL lose that spell because the spell is interrupted. The spell is NOT preempted.

If your interpretation were correct, then the spell would never be lost because the action was not started. Everything in the rules disagrees with your interpretation.

You cannot preempt Barney from getting his initiative and immediately no longer being flat-footed with a ready action.

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.

You dropped the phrases "in response", "interrupted", and "continues" from that paragraph.

"Interrupted", not "preceded by".

What part of the word "interrupted" do you not understand?


The text there is quite clear:

1) His action has to be started in order to be interrupted.

2) His action has to be started in order to be continued. You cannot continue something you have not yet started.

3) His action has to be started in order for someone to respond to it. You cannot respond to something happening if that something is not yet happening.

Hence, he is no longer flat-footed because he has gotten the chance to act (regardless of outcome).

You can claim to the high heavens that RAW supports your interpretation, but that is not what the words state.

They state "in response", "interrupts", and "continues". In your interpretation, you are totally ignoring the meaning of these words.


Just because your action is interrupted does not mean that you did not get to do it. For example, you still lose your spell. It means you were unsuccessful in your attempt to do it. Not all actions are guaranteed.


Your entire false premise is based on the interpretation of:

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

to mean that he must finish his action. It does not state this. This one sentence definition does not address the issue at all.

The following quote which you dismissed DOES specifically address it:

"Flat-Footed: 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."


You cannot drop sentences or phrases out of the rules, just because they do not support your interpretation.

 

[Aesmael]

I don't think anyone is saying they will still be flat footed after the readied action is triggered. Aren't they saying "If you attempt an action, I will hit you. So don't."

And if the other party is going to surrender or parlay or whatever, they will not take an action (meaning they are not engaging in combat). Hopefully combat will now cease because people are not participating in it (isn't the alternative that combat only ends in death because you can not end it by ceasing to engage in it?)

Hopefully that is not completely gibberish. Aesmael sleep now.

 

[Felon]

These are not inferences.

These are RAW.

Just to be clear what I mean when I say you are not distinguishing between RAW and your own inferrences, let me point out the following is not stated anywhere in the PHB: "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"

That is entirely your inferrence of what the word "occurs" means, and it is your interpretation that inserting "is resolved" in place of "occurs" causes the sentence to make sense ("making sense" apparently meaning it says what you think it should say).

I quoted them for you.

You ignored them again.

You quoted, then declared a bunch of stuff based on what you think the sentences mean. That's inferrence.

You continue to look at one sentence and claim that it takes precedence over the other sentences in the same paragraph (and in the rest of the rules) and that it means within game from the character perspective when there is nothing in that paragraph to indicate that.

Right, and the fallacy of your reasoning is "that which is not mandatory is forbidden", i.e. if something is not expressly stated in the rules, then de facto one must assume the negative rather than the affirmative, rather than be swayed by what "makes sense".

In this case, there is nothing that supports the notion that conditions like flat-footed or helpless are mere game mechanics that a character has no means for discerning even if he's actively scrutinizing for it. However, because there is no physical correllary specifically mentioned, your are concluding that there is none, despite what makes sense.

And the rules do not say a character cannot voluntarily choose to remain flat-footed or become helpless. But there is no rule stating they can make such a choice, so ergo you assert that a character cannot, despite what makes sense, right?

Reality check: these are inferrences. If you are making these extrapolations based on what is not written, then you can hardly claim to be quoting RAW. Rather, you are inferring RANW.

Is there a rule saying that humanoids possess a sense of taste? If not, would you say that means they don't?

Is there a rule that says a character can clap his hands? If not, can a character still do it?

Is there a rule that says I can spend a full-round action drawing my sword if I felt like doing it very slooowly? If not, am I forced to use a move action because that's what RAW states?

If I want to grapple someone, and they attempt to grapple me first, is there a rule saying I can wave the opposed grapple check? If not, does that mean I have to try to push the opponent off?

These questions may sound facetious because common sense provides obvious answers, but with you, I am genuinely curious to know how you would answer them.

Barney still got to act, regardless of Fred negating that act in some way with his ready action. If Barney is casting a spell, he can STILL lose that spell because the spell is interrupted. The spell is NOT preempted. If your interpretation were correct, then the spell would never be lost because the action was not started. Everything in the rules disagrees with your interpretation.

You apparently misread a good deal of my previous post (or you're just confusing me with Saev). I spoke entirely in the context of the action having started. It simply doesn't take effect until the action is actually completed. The interruption clearly takes place before the completion.

You cannot preempt Barney from getting his initiative and immediately no longer being flat-footed with a ready action. The text there is quite clear:
1) His action has to be started in order to be interrupted.
2) His action has to be started in order to be continued. You cannot continue something you have not yet started.
3) His action has to be started in order for someone to respond to it. You cannot respond to something happening if that something is not yet happening.
Hence, he is no longer flat-footed because he has gotten the chance to act (regardless of outcome).

That's fine. The opponent won't be flat-footed after he takes whatever action he action to takes, but I'll have used my readied action against his non-compliant arse, which is still flat-footed since I act before his first action is concluded.

Now, you have stated that I'm confusing initiative with action. That is what you are doing. You are saying that as soon as my initiative comes up, I'm acting. However, if you haven't performed an action, you haven't acted.

 

[Felon]

I don't think anyone is saying they will still be flat footed after the readied action is triggered. Aren't they saying "If you attempt an action, I will hit you. So don't."

And if the other party is going to surrender or parlay or whatever, they will not take an action (meaning they are not engaging in combat). Hopefully combat will now cease because people are not participating in it (isn't the alternative that combat only ends in death because you can not end it by ceasing to engage in it?)

Exactly. It's simple, elegant, and easy to implement.

There's no need for that, is there?

It is somewhat exasperating to have someone persist in arguing indefatigably that it is not possible to address a situation using an open-ended, established rule, not on the grounds that it is too complex, too inelegant, or too much trouble to implement, but rather because...IT IS FORBIDDEN!

 

[moritheil]

Exactly. It's simple, elegant, and easy to implement.

It is somewhat exasperating to have someone persist in arguing indefatigably that it is not possible to address a situation using an open-ended, established rule, not on the grounds that it is too complex, too inelegant, or too much trouble to implement, but rather because...IT IS FORBIDDEN!

Hmm, I think I understand your position, and that of KarinsDad.

Felon: This is the way to handle it, and handling the issue is what I am discussing.
KarinsDad: That is not part of the rules. The rules are what I am discussing.

 

[green slime]

Where is the FUN in RAW?

 

[moritheil]

Where is the FUN in RAW?

I'm tempted to answer in imitation of some other posters by asking you to define "fun," and then repeatedly answering that there is no official definition of it and therefore the discussion is outside the rules, but I'll let that go.

The fun in RAW is in the smackdown, of course.

 

[Felon]

Hmm, I think I understand your position, and that of KarinsDad.

Felon: This is the way to handle it, and handling the issue is what I am discussing.
KarinsDad: That is not part of the rules. The rules are what I am discussing.

Close. My position is more like "This is the way to handle the situation, by utilizing the rules in a way that can lend the greatest degree of utility in handling situations. They don't exist merely to be inflexible and inadequate."

And despite what anyone may think, that's all we're really doing here: taking a handful of sentences and treating them like they were specifically worded in a manner that would actually be applicable to every conceivable situation where they'd come into play. They weren't, and they can't. A degree of common sense goes a long way.

 

[moritheil]

Close.

A degree of common sense goes a long way.

Right; my point was that you considered handling the matter more important than the rules, which is reasonable.

KarinsDad asserted that nothing was more important here than a proper understanding of the rules, which is also reasonable.

Your goals are not the same.

 

[KarinsDad]

Lots of nonsense <snip>.

...

That's fine. The opponent won't be flat-footed after he takes whatever action he action to takes, but I'll have used my readied action against his non-compliant arse, which is still flat-footed since I act before his first action is concluded.

Total nonsense.

"Flat-Footed: 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."

Not only do they call out that you are only flat-footed before you have had a chance to act, but they explicitly spell out exactly what they mean by that: before your first regular turn in the initiative order. Period, exclamation, no exceptions.

They purposely went out of their way to explain what they meant by that.

The instant that you get to your regular turn in the initiative order, it is no longer before your first regular turn in the initiative order. It is now your turn.

DUH!!!

Your action is irrelevant. The ready action of your opponent is irrelevant. The instant it becomes your turn, you are no longer flat-footed. BEFORE you do any actions.

You want to ignore the rules and claim they are something they are not or that the writers did not mean what they wrote nor what they clarified as well, fine. Do it on the house rules forum.

And despite what anyone may think, that's all we're really doing here: taking a handful of sentences and treating them like they were specifically worded in a manner that would actually be applicable to every conceivable situation where they'd come into play. They weren't, and they can't. A degree of common sense goes a long way.

Again, total nonsense.

They spelled out what they mean and then they turned around and explicitly went out of their way to clarify it.

You can pretend that they do not apply to all situations, but they do. The moment your first turn comes up, you are no longer flat-footed. That is the rule. And, that is the rule for ALL conceivable situations.

A degree of common sense goes a long way.