Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2199667" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.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. And I've already explained to you how the 'chicken-and-the-egg' problem is resolved several times.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.</blockquote>

Verification