Hello there, so I was DM'ing with my group the other day and I came across this situation (I am a brand new DM) - Two PC's were in an in character argument when all of the sudden one of them decided to make it a fight and attack the other guy. My question is, will this make the other player suprized in this circumstance? Does it work like when a stealthed character pops out and suprizes someone else? And how does this relate to those two PCs rolling for initiative? Do they both roll before the hit is landed and the one getting attacked has a chance to do something about or does having that element of suprize essentialy "force" the aggresor into first place as for as initiative goes.
A question related to this is, what about people joining in mid fight. In that situation the party members were unsure of whether or not they wanted join in on the brawl, and let the fight go on for a few rounds before they hopped in. In that circumstance would they just get tacked onto the end of the initiative order in the order they joined or...
So yah, thank you in advance, sorry for the long convaluted phrasings of these questions.
I'd just roll initiative usually, though I would allow for a charisma deception roll opposed by insight to gain surprise. If other players were paying attention to the argument I would allow them the same check to intervene
EzechielDantan wrote:
I generally have people that could join the fight roll initiative at the beginning, even if they don't enter combat right away. If there are a large number of generic bystanders, I split them up into groups.
You can also just keep track of the top of the round (who went first) and roll for initiative once per round for new combatants.
I'd ask if the one being punched was likely to be on his guard, considering the two are friends. If not (and I'd assume he wasn't on guard) then the aggressor gets a surprise round. That's answering your question.
As an aside, I'd ask why things have gone to the point of outright aggression and physical violence between them. Can this be worked out? Can things come to a head in a less direct way, so as not to foster bad feelings between them.?
Delanar wrote:
Rains wrote:
For the order of later combatants,
Simple: I would just get them to roll at the beginning of a turn that they want to intervene and slot them into the initiative order accordingly. They might get to act first or last or anywhere in between.
More complex: I think it would also be OK for the new combatant to enter at the point they want to - think of it as a kind of Ready Action. I would expect they declare their intention at the beginning of the turn and perhaps an opposed check of their Deception against Perception to detect the intention, if needed. They could then elect to not get involved that turn, if they thought it would not be advantageous.
So, either approach could be discussed with the players and employed.
Delanar wrote:
iserith wrote:
I don't like it when players have their characters fight with each other. Also, I am not sure the rules are meant for PvP.
For this reason, i would allow both of them to describe how they fight (ex. the fighter says he is trying to pin down the cleric and punch him into submission; while the cleric says he's trying to hold off the fighter by threatening to not heal him when he needs it), then they make a check with the appropriate ability (in the example, Strength(Athletics) vs Wisdom(Intimidate)* ).
Both get an exhaustion level. If the scores are similar (+/- 5) nobody won. If one exceeds the other by 5 or more, he wins the argument and the loser has to accept part of the winner's demands.
They might get hurt in the fight, depending on how they were "fighting" and how high they scored.
*The rulebook says you can associate Skills with different abilities if you want to.
Delanar wrote:
So we have a few things going on here.
One, someone wants to start a fight by punching another character. Do you allow inter-party fighting? If you do, you have to be careful that your group doesn't permanently splinter. This is something you need to discuss with the players or incorporate into the game. The players start a bar fight? They get arrested and have to work together to escape, and learn about some bigger threat or opportunity that keeps them together.
However, I've been in groups like this where sooner or later the PCs end up killing each other off and the campaign disintegrated, so be careful. Often just taking the issue offline and discussing outside of the game is the best approach. There is a fine line between telling people how to run their characters and having inter-party conflict tear the group apart but most people understand if you just explain that they need to figure out why their characters would continue to adventure together or one of them needs to bring in someone else that will get along.
Second, starting a fight. A lot of this depends on the situation. I agree with other posters that say the person throwing the punch needs to make a bluff check opposed by the target's insight check. I may impose advantage on the insight if it's a heated argument or disadvantage if there's no reason to expect an attack. If the bluff works, the target (and anyone else who could act) is surprised.
After that I would keep track of "top of the round", basically the initiative of the first person in the fight. While we run the game in terms of "turns" things are really happening pretty much at the same time so if anyone wants to join the fight they can once per round. This may mean that in round 2 a person can act before the person who started the fight if they roll higher initiative.
Game mechanics:
- The combatants are well aware of one another, as are concerned party members. When one wants to attack, roll initiative. I'm not a fan of the Deception because A) they are in an argument and those lead to violence, and B) I frown on interparty combat and I'm unwilling to give added benefit to somebody damaging the group.
- Any characters involved in the argument roll initiative -- including onlookers. The combat round starts with the decision to fight, and if other members of the group are around, they will note "Uhoh, Bob is about to punch Phil!" and could conceivably lunge forward and grab the arm or interject. If there are other characters not really paying attention, then simply treat the first round as surprise, and let the others join in after.
- The more this escalates, the more chance this will blow up. Feel free to give everybody Insight checks to realize that Bob is ready to throw down so that the situation gets diffused. "Escalation" would include any dice rolling that will up the ante (such as allowing the Deception to get in a cheap shot) but the more chances you give to stop it, the better.
Metagaming:
- If the players are roleplaying (bickering siblings used to rasslin') they just let it play out. No harm done, and it's game flair.
- However, if the players are at odds then it's more productive to handle this outside of a combat round. As noted earlier, this will just be the beginning until one or more characters are ruined -- and perhaps the party itself. It might even be worth a roundtable discussion; perhaps other players are noting issues that you have not seen, and will be apt to speak up in the safety of a group environment.
Sorxores wrote:
Because of the uber powerful benefits of "true" surprise in 5e, I'm kicking around the idea of a lesser form that could apply to situations not unlike this.
Where perhaps the person being pseudo-surprised rolls initiative, but at disadvantage? Call it "flat-footed" or something like that... 
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! One question I have after seeing this come up a few times now. I am a new GM, so I have little to know experience with this by the way but, why all the hate on inter-party combat? First off I should start by saying that it was all totally in character and we all had fun with it, it wasn't an real life fight that transfered into characters. I viewed it has an interesting and fun turn of events that managed to shake things up a bit. I had a realtive confidance knowing the players that they didn't want to actually kill eachother off, I wasn't worried at all. Of cource in your guys' responses you didn't know that. Are the responses against inter-party combat speaking from years of experience with campagins and parties being ruined by interparty violance?
Delanar wrote:
From "11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer..."
FIVE. Don’t harm other players.
Oh ho, here’s a jolly thief that nicks stuff from the other party members! And their Sleight of Hand roll is so high that no-one will ever notice! Gosh, what a jape.
Flumph that guy. No-one likes that guy. (That guy generally plays Kender, and I am fully of the opinion that Kender should be promptly genocided out of all RPGs. I don’t think genocide is a crime if we’re talking about Kender.) If you steal from other players, you are exerting power over them in a really messy, underhanded sort of way. If they find out, what are they going to do? Are you going to force them to escalate? Is it fair if they kill you for it? Is that fun for them?
Similarly, attacking other players is awful, too. I’m okay with this where systems fully support and encourage this, of course – something like Paranoia or Dogs in the Vineyard – but, jeez guys, give it a rest. I am hard-pressed to think of a way where such a thing improves the game; if your group is fine with it, discuss it beforehand. But keep me out of it.
There are a whole load of things out there to steal from and beat up and kill that won’t get offended when you do it to them, so go bother them first.
Delanar wrote:
Noon wrote:
I do not consider this issue so much a PvP scenario, and fist fights can totally happen. If your player plays a barbarian that respects physical prowess he might want to test his companion's worth by punching them in the face. If a player plays a kender the RP can be fun, as long as you dont actively harm or hinder other players much and everyone else is okay with your character concept.
I find in most mature groups where RP is an important part of the game this isn't a problem at all, it only gets to be a problem if play styles clash. Likewise I dont care what your alignment is, your NE rogue might work within the party just fine depending on his values, code of honor and general personality. It shouldnt be an excuse to do whatever you want, every character needs to define a personality they RP, too often a player picks an alignment and then does whatever is convenient because "his alignment allows him to". Just dont be a dick and make sure your fellow players are okay with it.
Delanar wrote:
Noon wrote: