Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8041293" data-attributes="member: 16814">Taking "usually" at it's meaning is not over interpreting the word.  If you read that as "most of the time, it'll be stealth, but sometimes it might be something else" is literal, not over interpretation.  I don't have to do anything other than refer to the dictionary to read that sentence.  This is not a strong argument -- you've set up a false binary where your side is that "usually" can be safely ignored as irrelevant but anyone that doesn't ignore "usually" must be over interpreting the word.  There's a clear middle ground were you just take "usually" to mean usually.See, this is where it's clear that your bringing a previous edition's way of thinking into this game and analyzing it according to that set of assumption.   Or, perhaps, a different game altogether, but this reads so close to 3e and (some) 4e thinking that it's pretty clear you aren't evaluating 5e according to 5e.  For instance, the core play loop, on page 4 of the PHB, is that the GM describes the scene, the player announces PC actions, the GM determines if that action succeeds, fails, or is uncertain.  If uncertain, the GM calls for whatever ability check they think matches the uncertainty, and the player rolls.  The GM, in all cases, then narrates the results and the loop restarts.Note, in this play loop, there's nothing that says, "unless we also print a specific rule in the book, it cannot be done."  This is because 5e doesn't work like that -- it's not a game of prescribed rules.  Instead, it provides useful, general rules to deal with things.  This is why the surprise rules give a concrete example of how stealth works but leave it open to other options which aren't detailed -- it's because all of the ways you would do it are already enumerated on Page 4 of the PHB.  Even the stealth example is just that loop, only dealing with a specific set of circumstances.  Arguably, you don't even need that example bit of rules -- it's all still the play loop.If you really want to have 5e work well for you, you might want to step back and re-read the rules on how to play the game.  Not because I think you're doing it wrong -- fun is the only right way to play anyway -- but because the way 5e is presented is very well crafted to enable that play loop, and lots of rules areas that appear grey or enumerated are actually quite simple if you follow the core guidance.  I'd recommend Page 4 of the PHB, and the sections in the DMG on the use of dice.  I'd recommend adopting the Middle path, as well, but that's preference -- it works very well for me. You absolutely can decide surprise using social interaction rules.  Just because you're stuck on stealth because that's the only thing that the rulebook explicitly outlined a play loop for you doesn't mean you can't get there other ways.  Nothing in the surprise rules is exclusionary.  It's why I pointed out that even changing "threat" to "foe" doesn't make a difference, it's only when you add "hidden" that causes problems.As for the social rules, I laid out that path -- the "ask" is to get the opponents off guard through social interaction.  Presumably, they start at "hostile" so you have a long road ahead of you to get that to at least "indifferent."  I don't know about you, but someone hostile to me isn't going to accept a friendly gesture from a foe that causes them to drop their guard -- they are hostile after all.  So, any attempt to do so fails, no roll needed.  You'd have to improve relations, and do so while no one else in the situation does anything at all -- a case I'd certainly not allow happen because that's weird that your party pseudo-diplomancer can freeze everyone in place while they have a long chat.  But, assuming that the PCs do get thing to indifferent, and then do make the "ask" roll to get the other side relaxed and off guard (at a minimum a group check, because everyone has to do the deception, here), then giving the party surprise seems quite valid.  I mean, it would have been a heck of a lot easier and quicker to just hide and ambush the other group.  I don't see your conjecture being anywhere near gamebreaking unless you include a lot of other non-RAW assumptions about how the game works, like a PC can declare a check to get the hostile other group off guard AND hide his friends.  That's just not a doable thing unless you allow it, in which case the problem is, again, not with the surprise rules but with how you've chosen to run your game.  And, if it's fun for you, it's not even a problem; but, you shouldn't need to rewrite the surprise rules, either, so I'm guessing this isn't fun for you.</blockquote>

Verification