Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8042922" data-attributes="member: 16814">Except that's not what happened, at all.  Instead, people read 'usually' as the word usually, and treated it that way.  You want to delete that word as not saying anything while sticking hard to other words -- in other words, it's not us doing the funny.  Either deal with all of the words or don't, but don't try to make that other people's problem.  My interpretation, for instance, fully encapsulates your own -- I allow for hiding to achieve surprise as the rules provide.  That I also read the other words and see that this isn't the only way to achieve surprise isn't selective parsing.And, no one here would argue that Sage Advice is anything other than 'extra-textual.'  I mean, it definitionally is.  Why would this be a bad thing?  The Federalist Papers are extra-textual to the US Constitution, for example, but still very important in understanding it.  Being extra-textual just means it's not in the text of whatever the focus of discussion is.  It's a positional statement, not a value statement.I mean, there's the big, starting alternative that says "the GM determines who's surprised."  Scratch that, it isn't an alternative, it's the top level rule, under which the hidden rules operate without superceding.No one disputes either of these statements you quote.And here you're mixing an matching.  The Sage Advice just says "usually."  You can also be surprised by a specific rule, yes, no dispute, but the "usually" doesn't limit things to that.  Nor does the actual rule, which is "the GM determines who's surprised."  There's lots of other rules to give the GM tools to determine that, and it's up to the GM to decide how to use them.  The 1/2 a paragraph under the surprise heading that talks to the usual case of hiding doesn't remove the GM's authority to decide, here.No dispute.  This doesn't reinforce your argument, though, as it's a specific rule for only that monster, and such specifics are already covered in the general rules as to how they operate.  To clarify -- you can be absolutely right about surprise and this works how it does; conversely, I can be absolutely right about surprise and this still works how it does.  It doesn't support or detract from either argument.  Hence, orthogonal.Oh, and you talk about irony!Seriously, if we parse that down to something more simple, it reads:"To be surprised, you must be caught off guard, usually because condition A occurs or condition B occurs.... "Okay, here's the rub.  You read this as "it's usually condition A, or it's condition B."  Other read this as, "it's usually condition A or B."  The punctuation here helps split out the different readings.  To you, it's mostly A but sometimes B, but never anything else.  To me, that reads it's mostly A or B, but can be something else.  Both are fine readings of this specific extra-textual advice (swidt).  It's only when you bring it back to the rules that your reading doesn't jive well with me, because the rules say the GM determines and we already have rules for how GM's determine things.  The bit about how stealth works really is just a restatement of the general rule of how GM's determine things that deals with hiding.  I don't even need to consider gelatinous cube special abilities because they already trump general rules and so don't support or detract from either reading.  I just need to look to the general structure of 5e, the tools provided for GMs to determine things, the framework for play, and the fact that the surprise rules start off with saying the GM determines surprise.  Viola!  So long as the GM thinks a thing might be sufficient for surprise, it's sufficient.I haven't added one word to the rules, and have specifically references which rules I'm using -- references you have yet to address.  Please don't accuse me of houseruling when I've done nothing but point at the rules and haven't added a word.You chastised me above for assuming to know the intent of the designers, but here you are doing it yourself.  I assume you have some reference for this, because your cites of the rules and Sage Advice are, at best, open to liberal interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification