Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3338155" data-attributes="member: 2011">Actually, the problems do not really have to exist. They exist for you, but might not for a different DM.With the OP's scenario (i.e. open door as surprise round action), it does not matter if the PCs are unable to get the door open or not. The DM can play it out as a surprise round and he can just keep ticking off initiatives. Attacks do not have to occur for initiative to be occurring (although that is the standard practice). An example is on page 25 of the DMG.Additionally, I think a DM who would have problems with doing initiative this way would either not use it, or only use it when he knows it will not create a problem (e.g. when the door is not locked). But it is legal and it does not have to create problems.I am saying that your ruling is like using rule zero because it ignores the quoted suggestions of "it's good to give characters some chance to detect a coming encounter" and "When you decide that is it possible for either side to become aware of the other".If you did this to the PCs (NPCs rush in through a closed door), they might complain.Something similar to this happened in our game (with a different DM). Combat was basically over two weeks ago but two of the PCs were dominated and the other PCs did not know it.So, the DM said: "Fred runs across the room and out the door. Barney follows him."So I stated: "The door was closed. Fred only gets to move to it and open it before I have chance to react.".The DM was not pleased with that, but that is the basic rule. And literally according to the DMG on page 25 in "Combat Actions out of Combat" section, I could even have asked the DM for initiatives at that point before he even moved (there was a Demon behind that door to our knowledge). The DM might not have requested it, but that is the rule for interrupting a fellow PCs actions.If the example in the DMG was the intention, then the rules I quoted do not support it. They support the opposite intention. They support giving characters (PCs or NPCs) an opportunity to notice pre-combat actions.The only thing that supports your POV is that one example and that example does not follow the text that precedes it.If that example is the intent, they should have written rules to support it, not rules that suggest to give characters a check when it is possible for them to notice the opposition. If a door opening scenario is an exception to that, WotC should have stated it.As is, it is a bad example that does not appear to follow the suggested text.And as written, an interpretation that allows a character to both open the door (move action) and attack (standard action) within a surprise round is not a good interpretation. That is the equivalent of what your auto-surprise is doing.Either opening the door is pre-combat-start and pre-initiatives (and everyone gets a chance to notice it because it is not within combat), or it is a surprise round action post-combat-start and post-initiatives.Anything else is difficult to adjudicate because when similar situations come up, the players will (rightfully) be entitled to ask why they cannot do the same thing in other circumstances. The problem with your interpretation is that it is not consistent for all circumstances.PC: "Why is opening a closed door an action pre-combat that automatically surprises the NPCs, but moving into the room through an open door (or casting a spell from outside the room) an action pre-combat that gives them a check?"DM: "Because I say so, shut up." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification