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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MG.0" data-source="post: 6683793" data-attributes="member: 6799436">I think Arial Black's interpretation is too literal.Simply "not noticing a threat" is a bad definition of surprise. It's OK as a precondition, which is how I read it in the PHB, but not a definition.Forgetting the rules for a moment, what does it mean to be surprised? If an attacker jumps out of a tree and swings a sword at me, am I surprised? Probably (it might depend on if this happens to me every day). Is it possible I could recover my wits fast enough to do something about it, even though I didn't see the attacker while he was in the tree? Possible. Is it possible two people could drop out of the tree and both hit me before I can react? Possible. Might I be fast enough to react to one but not the other? Sure. So what kind of definition will allow all these things to possibly be true? Surprise is noticing a threat and being unable to react to it.So we have not noticing a threat at the start of combat being a precondition to surprise, and the effects lasting until I have recovered enough to do something about my situation. In that respect, the rules make sense to me with surprise ending as soon as you get your reaction back, i.e. after your first turn.This quite nicely handles the situation of the hero deflecting the unseen attacker's blade in the nick of time because of superhuman reflexes, magic, or whatever. It also allows the possibility of two or more attacks striking a very surprised opponent before he can react, e.g. taking three or more arrows and stumbling forward, shocked.This is how I will continue to play it.</blockquote>

Verification