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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 6702856" data-attributes="member: 71699">The book does actually say that. The only way ambiguity becomes introduced is when you decide that surprise is not synonymous with its effects. The reason the thread hasn't ended is due to posters wedded to versions that add words and commit the ludic fallacy of finishing the narrative without rolling the dice.That ignores the words "In addition" before the second ability. If you win initiative Assassinate gives advantage, and in addition if your target is surprised you auto-crit. The contrary view causes the words in addition to have no meaning. Which commits the legal fallacy of failing to concede meaning to words in rules. But even if they were independent effects, that wouldn't constitute a reason for surprise to extend beyond end of a combatant's first-turn. Because that would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question since it would include its conclusion directly in its premises.Bottom line, the version of surprise you prefer adds words to RAW (about ending on noticing a threat). You have argued that adding those words is logical, and logically the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim to prove it. However, no proof has been offered beyond repeating a preconceived narrative demanding that surprise be not only caused but also maintained by not-noticing threats. Nothing in RAW points to that. In fact, RAW expressly calls out that checking the noticing or otherwise of threats occurs outside of turns and rounds.</blockquote>

Verification