Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ferghis" data-source="post: 5139564" data-attributes="member: 40483">I don't think what you describe would be a reasonable player's request. Further, going by your description, all of a character's defenses should be lowered during a surprise round. This is not the case. Characters are normally ready to react and defend themselves from a broad variety of attacks. Let's examine a more reasonable example. A fighter is opening a door, and he beleives that something is going to attack him from the other side. He doesn't know the exact location of the attacker, and he doesn't know exactly how the sniper is going to attack, but he's pretty sure something is going to attack him. So the player describes how the warrior crouches a little and positions his shield properly before opening the door, so that the character can more easily use the shield to block whatever might be coming at them. It's not failsafe, but it's better than not being prepared.As a DM, you can certainly say that that's assumed in your normal defenses. That the characters are always reasonably wary and act carefully. So, the precautions described, therefore, afford no extra protection. That's a legitimate answer, in my opinion. But that seems to compare poorly with the ranger's player, who took the same opportunity to prepare a ranged twin strike against any attacker that became visible when the door opened. I see a bit of a problem there. Why is the readied action okay, but not the action that is the game-mechanic implementation of a cautious, defensive stance? Given the defender's role, that seems to be a somewhat unfair way to come down.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ferghis, post: 5139564, member: 40483"] I don't think what you describe would be a reasonable player's request. Further, going by your description, all of a character's defenses should be lowered during a surprise round. This is not the case. Characters are normally ready to react and defend themselves from a broad variety of attacks. Let's examine a more reasonable example. A fighter is opening a door, and he beleives that something is going to attack him from the other side. He doesn't know the exact location of the attacker, and he doesn't know exactly how the sniper is going to attack, but he's pretty sure something is going to attack him. So the player describes how the warrior crouches a little and positions his shield properly before opening the door, so that the character can more easily use the shield to block whatever might be coming at them. It's not failsafe, but it's better than not being prepared. As a DM, you can certainly say that that's assumed in your normal defenses. That the characters are always reasonably wary and act carefully. So, the precautions described, therefore, afford no extra protection. That's a legitimate answer, in my opinion. But that seems to compare poorly with the ranger's player, who took the same opportunity to prepare a ranged twin strike against any attacker that became visible when the door opened. I see a bit of a problem there. Why is the readied action okay, but not the action that is the game-mechanic implementation of a cautious, defensive stance? Given the defender's role, that seems to be a somewhat unfair way to come down. [/QUOTE]

Verification