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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7152566" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, you swapped from 'action' to 'threat', so there's that.  Secondly, if you don't notice the threat, that's what surprise is for, it's on the tin.  You've trying to backdoor in a new surprise mechanic because you don't like how the existing one works.And that's fine, you can do that, but it's not good play to make your players decide actions with no information.So, we're back to action, good.  So the wizard begins his attack, which causes initiative to be rolled.  Beginning an attack is noticeable, so everyone knows the wizard is attacking.  If they didn't notice the wizard before the attack and/or did not expect the attack, they are surprised.  Alert negates surprise, so done.  Everyone knows the wizard is attacking, some are surprised, some aren't, either because they had a high enough perception or invested a feat.  Don't reduce these limited choices in character build because you wanted to surprise your players, work within the ruleset.And here's the problem again -- you've decided to change the situation but insist that the players cannot change their decisions that were based on a different set of information.  Sure, in this example it's an NPC wizard, but I assume you'd require the same of your players (unless you don't, in which case, huh).So, a player announces an attack against a foe.  Under your assumption, since the player was hidden from the foe, the foe doesn't know that they're there until they act in initiative.  The foe cannot be surprised (whichever reason floats your boat) and rolls higher than the player.  You pick an action for the foe as if they were not aware of the player, but are aware there is some nebulous threat somewhere.  The foe does something that makes the player reconsider their action and they wish to change it, but now, you won't allow this -- they must attack even though you've changed the information they originally based their decision to attack on.  Not good.If, instead, you clearly precipitate initiative, this goes away (as do other corner cases).  If they player moving to attack springs from hiding to do so, and this starts initiative, then everyone is aware of the threat, if not everything (like the still hidden rogue ally on the other side of the room that's waiting for the signal).  Then you roll initiative and announce surprise.  In this case, the player gets a nasty shock because the foe cannot be surprised and gets the jump on them.  When it's the rogue's turn, they get to shoot from hiding (or whatever), because you successfully framed the combat with a clear starting event but didn't have to reveal everything (works for players, too).  This exact scenario works equally well if you swap the party with the foes.Firstly, we strongly disagree that there's any way to cast a spell in a clandestine way without subtle spell, so everyone would be aware of the casting starting.  Second, if the wizard beginning to cast starts initiative, but no one is aware of it, how is this, in any way, different from the wizard 3 miles away starting initiative by starting to cast teleport?  Except for the spell name, it's really not -- no one is aware of the wizard, the wizard can cast with complete stealth, etc., etc.  There's no difference in kind, here, perhaps only in scale.And yet you would force them to take an action without information as to why if they had the temerity to take the Alert feat and roll a higher initiative than your bad guys.  So, yes, you do force blind actions on your players.In what way are they not forced to act?  It's their initiative, they have to do something, even if it's to do nothing.  And, again, the being able to act being better is only true if the enemy will kill them in one hit and they have a chance to avoid that hit through a lucky action.  Otherwise, they're in the exact same place they would be by going second -- the enemy's action still happens, doesn't kill or incapacitate them, and now they can meaningfully act.You're trying to say "sure, I make them act without enough information, but that okay, and good, because they might do something smart by accident."  One of the other posters whom you quoted above in solidarity was specifically complaining that a forced blind action could result in their bad guy getting found anyway was unfair (movement uncovers hidden opponent by removing hiding conditions, now allowed to attack seen opponent).  You supported this, but seem to allow for it's exact play as a possibility in this angle of your argument.  Your position is shaky and you keep changing key points in different defenses that contradict each other.  It's not your best argument (and you've made quite a few good arguments I've read in other threads).</blockquote>

Verification