I've seen some consternation regarding surprise giving a -20 penalty to initiative in several playtests so far, so my suggestion is simple: use the (dis)advantage mechanics on initiative checks. Those who have surprise either have advantage on their initiative roll, or those are surprised have disadvantage. I'd probably rule it that the players are the ones with the bonus/penalty, so it would vary in my own games (if players are surprised, they have disadvantage; if they are the ones doing the surprising, they have advantage).
Suggestion: Surprise gives advantage/disadvantage on initiative.
- Thread starter B.T.
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
The problem with that is that very often the surprising party will still end up with a lower initiative.
This can happen with the -20 penalty, but it will be quite rare.
This can happen with the -20 penalty, but it will be quite rare.
Interesting thought. And makes some sense, in that as it currently stands, taking someone unawares is no different than just reacting fast... when it seems like there should be more benefit than that. You go through all the effort of sneaking up on a guard for a surprise attack, and all you get out of it is a higher initiative (which there was a good chance you were going to get anyway even without the surprise.)
I think my feeling is that I would give Advantage to those who have Surprise, rather than Disadvantage to those who don't. I also think that for ease-of-use... I would couple it to giving +20 initiative to those with Surprise, rather than the current -20 to those without. This way... what ends up happening is that everyone rolls initiative at the start of combat, and those who got Surprise add the 20 to their roll, and gain Advantage for that first attack of the combat.
It is easiest to remember to give one side both things (+20 and Advantage) than it is to give things to both sides (-20 to those surprised and Advantage to those who have surprise).
I think my feeling is that I would give Advantage to those who have Surprise, rather than Disadvantage to those who don't. I also think that for ease-of-use... I would couple it to giving +20 initiative to those with Surprise, rather than the current -20 to those without. This way... what ends up happening is that everyone rolls initiative at the start of combat, and those who got Surprise add the 20 to their roll, and gain Advantage for that first attack of the combat.
It is easiest to remember to give one side both things (+20 and Advantage) than it is to give things to both sides (-20 to those surprised and Advantage to those who have surprise).
Mattachine
Adventurer
Whatever happened to the surprised party goes last?
RigaMortus2
First Post
But you don't roll "party initiative". Each player rolls their own initiative individually. So it makes sense that not everyone in the party may get the advantage of surprise.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Why not just have the surprising party act, then the surprised party, then roll initiative? That's how I've been playing it so far in the playtest.
Rogue: "I attack the leader with my sling!"
DM: "Roll initiative."
*everyone rolls*
DM: The goblins win initiative. They act first... even though you haven't come out of hiding yet... so they do... nothing?
DM: "The goblins don't see you."
Rogue: "I attack the leader with my sling!"
DM: "Roll initiative."
*everyone rolls*
DM: The goblins win initiative. They act first... even though you haven't come out of hiding yet... so they do... nothing?
Li Shenron
Legend
I know, but the problem still stands. You very often* get some of the surprised individuals act before the ambushers. It's still an advantage of course to roll 2 dice instead of one, and I can see that the game is still fun, but my guess is that on average it's probably not good enough for the ambushers, considering that they might already have had to make some stealth rolls to gain the surprise advantage.
*read: most of the times, if there are many creatures on both sides
Maybe it can be more fun, when the two groups regularly end up mixed up in initiative like normally, only mildly shifted away in terms of average initiative...
What if you award both advantage and disadvantage to the contest? Characters doing the surprising get advantage, those who are unsurprised roll normally and those who are surprised get disadvantage. I would think that a group of ambushers rolling two dice and keeping the best would most often win against a group rolling two dice and keeping the worst. Those that made their perception check against being surprised would roll normally.
There's still a chance that a lucky roll will cause a surprised party to go first, but it still feels less kludgy than the -20 mechanic.
Of course, I still think its best to give ambushers each an action and then roll normal initiative; but the advantage/disadvantage thing could work and I like it better than -20.
There's still a chance that a lucky roll will cause a surprised party to go first, but it still feels less kludgy than the -20 mechanic.
Of course, I still think its best to give ambushers each an action and then roll normal initiative; but the advantage/disadvantage thing could work and I like it better than -20.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I also thought about adding both.
And what is when you still end up lower than the enemy? Those things happen. Maybe he can just react before you can do something.
Of course, if you are hidden, and the enemy is faster, I would:
- let him do whatever he was doing before, maybe bringing the rogue into a worse position than he´d liked.
- make a perception check, as the rogue was clearly trying to use the element of surprise but somehow managed to act very slowly.
And what is when you still end up lower than the enemy? Those things happen. Maybe he can just react before you can do something.
Of course, if you are hidden, and the enemy is faster, I would:
- let him do whatever he was doing before, maybe bringing the rogue into a worse position than he´d liked.
- make a perception check, as the rogue was clearly trying to use the element of surprise but somehow managed to act very slowly.
john112364
First Post
While I agree that a -20 is awkward, I think the reasoning for it is that it only penalizes those that are surprised.
Let's say a band of goblins sneaks up on a party of 5 pcs. Two make their perception check and are not surprised. Three do not so they are surprised and roll initiative at -20. On the other hand if instead you grant +20 to the surprisers what about the two PCs who made their perception checks. Do they get a +20 as well? I guess you could say yes even though they technically haven't surprised anyone. I suppose the results would be similar.
Personally, I'm in favor of the following:
On a surprise round everyone rolls initiative as normal. Anyone surprised during that round loses their actions for that round.
Let's say a band of goblins sneaks up on a party of 5 pcs. Two make their perception check and are not surprised. Three do not so they are surprised and roll initiative at -20. On the other hand if instead you grant +20 to the surprisers what about the two PCs who made their perception checks. Do they get a +20 as well? I guess you could say yes even though they technically haven't surprised anyone. I suppose the results would be similar.
Personally, I'm in favor of the following:
On a surprise round everyone rolls initiative as normal. Anyone surprised during that round loses their actions for that round.
Croesus
Adventurer
I see two elements to this discussion: simplicity and impact.
Simplicity seems straigtforward, though corner cases can cause issues. I like the idea of using an existing mechanic (advantage/disadvantage). But as others have pointed out, it can seem confusing if only part of a group is surprised - all individuals who are not surprised, including some members of the surprised group, would have advantage. Granting disadvanage to surprised individuals would be simpler, but leads to the issue of impact.
Impact revolves around how important should surprise be. Some like the idea that anyone not surprised gets a free action, then normal initiative applies. That makes surprise powerful. Some suggest granting advantage/disadvantage in addtiona to having a free round, making surprise incredibly deadly (for the surprised party).
Eliminating the free round reduces the benefits of surprise noticeably. Adding advantage, disadvantage, or both, directly impacts the benefits of surprise, but with the potential to add some slight additional complexity. The idea of using both advantage and disadvantage is because some want to limit the possibility that a surprised character still moves early in the round.
My preference is that the base rules make surprise useful, but not overpowering. And that they use an established mechanic (advantage/disadvantage). Add in a short sidebar discussing some basic options for tweaking the surprise rules and I think most folks will be able to pick the level of simplicity and impact they want.
Simplicity seems straigtforward, though corner cases can cause issues. I like the idea of using an existing mechanic (advantage/disadvantage). But as others have pointed out, it can seem confusing if only part of a group is surprised - all individuals who are not surprised, including some members of the surprised group, would have advantage. Granting disadvanage to surprised individuals would be simpler, but leads to the issue of impact.
Impact revolves around how important should surprise be. Some like the idea that anyone not surprised gets a free action, then normal initiative applies. That makes surprise powerful. Some suggest granting advantage/disadvantage in addtiona to having a free round, making surprise incredibly deadly (for the surprised party).
Eliminating the free round reduces the benefits of surprise noticeably. Adding advantage, disadvantage, or both, directly impacts the benefits of surprise, but with the potential to add some slight additional complexity. The idea of using both advantage and disadvantage is because some want to limit the possibility that a surprised character still moves early in the round.
My preference is that the base rules make surprise useful, but not overpowering. And that they use an established mechanic (advantage/disadvantage). Add in a short sidebar discussing some basic options for tweaking the surprise rules and I think most folks will be able to pick the level of simplicity and impact they want.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
+20 to the unsurprised party might work better.
Li Shenron
Legend
I think the intent of the designers was to exactly remove the extra round for the ambushers, presumably it was deemed too good (in 3ed, I usually only granted a partial action in the surprise round, so no full attacks). I don't know if this is the right thing to do, I just say that as far as I can tell this is the reason behind this new surprise rules proposal.
I really don't understand why many think that -20 is fiddly or kludgy... mechanically it's very simple and should work neatly, it just means that almost always the ambushers go before those they managed to surprise, but never get 2 full rounds in a row (as was the case in 3ed).
The only problem with the -20 is that you end up with negative initiative results. It's not really a mechanical problem, just aesthetic because negative numbers don't look very nice (and some people may even have issues calculating subtractions...).
+20 would look better, but you made a very good point that then you'd have to grant it too to those who succeed at not being surprised so the rule would still not look elegant.
