Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5943973" data-attributes="member: 1465">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.</blockquote>