Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8474294" data-attributes="member: 72555">You are talking about my position being unreasonable.&nbsp; What more, you are stating that only your position is reasonable, nothing else can be.Saying X is reasonable is different than saying Y is unreasonable.Similarly, saying something is clever is different than saying every other position is dumb.&nbsp; (I AM NOT SAYING you are saying this.&nbsp; I am drawing an analogy; &quot;X is positive&quot; and &quot;Y is negative&quot; are not the same thing, that is all.)The word &quot;surprised&quot; as a meaning in English.We are told they are surprised at the start of combat.&nbsp; I described this as &quot;we know when they start being surprised&quot; (I was implicitly talking about &quot;being surprised by the combat&quot;, but omitted it).When they are no longer surprised by the combat is unclear in 5e rules.&nbsp; You have found a way to sidestep the problem; by tying sentence 2 to sentence 1.&nbsp; I find that a reasonable way to handle it.&nbsp; If you do this, you are right, &quot;when are they no longer surprised&quot; has no need to be answered.On the other hand, reading it the other way leads to the question &quot;are they still surprised when the assassin attacks&quot;.&nbsp; Both &quot;once their first turn is done, they can do reactions, so they should no longer be considered surprised&quot; and &quot;well, if they have no in-game knowledge that combat has begun, they are just as surprised by the assassin's attack as if it was before their turn in initiative&quot; both work.Of course, you can also read it as &quot;any creature that was surprised in this combat, the assassin auto-crits on, for the entire combat&quot; or &quot;any creatures that was surprised in any combat ever, the assassin auto-crits on&quot;.&nbsp; I don't think anyone here is advocating for either of those interpretations of the rules?&nbsp; So they aren't relevant.The existence of interpretations of the rules that nobody is advocating for doesn't matter to me.&nbsp; The fact that there is more than one reasonable reading of the rules, and that &quot;this is a reasonable reading of the rules&quot; isn't sufficient to determine how you should read the rules, also isn't a problem.I think you should look at the various and multiple reasonable readings of the rules, then pick one based off what consequences you want the rules to have.&nbsp; &quot;Is this a reasonable reading&quot; doesn't mean &quot;we should play the game this way&quot; to me, because (a) there is more than one reasonable reading, and they disagree, and (b) you should play the game in a way that is fun.So, do you want assassins to be able to do a setup plan and use it, and if they succeed at the setup get a reward of their class feature doing something, even if they don't win initiative?&nbsp; Then read the rules one way.&nbsp; If you don't, read the rules another way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8474294, member: 72555"] You are talking about my position being unreasonable. What more, you are stating that only your position is reasonable, nothing else can be. Saying X is reasonable is different than saying Y is unreasonable. Similarly, saying something is clever is different than saying every other position is dumb. (I AM NOT SAYING you are saying this. I am drawing an analogy; "X is positive" and "Y is negative" are not the same thing, that is all.) The word "surprised" as a meaning in English. We are told they are surprised at the start of combat. I described this as "we know when they start being surprised" (I was implicitly talking about "being surprised by the combat", but omitted it). When they are no longer surprised by the combat is unclear in 5e rules. You have found a way to sidestep the problem; by tying sentence 2 to sentence 1. I find that a reasonable way to handle it. If you do this, you are right, "when are they no longer surprised" has no need to be answered. On the other hand, reading it the other way leads to the question "are they still surprised when the assassin attacks". Both "once their first turn is done, they can do reactions, so they should no longer be considered surprised" [B]and[/B] "well, if they have no in-game knowledge that combat has begun, they are just as surprised by the assassin's attack as if it was before their turn in initiative" both work. Of course, you can also read it as "any creature that was surprised in this combat, the assassin auto-crits on, for the entire combat" or "any creatures that was surprised in any combat ever, the assassin auto-crits on". I don't think anyone here is advocating for either of those interpretations of the rules? So they aren't relevant. The existence of interpretations of the rules that nobody is advocating for doesn't matter to me. The fact that there is more than one reasonable reading of the rules, and that "this is a reasonable reading of the rules" isn't sufficient to determine [B]how you should read the rules[/B], also isn't a problem. I think you should look at the various and multiple reasonable readings of the rules, then pick one [B]based off what consequences you want[/B] the rules to have. "Is this a reasonable reading" doesn't mean "we should play the game this way" to me, because (a) there is more than one reasonable reading, and they disagree, and (b) you should play the game in a way that is fun. So, do you want assassins to be able to do a setup plan and use it, and if they succeed at the setup get a reward of their class feature doing something, even if they don't win initiative? Then read the rules one way. If you don't, read the rules another way. [/QUOTE]

Verification