Surprise or no surprise?

[William_2]

I don’t like the idea of applying an on-the-fly circumstance bonus to initiative. If some characters have made a point of having high dex., or have used an entire feat to get a +4, it seems unfair if just being prepared can net the same results for other characters (or players, I guess I really mean). Sure, you might still be the first PC, of a bunch, to act but the joy might be gone from it.

 

[Pielorinho]

I don’t like the idea of applying an on-the-fly circumstance bonus to initiative. If some characters have made a point of having high dex., or have used an entire feat to get a +4, it seems unfair if just being prepared can net the same results for other characters (or players, I guess I really mean).

Right, but if the high-dex character gets prepared, then they can go REALLY early in combat .

Seriously, I'm not sure this is an issue. A character might make a point of having a high str so she can hit people hard in combat, but another character, by dint of flanking and attacking from higher ground, can get just as high an attack bonus. It's perfectly legitimate to use good tactics to get bonuses, whether these bonuses heighten your innate superiority to your opponent or just level the playing field.

Daniel

 

[Space Coyote]

Thanks for the replies, but we are getting away from my original question:

In combat, if both sides are "aware" of each other, then the DM and players go to initiative and there is no "surprise" round. Does this following scenario count as being "aware" of the enemy:

Here is what it says in the SRD:

SURPRISE When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you’re surprised.

Determining Awareness

Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.

Determining awareness may call for Listen checks, Spot checks, or other checks.

So, back to my original question, does the party "assuming" they know what is on the other side of a door, based on knowledge from 5 weeks ago, count as being "aware" of the enemy on the other side? Keeping in mind that the party took no measures to confirm that there was indeed enemies in the room.

Editted for quoting error.

 

[Space Coyote]

Quite frankly, based on the wording in the SRD, I dont think that a player saying, "Hey I bet there are monsters on the other side of this door. I will get ready for combat." constitutes them being "aware" of the enemy.......

 

[Pielorinho]

So, back to my original question, does the party "assuming" they know what is on the other side of a door, based on knowledge from 5 weeks ago, count as being "aware" of the enemy on the other side? Keeping in mind that the party took no measures to confirm that there was indeed enemies in the room.

I'd say "certainly!" under these circumstances.

Why?

Because the players told you so. And they're the absolute arbiters of what their PCs believe.

5 weeks earlier they had evidence that creature were behind that door, and hostile. They believed that their evidence suggested the creature were still behind the door, and still hostile. In what way, then, would they be surprised when they open the door to find that the creatures were behind the door and hostile?

Daniel

 

[moritheil]

I'd say "certainly!" under these circumstances.

Why?

Because the players told you so. And they're the absolute arbiters of what their PCs believe.

IMC I do not accept that the PCs' ideas of what their chars believe is absolute. For example, what if one of them is subject to a suggestion spell? He can't say "Oh, I don't believe that hogwash." He's got to believe as his character does, or the system falls apart. Or what if he knows (metagame) but his character doesn't, that an enemy is vulnerable to a certain substance? I'm not going to allow his character to get away with having no ranks in any Knowledge skills simply because he can say "oh, my character just happens to believe this."

In the example above, it sounds like they only brought that up once he opened combat up with the golem breathing at them. That sounds fishy to me. I would, as I stated above, allow them some sort of Int check to recall the prior incident.

If, on the other hand, they clearly stated "we ready for those monsters we fought last time, and then we open the door" or something like that, then no, I would not rule they were surprised.

 

[helium3]

In combat, if both sides are "aware" of each other, then the DM and players go to initiative and there is no "surprise" round. Does this following scenario count as being "aware" of the enemy:

Approximately 5 weeks ago (in game time), the party had entered a room through a secret door and encountered 2 iron golems and a spectre. They fled the fight. Then, the party returned to the room 5 week later (last game session). They bypass the trap on the secret door and open it. The golems are still there and the party is ambushed. The spectre has the ability to detect the presence of any living thing within 90', so it had plenty of warning that the party was at the door and commanded the golem to breathe gas as soon as the door was opened. Makes sense to me.

One of the players argued that the golems should not have gotten a surprise action, because *both* parties were aware of each others presence. Now, this time around, the party did NOT detect the presence of the golems or the spectre (no detect evil, no detect golems, no spot checks, no listen checks, nothing to determine the presence of the creatures). The party was just "assuming" that the same enemies were there from before (5 weeks ago).

So, does this scenario qualify as the "party is aware of the enemy"?

Ummmm. It sounds like the golems had readied actions to breath as soon as the door was opened or something. So, roll initiative, let the party go on their count and get breathed on as soon as the door is opened. Problem solved.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No Surprise.

Surprise is usually when I can attack you but you cannot attack me because of the logic of the situation. Like an Invisible Wizard or a successfully Hiding Rogue.

The DM should give the players the benefit of the doubt. This argument for surprise boils down to "you did not know because what you knew might have been wrong, even if it happened to be 100% exactly right". That is just a loophole for infinite arbitrariness because by this standard it really does not matter if they cast Detect Evil or not.

If the Spectre detected only 4 of 5 party members, does the 5th party member automatically get surprise on the spectre? There is infinite potential for ruleslawyering here.

When the party kicks in the door, it is a level tactical playing field. Roll Initiative. Playing mind reading games to guess who should have an advantage does not lead to anything workable.

 

[Pielorinho]

IMC I do not accept that the PCs' ideas of what their chars believe is absolute. For example, what if one of them is subject to a suggestion spell?
...I'm not going to allow his character to get away with having no ranks in any Knowledge skills simply because he can say "oh, my character just happens to believe this."

Fair points both; I should clarify that PCs may, in the absence of mind-affecting spells to the contrary, draw whatever remotely plausible conclusions they like from the evidence they have. If a player is having firewall issues, that needs to be dealt with out-of-game, in my opinion--or, better yet, switch things up in the game (trolls are affected now by ice and sonic magic, for example)!

In the example above, it sounds like they only brought that up once he opened combat up with the golem breathing at them. That sounds fishy to me. I would, as I stated above, allow them some sort of Int check to recall the prior incident.

See, that'd really frustrate me as a player: if I personally can remember a nice restaurant I went to last month and the name of the wine I drank with dinner (Tormorosa--goes beautifully with mushroom dishes), surely my character can remember running in terror last month from a spectre and several golems. And surely it's a reasonable conclusion that these monsters are still in the room that they were in last time.

As I've said before, my general policy is that, when in doubt, the answer to a question should be, "yes." The players should not be told, "Since you didn't explicitly say that you remembered there were monsters behind this door, I'm going ot say no, you don't remember that." That doesn't make the game fun.

Daniel

 

[Mercule]

Two points here. The first is whether the PCs should be considered to be prepared for an encounter in that room. I'd say yes. They have a reasonable expectation that the golem and spectre will be there, as neither is really noted for wandering off -- especially the golem. If that is where the story ended, I'd say "no surprise" because both become fully aware of the other at the same time.

But, the spectre has the potential to become aware of the PCs significantly earlier than the PCs could "know" (i.e. receive confirmation) about the spectre. The spectre can get into position, etc. and actually track the PCs' movements with its life sense. To represent this, I'd be inclined to give the spectre a "surprise round". Since the golem has neither the ability to directly perceive the PCs until they enter, nor the intellect to really visualize what the spectre is telling him, I would consider the golem "surprised", too.

So, my short answer: There is a surprise round. Only the spectre is eligible to act during this round.