Surprise or no surprise?

[KarinsDad]

If, for the sake of argument, you accept that Initiative does not happen until combat is possible, then there is no Surprise. The moment that the door is open, the party is presumed to be aware (or at least get their Spot checks). There is no moment in time when both the door is open and the party is automatically unaware. It is a chicken and egg problem.

This is like claiming that because an invisible character becomes visible when he attacks someone, he does not get his sneak attack damage and prevent an opponent from losing his Dex bonus if the opponent makes a Spot roll.

Surprise is surprise. Your opponents do NOT have to be in total concealment for them to surprise you.

Your definition here would force Surprise (with no chance of a Spot roll) to only occur if the opponent has total concealment.

If the rules meant that, they would have explicitly called it out.

 

[Pielorinho]

You cannot attack your allies, only opponents.

That seems like circular reasoning to me: if I'm attacking someone, they become, at least temporarily, my opponent. It would be an absurd rule that kept me (for example) from attempting a grapple attempt againt my ally to prevent him from obeying the Suggestion to walk into the flaming pit of doom, or that prevented me from sparring with my allies to test out our new equipment, or that prevented me from attempting to sunder teh suddenly backbiting axe that the barbarian was unwillingly wielding.

If you can point to such a rule in the books, I'll immediately houserule it; but I don't think any of these attacks would be illegal.

Daniel

 

[Thanee]

If you can point to such a rule in the books, I'll immediately houserule it; but I don't think any of these attacks would be illegal.

In case you didn't notice it, I was only kidding.

The attack rule does state "opponent", tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Pielorinho]

Ah, sorry--my sense of humor sometimes takes awhile to kick in . In my defense, I have a hard time telling when people are serious about some of the rules calls in this forum sometimes!

I'm thinking that a character gets to choose whom she considers an opponent, at least for the purposes of the attack rules; more specifically, any creature she's attacking becomes her opponent at least for the duration of that attack.

Given that, it seems that characters could circumvent the "start of combat" rules by the expedient I described above, which means that if you want to ready an action outside of combat, all you have to do is begin a meaningless combat. Which makes me think that I'd rather just allow readied actions outside of combat, within reason, in order to avoid by-the-books silliness.

Daniel

 

[Nail]

Which makes me think that I'd rather just allow readied actions outside of combat, within reason, in order to avoid by-the-books silliness.

Or, conversely, do NOT allow readied actions out of combat, and define what constitutes combat "within reason".

 

[Pielorinho]

Or, conversely, do NOT allow readied actions out of combat, and define what constitutes combat "within reason".

While that's a sensible alternative, I figure that if I'm going to alter the rules, I ought to do it in a way that expands, rather than contracts, options. I could go by the rules and allow people to effectively ready actions "outside of combat" by allowing them to take advantage of the loophole described; or I could relax the rules either by closing the loophole or by allowing them to perform the action they desire to perform without needing to take advantage of a loophole.

The latter would be my preference.
Daniel

 

[Nail]

...and thus allowing PCs to never be surprised (since they ready actions outside of combat). I'm sure your game doesn't play out that way.

YMMV

 

[Pielorinho]

...and thus allowing PCs to never be surprised (since they ready actions outside of combat).

Not really--why would it allow that? Remember, I said (bolding added): "I'd rather just allow readied actions outside of combat, within reason, in order to avoid by-the-books silliness." Readying actions for more than, say, five rounds when there's no real combat going on would not be within reason.

Daniel

 

[Nail]

...and I'm with you, bro!....but what you consider "within reason" may or may not be what your players consider "within reason".

Moreover, as a DM I have far more opportunities to ready an action outside of combat than the PCs do. That's an unfair advantage.

 

[Pielorinho]

...and I'm with you, bro!....but what you consider "within reason" may or may not be what your players consider "within reason".

While that's true, it's also true if you go by the rules and then limit starting combats to situations "within reason" (i.e., disallowing faux-combats between party members). In an instance like this, I'm fairly certain my players will agree with me as to what constitutes "within reason."

Moreover, as a DM I have far more opportunities to ready an action outside of combat than the PCs do. That's an unfair advantage.

I'm not sure i follow you here. When would you use such a tactic as a DM? Since players are usually the aggressors (busting down doors and starting fights), I'd think they'd use this more often.
Daniel