Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="William_2" data-source="post: 2207555" data-attributes="member: 13925">The problem with this whole &quot;characters (or bad guys) attack each other to ready actions for anticipated opponents&quot; concept is that it is mega-huge, totally off-the-map&nbsp; metagaming.&nbsp; Characters aren't supposed to be wandering about thinking &quot;I'll attack Bert now so that we get a surprise round and we can ready actions&quot;- the whole notion is...well, let's say academic.&nbsp; Sure, it is kind of interesting as a mental exercise, but has no applicability at all to actually playing, in my view.Also, on this idea:&quot;I'm against the idea that a surprise round occurs when an encounter begins. Imagine an invisible stalker following a group of PCs down a hallway. Should the Stalker choose to continue following the PCs for another two rounds, I still believe that it would get surprise when it chooses to attack on the 3rd round because the PCs are still &quot;unaware&quot; of the Stalker.&quot;I think that is exactly right.&nbsp; The Stalker DOES get a surprise round when it attacks- it did not loose it earlier just because it became aware of the characters- it gets the round when it initiates combat.&nbsp; NOT when the &quot;encounter&quot; began for it.&nbsp; This example is a good one for how the rules work fine.&nbsp; The real problem with the initial example in the thread was the idea that a surprise round could somehow be banked so that characters opening a door to reveal visible opponents lost their right to an initiative role, which I argue is clearly not what the rules intend.&nbsp; Some of the posts were criticizing the rules, though ,rather than suggesting that that interpretation is wrong, so it is kind of a mixed bag of ideas.&nbsp; All fun, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="William_2, post: 2207555, member: 13925"] The problem with this whole "characters (or bad guys) attack each other to ready actions for anticipated opponents" concept is that it is mega-huge, totally off-the-map metagaming. Characters aren't supposed to be wandering about thinking "I'll attack Bert now so that we get a surprise round and we can ready actions"- the whole notion is...well, let's say academic. Sure, it is kind of interesting as a mental exercise, but has no applicability at all to actually playing, in my view. Also, on this idea: "I'm against the idea that a surprise round occurs when an encounter begins. Imagine an invisible stalker following a group of PCs down a hallway. Should the Stalker choose to continue following the PCs for another two rounds, I still believe that it would get surprise when it chooses to attack on the 3rd round because the PCs are still "unaware" of the Stalker." I think that is exactly right. The Stalker DOES get a surprise round when it attacks- it did not loose it earlier just because it became aware of the characters- it gets the round when it initiates combat. NOT when the "encounter" began for it. This example is a good one for how the rules work fine. The real problem with the initial example in the thread was the idea that a surprise round could somehow be banked so that characters opening a door to reveal [I]visible[/I] opponents lost their right to an initiative role, which I argue is clearly not what the rules intend. Some of the posts were criticizing the rules, though ,rather than suggesting that that interpretation is wrong, so it is kind of a mixed bag of ideas. All fun, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification