Surprise round or not


Rules Questions


We ran into a situation this week where the party had eliminated the enemy's one sentry without being detected. The players then had a discussion about what to do next. About 30 seconds into the player discussion, one player, without informing or discussing it with any other player, turned to the GM and said, "I cast Stinking Cloud into the middle of the enemies' camp." No one else said that the were doing anything. GM said role initiative and allowed the spell to be cast in the surprise round but then ruled that no one else got a surprise round as they were not aware the spell was going to be cast so they could not synchronize their attacks in the surprise round. Basically they were surprised by the spell being cast and unprepared. Thoughts?

Shadow Lodge

That player is initiating combat, and only gets to go on his turn.

The player should make a stealth check if he wants to surprise his party (or the enemy) like that.

There are certain cases where you might decide the enemy is absolutely unawares and auto-fails their perception check because they're just not in a position to be looking/hearing, but you shouldn't really impose that on the PCs.


In my opinion, this situation is in the territory of GM fiat. Expect table variation.


Presumably the party was aware of the caster in their group and was able to observe him getting prepared to cast. The party members are thus not surprised by the casting of the spell and would get to act in the surprise round as well (if there is one).

Generally, it's not possible to use stealth to conceal spellcasting, but there are few (mostly obscure) options out there. But it doesn't sound like the caster was doing anything special and was just casting the spell.


It says aware of the person acting, not aware what they're going to do. As long as everyone in the party was watching him and were all standing next to each other, etc., then they should get to act in the surprise round too.

It's only if you're unaware of the other people even being there (or possibly in some cases unaware of them being bad guys, but neither applies here)


Kolyarut has the right mindset. It's up to interpretation who is surprised. Expect table variation.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Kolyarut has the right mindset. It's up to interpretation who is surprised. Expect table variation.

Except the rules say nothing about just "if you're surprised" in some sort of generic, any-old-sense way. So that being subjective doesn't matter. What it says is

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

Was everybody aware of the opponents? It sounds like yes, they were, it doesn't sound from the description in the OP like this guy is the only one who saw the camp, it sounds like they were all standing off in the trees looking at it together. And were the opponents aware of any of them? It seems like clearly they were not from the description.

Thus, they all unambiguously get to act in the surprise round, even if the spell was completely unexpected. Because the thing you need to be aware of is the opponents, not your allies' imminent action plans.


So what happens if you're talking to a person, having a perfectly nice conversation, and suddenly he stabs you (beating your perception with his sleight of hand). Do you act in the surprise round because you're aware of your opponent? No.

Or how about if you're talking with a group of pirates who are trying to steal from you, and suddenly an invisible caster 400 feet in the air throws a fireball down? Do you act in the surprise round because you're aware of the pirates? No. Assuming you had no way of noticing the caster, anyways.

This is absolutely subjective. People can be surprised in more ways than one. I think your GM ran it fine. Surprise rounds will always be up subject to table variance.

Edit: Here's the hard rules on it

CRB wrote:

Unaware Combatants

Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

To me it sounds like the rest of the party was unaware that the wizard just started the fight with a spell. I would certainly allow a perception check to notice him casting a spell (where a success would allow them to act in the surprise round since they are aware of combat beginning), but this is where the subjectivism comes in. It's up to the GM to determine who is unaware.


CapinCarl:

In the first example, there is the potential for a surprise round as you are unaware that the person trying to stab you is an opponent. Thus, before he attacks, you are indeed not aware of any opponent.

In the second example, there is a surprise round because the pirates are a different set of opponents than the invisible guy who is triggering the surprise round. While the rules don't cover (or cover poorly) what happens in battles where there are more than two "groups" of combatants, this case is fairly easy to figure out.

Things do indeed get hairy when you are aware of some foes but not others. If the stealthy foes attack on their own, they get a surprise round. If the stealthy foes attempt to attack simultaneously with the non-stealthy foes (say, via telepathy or not having stealth relative to them), then they are opting to forgo their surprise round as the entire group is now acting as a single collection and you aware of at least some of them. This particular paragraph is a bit of an extrapolation of the rules, but a very reasonable one - most other interpretations will cause issues.

While it's certainly possible to surprise people in your own party, you're not going to do it by casting a spell out in the open. The party is fully aware of the caster and knows that the individual has combat abilities. When they see him preparing to cast a spell, they know what's up.

Note I said "preparing to cast a spell". There is a misconception at play here that the caster can just instantly cast the spell, leaving the party to try and quickly react to it. That's not how things work. The initiator of a fight does not automatically get to go first. This is as true in a surprise round as it is in a normal round, and only very specific circumstances allow a surprise round at all.

Your last comment actually shows the flaw with your argument, btw. If a party member can attack from stealth (relative to the party) they can have a surprise round (relative to the party). However, if you just start casting while out in the open, in full view of your party, you don't even come close to meeting the criteria for being allowed to make a stealth check!


Quote:
So what happens if you're talking to a person, having a perfectly nice conversation, and suddenly he stabs you (beating your perception with his sleight of hand). Do you act in the surprise round because you're aware of your opponent?

This example is unclear and very open to interpretation. Because it hinges on whether aware of opponent means "aware of them being a threat" or just "aware of the person being there who is truly an opponent whether you know it or not" or both. And both also make sense storywise.

However, none of that has to do with this situation which has none of that ambiguity. From the description in the OP it seems pretty obvious that all of them were hidden, all looking at the camp, who they all knew full well were their opponents... So that tricky distinction above doesn't come into play here.

Quote:
Or how about if you're talking with a group of pirates who are trying to steal from you, and suddenly an invisible caster 400 feet in the air throws a fireball down?

No because the pirates are aware of you. The requirements state that you have to be aware of opponents AND they have to not be aware of you, so this doesn't satisfy the criteria.

Quote:
This is absolutely subjective. People can be surprised in more ways than one.

People being surprised is subjective yes, but again, the "surprise round" is not, despite the name, based simply on a vague rule like "whether people are surprised." So the fact that we agree on this doesn't matter for the OP.


Crimeo wrote:
This example is unclear and very open to interpretation.

You mean like the rules?

Case and point, they are subject to interpretation.

Expect table variation.


Byakko, there are several problems with your points. First is that the surprise rules don't state you have to be aware that somebody is an opponent, you simply have to be aware of them. That is why taking only that quote from the surprise rules out of context of the rest is flawed, which is why I added more of the surprise rules.

You admit that it is possible to surprise your own party with a spell to start combat. That is the only point that I'm making, that it is possible. If everybody is just sitting in a circle talking and the wizard stands up and casts his spell, the perception DC to notice that is probably around -10, meaning the entire party is going to act. But if the wizard walked off to look at the opponents while the rest of the party kept talking and suddenly cast a spell, they might not notice it before it happens.

Hence variation. We don't know enough about the situation, and even then it's still up to interpretation and can go either way. I'm not saying that this particular scenario is absolutely one way or the other, I'm saying there are different outcomes depending on the details and the GMs interpretation of "unaware".


Quote:
Case and point, they are subject to interpretation.

In your unrelated hypothetical scenario, yup. But nobody asked about that but you.

In the OP's scenario, no. Because the OP's scenario does not rely on the potential distinctions here that are vague. It relies only on other distinctions that are not vague.


Yes, the situation is vague. We were not told every little detail. Even if we were it could still be up to interpretation. The GM could rule that the party is so engrossed in my the tactical map the fighter is drawing in the dirt that they have a large enough perception penalty to miss the spellcaster starting combat.

But I can see that, like always, reasonable discussion with you is not going to be a possibility. Once again you refuse to admit that rules are subject to interpretation. Good day, I've said all I am going to on the matter.


Quote:
Even if we were it could still be up to interpretation.

...How? From his very first sentence:

Quote:
the party had eliminated the enemy's one sentry without being detected.

Let's check the criteria for surprise rounds:

Is it their opponent? Yes, "the enemy's". Unambiguous.
Were they aware of that opponent? Obviously, confirmed many times over, since they eliminated their sentry, were discussing what to do about them, were within sight to cast things on them the whole time, etc.
Did the enemy detect them? No, he explicitly says they had not, doesn't get any clearer than "without being detected."

Thus, all criteria of surprise round are met for the various members of the party. So they all get to act in it.


I would have run it like the DM did.

The Wizard, doing a Leeroy Jeeeenhkins ("WTF? What is he doing?!?! .... After him!". ) didnt coordinate his action with the other players, acting surprisingly rash.

Yes he gets a surprise round. The other PCs not, as they were still discussing tactics, instead of being ready for a coordinated attack.


Luckily, since spells now all have visible elements to them as per the Spellcraft FAQ, no perception roll is required to notice spellcasting (unless DCs have been published for this since the FAQ).

The allies, being next to the caster, would see the spell as it was being cast, and should be allowed to roll initiative as well, which would allow them to act in the surprise round.

Ruling otherwise flies in the face of the rules, and shows blatant favoritism towards the caster.

Liberty's Edge

alexd1976 wrote:
Luckily, since spells now all have visible elements to them as per the Spellcraft FAQ, no perception roll is required to notice spellcasting (unless DCs have been published for this since the FAQ).

Humans have visible elements too. Yet strangely you need to make perception rolls to notice them.

The fact that you CAN observe a spell being cast does not mean that you AUTOMATICALLY do so.


CBDunkerson wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Luckily, since spells now all have visible elements to them as per the Spellcraft FAQ, no perception roll is required to notice spellcasting (unless DCs have been published for this since the FAQ).

Humans have visible elements too. Yet strangely you need to make perception rolls to notice them.

The fact that you CAN observe a spell being cast does not mean that you AUTOMATICALLY do so.

Seriously? In this situation would you tell the rest of the party to roll perception to see if they have kept track of where their fellow party member is standing?

That seems excessive.

This situation is a group of characters, standing together, not a single person trying to hide from his group...

Liberty's Edge

alexd1976 wrote:
Seriously? In this situation would you tell the rest of the party to roll perception to see if they have kept track of where their fellow party member is standing?

Given that spellcasting CAN be overlooked it comes down to the GM's view of the situation. If everyone were looking at the camp and the caster stepped to the front and began casting the spell with grand flourishes... they'd see him. If all the other characters were gathered around sketching a map/plan in the dirt and the caster stepped away then they might very well not have noticed.

Thus, I could see anything from automatic detection to roll perception to automatic failure to notice... depending on details which haven't been specified. What exactly was going on during those '30 seconds of player discussion about what to do next'?


Not the spellcasting FAQ again.

CBDunkerson is absolutely correct. Just because something can be noticed doesn't mean it will be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Blue 22 wrote:
We ran into a situation this week where the party had eliminated the enemy's one sentry without being detected. The players then had a discussion about what to do next. About 30 seconds into the player discussion, one player, without informing or discussing it with any other player, turned to the GM and said, "I cast Stinking Cloud into the middle of the enemies' camp." No one else said that the were doing anything. GM said role initiative and allowed the spell to be cast in the surprise round but then ruled that no one else got a surprise round as they were not aware the spell was going to be cast so they could not synchronize their attacks in the surprise round. Basically they were surprised by the spell being cast and unprepared. Thoughts?

In this situation, unless the player casting Stinking Cloud was attempting to hide their actions from the other players, all of the players could have gone in the surprise round.

The other players should have gotten a reactive Perception check made in response to observable stimulus. The stimulus being a visible person. Now the GM might claim the other players are distracted so we look at Perception again and see a modifier for just that. Then we can assume at worst the caster of the Stinking Cloud is around 10 feet away from the others; a reasonable distance since they were all speaking to each other.

Notice a visible creature Perception DC 0
Creature making the check is distracted +5 DC
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1 DC/10 feet

So at most a Perception DC of 6.
If the GM didn't allow this check they are just hand-waving it for no reason or didn't understand how Perception works.

Big Blue wrote:
GM said role initiative and allowed the spell to be cast in the surprise round but then ruled that no one else got a surprise round as they were not aware the spell was going to be cast so they could not synchronize their attacks in the surprise round. Basically they were surprised by the spell being cast and unprepared.

The issue with this is that the GM shouldn't just declare the players were unaware. That's what the Perception skill is used for. Anything else is just DM fiat for no reason.

The reason this could be problematic is this sets a precedent. What happens when the players start doing this more often?

Players can now just declare that they shoot, attack, cast a spell etc; and the first one who said it clearly goes in the surprise round right? Because it no longer matters what the others have in Perception since that person said it first in real life.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
CBDunkerson is absolutely correct. Just because something can be noticed doesn't mean it will be.

CBDunkerson isn't absolutely correct.

By the rules it would still be a Perception check.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Thus, I could see anything from automatic detection to roll perception to automatic failure to notice...

If a GM is arbitrarily saying you fail or pass then they aren't playing by the rules.

Liberty's Edge

Brain in a Jar wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Thus, I could see anything from automatic detection to roll perception to automatic failure to notice
If a GM is arbitrarily saying you fail or pass then they aren't playing by the rules.

Not arbitrarily... based on the situation. No reason to roll if there is zero chance of missing/spotting something.


Of course there is still a perception check. Where did I say there isn't one? To the contrary I very specifically stated multiple times that there should be a perception check. Try to read all of my posts before disagreeing with me.


Quote:
The other PCs not, as they were still discussing tactics, instead of being ready for a coordinated attack.

This is realistic and may be fun, but is definitely not RAW. There is no "readiness" condition in the rules other than just awareness of enemies. Just like there's no "still feeling kind of sleepy for a minute after waking up" condition, etc.

Officially, without adding any custom house systems, all that matters for surprise rounds is if you are aware of the existence in the area of opponents, and whether they are aware of you, that's it.

Quote:
Luckily, since spells now all have visible elements to them as per the Spellcraft FAQ, no perception roll is required to notice spellcasting (unless DCs have been published for this since the FAQ).
Quote:
In this situation, unless the player casting Stinking Cloud was attempting to hide their actions from the other players

Doesn't actually matter anyway. It could have been entirely hidden while casting until the moment the cloud appeared, and they STILL get to act in the surprise round by RAW, because surprise round is not based on "being surprised about the beginning of combat." It's only based on awareness of opponents and vice versa, period.

If you woke up 12 seconds ago, have a hangover, are blind, AND your friend starts the attack without telling you, you STILL get to act in the surprise round, so long as you were aware of the presence of the opponent any amount of time prior to an initial attack. (and the opponent wasn't aware of you guys)


CBDunkerson wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Thus, I could see anything from automatic detection to roll perception to automatic failure to notice
If a GM is arbitrarily saying you fail or pass then they aren't playing by the rules.
Not arbitrarily... based on the situation. No reason to roll if there is zero chance of missing/spotting something.

I suppose i just can't think of a situation where Perception wouldn't be used.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Of course there is still a perception check. Where did I say there isn't one? To the contrary I very specifically stated multiple times that there should be a perception check. Try to read all of my posts before disagreeing with me.

Maybe you should try to read posts before posting.

I didn't claim you said that. You said;

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
CBDunkerson is absolutely correct. Just because something can be noticed doesn't mean it will be.

and CBDunkerson said;

CBDunkerson wrote:
Thus, I could see anything from automatic detection to roll perception to automatic failure to notice...

I was refuting that. Since a GM should be using a Perception check to decide things and not saying its an auto pass/auto fail. That's all.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then.


Crimeo wrote:
It's only based on awareness of opponents and vice versa, period.

False. I have quoted the rest of the surprise rules that you continue to ignore. You cannot cherry pick what sections of the rules you deign to follow and ignore the rest.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

I was refuting that. Since a GM should be using a Perception check to decide things and not saying its an auto pass/auto fail. That's all.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then.

Then you need to properly quote what it is you are refuting, because you took my quote out of context.

Also, auto pass/fail is a possibility. If there is an invisible rogue who has an effective stealth bonus of +50 and the highest perception bonus in the party is +5, even if everybody in the party rolls a nat 20 and the rogue rolls a nat 1 then the rogue will still not be noticed. In very extreme cases like this, I don't even have the players roll. You could, but what's the point?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Then you need to properly quote what it is you are refuting, because you took my quote out of context.

How did i take it out of context?

You said he was absolutely correct. Which i was refuting. I even follwed it with his quote that you agreed with.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Also, auto pass/fail is a possibility. If there is an invisible rogue who has an effective stealth bonus of +50 and the highest perception bonus in the party is +5, even if everybody in the party rolls a nat 20 and the rogue rolls a nat 1 then the rogue will still not be noticed. In very extreme cases like this, I don't even have the players roll. You could, but what's the point?

That still doesn't make it auto pass/auto fail.

It's still a Perception check by the rules.

Sure it can be hand-waved to save time. But by the rules a check is still made. That's all I'm saying.

I'm just trying to showcase that a GM should always at least check the Perception rules for modifiers before saying its a pass or fail.

I mean i totally get hand-waving certain things for ease of play and speed. But sometimes players can surprise a GM with just how good their character is at something.

A GM should never assume something to be true or false of a player's character. It's the reason they have skills and abilities.

Does that makes sense?


I'm not "cherrypicking" I'm just shortening, because all the rest of the rules continue to say the same thing over and over. But sure:

Quote:

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 Perception checks or other checks.

The Surprise Round

If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.

Unaware Combatants

Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

It's totally consistent throughout the whole section. Aware aware aware aware (of opponents), that's what matters, that's the criterion. Not whether you're kind of sleepy or not, not whether you're distracted. Not whether you're up to speed on the plan of attack. None of that is mentioned. Aware of opponents only.


You attach "of their opponents" to the end of "unaware" even when the rules do not say that. Now instead of cherry picking you are adding additional text to the rules.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
You attach "of their opponents" to the end of "unaware" even when the rules do not say that. Now instead of cherry picking you are adding additional text to the rules.

Surprise Round

I'm not seeing where he "added" anything.


Quote:
You attach "of their opponents" to the end of "unaware" even when the rules do not say that.

What are you talking about / getting at? The text mentions no other kind of awareness than that of your opponents being relevant.


To the last part. Which will now be quoted once again.

CRB wrote:

Unaware Combatants

Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

This rule is separate from the rest of the surprise rules and only states that the combatant must be unaware, not unaware of their opponents. Unaware and unaware of their opponents are two separate things.

Crimeo wrote:
What are you talking about / getting at? The text mentions no other kind of awareness than that of your opponents being relevant.

Once again, wrong. As has been quoted at least three times now, the rules very specifically mention a vague "unaware" term. This is (and I know you will never accept this) up to interpretation.


1) Those words come after about 50 million uses of "aware of opponents" throughout the preceding paragraphs, and after ZERO uses of "aware of [anything else]"... I'm confused, WHO is cherrypicking again, exactly?

2) Even if you want to insist on maintaining that it's a totally unrelated phrase, so what? If it doesn't tell you "aware [OF WHAT]" then it would be a useless undefined rule anyway. Does nobody at your table ever get a surprise round because they aren't aware of the color of my grandma's socks at the moment? The mere fact alone that this is functionally inert and unworkable with no clarification is yet more evidence that it's obviously referring to the above clauses, since those do offer clarification (...of opponents). Suddenly making an otherwise baffling and pointless paragraph into a totally reasonable one.


1) You. Still.

2) It's useful because the rules assume some human interaction and a thing known as interpretation. I thought the definition would be helpful since you're clearly struggling with the concept.


CampinCarl, while I agree it is possible, in theory, to conceal spellcasting, in this case the caster doesn't qualify.

From the Stealth rules:

Quote:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

As the party is observing the caster when he casts the spell, he cannot use Stealth. Note that "observing" in pathfinder has special meaning and to become unobserved requires you to specifically get to an unobserved place using the above rules.

------

As to your other point, a creature doesn't count as an opponent until you choose to identify them as such (or at the very least, a potential threat). Hate to say it, but this is just common sense. Lots of stuff in the rules system breaks if you consider every creature, plant, and inanimate object an "opponent" without justification.


Byakko wrote:
CampinCarl, while I agree it is possible, in theory, to conceal spellcasting

That's all I was trying to say. That's literally it. Not sure how it's a theory, it's not even that hard.

Byakko wrote:
As the party is observing the caster when he casts the spell

Were they? It might be a reasonable assumption to say that based on the information, but the OP wasn't clear on the matter. If he said "We were all standing in a circle talking to each other and he turned around and cast a spell", then yeah, they all get to act. But instead we got a meta-reasoning, so we don't actually know how the surprise round manifested itself in-game.

Until the OP decides to post again and answer that question, it's still vague as we don't have enough information without making assumptions.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Big Blue 22 said wrote:
The players then had a discussion about what to do next. About 30 seconds into the player discussion, one player, without informing or discussing it with any other player, turned to the GM and said, "I cast Stinking Cloud into the middle of the enemies' camp.

I suppose you're right, they could have been talking using message or other from quite a distance away. The caster could have been watching the camp after the rest of the party took out the sentry and decided to head back to town, and the party would have no idea if the caster decided to cast a spell into the enemy camp.

We can't assume anything until we have more info.

Sovereign Court

It sounds like some folks are assuming the other PCs knew which spell the caster was casting. As they were discussing tactics, it could very well have been the wizard casting mage armor upon himself rather than an offensive spell.

Since the PC simply declared what he was doing while others were discussing tactics (and from the description, he said "my character is doing this" without notifying the rest of the group beforehand rather than "hey guys, what if I cast stinking cloud on the enemies?" or "hey guys, I'm going to cast stinking cloud"), I would, and have, ruled that such actions would catch the other PCs off guard. Anyone with Spellcraft can attempt the check and if successful can take their standard or move action after the wizard acts in the surprise round.

But again, this is how I run my tables. Other GMs may run it so the entire party has the surprise round (though I don;t see the logic and runs with an assumption that all PCs know exactly what the others are up to at any given moment ... which kills some really good roleplay and plot twist potential).

Bottom line, as Kolyarut said, table variation is to be expected

Liberty's Edge

Avatar-1 wrote:

That player is initiating combat, and only gets to go on his turn.

The player should make a stealth check if he wants to surprise his party (or the enemy) like that.

There are certain cases where you might decide the enemy is absolutely unawares and auto-fails their perception check because they're just not in a position to be looking/hearing, but you shouldn't really impose that on the PCs.

More than a stealth check I would require a Sense Motive check to guess that the character had decided to "jump the gun".

PRD wrote:


Surprise
...
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.

In this situation I would use one of the "other checks".

Liberty's Edge

alexd1976 wrote:

Luckily, since spells now all have visible elements to them as per the Spellcraft FAQ, no perception roll is required to notice spellcasting (unless DCs have been published for this since the FAQ).

The allies, being next to the caster, would see the spell as it was being cast, and should be allowed to roll initiative as well, which would allow them to act in the surprise round.

Ruling otherwise flies in the face of the rules, and shows blatant favoritism towards the caster.

So every time someone cast a spell there is no surprise round as you can see the spell being cast?

It don't work that way, the spell is part of what happen during the surprise round, if you wait to see it being cast you have already failed to act in that surprise round.
You don't get avoid being surprised because at some point of the surprise round you will see your friend diviner wizard cast a spell.

Acting in the surprise round require to be aware that something will happen now and react to it while it is happening or even before that, not reacting to something that has already happened.


Diego Rossi wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Luckily, since spells now all have visible elements to them as per the Spellcraft FAQ, no perception roll is required to notice spellcasting (unless DCs have been published for this since the FAQ).

The allies, being next to the caster, would see the spell as it was being cast, and should be allowed to roll initiative as well, which would allow them to act in the surprise round.

Ruling otherwise flies in the face of the rules, and shows blatant favoritism towards the caster.

So every time someone cast a spell there is no surprise round as you can see the spell being cast?

It don't work that way, the spell is part of what happen during the surprise round, if you wait to see it being cast you have already failed to act in that surprise round.
You don't get avoid being surprised because at some point of the surprise round you will see your friend diviner wizard cast a spell.

Acting in the surprise round require to be aware that something will happen now and react to it while it is happening or even before that, not reacting to something that has already happened.

Yes, every time someone casts a spell, there is no surprise round. (assuming you were already aware of them as an opponent or potential combatant, and believe they are doing something hostile)

You can wait to see it being cast, and can even identify it with a Spellcraft check, then decide to fight. No surprise round. You don't have to be aware of something happening "now" to eliminate the surprise round, you only have to be aware of your foe in general.

------

Btw, a way you can get a surprise round while being observed is by convincing your foe that the spell you're casting is harmless. Something like:

PC: "I tell the fighter I'm casting Cure Light Wounds, but I'm actually casting Magic Missile at him."
GM: "Your Bluff check was high enough, and he doesn't have Spellcraft to identify what you're casting. He chooses to believe you. This results in your Magic Missile being cast in the surprise round."

The reason this works is because the fighter doesn't believe you're an opponent based on your action of casting the spell (thanks to your bluff check), thus opening him up to being surprised.

Note, that if the fighter had an ally nearby who identified the spell the PC was casting, there would be no surprise round... assuming the ally chooses to warn the fighter! (and if the ally didn't give the alarm, the ally would get to act in the surprise round, but the fighter would still be surprised)


Quote:
You can wait to see it being cast, and can even identify it with a Spellcraft check, then decide to fight.

You can't use this to determine if there's a surprise round, because the casting happens DURING the surprise round. The surprise round has already begun before casting even BEGINS. it doesn't make any sense to do stuff during the surprise round that ends up making there not be a surprise round.....

Nor is any of this relevant to allied casting anyway, because "awareness of your allies or their actions" is not mentioned anywhere in the surprise round rules, and thus has nothing to do with surprise rounds.


Crimeo wrote:
Nor is any of this relevant to allied casting anyway, because "awareness of your allies or their actions" is not mentioned anywhere in the surprise round rules, and thus has nothing to do with surprise rounds.

Having to go to the bathroom isn't in the rules either, but if we apply the logic that even a 2nd grader has we know that it is possible to not be aware of your allies. Or are you linked to them in such a way that you always know their actions?


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
You can wait to see it being cast, and can even identify it with a Spellcraft check, then decide to fight.

You can't use this to determine if there's a surprise round, because the casting happens DURING the surprise round. The surprise round has already begun before casting even BEGINS. it doesn't make any sense to do stuff during the surprise round that ends up making there not be a surprise round.....

Nor is any of this relevant to allied casting anyway, because "awareness of your allies or their actions" is not mentioned anywhere in the surprise round rules, and thus has nothing to do with surprise rounds.

You're assuming casting a spell automatically and immediately enters creatures into combat rounds. This isn't necessarily the case. In order to determine whether the hostile spell is taking place in a normal round or a surprise round, you need to determine whether the creature casting the spell is considered to be an opponent to the victim, and in order for that to be determined, you should allow the appropriate perception/spellcraft checks.

Awareness of your "allies and their actions" IS totally relevant to determining who is surprised in this case. You are taking the term "opponent" too literally in the surprise rules. As has been pointed out in the past, when the rules talk about allies and opponents, these are placeholders for the normal situation. In unusual cases like this, you can treat allies as if their were opponents if it makes sense for what's being done. This is why you can bull rush an ally out of danger, for example.

In this scenario, I believe we're taking for granted that the party and their actions is surprising to their actual enemies. What is being sought is clarification on whether one party member's actions is surprising to others in the party. And for this specific purpose, you can totally treat the caster and the other members as two opposing groups when it comes to determining surprise.


Quote:
we know that it is possible to not be aware of your allies.

I never said it wasn't. I said that if you are or aren't, that just doesn't matter for whether you're in the surprise round or not. Because no such thing is part of the surprise round rules.

Quote:
Or are you linked to them in such a way that you always know their actions?

No I'm not linked to them in such a way, because nothing says that I am. However, this fact is irrelevant, because being in the surprise round does not ever require me to know their actions in the first place.

Quote:
You're assuming casting a spell automatically and immediately enters creatures into combat rounds.

It does if it's an attack spell. If we were talking about, say, casting light on the guy's own boots, then that might get tricky. But stinking cloud cast right on top of opponents is unambiguously an open attack and thus combat is beginning.

(There is rules text explaining precisely what an attack spell is, and it includes among other things, any spell that involves opponents making a save throw of any sort)

Quote:
In unusual cases like this, you can treat allies as if their were opponents

Citation, please. I'm not aware of any glossary (or otherwise) definition of "opponent" in the book, and if there is none, then we use the real English definition:

"someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argument; a rival or adversary."

Are you fighting against your party members? Are they your rivals, adversaries? No, so they are not opponents, and their awareness of you or vice versa doesn't matter for surprise rounds.


Crimeo:
Please quote the rule that states awareness and surprise must be determined before the intent to cast a hostile spell is declared. The caster declares the hostile spell and now the GM determines surprise. As the party can see the caster preparing to cast the spell, they are not surprised, unless they believe he just happens to be casting a preparatory spell, in which case a Spellcraft would be appropriate as I've described in previous posts:

Quote:
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.

As for the interchangeably of "ally" and "opponent", in a lot of places it's just common sense. But here's an example quote for you (which took me way too long to find, btw :P), although I remember reading others:

Quote from Sean Reynolds:

Quote:

This language ambiguity is annoying and stems from writers not having a standardized way of writing rules text, so some say "enemies," some say "foes," some say "creatures," and some say "enemies." Which can be confusing if you interpret those in the most literal way.

...

These spells really need to say target instead of enemy, as do most spells. "Enemy" is in the eye of the beholder, and almost always means "someone I want to hurt with my abilities and don't want them to hurt me," which means "a concealed assassin I don't know is there should count as an enemy," and usually means "bystanders who happen to be in the area."

...

Prayer affects an area, but it has one effect for anyone you consider your ally, and a different effect for those you consider your foes. In most cases, you'd probably default to "for the purpose of this casting, an ally is someone who is my actual ally PLUS all of the innocent bystanders, because I don't want them to take the penalty for being enemies, just in case my actual enemies are trying to attack them." But you could just as easily decide it is "for the purpose of this casting, only my actual allies are allies, and treat everyone else is an enemy, because villagers annoy me and they're in my way." Which the villagers will probably remember (and seeing as there's no save vs. the spell and they'll feel the hostile magic affecting them, they'll probably think you're a jerk).

Btw, this wasn't actually the quote I was looking for, but does show that you have some flexibility in who you want to treat as an ally or an opponent for individual effects, and that the wording of rules is often sloppy and based on the writer's assumption of what the "sides" will be.

In this example, the party obviously doesn't want to be surprised by their ally casting the spell, and so to resolve this, the GM should treat the caster as opponent for the purpose of determining surprise.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Surprise round or not All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.