I removed a handful of posts. Things were getting a bit too heated. Take a step back. Consider if it really needs to be said.
By your definition there is no such thing as immediate danger because with zero time there is zero change and thus nothing can be accomplished.
Calculus says you are wrong (take physics 101).
You're going to need to provide a LOT more context and explanation than that. As it is this is gibberish.
Very well. Fighter is trying to jump over Pit of Doom (PoD). The 3.0 phb says that the fighter may take 10 on his jump since there is nothing pressuring him and he is not being threatened. However, it is quite clear that he is in danger according to your definition of danger since he is exposing himself to the harm or injury of the PoD. There is only any peril to the fighter if he jumps. Yet the fighter can take 10 on it despite the fact that doing so puts him in peril.
It is not deterministic.
You don't know what determinism is. Determinism says that if A occurs, B must occur. Nondeterminism says that if A occurs, there is a chance that B may occur.
Calculus says you are wrong (take physics 101).
Already did and got an A-, thanks. How far does an arrow moving at 300 feet per second move in zero seconds?
Very well. Fighter is trying to jump over Pit of Doom (PoD). The 3.0 phb says that the fighter may take 10 on his jump since there is nothing pressuring him and he is not being threatened. However, it is quite clear that he is in danger according to your definition of danger since he is exposing himself to the harm or injury of the PoD.
Even IF i trusted your context there are a few problems.
1) There is no IMMEDIATE danger from the lava. Its down there, the fighter is all the way up here. The fighter can stop, read a book, lower hot dogs down on a string to cook lunch, wait half an hour so he doesn't get cramps, do some calisthenics to warm up, and THEN jump the pit of doom.
There is only any peril to the fighter if he jumps. Yet the fighter can take 10 on it despite the fact that doing so puts him in peril.
2) If the volcano were rumbling and the lava was rising then he would be in immediate danger and couldn't take 10. This is a closer analogy to the ambush scenario. The party is in peril whether it tries to spot or not. -I do not subscribe to the idea that the DM should assume the characters are not trying to spot unless the players say so. The DM is the portal by which the players see what the characters see, so if the DM has something moving around hidden the players have ZERO chance to know about it unless the DM lets them make a perception roll or makes a perception roll for them
You don't know what determinism is. Determinism says that if A occurs, B must occur. Nondeterminism says that if A occurs, there is a chance that B may occur.
Since neither myself nor any of my gamers are subatomic particles time moves linearly for us and future events don't change past events. The difference between that and determinism and actions needing to be linear in the real world is non existant.
Yeah, your strained logic aside this is a dictionary definition, not mine.
** spoiler omitted **
By the dictionary definition of immediate, unless you are in danger at that instant, then you are not in immediate danger. Danger in the near future, IE after some finite interval of time, is not immediate danger.
Danger –noun
1.liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2.
an instance or cause of peril; menace.
3.
Obsolete . power; jurisdiction; domain.
im·me·di·ate
   /ɪˈmidiɪt/ Show Spelled[ih-mee-dee-it] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: an immediate reply.
2.
following or preceding without a lapse of time: the immediate future.
3.
having no object or space intervening; nearest or next: in the immediate vicinity.
4.
of or pertaining to the present time or moment: our immediate plans.
5.
without intervening medium or agent; direct: an immediate cause.
6.
having a direct bearing: immediate consideration.
7.
very close in relationship: my immediate family.
8.
Philosophy . directly intuited.
1) Immediate does not mean 0 time. The phrase "immediate future" would be paradoxal if it did. An immediate reply would be impossible because replies take time, and Immediate plans cannot take place.
2) Danger does NOT require certainty. It means risk, peril, the chance of. A dangerous animal is one that MIGHT maul, bite, or poison you. Not one that WILL. An ambush is by definition a peril.
Can you give me an example of an immediate threat?
Calculus says you are wrong (take physics 101).Already did and got an A-, thanks. How far does an arrow moving at 300 feet per second move in zero seconds?
Less physics, more calculus.
A more accurate question would be if an arrow move 0 distance in zero seconds, what is its velocity? By your logic, since the arrow doesn't move, it doesn't have a velocity.
immediate future = lim t -> 0, AKA danger in the present moment, you are currently in combat.
Velocity and acceleration still exist even when no time passes.
I can take your logic and push it in the other direction.
If some orcs about to ambush me in 5 seconds represents an immediate threat, when does it become not an immediate threat? 10 seconds, 30, a minute, 1 hour.
DM: You are going to get into combat sometime today, thus you are in immediate danger and can't take a 10.
Calculus says you are wrong (take physics 101).Already did and got an A-, thanks. How far does an arrow moving at 300 feet per second move in zero seconds?
300 dx :P. Saying that it doesn't move at all leads to zeno's paradox.
Very well. Fighter is trying to jump over Pit of Doom (PoD). The 3.0 phb says that the fighter may take 10 on his jump since there is nothing pressuring him and he is not being threatened. However, it is quite clear that he is in danger according to your definition of danger since he is exposing himself to the harm or injury of the PoD.Even IF i trusted your context there are a few problems.
1) There is no IMMEDIATE danger from the lava. Its down there, the fighter is all the way up here. The fighter can stop, read a book, lower hot dogs down on a string to cook lunch, wait half an hour so he doesn't get cramps, do some calisthenics to warm up, and THEN jump the pit of doom.
There is only any peril to the fighter if he jumps. Yet the fighter can take 10 on it despite the fact that doing so puts him in peril.
2) If the volcano were rumbling and the lava was rising then he would be in immediate danger and couldn't take 10. This is a closer analogy to the ambush scenario. The party is in peril whether it tries to spot or not.
Even if the lava were rising and what not, he is still not in immediate danger. While he can't sit down and read a book, he has a quick moment to take a breather and can approach it calmly if swiftly. The party isn't in immediate danger, they are in imminent danger as is the fighter. The SRD uses the word immediate, not imminent. So let us take a look at the two.
imminent
–adjective
1.
likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
2.
projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.
Compare that to immediate
immediate
–adjective
1.
occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: an immediate reply.
2.
following or preceding without a lapse of time: the immediate future.
3.
having no object or space intervening; nearest or next: in the immediate vicinity.
4.
of or pertaining to the present time or moment: our immediate plans.
5.
without intervening medium or agent; direct: an immediate cause.
6.
having a direct bearing: immediate consideration.
7.
very close in relationship: my immediate family.
8.
Philosophy . directly intuited.
Immediate is described in the present tense, which means that the things are currently happening at this moment. Imminent refers to things that are going to happen and thus is in the future tense. Detecting an ambush is something that is going to happen in the future, not currently is happening. An ambush is only in progress once it has been sprung.
You don't know what determinism is. Determinism says that if A occurs, B must occur. Nondeterminism says that if A occurs, there is a chance that B may occur.Since neither myself nor any of my gamers are subatomic particles time moves linearly for us and future events don't change past events. The difference between that and determinism and actions needing to be linear in the real world is non existant.
I suppose that bar magnets don't exist in the real world (their description requires QM).
A more accurate question would be if an arrow move 0 distance in zero seconds, what is its velocity? By your logic, since the arrow doesn't move, it doesn't have a velocity.
No. My logic is that there is no 0 time.
I can take your logic and push it in the other direction.If some orcs about to ambush me in 5 seconds represents an immediate threat, when does it become not an immediate threat? 10 seconds, 30, a minute, 1 hour.
If you want to commit the fallacy of the excluded middle, sure. My position is that immediate means "soon". Soon is a subjective, loose term subject to DM discretion but not elimination.
As a DM i would vary it by task. If you need to tie a knot and you have 1 hour before you have to rapell down the cliff before the rampaging orc barbarian hoards arrive, I wouldn't see the problem with taking 10 on tying the knot because the orcs will not be here "immediately" relative to the knot tying. If you need to re shoe your horse before the orcs arrive that might be a different story.
300 dx :P. Saying that it doesn't move at all leads to zeno's paradox.
Saying that 0 time isn't a concern leads to getting on with the game.
There was a physicist who volunteered for a psych experiment. A pizza was placed across the room and he was put in a chair. He was told that every 30 seconds, he would be moved half way closer to the pizza. He said there was no point, he'd never reach the pizza, and left.
A biologist sat down for the same experiment. When he was told what he was, he smiled and rubbed his hands. The folks running the experiment asked "aren't you worried you'll never get to the pizza?" The biologist replied "I'll get close enough"
Even if the lava were rising and what not, he is still not in immediate danger. While he can't sit down and read a book, he has a quick moment to take a breather and can approach it calmly if swiftly. The party isn't in immediate danger, they are in imminent danger as is the fighter. The SRD uses the word immediate, not imminent. So let us take a look at the two.
Immediate is described in the present tense, which means that the things are currently happening at this moment.
Look at EVERY SINGLE example of usage of the word immediate. Every single time the word is used it refers to a FUTURE event. An immediate reply happens right after the stimulus. The immediate future is an oxymoron as you're reading it, and plans wouldn't exist for the future.
Immanent reply. Immanent plans. Immanent future... the words are synonymous.
Also, why the avoidance of the word danger? It means a threat, not a certainty. THe orc assassin on the grassy gnoll might fire or might not. He might hit your or he might not. He IS, currently, at this moment, a threat.
Name a source of immediate danger by your definition.
Immanent reply. Immanent plans. Immanent future... the words are synonymous.
immediate
adjective
Definition of IMMEDIATE
1
done or occurring without any noticeable lapse in time <felt immediate relief after taking the painkiller>
Synonyms immediate, instant, split-second, straightaway
Related Words summary; fast, hit-and-run, prompt, quick, rapid, speedy, swift
Near Antonyms dilatory, tardy; slow, sluggish; prolonged, protracted; deferred, delayed
2
done or working without something else coming in between <she is my immediate superior, so I report to her>
[/b]Synonyms firsthand, immediate, primary, unmediated[/b]
Related Words clinical, empirical (also empiric); efficient, proximate; hands-on
Antonyms indirect, secondhand
3
done, carried out, or given without delay <immediate treatment saved the victim of the massive heart attack>
Synonyms immediate, punctual, speedy, timely
Related Words apt, quick, ready, swift, willing; opportune, seasonable; early
Near Antonyms delinquent, latish, overdue; behind, behindhand, delayed, detained; dilatory, laggard, slow
Antonyms belated, late, tardy
4
not being distant in time, space, or significance <for the victims of the terrorist attack, the incident is as immediate as yesterday's news>
Synonyms close-up, immediate, near, nearby, neighboring, next-door, nigh, proximate
Related Words abutting, adjacent, adjoining, bordering, contiguous; approaching, coming, forthcoming, oncoming, upcoming; accessible, convenient, handy; close-in, hand-to-hand
Near Antonyms divorced, removed, separated
Antonyms away, deep, distant, far, faraway, far-off, remote
5
existing or in progress right now <we need to solve the immediate problems before working on the more long-term ones>
Synonyms current, extant, immediate, instant, ongoing, present-day
Related Words contemporary, mod, modern, modernistic, new, newfangled, new-fashioned, recent, red-hot, space-age, supermodern, ultramodern, up-to-date; being, breathing, existent, existing, living
Near Antonyms coming, future, unborn; completed, concluded, done, ended, finished, over, terminated, through, up; ancient, antediluvian, antiquated, antique, archaic, dated, fusty, musty, noncontemporary, obsolete, old, oldfangled, old-fashioned, old-time, out-of-date, outworn, passé; ago, bygone, erstwhile, former, past
Imminent is nowhere in the list of synonyms for immediate.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Lets see how much of your post would describe an ambush
done or occurring without any noticeable lapse in time
split-second
straightaway
prompt
done, carried out, or given without delay <immediate treatment saved the victim of the massive heart attack>
ready,
---->not being distant in time, space, or significance<----
How is this not describing an ambush?
close-up,
peanut?
near
nearby
neighboring
nigh
proximate
abutting
approaching,
coming,
forthcoming,
oncoming
upcoming<--- specifically refers to time.
Thank you for all you've done to demonstrate my point.
Try searching the other direction
immediate,
Main Entry: imminent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: at hand, on the way
Synonyms: about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate , impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, in
http://thesaurus.com/browse/imminent
More stuff.
I still don't see imminent in there anywhere. Immediate is not a synonym of imminent.
[Try searching in the other direction. It might aid your powers of detection and help end this contention- Fezik.
Main Entry: imminent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: at hand, on the way
Synonyms: about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate , impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, in
http://thesaurus.com/browse/imminent
[Try searching in the other direction
Main Entry: imminent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: at hand, on the way
Synonyms: about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate , impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, inhttp://thesaurus.com/browse/imminent
imminent
adjective
Definition of IMMINENT
1
giving signs of immediate occurrence <a storm is imminent, so you should seek shelter now>
Synonyms impending, looming, pending, threatening
Related Words approaching, coming, forthcoming, future, near, nearing, oncoming, upcoming; brewing, gathering; likely, possible, probable; inevitable, unavoidable; apocalyptic (also apocalyptical), lowering, menacing, ominous, portentous; anticipated, awaited, expected, foreseen, predicted
Phrases around the corner
Near Antonyms distant, far-off, remote; eventual, ultimate; bygone, former, past; late, recent
2
being soon to appear or take place <an imminent development that should radically transform how we treat the disease>
Synonyms approaching, coming, imminent, impending, nearing, oncoming, pending, proximate, upcoming
Related Words future; anticipated, awaited, expected, foreseen, predicted
Near Antonyms bygone, erstwhile, foregone, former, old, onetime, other, past, quondam, sometime, whilom
Antonyms late, recent
Nope, no immediate there.
[Try searching in the other direction
Main Entry: imminent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: at hand, on the way
Synonyms: about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate , impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, inhttp://thesaurus.com/browse/imminent
Nope, no immediate there.
imminent
adjective
Definition of IMMINENT
1
giving signs of --------->immediate<------ occurrence <a storm is imminent, so you should seek shelter now>
Synonyms impending, looming, pending, threatening
Related Words approaching, coming, forthcoming, future, near, nearing, oncoming, upcoming; brewing, gathering; likely, possible, probable; inevitable, unavoidable; apocalyptic (also apocalyptical), lowering, menacing, ominous, portentous; anticipated, awaited, expected, foreseen, predicted
Phrases around the corner
Near Antonyms distant, far-off, remote; eventual, ultimate; bygone, former, past; late, recent
2
being soon to appear or take place <an imminent development that should radically transform how we treat the disease>
Synonyms approaching, coming, imminent, impending, nearing, oncoming, pending, proximate, upcoming
Related Words future; anticipated, awaited, expected, foreseen, predicted
Near Antonyms bygone, erstwhile, foregone, former, old, onetime, other, past, quondam, sometime, whilom
Antonyms late, recent
So let's look at the consequences for following this logic. . .
A character is about to unknowingly walk into an ambush. The player asks to take 10 on the perception check. The GM says that she has to roll. At that point, the player has a dilemma.
The character, who is not distracted and knowingly threatened, must be unknowingly threatened. But the character cannot know this information. If the character were to turn around and not approach the ambush, the player could be accused of metagaming to determine if an ambush were ahead.
If the player chooses not to turn around, she's doing so although the game mechanics have explicitly told the player (but not the character) that she is in danger. Thus, the player can't really take any actions to try and save her character without metagaming. By the player not being able to take any actions, the GM has effectively taken control of the character. This is a classic example of railroading by the GM.
So, this really just sounds like an all-around bad idea.
2
being soon to appear or take place <an imminent development that should radically transform how we treat the disease>
Synonyms approaching, coming, imminent, impending, nearing, oncoming, pending, proximate, upcoming
Related Words future; anticipated, awaited, expected, foreseen, predicted
Near Antonyms bygone, erstwhile, foregone, former, old, onetime, other, past, quondam, sometime, whilom
Antonyms late, recent
Dog - a type of animal
Woo, since type and animal are in the definition of dog, they must be synonyms.
Using a word in the definition does not make it a synonym.
Using a word in the definition does not make is a synonym.
....
Imminent - Happening in the immediate future
Immediate future is an oxymoron, because you are essentially saying in the present future. Future is the noun, thus Immediate is a modifier.
Thus taken in total context, imminent is the nearest point in the future that is not the present. Immediate is the present, imminent is the moment right after that.
To use the previous example.
An imminent storm - You can see it, and it is coming your direction. You had better go inside.
An immediate storm - Rain is falling on your head, lightning is crashing all around you. Why aren't you inside already?
An immediate action - As per the PF rules, I am taking an action right now out of turn.
An imminent action - What I am going to be doing on my next turn.
There are too many places where you simply cannot use those two words in the same place for them to be synonyms.
300 dx :P. Saying that it doesn't move at all leads to zeno's paradox.
Saying that 0 time isn't a concern leads to getting on with the game.
There was a physicist who volunteered for a psych experiment. A pizza was placed across the room and he was put in a chair. He was told that every 30 seconds, he would be moved half way closer to the pizza. He said there was no point, he'd never reach the pizza, and left.
A biologist sat down for the same experiment. When he was told what he was, he smiled and rubbed his hands. The folks running the experiment asked "aren't you worried you'll never get to the pizza?" The biologist replied "I'll get close enough"
That's because that physicist wasn't familiar with the axiom that all bounded monotonic sequences converge. Also consider the fact that some finite amount of time consists of an infinite amount of infinitesimal amounts of time so your "physicist" was only paying attention to the first half of calculus class. The other guy's right, velocity's actually indeterminant (different from undefined) if you don't take calculus into account meaning that any arbitrary declaration of it's velocity is just as valid as any other.
Even if the lava were rising and what not, he is still not in immediate danger. While he can't sit down and read a book, he has a quick moment to take a breather and can approach it calmly if swiftly. The party isn't in immediate danger, they are in imminent danger as is the fighter. The SRD uses the word immediate, not imminent. So let us take a look at the two.Immediate is described in the present tense, which means that the things are currently happening at this moment.Look at EVERY SINGLE example of usage of the word immediate. Every single time the word is used it refers to a FUTURE event. An immediate reply happens right after the stimulus. The immediate future is an oxymoron as you're reading it, and plans wouldn't exist for the future.
Immanent reply. Immanent plans. Immanent future... the words are synonymous.
Obviously Paizo is a paragon of grammar.
Also, why the avoidance of the word danger? It means a threat, not a certainty. THe orc assassin on the grassy gnoll might fire or might not. He might hit your or he might not. He IS, currently, at this moment, a threat.
Because the term the term immediate danger is a conjunction of immediate and danger. I can demonstrate that something is not an immediate danger by demonstrating that it is either not immediate OR a danger. I do not need to demonstrate that it is simultaneously not a danger and not immediate to demonstrate that it is not an immediate threat. Thus I can actually argue that something is not an immediate danger while fully conceding it being a danger or while fully conceding that it is immediate. [/logic]
Name a source of immediate danger by your definition.
The orc is shootING at me.
So your argument is that the immediate future is the present, that one word that DEFINES another in your chosen thesaurus isn't a synonym.... even though its listed as a synonym in at least two other thesauruses*, you can't explain what you mean by danger, and you apparently cannot give me an example of something that IS an immediate danger by your reading.
- I think i'm going to go re read the princess bride.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/imminent+
Synonyms: about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate , impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, in the offing, in the wind, in view,
http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=imminent
Main Entry: imminent Synonyms:
about to be, abusive, advancing, alarming, already in sight, anticipated, approaching, approximate, approximative, at hand, attracted to, awaited, bludgeoning, blustering, brewing, browbeating, bulldozing, bullying, close, close at hand, coming, comminatory, denunciatory, desired, destinal, destined, determined, drawn to, due, emergent, eventual, expected, extrapolated, fatal, fated, fatidic, fear-inspiring, foreboding, foreseen, forthcoming, future, futuristic, gathering, going to happen, hectoring, hereafter, hoped-for, immediate
Using a word in the definition does not make is a synonym.....
He is correct.
Dolphin : Usually a small gray mammal. A member of the species Whale.
Whale : Aquatic mammals.
A dolphin is a whale. A dolphin is a mammal. A whale is a mammal.
A mammal is not necessarily a dolphin. Nor is a mammal necessarily a whale.
A dolphin is a specific instance of a mammal or whale.
Imminent -> Proximal (that is, it is near but not here). You are in imminent danger, you are about to be in danger, but are not currently in danger.
Imminent has other meanings (like imminent domain). For purposes of Imminent Danger, you need the adjective version.
at hand, close at hand, imminent, impendent, impending (close in time; about to occur) "retribution is at hand"; "some people believe the day of judgment is close at hand"; "in imminent danger"; "his impending retirement"
Immediate -> Here and now
Adjective* S: (adj) immediate (of the present time and place) "the immediate revisions"
* S: (adj) contiguous, immediate (very close or connected in space or time) "contiguous events"; "immediate contact"; "the immediate vicinity"; "the immediate past"
* S: (adj) immediate (having no intervening medium) "an immediate influence"
* S: (adj) immediate (immediately before or after as in a chain of cause and effect) "the immediate result"; "the immediate cause of the trouble"
* S: (adj) immediate, prompt, quick, straightaway (performed with little or no delay) "an immediate reply to my letter"; "a prompt reply"; "was quick to respond"; "a straightaway denial"
The only one that comes close to BNWs version is very close or connected in space or time. However, that one also says 'Contiguous'. Contiguous means 'connected'. That would, to me, indicate something that is already connected to the PC. Such as a trap they are already activating or an Ambusher that's already directly involved with the PC. A good example of this would be an 'ally' who's stabbing the PC in the back, not someone in a bush 50 feet away with a cross-bow. The PC has given up the right to take 10 on the ally because they have turned their back on the Ally, indicating they are not concerned about them.
So your argument is that the immediate future is the present, that one word that DEFINES another in your chosen thesaurus isn't a synonym.... even though its listed as a synonym in at least two other thesauruses*, you can't explain what you mean by danger, and you apparently cannot give me an example of something that IS an immediate danger by your reading.
Because this has nothing to do with danger. I have not once argued that an orc planning to ambush the players isn't a danger.
Imminent cannot refer to location, immediate can. The term imminent to my location makes no sense in English, but immediate to my location means right next to me.
< Past >< Present >< Future >
Immediate is the present. Imminent is the point where future and present touch. In other words, imminent is where the present ends and the future begins.
Immediate has multiple definitions. Immediate time is the present. Immediate proximity is right next to me.
The orc shooting an arrow at me is an immediate danger in that it is happening now.
Hanging over a pit of lava by my fingers is immediate danger in that the source of danger is very close to me in proximity.
A groups of orcs planning to ambush me is danger, but not right this moment.
Visiting a live volcano is dangerous, but observing lava from 200 feet away is not immediately dangerous.
The point is that in terms of immediate danger, both of these definitions matter.
An orc hiding behind a tree 100 feet away planning to ambush me is neither attacking me in present time nor are they physically near to me. By both definitions of the word, they are not an immediate danger.
That's because that physicist wasn't familiar with the axiom that all bounded monotonic sequences converge.
I think he was less familiar with the idea that "You have arms. Stick them out and take a slice. " Real situations don't always correspond with mathematical simulations.
Obviously Paizo is a paragon of grammar.
The words are synonymous. You're making a huge difference between the two when it doesn't exist.
Because the term the term immediate danger is a conjunction of immediate and danger. I can demonstrate that something is not an immediate danger by demonstrating that it is either not immediate OR a danger. I do not need to demonstrate that it is simultaneously not a danger and not immediate to demonstrate that it is not an immediate threat. Thus I can actually argue that something is not an immediate danger while fully conceding it being a danger or while fully conceding that it is immediate. [/logic]
When your definition of immediate means the present you have to exclude a danger which is a mere possibility from being a danger... which you haven't done. Without doing that what you are left with defining immediate as the present, but the orc assassin on the grassy gnoll is presently a danger.. making him an immediate danger even if he isn't immediately attacking.
The orc is shootING at me.
Ok, the orc takes half a second to aim, pulls the handle, the bolt takes a second to go through the air. This is an immediate danger. If the lava is 1 second away from our vulcanologist fighter, what's the difference?
He is correct.Using a word in the definition does not make is a synonym.....
And your explanation for it being listed as a synonym in 2 other thesauruses is....?
like imminent domain
Thats Eminent domain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
He is correct.Using a word in the definition does not make is a synonym.....And your explanation for it being listed as a synonym in 2 other thesauruses is....?
synonym, equivalent word (two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context)
Most thesauruses list synonyms. That's both full synonyms, and contextual synonyms. In certain contexts, Imminent and Immediate can be synonyms. They are not always synonyms.
In the context of dolphin research, dolphin and whale are synonyms. In the context of maritime research, they are not synonyms.
synonym, equivalent word (two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context)
Most thesauruses list synonyms. That's both full synonyms, and contextual synonyms. In certain contexts, Imminent and Immediate can be synonyms. They are not always synonyms.
In the context of dolphin research, dolphin and whale are synonyms. In the context of maritime research, they are not synonyms.
Since immediate is now and imminent is the very near future, there is a point where those two meet. If you are talking about that specific point in time, then and only then can immediate and imminent be used as synonyms. In any other context, they are not synonyms.
synonym, equivalent word (two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context)
-I have yet to see a situation or definition where the word "immediate" cannot apply to three seconds from now. Three seconds from now would be the immediate future. A reply you receive in 3 seconds would be immediate. The sheer sophistry of demanding that immediate means some sort of non existent zero time is simply amazing.
-I have yet to see a situation or definition where the word "immediate" cannot apply to three seconds from now. Three seconds from now would be the immediate future. A reply you receive in 3 seconds would be immediate. The sheer sophistry of demanding that immediate means some sort of non existent zero time is simply amazing.
Immediate actions actually occur before the triggering action. . . so effectively at time zero. But in terms of game logic, the trigger comes first, then the immediate action is inserted before the triggering action.
synonym, equivalent word (two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context)
-I have yet to see a situation or definition where the word "immediate" cannot apply to three seconds from now. Three seconds from now would be the immediate future. A reply you receive in 3 seconds would be immediate. The sheer sophistry of demanding that immediate means some sort of non existent zero time is simply amazing.
I never said 0 time. Not sure why you would put words in my mouth.
There is a difference between '3 seconds from now' and '60 seconds from now'. It's all relative to how long it takes.
For example, 3 seconds from now is immediate in PF because a combat round is 6 seconds, therefore it's happening 'now'.
60 seconds from now is 10 rounds in the future. If you are unaware of the ambushers, and they will not attack for another 10 rounds, then you can take 10 on anything that takes less than 10 rounds. For example, a perception check (which takes a standard action, < 1 round).
-I have yet to see a situation or definition where the word "immediate" cannot apply to three seconds from now. Three seconds from now would be the immediate future. A reply you receive in 3 seconds would be immediate. The sheer sophistry of demanding that immediate means some sort of non existent zero time is simply amazing.Immediate actions actually occur before the triggering action. . . so effectively at time zero. But in terms of game logic, the trigger comes first, then the immediate action is inserted before the triggering action.
By that logic i can become a 10th level fighter by walking up the steps to the wizards tower.
By that logic i can become a 10th level fighter by walking up the steps to the wizards tower.-I have yet to see a situation or definition where the word "immediate" cannot apply to three seconds from now. Three seconds from now would be the immediate future. A reply you receive in 3 seconds would be immediate. The sheer sophistry of demanding that immediate means some sort of non existent zero time is simply amazing.Immediate actions actually occur before the triggering action. . . so effectively at time zero. But in terms of game logic, the trigger comes first, then the immediate action is inserted before the triggering action.
I'm just talking about the rules for immediate actions. . . I'm not making up stuff (:
I never said 0 time. Not sure why you would put words in my mouth.
Because i thought that that's what you're arguing for.
There is a difference between '3 seconds from now' and '60 seconds from now'. It's all relative to how long it takes.For example, 3 seconds from now is immediate in PF because a combat round is 6 seconds, therefore it's happening 'now'.
60 seconds from now is 10 rounds in the future. If you are unaware of the ambushers, and they will not attack for another 10 rounds, then you can take 10 on anything that takes less than 10 rounds. For example, a perception check (which takes a standard action, < 1 round)
That's just it though. You can't establish that the attack will happen in X amount of time and X amount of time is immediate or not immediate because you don't know what X is until you make the check.
Another example :
Roger Rogue is attempting to use disable device to break into a store. Ninja Nancy is stealthing along rooftops, preparing to ambush Roger. Roger's disarm attempt is being made with a 'Take 10'. The GM has ruled that the disarm attempt, due to the complexity of the lock, will take 1 minute. That's 10 rounds.
Scenario 1 :
Roger starts his 'take 10' attempt on round 1. Ninja Nancy stealths up and drops down attacking Roger on round 9.
Roger has two options. He can continue picking the lock, but he can no longer take 10 (he's in immediate danger). He can however just roll normally, provoking attacks of opportunity if appropriate, and taking ac penalties to dex. Or, he can stop picking the lock to pull a weapon and attack Nancy in return.
Scenario 2 :
Roger starts his 'take 10' attempt on round 1. Ninja Nancy stealths up and drops down to attack Roger only once he opens the door and steps into the doorway. If he leaves or doesn't enter the shop, Nancy will not attack (she's a vigilante).
Nancy's action is waiting for him to complete his task. He is in imminent, but not immediate danger (Nancy is going to attack, but not until he finishes his take 10 attempt at picking the lock). In fact, if he fails and gives up and leaves, he's no longer in danger. He continues his take 10, and either succeeds and is ambushed, or fails and leaves and is safe.
I'm just talking about the rules for immediate actions. . . I'm not making up stuff (:
You are equivocating between an immediate action and an immediate danger because they use the same word.
Fun with synonyms
Quick synonym of express when referring to speed of delivery
Brown synonym of nut when referring to colors
fox synonym babe when referring to women
jumped synonym of richochet when referring to jumping or bouncing off of thing
over synonym of done when referring to the completion status of a task
Lazy synonym of weary when referring to the cause of the laziness
dog synonym of plague when referring used to describe how you chased someone
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
becomes
The express nut babe ricocheted done the weary plague.
That is what happens when grab a bunch of synonyms without accounting for context.
Long story short, be very cafeful of context when using synonyms.
I never said 0 time. Not sure why you would put words in my mouth.Because i thought that that's what you're arguing for.
Then may I suggest you read my posts more carefully?
That's just it though. You can't establish that the attack will happen in X amount of time and X amount of time is immediate or not immediate because you don't know what X is until you make the check.
There is a difference between '3 seconds from now' and '60 seconds from now'. It's all relative to how long it takes.For example, 3 seconds from now is immediate in PF because a combat round is 6 seconds, therefore it's happening 'now'.
60 seconds from now is 10 rounds in the future. If you are unaware of the ambushers, and they will not attack for another 10 rounds, then you can take 10 on anything that takes less than 10 rounds. For example, a perception check (which takes a standard action, < 1 round)
The GM had darn well better know what X is. That's your job! You need to assign a trigger event to the ambush, to adjudicate the rules. If the player says 'Take 10', it's your job to adjust that as needed. See my example above, where his take 10 is interrupted, and he's told he has to roll or change actions, for example.
This should only come up with things that take a long time. For things that take less than a round (like a standard action perception check), you can pretty much decide if he's in immediate or imminent rather easily. Are the ambushers going to attack this turn if he fails the check? If so, then Immediate. If not, then Imminent, but not immediate.
I'm just talking about the rules for immediate actions. . . I'm not making up stuff (:You are equivocating between an immediate action and an immediate danger because they use the same word.
My apologies, I'll try to find an example that more closely reflects the PF/D&D author's use of the word immediate q:
|
taking 10 is doing something with all your concentration and skill to do it right. Taking 20 is doing it over and over again until you have it perfect. (I wish that more people would take 20 when writing posts to the forums, rather then taking 10 or just hurrying (just rolling the die)).
Lets look at this from an office job point of view:
So, you are working at your desk, under no time limit you are likely to take a 20 on your work. You make create some bad code for example, but you take the time to fix it and correct the bugs that you can find.
If you have a time limit, but are pretty sure on yourself, you take a 10 on your work. Might not be your best, but it will get it done in the time limit and will work.
If you have a time limit and the boss standing over you, you take the roll . The boss is making you nervous so you may do things like: typo a password you type every day, mis-speak something into the phone, suddenly not find that file you use normally, etc..
If the boss is watching through the security cameras (you do not know that they are virtually standing over you), you are not worried and thus can take a 10 on the work.
synonym, equivalent word (two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context)
-I have yet to see a situation or definition where the word "immediate" cannot apply to three seconds from now. Three seconds from now would be the immediate future. A reply you receive in 3 seconds would be immediate. The sheer sophistry of demanding that immediate means some sort of non existent zero time is simply amazing.
If you I provoke an attack of opportunity, my attacker doesn't imminently get an free attack, they immediately get a free attack.
There, one case where you cannot use the words as synonyms, are we done here?
Actually, this brings up an interesting point. To perform a coup de grâce action, you need a full-round action. But in a surprise round, you only have a standard action. So, if an assassin sneaks up to your sleeping bed to cut your throat, how can he perform a coup de grâce during his surprise round? I guess do nothing in his surprise round. . . and deliver the coup de grâce on his first full turn? That's a little strange (:
You complete it the following turn.
Restricted Activity : In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below).
.....
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.
Hope you win initiative :P
I'm finding this starting to become comical. I'm actually going to toss in with allowing the PCs to take 10 as they are not yet under threat (or to use non game terminology, they have nothing stressing them).
I can calmly (take 10) weave a basket in flip-flops while a scorpion is crawling between my feet if I don't notice it. Once I do notice, I'm no longer calm and am now aware of the threat of being stung. The arguments I'm seeing to deny taking 10 on perception checks follow the logic that would keep me from weaving the basket regardless of my awards of the scorpion. It simply being present (using the same logic) prevents me from taking 10. *shake head* It just doesn't hold up in any real context.
Oddly, while I am weaving the basket I am distracted by that task and can't take a 10 on the passive check to notice the scorpion.
Then may I suggest you read my posts more carefully?
I tried asking what your basis for allowing the take 10 in the face of immediate danger and didn't get a response that answered that.
There is a difference between '3 seconds from now' and '60 seconds from now'. It's all relative to how long it takes.
In that we're agreed. What i said above was that tying a knot when the orcs are 1 hour away, take 10. Re shoe your horse when the orcs are an hour away, start rolling. The difference between the two is more metagamey and only for PC;s. If there are no orcs comming, i really don't care if the pc or npc shoes their horse or not, they just take 10, the story moves on. THe same thing happens when trying to start your car. Sometimes you need to give it a few tries, but most of the time you just put it out of your mind because it doesn't matter. But when the psyco in the hockey mask is banging on your door, THEN it matters and then you make the reliability roll.
For example, 3 seconds from now is immediate in PF because a combat round is 6 seconds, therefore it's happening 'now'.
While i agree that 3 seconds from now is immediate, I don't see anything giving that time frame.
60 seconds from now is 10 rounds in the future. If you are unaware of the ambushers, and they will not attack for another 10 rounds, then you can take 10 on anything that takes less than 10 rounds. For example, a perception check (which takes a standard action, < 1 round)
But you have to determine awareness of the ambushers first, you're figuring that out last.
The GM had darn well better know what X is. That's your job! You need to assign a trigger event to the ambush, to adjudicate the rules. If the player says 'Take 10', it's your job to adjust that as needed.
If you tell players to pick up the dice its too late to pretend that something isn't comming. I outlined before how i go about determining X based on the spot rolls. Those that rolled high will be rewarded, those that roll low will be at the mercy of the DM. I like giving players the chance to be creative , avoid ambushes, ambush the ambushers, or simply nuke the ambushers from orbit.
No one's ever asked to take 10, and arguing "I'm not in immediate danger" with the dm is a good way to BE in immediate danger.
See my example above, where his take 10 is interrupted, and he's told he has to roll or change actions, for example.
I would say, ok, take 10 on the search..." look "ok, take ten on the disable device... ok, now roll (don't tell him what).. muahahahahahaha... SURPRISE NINJA! *they fight* rogue goes back to lock, resumes taking 10, and i assume if he had 1 round left it takes another 2 to 3 rounds worth of being interupted.
This should only come up with things that take a long time. For things that take less than a round (like a standard action perception check), you can pretty much decide if he's in immediate or imminent rather easily. Are the ambushers going to attack this turn if he fails the check? If so, then Immediate. If not, then Imminent, but not immediate.
Yeah, considering MY OPPONENTS choice of thesaurus used 1 to define the other , the difference between immediate and immanent isn't a a valid issue at this point. Immediate means immediate: soon. I'm using the word as its used in English, defined, and understood, not twisting it into some bizzare amalgamation of english and quantum physics. I don't see why 3 seconds would be immediate but 6 seconds wouldn't be, particularly when its an unknown. Lets say you're going to have the ambushers shoot the first thing they see. When do they see someone? THath depends on the spot and stealth checks.
Even without LOS the party gets a perception check. Perception also includes hearing, which goes around corners.(if you want to decide that the rules don't say hearing goes around corners, don't bother responding)
Sorry, I don't remember saying that perception didn't include hearing and I don't see how you inferred that I meant that from what I said.
The monsters can PLAN when they would like to attack.
For the most part the point of an ambush is to not attack. Not attack right away. If you were planing an attack you might very well start your sentence with the words "Don't attack" followed by the word "Until."
Ok. For the umpteenth time, danger does NOT. I repeat, NOT mean the certainty of immanent harm.If you don't like the definition from dictionary.com i suggest you look for a definition to use that agrees with you but you'll have a hell of a time finding one.
I didn't give a definition of danger I gave an example. Here is another example form merriam-webster:
<a place where children could play without danger>
A child could play in a place with danger. I grew up in a few bad neighborhoods we still played hide and seek and we still ran away when we were in Immediate danger but when we weren't in immediate danger we "take 20" on our Perception checks.
False dichotomy. Either it's 1) take 10 or 2) allow multiple rerolls. This is a choice that simply doesn't exist.Which choice doesn't exist? I didn't mention every choice: is this what by "False dichotomy." I assumed that you know that you have other choices:
It is important to note that combat limits options. Any action you can preform in combat you can preform out of combat.
Out of combat virtually anything can be attempted.
The party is nearing an ambush. They make perception rolls, the ambushers make stealth rolls. Figure out the bonus for the stealthers being around a corner and have at it.
And this is a good way of doing an ambush! But players actions can make such a scenario more complicated.
If a players knows Bandits are in the forest and he might walk through the forest really slowly(taking 20 on perception.) He might not see the ambushers(taking 20 on stealth.)
It's metagaming on the players part to say "oh, the dm asked for a roll, i'm going to stop here and keep rolling" The DM doesn't have to allow that, and shouldnt....
Your right you can always use the whole deus ex machina: "I am GM hear me rule!" In fact you can use it so much that your have no problems because you don't have any more players. It's always better to find a solution within the rules.
It's strange that were arguing about perception because thats exactly what where talking about perception. If the adventures don't perceive that they are in immediate danger then they should be presented with all options that are available to someone who isn't in immediate. Someone who isn't in combat can try anything. Including taking 10 or taking 20.
The arguments I'm seeing to deny taking 10 on perception checks follow the logic that would keep me from weaving the basket regardless of my awards of the scorpion. It simply being present (using the same logic) prevents me from taking 10. *shake head* It just doesn't hold up in any real context.
Oddly, while I am weaving the basket I am distracted by that task and can't take a 10 on the passive check to notice the scorpion.
The main point against taking 10 to spot an ambush is that it is clearly against the raw. This is a minor thing for me. FORCING players to take ten on the other hand, is outright cheese.
That the raw allows for some rather odd things (peasant rail guns, water breathing dolphins, the bag of rats 2.0) is simply a given and doesn't change that it is the raw. The question becomes what to do about it?
In the case of the basket making Schrodinger's scorpion, i would say that you do not make the check until after you have finished the basket. You announce your INTENT to take 10 and start to work for X number of hours. If for some reason you are interrupted (like noticing the scorpion) you might have to make a check in order to avoid ruining your work: i had a similar incident carving a walking stick next to a lake when a snake climbed out of the water and decided my black sweatpants were the warmest thing he'd seen in months: i almost lost the leaf i was carving a finger and my bladder control in the same shot.
Then may I suggest you read my posts more carefully?I tried asking what your basis for allowing the take 10 in the face of immediate danger and didn't get a response that answered that.
I see what you did there. :) Have you stopped beating your wife yet? What you did there was phrase the question so there is no way to answer it without you being able to twist the answer into your preferred method. That's why I didn't respond to it. It doesn't deserve a response. I don't allow someone to take 10 in the face of immediate danger.
The problem is, you have decided your interpretation of what is Immediate is the only correct one, and therefore challenge everyone to prove why the rules are not being followed by them. That's a fallacy of logic. Basically, you are creating your own world and then demanding everyone use your logic.
I refuse to do so. My objection is, and has been, all along that your interpretation of what is 'immediate' or 'immenent' is borked. Your inability to respond to that is why this argument has gone on. I tell you your interpretation is borked, you respond that rules say no take 10 in immediate so justify taking 10 in immediate danger, completely ignoring the objection that was raised.
There is a difference between '3 seconds from now' and '60 seconds from now'. It's all relative to how long it takes.In that we're agreed. What i said above was that tying a knot when the orcs are 1 hour away, take 10. Re shoe your horse when the orcs are an hour away, start rolling. The difference between the two is more metagamey and only for PC;s. If there are no orcs comming, i really don't care if the pc or npc shoes their horse or not, they just take 10, the story moves on. THe same thing happens when trying to start your car. Sometimes you need to give it a few tries, but most of the time you just put it out of your mind because it doesn't matter. But when the psyco in the hockey mask is banging on your door, THEN it matters and then you make the reliability roll.
Nope, the PC can take ten on the shoeing of the horse. However, when the orcs arrive and he's only done with the first 3 shoes, he now has to make a choice. He can continue shoeing the horse, and roll, or he can stop to attack the orcs. The fact the orcs are an hour away has nothing to do with his declared action and how it's adjudicated. If it takes an hour to reshoe the horse, and it takes the orcs 1 hour and 5 minutes to get there, then he can take 10 on the reshoeing. If it takes 45 minutes for the orcs to get there, he can't finish the job in time taking 10. He didn't rush the job (which would require a roll), so he can't complete it in time. That's just how the breaks go. If I decide to take my time working up some code, and I don't get it done in time, that was my choice to take my time. If I rush through it I might get it done in time, or I might write something with a bug in it (the shoe falls off in mid gallop later).
For example, 3 seconds from now is immediate in PF because a combat round is 6 seconds, therefore it's happening 'now'.While i agree that 3 seconds from now is immediate, I don't see anything giving that time frame.
Then please go back and read your quote, you used the phrase '3 seconds' first. I can't help it if you can't keep track of your own posts. I did quote it to try to help.
60 seconds from now is 10 rounds in the future. If you are unaware of the ambushers, and they will not attack for another 10 rounds, then you can take 10 on anything that takes less than 10 rounds. For example, a perception check (which takes a standard action, < 1 round)But you have to determine awareness of the ambushers first, you're figuring that out last.
No, you are completely going 180 degrees. I am referring to the ambushees, not the ambushers. Why do I need to determine the awareness of the ambushers? They make their take 10 perception check to notice the ambushee's coming into their ambush. As long as they are aware of the ambushee's, they can specify their ambush to take place at any point in time they choose. As the GM, if you are running the ambushers, it is YOUR responsibility to determine when they plan to attack. That could be 'When the first ambushee walks under that oak limb', or it could be 'in 10 rounds', or it could be 'when the next cloud covers the moon'. Either way you want to do it, you need to determine that. Once determined, then the players can 'take 10' on perception checks up until that point. Heck, they can take 10 on anything up until that point. If they are in the middle of a take 10 when the ambush occurs, their take 10 attempt is ruined, and then they either stop their skill check, or they make a normal roll. The reason they know they have to make the check is they got attacked for freaks sake. Basically, the ambushers have to be aware before they can ambush, so I never bothered explicitely stating they were aware. An ambusher, by deffinition, is aware he is ambushing. Otherwise it's just a random surprise encounter for both parties.
The GM had darn well better know what X is. That's your job! You need to assign a trigger event to the ambush, to adjudicate the rules. If the player says 'Take 10', it's your job to adjust that as needed.If you tell players to pick up the dice its too late to pretend that something isn't comming. I outlined before how i go about determining X based on the spot rolls. Those that rolled high will be rewarded, those that roll low will be at the mercy of the DM. I like giving players the chance to be creative , avoid ambushes, ambush the ambushers, or simply nuke the ambushers from orbit.
No one's ever asked to take 10, and arguing "I'm not in immediate danger" with the dm is a good way to BE in immediate danger.
Not sure what you are talking about. If the player is not under attack, and won't be for longer than it takes to 'take 10' on the check, then he's allowed to. If he can't, you just nod and continue on until the situation changes, then you tell the character 'Your take 10 was interrupted by this ambush, you'll have to roll instead'. How hard is that to grasp?
See my example above, where his take 10 is interrupted, and he's told he has to roll or change actions, for example.
I would say, ok, take 10 on the search..." look "ok, take ten on the disable device... ok, now roll (don't tell him what).. muahahahahahaha... SURPRISE NINJA! *they fight* rogue goes back to lock, resumes taking 10, and i assume if he had 1 round left it takes another 2 to 3 rounds worth of being interupted.
Not bad. I'm assuming the roll is for perception to notice the ninja about to attack? And I also assume it's on Scenario 1, not scenario 2? That's a perfectly valid and sensible rulling. I am rather surprised by it, since your posts up until now indicated you would not have allowed the take 10. My question is this, if the player had decided not to fight, but to finish the picking first, would you have had him roll his check? If so, then we're both on the same page, and we're just having an issue with communications.
The other situation is the one I think we disagree on though. By my reading of your previous posts, if the Ninja was not going to attack until and unless he finished picking the lock, or she was going to attack 3 rounds after he finishes with the lock, then you would not allow the take 10 for the rogue. That is where we differ, if that's the case.
This should only come up with things that take a long time. For things that take less than a round (like a standard action perception check), you can pretty much decide if he's in immediate or imminent rather easily. Are the ambushers going to attack this turn if he fails the check? If so, then Immediate. If not, then Imminent, but not immediate.
Yeah, considering MY OPPONENTS choice of thesaurus used 1 to define the other , the difference between immediate and immanent isn't a a valid issue at this point. Immediate means immediate: soon. I'm using the word as its used in English, defined, and understood, not twisting it into some bizzare amalgamation of english and quantum physics. I don't see why 3 seconds would be immediate but 6 seconds wouldn't be, particularly when its an unknown.
Within game, a combat round is 6 seconds long. Anything that happens this round is immediate. Anything that happens next round or later is imminent. It is likely to happen, but it might not! For example, a dragon is roaring at your PC, and he just landed next to you. Next round, you are in imminent danger of being on the receiving end of a full attack. You are not in immediate danger of it happening, because he can't perform a full attack this round. If a mage hits him with a buff that reduces him to a standard action, or if the mage teleports you both away from the dragon, then the imminent danger of the full attack goes away, to be replaced by no danger or danger of a standard attack, depending on which of the two I dilineated above happens.
Lets say you're going to have the ambushers shoot the first thing they see. When do they see someone? THath depends on the spot and stealth checks.
I agree completely on the last part. In fact, I specified that, the GM has to decide what the ambushers do, and what triggers their attack. For example, the PCs could be moving cross country, using take 10 on stealths. The ambushers could be waiting, taking 10 on perceptions. Where does the ambush occur? When the ambusher's highest perception + 10 - range penalties equals or exceeds the lowest stealth + 10 of the PCs.
Okay craft is a bad example but bring up the same for
The pesent railgun!? The only thing the pesent railgun does is move an object quickly from one point to another, it does no damage in the same RAW that allows it, as was originally attempted back on the C.O. boards.
How dismissive, using superposition to shrug off a point that can be demonstrated in real world experiments. We are not discussing particle physics but human(oid) psychology.
Your ambushers are "Schrodinger" ambushers, with their nebulous intent imparting behavior into the situation that only obfuscates the situation. Change who the ambushers will attack, they intend to attack anyone but the PCs. Do the PCs suddenly get to take 10s if the GM calls for them? Seems hyper situational and dependent on the outside forces perspective of "the box."
RAW doesn't make this clear, which is why there is an argument. I see and read nothing in RAW that clearly calls out that I should disregard real world execution (as the readied action hyperpassing pesents do). Personlly if I can fiddle with context as above and get a different outcome then something is likely wrong with the postulate it derives from.
If you base on the ambushers it depends on who they wish to attack. If you base on the ambushies it is when they become aware of a threat.
If they take 10 at spot and stealth, and fail stealth before spot succeeds, then the ambush will happen with surprise. If a member of the party spots the ambush, and gestures the rest of the party to stop, then whispers or something that there is an ambush ahead, then the party can all prepare actions or attack. Is that it?