|
Aww geez, you would ask me that.
In my spotty memory, generally speaking one side or the other ambushes, so that one side gets the surprise round. A lot of times both sides perceive and react to each other at the same time, so we just go with regular initiative.
The few times someone starts combat after both sides have recognized each other, but not initiated combat, it's just that one guy that gets the surprise round.
Think of it like the Mexican standoffs you see all the time in movies. Everyone is ready to go, but don't know if/when it will actually start. Then someone bumps a glass or makes some other loud noise and everyone starts shooting. (Regular initiative.) Or both sides are arguing, people are trying to calm things down, and one noob fires off a shot. (Surprise round.) Everyone looks shocked, and all hell breaks loose. (Regular initiative.)
I usually don't have to say it's a surprise round, because it's just one attack. So we resolve that and then move on with regular combat.
False. He is my enemy, but he can't be my opponent
Enemies aren't opponents? They are using your own definition. They're fighting, right now. Thus the combat rounds and all that.
How can I be the opponent of someone that is thousands of miles away in a bunker, and I don't know where he is? You have a very strange understanding of the word "opponent".
Quite easily. People are opponents online every day--in games, in internet chats. it would be fair to say that you and I are opponents in this discussion. If I met you on the street, we would be opponents by definition, but I would not know that you were my opponent.
The game's definition of opponent here is not limited to the characters' knowledge. Awareness is--that's separate from opponent. You're adding a second awareness requirement.
So... you're saying I'm right then? You just said that he is absolutely my opponent, but that if one of us attacked the other without the other knowing, we'd be surprised.
No, now I'm using the "awareness" mechanic. You would not be aware of his presence or attack.
Look man, you're still not explaining why my reading makes no sense.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think everyone is correct on this issue. The rules don't spell out this issue in detail because to do so would hamper the ability of a GM to adjudicate the rules for situations that the game designers couldn't have thought of. This allows the GM to improvise and think on the fly. So if he situation calls for everyone to roll initiative, thy can; or the situation calls for a bluff check to see who hits first. This is why computers make poor GMs.
As far as the OP is concerned: the correct answer is that there really isn't one single answer because the definition is fluid based on THAT particular situation.
setzer, big thanks for picking up the torch while I was away.
I think I'm caught up and it seems that Big M is missing the larger point. The issue between you and he isn't definition, but about whether the rules should be applied to the PC/NPC's objectively or subjectively. When the phrase "aware of your opponents" is read, it's read either in the objective sense (they are opponents whether they realize it or not and thus awareness must apply only to perception of presence) or in the subjective sense (he's my opponent, but he doesn't think I'm his opponent, and thus awareness applies not just to the perception of presence but also perception of opposition). It is because we're discussing "awareness" that setzer, I, and others have been reading it as a subjective ruling (from the perspective of the observing [N]PC) and not in the objective sense (third person, omniscient).
Using setzer's earlier example:
"An old man is standing on the side of the road. A young man walks up next to him. The old man sees the young man standing there. They stand in silence."
From the objective viewpoint, if either of them intends harm to the other and the other intends to contest that outcome, then they are both opponents. We also have many possible subjective viewpoints, but the two we're primarily interested in are of those who would be participants in such a contest. In that case, if the young man intends harm to the old man, he clearly perceives the old man as his opponent (he is aware of the opposition). But unless he makes the old man aware of his intention (by attacking or taking an action that indicates he is about to attack), the old man is not aware of any opposition. Those of us reading the rules about "being aware" understand that to be an inherently subjective concept and interpret the rest of the sentences in that context.
That said, if you don't wish to see the rules as being subjectively applicable to each PC and NPC as seems obvious to me, I won't begrudge that position. It's your choice, clearly. It is just my opinion that your reading is poorer in both judgment and realism, and is inconsistent with the notion of surprise.
For example, according to your reading, no group is likely to ever get a surprise ambush on another group. Let me try to explain. Let's say two groups (A and B) have been meeting together for years making a trade of contraband for gold. It is always the same. Both sides bring 10 men. Both sides always come armed with swords and crossbows (to protect themselves and the meeting from third parties). Neither side has a weapon "at the ready", because they don't like that level of tension. Only this time, one of those two groups of 10 decides they want to take everything at the meeting for themselves. So, they have a pre-arranged signal. As soon as the money changes hands, all of the men in group A are going to pull up their crossbows and shoot the men in group B. According to your reading, everyone rolls for intitiative. In most cases, this should lead to a fairly average diffusion of results with half of each group going before the other half of each group.
Now, obviously, this can be explained as Group A giving it away - one guy is a little twitchy or the guys in Group B just responded really fast. Whatever. The point is, for a group to truly suprise another group and to get the drop on them by prearranged signal or prearranged time is out of the question. Someone in the ambushing group will almost always "give it away" and cause an early actor in Group B. I don't like the result of that reading of the rules.
If they are not friends they don't get trusted. I don't care if we meet 1000 times. Business is Business only. Greed makes people do strange things, and in a fantasy setting so can magic. We will always be ready for a fight.
^That is how I am now in my games, and I don't even allow the ambushes to work like you are suggesting. If the rules worked that I would use even more strict protocols.
As to some random person on the street stabbing you I can understand, but I can also see why a GM would not allow that either.
This concept of trust is listed nowhere in the rules. I can see, as a DM, using "trust" as a determining factor when judging what checks are needed, but it certainly isn't RAW. Which sounds like you're a convert. :)
|
Raw only states the following on determining awareness of an opponent:
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
That second part (that I bolded) makes any check that the GM calls for (sense motive, any knowledge, etc) to know if the person you are facing is an opponent RAW. It also suggests that knowing someone is an opponent is more then just sensing them (perception check) in their hiding spot.
Calling for something like a Sense Motive check is not a house rule. It is left as a possibility in the RAW, without needing to have a book larger then an encyclopedia set. (See Star Fleet Battles)