|
Post by derv on Mar 6, 2018 6:18:05 GMT -6
I personally make a distinction between flight and evasion. I do not look at them as synonymous. The evasion rules actually allow a party to avoid an encounter all together in some circumstances. I tend to favor the party seeing first in these cases and asking what they want to do- will they attempt to evade. Then I check if they will be pursued- telling me if they've been sighted.
So, I'm pretty loose in viewing distances as "sighting". I simply assume awareness that something is there or a broader picture such as a corner tower or upper battlements of a keep coming into view through the trees. I view distance without surprise the same way in the dungeon, I assume awareness that something is coming their way if it is outside of visibility for any reason.
{edit:} This was a quick comment I threw out there this morning as I was rushing out the door. Now that I read it again, it seems out of place. Basically, Ways comment about distances not over lapping in the wilderness got me thinking. The minimum distance of 4" falls outside of the rules predefined melee distance- seems to me to be purposeful. Maybe to encourage the use of the evasion rules.
I'm not sure how many use the evasion rules btb. I don't. I've modified the probabilities to fit my own predilections of reasonable results based on party sizes pursuing and evading. To me, evasion allows the possibility of skulking away or hiding undetected, avoiding the encounter all together. In these cases the party does not move out of the hex. If detected and pursued, the party can still attempt to flee in a random direction with a high chance of getting lost. Movement rates are used to determine ones chance of escape (as presented under pursuit). Chance of continued pursuit is modified each turn based upon terrain and number of hexes moved (and some GM fiat). If caught, distance is short and melee is established where necessary.
As stated, surprise negates a parties chance of evasion. If the monster is surprised, it can double a parties chance of escape using one hex of flight (evasion is not possible because distance is short).
Anyway, that's how I do it.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 6, 2018 9:34:12 GMT -6
One possibility for the Wyvern's extra attack is that the outcome of the surprise die roll is also being used as the outcome for the initiative die roll. The surprise roll *is* the initiative roll. If the party is surprised, they must have rolled a 1 or 2 in 6. If the Wyvern is not surprised it must have rolled a 3-6 on the surprise roll. Therefore, the Wyvern has a higher d6 roll so it gets to attack first. But since the party is also surprised the Wyvern gets a bonus action. If, for example, the party had rolled a 3 and the Wyvern a 4-6, it would have gone first, but without the benefit of surprise. So, when an encounter occurs, each side rolls a d6. Highest number goes first (as in Chainmail, pg 9). But if a 1 or 2 is rolled, that side is also surprised and the other side gets an extra action before they go first. The outcome (automatic initiative following surprise) is the same as what Delta wrote here (and was linked by graelth in the first post in this thread), I'm just postulating a possible reason for this: deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/09/surprise.htmlYou can picture the development of this. Start with a d6 roll to see who attacks first, and then decide to integrate a mechanism for surprise into it. "Oh, you rolled a 1 or 2 on your d6 roll, that's such a low roll that you must be surprised, so your opponent gets a free action before their normal attack". Great idea Zac and it makes a lot of sense. Wasn't something the old boys were doing, but hey, it's a solid shortcut. You could actually use that to combine three rolls into one (d6 initiative, surprise, and distance). I'm also struck at how this provides yet another line of evidence against the insistence that the 3lbb's were written under the assumption of a silent d6 initiative rubric. If 1973 D&D were played with a d6 initiative die, then there is no reason at all for a separate surprise die to ever be invented in the first place. As you point out a low roll on an initiative die might readily bee seen to have a bad consequence like being surprised. One would think the rule that would have arisen would have been something like "If either side rolls a 1 or 2 on their initiative die, then they are surprised." Rolling a second die for surprise would simply be redundant and unnecessary, yet roll distinct surprise die they did, and even continue to do in AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 6, 2018 17:29:53 GMT -6
About combining surprise and initiative: How would you handle later developments of the surprise roll in OD&D?
1. Greyhawk: A bugbear's chance of surprise is increased to 4 in 6. This is expanded to characters able to move quietly (such as thieves) per the Monk description in Blackmoor.
2. Blackmoor: Monks are surprised on a 1 in 6, and then it improves from there. . .
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 6, 2018 18:51:03 GMT -6
One would think the rule that would have arisen would have been something like "If either side rolls a 1 or 2 on their initiative die, then they are surprised." That is what happens, isn't it? Surprise grants initiative. The method of determination (rolling a d6 for each party involved) is identical. What is different is a new concept being introduced- the idea of surprise. It happens 33% of the time when conditions exist. A low roll doesn't just have you go last, it has you lose a turn (move). peterlind , we could conclude from this discussion something like: 1. Roll a d6 for both parties involved. >>a. if a 1-2 results on either roll, distance is 10-30 feet.* >>b. if a result of 3-6 occurs on both rolls, distance is 20-80 feet* and high roll goes first. *distance can be determined by rolling 1d3 x 10 or 2d4 x 10 (or use aldarron's idea) 2. When surprise occurs: >>a. surprised party loses a turn (move or round of action) >>b. non surprised party can: >>>>1. close distance >>>>2. attack >>>>3. flee >>>>4. cast spells 3. If non surprised party attacks/charges during surprise round: >>a. They have initiative (i.e. they are the attacker as presented in Chainmail) >>b. As attacker, they gain first position on the following round of melee >>c. Surprised party, as defender, can then respond with a counter attack >>d. Follow as is by performing up to 10 rounds of melee until a party is eliminated or forced to retreat (morale).
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 7, 2018 7:18:14 GMT -6
One would think the rule that would have arisen would have been something like "If either side rolls a 1 or 2 on their initiative die, then they are surprised." That is what happens, isn't it? Surprise grants initiative. No. Surprise causes the loss of a turn.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2018 8:24:42 GMT -6
No. Surprise causes the loss of a turn. You posted while I was editing previous post. See my comments above. I will add my own house rules to the above: 1.If both parties are surprised, both lose an action/turn. -on a role of 1, lose one move (opponent gains one move). -on a role of 2, lose two moves (opponent gains two moves). *in this case rolling high is not an advantage. A person could flip flop this if they chose. The idea is to subtract the results where both are surprised so one side could still gain the advantage of a free move. If the results cancel out, neither gains an advantage, but distance is short. Determine each parties intent. -If you ignore this house rule, high role can still determine who goes first even when both parties are surprised. 2. Tied initiative rolls= simultaneous actions. -In cases of melee, both sides get an attack and the results are put into effect even if party is eliminated during that round.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 7, 2018 10:44:27 GMT -6
What if three or four parties are involved? Losing a turn is not the same as losing initiative.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 7, 2018 11:25:24 GMT -6
Let's explore something else concerning surprise, evasion, and pursuit.
When an encounter is indicated, both sides check for surprise. If either side is surprised, the rules say, encounter distance is 10–30 feet.
Except surprise requires being unaware of the other party's presence at the moment of encounter. If we suppose the monsters are surprised and the party is not, that means that although the rule says if one side is surprised distance is 10–30 feet, that can only mean that's the point at which both sides become aware of each other. The players can see monsters from 20–80 feet if they're not surprised. The only logical conclusion is that if players are not surprised but monsters are, then players will first become aware of monsters at 20–80 feet, and if the distance is 40–80 feet, then the monsters are, by definition, completely unaware of the players.
The players may then do whatever they like so long as they don't alert the monster to their presence. They can leave, and the monster will not pursue. They can attack from long range, in which case the monsters will be pincushions for one combat round before they can react at all. They can close the distance, in which case that's their surprise action, and the next round begins already in melee and rolls for initiative (or whatever method you use to determine first strike).
But notice that there is no possibility, according to a strict interpretation of the text, for a monster to surprise players and then attack at long range. Monsters surprising players always appear at 10–30 feet. Is this an oversight? Are the rules asymmetrical in favor of players? I think it's just a simplification in a condensed text; they weren't about to explain every possible option. Up until the moment the players become aware of a monster, whether an encounter even exists or not, let alone the monster's tactics, are completely up to the whim of the referee.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2018 11:45:21 GMT -6
What if three or four parties are involved? Losing a turn is not the same as losing initiative. I'm not sure that I see a problem. Maybe you could give me an example to work out.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2018 12:00:15 GMT -6
Let's explore something else concerning surprise, evasion, and pursuit. When an encounter is indicated, both sides check for surprise. If either side is surprised, the rules say, encounter distance is 10–30 feet. Except surprise requires being unaware of the other party's presence at the moment of encounter. If we suppose the monsters are surprised and the party is not, that means that although the rule says if one side is surprised distance is 10–30 feet, that can only mean that's the point at which both sides become aware of each other. The players can see monsters from 20–80 feet if they're not surprised. The only logical conclusion is that if players are not surprised but monsters are, then players will first become aware of monsters at 20–80 feet, and if the distance is 40–80 feet, then the monsters are, by definition, completely unaware of the players. The players may then do whatever they like so long as they don't alert the monster to their presence. They can leave, and the monster will not pursue. They can attack from long range, in which case the monsters will be pincushions for one combat round before they can react at all. They can close the distance, in which case that's their surprise action, and the next round begins already in melee and rolls for initiative (or whatever method you use to determine first strike). But notice that there is no possibility, according to a strict interpretation of the text, for a monster to surprise players and then attack at long range. Monsters surprising players always appear at 10–30 feet. Is this an oversight? Are the rules asymmetrical in favor of players? I think it's just a simplification in a condensed text; they weren't about to explain every possible option. Up until the moment the players become aware of a monster, whether an encounter even exists or not, let alone the monster's tactics, are completely up to the whim of the referee. I think I could deal with a GM running it this way. You're giving a party a better chance of avoidance. It also permits them an opportunity to set up an ambush, if they like. It would seem to be up to the GM if he would let them wait until short range to use their free move.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Mar 7, 2018 16:04:20 GMT -6
Ok here are some examples of possible surprise situations. For each, please tell me how you would rule who rolls for surprise (or if a surprise roll is even warranted). Each case assumes a party adventuring in a dungeon underworld:
1. A party comes upon a great cavern with a sleeping dragon. The dragon is still sleeping . . . 2. The party has been creating noise in the dungeon, trying to bash down a door nearby. 4 hobgoblin guards are in a chamber behind a dungeon door, waiting for the party to come. The party listens at the door and hears nothing. They then push through the door . . 3. The party comes to a dungeon door and listen at the door. They can hear orcs engaged in a loud, boisterous game of knucklebones. The orcs are unaware of the party as they push through the door . . . 4. The party rests in a dungeon room. The GM secretly rolls a wandering monster encounter. . . .
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2018 16:08:11 GMT -6
About combining surprise and initiative: How would you handle later developments of the surprise roll in OD&D? 1. Greyhawk: A bugbear's chance of surprise is increased to 4 in 6. This is expanded to characters able to move quietly (such as thieves) per the Monk description in Blackmoor. 2. Blackmoor: Monks are surprised on a 1 in 6, and then it improves from there. . . It's not clear who you are asking this question of. I don't incorporate much from any of the supplements in my games. I don't alter the bugbears chance to surprise. If I did, the only time it would create a question is if the bugbear rolled a "3" and the party rolled a "4". This means the party loses a turn and the bugbear gets a free move. If he attacks, I would give him second position on the following round (party would go first). If they both rolled "4's", party would be surprised and lose a move. The following rounds would be considered simultaneous and both would get to act. This is how I would handle it without my house rules. Of course, a person could give the bugbear up to 4 surprise move segments if they were inclined What I think aldarron is saying is that melee did not unfold in the original games as many are use to. Generally, players would be given the benefit of acting first. The caveat was surprise. If the party was surprised and the monster wasn't, the monster got to act first. Whoever the first aggressor was, that's who was considered the attacker (according to CM M2M). Most of the time monsters attack. The other factor was that combat was handled in real time. The GM would determine who was closest to the action and say, "go" as he pointed at you. If you hesitated or took too long to tell him what you were doing you lost your turn, on to the next guy, or you just got smacked by the monster. What was likely more heavily considered when determining who went first was your marching order and whether a missile weapon could be brought to bear. So, ultimately, no d6 initiative as we have come to know it. All this is understandable. It may all be very true or at least contain some truth. But, is it supported by what is written? IMO, not really- not all together. This might have something to do with Gary attempting to market the game to wargamers. Some enjoy the idea of replicating the original style of play. Others enjoy attempting to play the game as written. Both open the door to asking what was originally intended. In either case you are likely to be told the intent is to make the game your own. When necessary make a judgement that seems right to you and those you game with.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2018 16:28:19 GMT -6
Ok here are some examples of possible surprise situations. For each, please tell me how you would rule who rolls for surprise (or if a surprise roll is even warranted). Each case assumes a party adventuring in a dungeon underworld: 1. A party comes upon a great cavern with a sleeping dragon. The dragon is still sleeping . . . 2. The party has been creating noise in the dungeon, trying to bash down a door nearby. 4 hobgoblin guards are in a chamber behind a dungeon door, waiting for the party to come. The party listens at the door and hears nothing. They then push through the door . . 3. The party comes to a dungeon door and listen at the door. They can hear orcs engaged in a loud, boisterous game of knucklebones. The orcs are unaware of the party as they push through the door . . . 4. The party rests in a dungeon room. The GM secretly rolls a wandering monster encounter. . . . 1. I would use the Sleeping Dragon rule found in M&T. It's pretty much surprise. 2. Yes for party. 3. Maybe. Probably not. "Generally, doors will not open by turning the handle or by a push. Doors must be forced open..." 4. Maybe. Need more info. Are they awake and resting 10 minutes? Is there a spotter? Or are they totally oblivious to their surroundings? Is the room illuminated? Is it an open room or does it have doors.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 7, 2018 21:17:53 GMT -6
Others enjoy attempting to play the game as written. The trouble here is that it was clearly written as a set of ideas, not a comprehensive set of rules. No one was ever meant to just do everything the text said, so it wasn't written carefully enough to use it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 7, 2018 21:27:16 GMT -6
1. A party comes upon a great cavern with a sleeping dragon. The dragon is still sleeping . . . A sleeping anything is automatically surprised, and the dragon will remain asleep unless the party does anything to disturb it. The party might roll for surprise, but this is kind of pointless, as a surprised party will, presumably, not wake the dragon. Once the dragon wakes, however, it does not roll for surprise; no double-jeopardy! The party rolls for surprise normally. The hobgoblins cannot be surprised. Assuming the party opens the door on the first try, the orcs roll for surprise normally. The party cannot be surprised. If they fail to open the door on the first try, no one can be surprised. Assuming neither side is being particularly noticeable, both sides roll for surprise.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2018 16:18:33 GMT -6
The trouble here is that it was clearly written as a set of ideas, not a comprehensive set of rules. Interesting. Are you saying OD&D as published is not a playable game?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2018 17:09:09 GMT -6
Let's explore something else concerning surprise, evasion, and pursuit. When an encounter is indicated, both sides check for surprise. If either side is surprised, the rules say, encounter distance is 10–30 feet. Except surprise requires being unaware of the other party's presence at the moment of encounter. If we suppose the monsters are surprised and the party is not, that means that although the rule says if one side is surprised distance is 10–30 feet, that can only mean that's the point at which both sides become aware of each other. The players can see monsters from 20–80 feet if they're not surprised. The only logical conclusion is that if players are not surprised but monsters are, then players will first become aware of monsters at 20–80 feet, and if the distance is 40–80 feet, then the monsters are, by definition, completely unaware of the players. The players may then do whatever they like so long as they don't alert the monster to their presence. They can leave, and the monster will not pursue. They can attack from long range, in which case the monsters will be pincushions for one combat round before they can react at all. They can close the distance, in which case that's their surprise action, and the next round begins already in melee and rolls for initiative (or whatever method you use to determine first strike). But notice that there is no possibility, according to a strict interpretation of the text, for a monster to surprise players and then attack at long range. Monsters surprising players always appear at 10–30 feet. Is this an oversight? Are the rules asymmetrical in favor of players? I think it's just a simplification in a condensed text; they weren't about to explain every possible option. Up until the moment the players become aware of a monster, whether an encounter even exists or not, let alone the monster's tactics, are completely up to the whim of the referee. I think it's pretty plainly just a case of the simple description (which is sufficient for the majority of cases) not considering all of the possible options (or not considering it worth the space and effort to detail all of them). If both parties are surprised it makes sense that the encounter distance is reduced to the point where they become aware of each other. Likewise if one party gains surprise and uses that advantage to close to melee range and attack it makes sense that the other party wouldn't become aware until the attackers are almost right on top of them. The third case - one party gains surprise but does not decide to close to attack - ether wan't considered or wasn't considered worth dealing with. Theoretically a monster that gains surprise but flees before the players ever become aware of it could be subsumed into "no encounter" quantum space, so the only time it really matters is when the side with surprise decides to hang back and pepper the other side with missiles or spells instead of either fleeing or immediately closing to melee range. In that case, as with pretty much everything in the game, if the specifics of an in-game situation exceed the scope of the guidelines in the books, the referee is assumed to make an appropriate judgment call. Making two encounter distance rolls when surprise is unilateral - one for where the unsurprised party becomes aware of the surprised party, the other for the reverse - is a simple enough solution that seems to be consistent with the intent of the guidelines in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 8, 2018 18:39:04 GMT -6
The trouble here is that it was clearly written as a set of ideas, not a comprehensive set of rules. Interesting. Are you saying OD&D as published is not a playable game? No, I'm saying OD&D as published is not a set of comprehensive rules. It doesn't provide, or claim to provide, a complete set of procedures to play, even in those areas that it gives some procedures. You have to fill in the blanks. And in so filling, you are not playing "as written," even if you're playing "within the framework" they set up. The surprise rules were not written from the viewpoint of "follow this exactly." Therefore they weren't trying to explain everything carefully enough to follow exactly. The book is just trying to give you the general idea. You're supposed to say, "Ah, I get it. Okay, I'll do stuff like that." Trying to analyze the comprehensive system hidden behind that is kind of pointless, because it isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 8, 2018 19:07:43 GMT -6
No, I'm saying OD&D as published is not a set of comprehensive rules. It doesn't provide, or claim to provide, a complete set of procedures to play, even in those areas that it gives some procedures. You have to fill in the blanks. And in so filling, you are not playing "as written," even if you're playing "within the framework" they set up. The surprise rules were not written from the viewpoint of "follow this exactly." Therefore they weren't trying to explain everything carefully enough to follow exactly. The book is just trying to give you the general idea. You're supposed to say, "Ah, I get it. Okay, I'll do stuff like that." Trying to analyze the comprehensive system hidden behind that is kind of pointless, because it isn't there. I agree completely. The rules are approximate; they're examples and suggestions meant to provide some guidelines and ideas for how to resolve things that are likely to come up, to inform the campaign referee's judgment calls. The "system" is that idea of iterative situational judgment calls by the referee and how they build up a shared imagined world for the players, not any particular numbers or procedures printed in the books. To focus too much on the latter is beside the point of the former.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2018 20:24:26 GMT -6
No, I'm saying OD&D as published is not a set of comprehensive rules. It doesn't provide, or claim to provide, a complete set of procedures to play, even in those areas that it gives some procedures. You have to fill in the blanks. And in so filling, you are not playing "as written," even if you're playing "within the framework" they set up. I think I've heard this narrative before (more than once). It seems to serve a purpose to those who banter about it. It's up there with the initial printing being rushed to publication, having minimal editing, and the target audience being wargamers who were assumed to understand certain concepts. I mean, there was a draft and play testing before publication. Then again, there's that other narrative that the players never saw the rules. I guess I just read the introduction differently when I consider the early adopters who first bought the 3LBB's. Perhaps they were able to play the game because they grasped the "big idea" right off the back. Maybe they knew someone who played in the original campaigns. Or maybe they were able to follow the rules as written- roll up a character, design and populate a dungeon, and play the game. Maybe that's what the intent for including such rules and examples was. As they familiarized themselves with the manner of play, of course they could build upon the basic frame work. It's kind of inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 9, 2018 13:46:59 GMT -6
No one's saying you can't manage to play without having everything handed to you. That's demonstrably untrue. I don't know why you're hearing that.
The D&D rules are like instructions on how to build a car. But while the instructions tell you how your engine will let you accelerate the car, they don't tell you what kind of engine to install, and they neglect to mention that you have to get the oil changed every few months. But provided you can work that out yourself, you will have built yourself a car. Then, as you're driving along, someone pulls up alongside you and asks where your seats are.
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Mar 10, 2018 10:50:29 GMT -6
No, I'm saying OD&D as published is not a set of comprehensive rules. It doesn't provide, or claim to provide, a complete set of procedures to play, even in those areas that it gives some procedures. You have to fill in the blanks. And in so filling, you are not playing "as written," even if you're playing "within the framework" they set up. I think I've heard this narrative before (more than once). It seems to serve a purpose to those who banter about it. It's up there with the initial printing being rushed to publication, having minimal editing, and the target audience being wargamers who were assumed to understand certain concepts. I mean, there was a draft and play testing before publication. Then again, there's that other narrative that the players never saw the rules. I guess I just read the introduction differently when I consider the early adopters who first bought the 3LBB's. Perhaps they were able to play the game because they grasped the "big idea" right off the back. Maybe they knew someone who played in the original campaigns. Or maybe they were able to follow the rules as written- roll up a character, design and populate a dungeon, and play the game. Maybe that's what the intent for including such rules and examples was. As they familiarized themselves with the manner of play, of course they could build upon the basic frame work. It's kind of inevitable. I apologize if I'm misreading your post, but it seems like you're implying that those early games had a level of variation close to what we would expect today. That wasn't the case at all. Game play could be radically different from campaign to campaign and TSR was constantly flooded with rules clarification question. With no context or no/little access to clarification, it could be hard to recognize different games as being the same system. It took years of con play, demos, the Dragon/Strategic Review, etc. homogenizing for the level of standardization we see now to be reached. Now, 45 years later, with access to all the information and history available to us, people still can't agree on how the mechanics work.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 10, 2018 14:09:19 GMT -6
scottyg, thanks for showing me how I'm being heard. I'm not talking about standardization at all. I agree that there was and continues to be innovation and modification to the basic game. What I'm saying is that OD&D can be played without grasping this history and without knowing any of the original players. The basic game can be grasped by reading the rules as written. The problem with discussions like this is that people start talking about how it was done here, there, or the other place. Then they argue about what is written, mixing the two. Both have there merits as discussion points- including what the intent was. I find many of the slogans and narratives about the early development of the game not to be conducive to open discussion of various topics- like surprise. It seems to be an intentional way of shutting conversation down. So, maybe someone new to the forum drops by and wants to know how surprise is suppose to work in the original game. What's our answer? "Rulings, not rules" "Make it your own" "There is no one set way. There's only suggestions". Sometimes people are looking for procedure. Not a bunch of flaky philosophy. I'm of the opinion that the 3LBB's happen to contain such procedure. Go ahead and change it if it doesn't suit you. But, it is there to use. OD&D is playable as written. I'll also go on the record as saying, part of the reason some of us like to speculate about the original intent is because we think it's fun. Guys, really, I'm not selling a book. I'm not writing a thesis. I've got my opinions on the matters. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of backchat with other gamers to me.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 10, 2018 16:51:12 GMT -6
That's not how I heard you.
Yes, it certainly can. The rules give you the gist of the game, and any reasonable person can take it from there. But people here are attempting to derive comprehensive systems from gist-text and call them "OD&D as written."
Just call them what they are: your own ways of playing D&D. No one has discovered anything hidden behind the text here; someone has just come up with a procedure they like. No problem with sharing your procedures, none at all. No problem with analyzing and debating the text as it's written, either. But if you want to claim that a well-understood part of the rules has actually been misinterpreted for decades, you really need to back up and look at the big picture for a bit, to make sure you're not missing the forest for the trees.
I'm not saying such a discovery is impossible. But you need more than a strained interpretation of a bit of grammar in the "just the gist" text before you've proven your case.
I'm not trying to shut anyone down. I'm just asking people to consider whether their great, new discovery that no one else has ever noticed before passes the smell test. Is that really what the authors were trying to convey? Are you sure you're not too close to the problem to judge that clearly?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 10, 2018 17:30:41 GMT -6
Actually Stormcow, the only claim I really made in this entire conversation was that the original players were well aware of how d6 initiative worked and likely used it, even if it wasn't spelled out. Not that it matters, Gary has said as much. I didn't even claim it's the only way to determine initiative. It just so happens that how surprise is determined is very similar to the ol' d6 method of initiative.
BTW, OD&D as written is just that- OD&D AS WRITTEN. When you read, you are deciphering meaning from the text. Words have meaning. When the meaning is not entirely clear, such as the Wyvern example of surprise, it's entirely open to interpretation and debate. Saying this was just a quick general cast off example is entirely unhelpful. The writer most certainly had a procedure in mind as he wrote it. Otherwise, it is pointless as an example of how surprise works and a waste of ink.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 10, 2018 20:19:12 GMT -6
Actually Stormcow, the only claim I really made in this entire conversation was that the original players were well aware of how d6 initiative worked and likely used it, even if it wasn't spelled out. Not that it matters, Gary has said as much. I didn't even claim it's the only way to determine initiative. It just so happens that how surprise is determined is very similar to the ol' d6 method of initiative. My "you" in the above was the indefinite "you," not you specifically. Yes, words have meaning. And words can be written whose author wasn't expecting them to be dissected as closely as happens here and didn't write them in a way that would convey precisely the meaning the had in mind and no other. The Gygax of 1973 would have been flabbergasted to learn that nigh-religious fervor would be invested in the interpretation of his choice of grammar in some passages. Thank goodness D&D doesn't have a rule about shooting elephants in your pajamas! Saying it was just a quick general cast-off example would be entirely unhelpful in attempting to interpret and debate the text that stands. But that's not what I did. I said that everything in the D&D rules is meant to be taken as "you can do this, and you can do this, and—ooh!—try this!" not "this is how surprise must be rolled, and this is how combat hits must be determined..." The wyvern example is attempting to demonstrate the surprise rules in action, so the reader gets the idea, not provide essential rules that the previous text left out, and not provide a complete example of everything. It's just an example. A sample of the idea. But he may not have had such a precise and comprehensive procedure in mind as is being ascribed to him in the early posts. I think he had the basic idea, with the further idea that anyone who got the gist would be able to handle any variants that came up, which they surely would. After describing the basic idea, he gives an example of the basic idea. And that's all. If you want to argue for more extensive surprise rules than are generally understood, you need to make a better case for it than an analysis of the author's grammar, who wasn't writing with any kind of precision. Some people around here have argued that D&D really has ten-second melee rounds inside one-minute combat turns inside ten-minute exploration turns (or something like that), because Chainmail had melee rounds inside one-minute combat turns, and because here and here and here D&D says "turn" instead of "round," and so on. But this is over-analysis based in part simply on the loose terminology used by the authors when writing the text. D&D has one-minute periods of combat and ten-minute periods of dungeon exploration (and one-day periods of wilderness exploration), and they were called "turns" or "rounds" or or whatever happened to cross the author's mind at the time. Making an argument based on exactly what Gygax called one of those periods in one particular line misses the point that he wasn't being exact when he called it that. The wyvern example is not meant to vaguely illustrate a procedure of surprise that gets communicated so poorly it has taken until 2018 to understand what it really means. The example simply illustrates an application of the gist that has already been described, so the reader can see it in action and get the gist himself. And that's all that I'm saying. Not that you can't debate the meaning of text or intention or come up with new rules and procedures. Just stop ascribing to Gygax a master-plan of rules so arcane it has taken all these decades to decode them. He was making it up as he went, and he expected the reader to make it up as he went too. All he cared was for you to get the gist, and that's the level to which he wrote. His rules are on the level of "Need to search? Roll a die; let's say you have a 2 in 6 chance to find something." It's just not that complicated.
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on May 30, 2018 0:09:44 GMT -6
This is where I have gone with things. I think it is fairly RAW and simple. #1) Surprise (1-2/D6). Surprise typically occurs on roll of 1-2 on a D6. If surprise occurs, proceed to step 2. Otherwise, skip to step 3B. The odds may vary for some creatures (bugbears) or for circumstances (carefully constructed ambushes/traps). #2) Negated? Check to see if surprise is negated. You might prefer to think about this first before rolling dice. I've found it faster to just roll the dice first and only bother thinking about these variables if a 1-2 pops up.
- Light: Obvious light sources.
- Excessive Noise: Obvious excessive noise (players arguing/debating, etc)
- Magic: Some magic (clairaudience, etc)
- Hear Noise (Door): Successful "Hear Noise" check through a door. Undead and Thieves that pass a move silently check cannot be detected with this.
- Hear Noise (Sentry): Successful "Hear Noise" check from a sentry. Undead and silent Thieves also foil this. A sentry must be 100% dedicated to being on watch. One out of every two sentries may make the attempt; it is assumed that they take turns on watch to stay sharp. If <2 sentries are on watch then the lone man must pass a morale check (at +2 if a PC) to make the attempt; failure indicates he has become distracted.
The "sentry" rule is NOT RAW but its a convenient way to handle posting guards during sleep cycles or while the party is inventorying loot/otherwise messing around in the dungeon. It also handles questions like, "did we sneak up on the orc guard?"
- Loud Noise Epic Fail. I force characters that are being loud to roll one or more D6s with a "1" indicating surprise is negated. "Being loud" includes failing a morale check (hirelings only) indicating they break noise discipline, wearing chain (one die), wearing plate (two dice), whispering in character (one or more dice), being heavily encumbered (one die), etc. The cleric spell "Silence" negates Loud Noises.
This rule is also not RAW. But it handles the "fighting man is sneaking" situation fairly elegantly. It allows parties to largely stick together, and the way that multiple dice odds work the penalties start stiff but decline as you add more penalty dice. For example, Mage, Thief, Cleric (Chain - roll 1D6) and Fighter (Plate - roll 2d6) would roll three "Loud Noises!" dice. There is a 42% chance that one of those D6s comes up a one. If for some reason you went up to 7d6 (maybe everyone is encumbered) the odds only go up to 72%. #3A) Surprised Distance. Indoors: If surprise occurred and we're indoors, then the encounter is at 1d3". Per chainmail, units within 3" can join melee, so if they want to, the ambushers can be in melee during their surprise round (or they may keep a little standoff to hurl weapons or spells). Outdoors: If outdoors, I personally disregard the "yards" scale and keep action at the man-to-man scale. So I scale the encounter distance to be 2d3". This means 1/3 of the time the units start within melee distance, just like with the 1d3x10 yards RAW scale. 2/3 of the time they are at 4+" which is farther than a step into melee. The ambushers get one round of action to attack (melee/missile/magic). They may also initiate evasion, or just hide. The ambushers also automatically win initiative after their surprise round, typically allowing them to attack back-to-back. This meshes with the LBB Wyvern example, IMO. The wyvern gets one attack during its surprise round (its within 3" so can freely join melee, as in Chainmail). It then auto wins initiative, allowing another attack before the players strike back. Simple, clean, easy to remember, and potentially deadly but not overpowered. #3B) Not Surprised Distance.
Indoors: If surprise did not occur and we're indoors, then the encounter is at 1d6+2". I use 1d6+2 rather than 2d4 because I've purged pretty much anything but D6s and D20s from my table. A max range of 8" has a few things going for it: - Roughly aligns with edge of torch light shadows - Roughly aligns with hurled weapon ranges - Per chainmail I don't allow characters in plate to gain bonus movement when charging. So those in Plate are stuck at 6". That means 1/3 of the time they will need two moves to make contact, benefiting those in lighter armor somewhat. Happily, even if you use 2d4, the odds of getting a 7-8 are about 1/4, close enough. Outdoors: As above, I disregard the yards scale in favor of man-to-man scale. I do keep the encounter at 4d6" per the LBB. This roughly aligns with aimed archery fire ranges. Special cases: Brightly lit indoors, or confined outdoors. For large vaults and the like then I'll go with a distance of 2d6" or 3d6" as a "ruling, not a rule." For really wide open spaces then I'll go further than 4d6, to include just playing things out at Chainmail scale/distances (or using the evasion/pursuit tables) until man-to-man scale is reached. I also use these as random "perception checks" to see at what distances details can be noticed. If not surprised, then combat begins with rolling initiative at the given distance. #4) Special Cases.I struggled for awhile about how to adjudicate Invisibility, thief Hide in Shadows, etc. The LBB+Greyhawk are vague at best. Ultimately I went back to Chainmail. Chainmail states: "When invisible Elves (and Fairies) cannot attack — or be attacked unless located by an enemy with the special ability to detect hidden or invisible troops — but they can become visible and attack during the same turn."
So invisibility means that you can't be subject to attacks. That's it. So, the way I handle Invisibility is thus: - If surprise fails, then Invisible characters may not be attacked. - If all of the characters in the party are invisible, then the foes (alerted, as an encounter has begun), typically spend at least one round searching the environs with a 2/6 chance per 10' area searched (as with secret doors). The search continues as long as morale remains good. Morale failure indicates the monsters get bored and move on to something else. Its easier to hide from lazy peasant conscripts or monstrous rabble than from motivated elite heavy foot on guard duty. - If there are some visible characters, then the monsters will just focus on them first in most cases. - So long as the invisible character remains stationary they will not be detected unless a search finds them. If they move, then the alerted search party gets Hear Noise checks (as sentries do) which will compromise their current location and open them to attacks. - Invisibility does not change the base odds of surprise (2/6). It does however make surprise possible in some places where circumstances would otherwise negate it altogether. - A few things can beat such Invisibility... Superheroes (8th level Fighters), dragons, rocs, wizards with the right spell, wraiths, etc all "see invisible." Hide in Shadows: - If surprise fails, and there are shadows about, the Thief may make a Hide in Shadows attempt before the encounter begins to see if they are hidden. - If successful, the thief is effectively invisible. - Move Silently negates any chance of hearing noise, allowing Thieves to reposition themselves (unlike other characters) with good chance of success. Elves/Halflings in Woods: - If surprise fails, and there are woods, Elves/Halflings may make a Hide in Woods attempt. - If successful, the Elf/Halfling is effectively invisible. The way this plays out... In a typical 4-archetype party, the Mage is Invisible (hopefully). The thief has a chance to hide in shadows. That means on Round 1 of the fight when the monsters are at full strength, the prime juicy visible targets will be the Fighters and Clerics (desirable, IMO). The thief has a decent chance to Move Silently which allows them to reposition undetected; the mage may just want to stay put until its time to drop a spell. If a Thief is adventuring alone, then they have a decent chance at the mid-levels to avoid encounters altogether; if they fail to get surprise, their "get out of jail free" card is that Hide check, and the hope that any guards/wandering monsters get bored and wander off before finding them. Additionally, this allows the party to adventure together a little more easily rather than forcing the party to be split with "Team Sneaky" in the lead and the clanking clerics/fighters in the rear. This facilitates smoother gameplay for me at least.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on May 2, 2019 4:47:02 GMT -6
I've spent a lot of time dwelling on the Wyvern example. I believe the monster gets one free chop at the party and automatically wins the initiative, so it "may attack once again before the adventurers strike back", just like in case of the rear attack in Chainmail ("Men attacked from the rear do not return a blow on the 1st round of melee and automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 2nd round of melee").
What bothers me is the distance. The distances stated in vol. III are pretty clear for Wilderness Encounters (10-30 yards if surprised, 40-240 yards otherwise), but for the Dungeon setting it's a little bit complicated, as the distances overlap: 10-30 feet (surprise) and 20-80 feet (no surprise). Thus it is possible that you could be surprised from 30 feet (3 on 1d3) or not surprised from 20 feet (2 on 2d4). In my campaign, after some tinkering, I settled on 10 feet for surprise situations in the dungeon. First, I check if the party concerned is surprised. If this is the case, then the distance is 10 feet. If there is no surprise indicated, the distance is 20-80 feet (or 20-120 feet, as I sometimes use 2d6).
Surprise grants one free action (attack, spell etc.), then normal combat round begins.
|
|