Surprise: 2 attacks if encounter distance 10 feet?

[Zulgyan]

According to the surprise section in pages 9 and 10 of TU&WA, it seems that if combatant surprises a foe, and if the encounter distance is 10 feet, he can attack twice, since he does not need to close to engage his foe.

The example with the Wyvern looks like this is right. A 2 was rolled for distance (that's a 1 on the 1d3), and the example says the Wyvern will have the chance to strike once again, an extra attack after the first, before the party can strike back.

I then look at my Ready Ref Sheets from JG, and there is a small table that explains the different outcomes of surprise. There, it is also indicated that a monster will have 2 attacks if the distance rolled is 10 feet.

How have you been playing this guys??

I'm kinda liking it this way.

[foster1941]

I do it like in AD&D: if you roll a 1 on the surprise check you're surprised for 1 action*, if you roll a 2 you're surprised for 2 actions, if you roll a 3+ you're not surprised (unless you're facing something like a bugbear with a greater than normal surprise chance). If the distance is greater than 10' it takes an enemy at least one of those actions to close to striking distance, but if you're already within 10' they get both actions.

*AD&D calls these segments; I'm deliberately trying to avoid that terminology but the effect is pretty much the same -- you can attack once, or fire a readied missile, or start a spell, or move 1/10 your normal per-round movement (i.e. 15', 12', 9', 6', etc.).

[Zulgyan]

Oh, I prefer it more simple:

1 or 2 indicates surprise:

You can do:
1. Attack ranged.
2. Spell.
3. Sneak away.
4. Close to engage and attack.
5. etc.

Similar to having 1 free round.

Now, I'll have that if the encounter distance is 10 feet, you can double melee as you don't need to close.

Do you find any problems with this method? Why do you prefer the more complicated AD&D system?

[foster1941]

I really like the difference between "basic surprise" (enemy gets 1 free action) and "total surprise" (enemy gets 2 (or possibly more) free actions). Under this method a multi-segment/round total surprise situation can decide an encounter before the other side ever gets a chance to react. This makes surprise a much more important consideration and adds more of a player-level tactical element to the game which I really like -- good players will do everything they can to increase their chance of causing surprise (by setting ambushes and being stealthy) and decrease their chance of being surprised (by being wary) whereas bad players will blunder around, miss opportunities to take out monsters commando-style, and ultimately probably get TPK'd when they wind up on the wrong end of a monster ambush.

I never used this rule when playing AD&D back in the 80s (we always played it just like you describe), and only discovered it when I carefully re-read the AD&D rules c. 2003, but I fell instantly in love with it and now could hardly imagine playing without it.

[Zulgyan]

The AD&D rules are kinda murky on surprice, so I ask you a couple of questions:

1. What do you mean with "starting a spell"? Have you reintroduced casting time?
2. Do you allow multiple arrow shots in a total surprise situation?
3. Is it possible that an armored character never engages his enemies because of it's slow movement?

[foster1941]

It's not as strict in practice as it appears written out (and in that regard it was probably a mistake to cite the AD&D rule as if I follow it exactly). It's all based on judgment calls, ad-hoc rulings, and common sense. That said, here's how I'd probably rule in the situations you mentioned:

1. The initiative sequence I use (memorialized here) already differentiates between "short" spells (levels 1-2) and "long" spells (levels 3+). The idea is that you can cast a complete short spell in a surprise situation (whether normal or total), but only begin a long one (though it follows that the spell would then be considered a short one in the following round). For extreme total surprise situations (3-5 segments) a caster might be able to complete a long spell (using a rule of thumb of 1 level per segment, more or less).

2. A character with a bow ready can fire once per surprise segment. Otherwise he must spend a segment readying the bow and can then fire in any remaining segments. A ready crossbow can fire once but can't be reloaded and fire again in the surprise situation. Once again that's a rule of thumb and there might be individual exceptions if it seems reasonable.

3. if the encounter distance is 10' any character can close and attack in a single segment. If the distance is 20-30' it generally takes 1 segment to close, and if it's a total surprise situation they can attack in the 2nd+ segment(s). A character with 3" or slower move rate I'd probably say needs 1 segment to close 20' and 2 segments to close 30'.

[Zulgyan]

This is a bit OT here but, do you permit spells to be cast while the wizard is "engaged"?

What I don't like about initiative sequences that place melee last, is that you can never counter spellcasting with melee - Unless you rule that engaged wizards cannot cast spells. But that is very drastic too IMO.

[foster1941]

The default (from Swords & Spells) is that people engaged in melee can't cast spells, but that totally screws over anti-clerics (who have several offensive spells with touch range -- reversed cure light wounds, reversed cure disease, reversed cure serious wounds) so I definitely make an exception at least for them, and perhaps should just throw the rule out altogether...

[Zulgyan]

I don't get that rule. Once the M-U is engage it's game over for him, isn't it?

I a Fighting-man vs. M-U duel, the Fighter only needs to engage and he wins... right?

[foster1941]

The key, presumably, would be to keep the fighter from engaging...

[Zulgyan]

How? I can imagine all sorts of ways, but could you elaborate?

I never had experience with that rule.

[foster1941]

There's pretty much 3 options: 1) get surprise (or initiative in the 1st round) and either zap him or evade with a spell (or wand or staff effect) before he has a chance to close; 2) have a flunky (or flunkies) who can stay between you and the fighter; or 3) run away (and hope the fighter is wearing enough armor that he has a lower move rate than you do) -- if you can open up enough distance and are willing to risk it you may choose to turn around after awhile and zap him with a spell/wand/staff. Other than that, though, in a one-on-one fight between a fighter and a magic-user, the magic-user pretty much doesn't stand a chance.

[jrients]

I agree with foster. A magic-user within sword's reach of a fighting man needs to either pull a trick out of his hat or run the heck away, because regular spellcasting is doomed.

[Zulgyan]

Can wands and staves be used in melee? What about driking a potion?

[coffee]

I have to agree with a lot that's been said about Magic-Users in melee. No spellcasting!

I mean, I could see allowing a short (1st or 2nd level spell) in melee, but if the M-U then loses initiative and gets hit, the spell is gone.

This is why the M-U needs to bring a bunch of Fighting-Men with him in the dungeon!

Clerical magic is different (to the point that in several places it is ignored when talking about "spellcasting" in the books). So I'd allow Clerics (and Anti-Clerics) to cast in combat, but with the proviso that, as above, if they take a hit before the spell goes off, they lose the spell.


As far as wands, I'd say okay. Staves probably. Potions only maybe; and I'd treat them similarly to spells (if you get hit, you spill the potion -- no effect and it's gone). Similar for scrolls; they could get cut, torn, bloody, etc.

Overall, it's best if magical types stay out of melee (at least until they're out of spells, and even then it's risky...)

[Zulgyan]

I'm not to sold to this... I does not enable M-U solo expeditions to the dungeon, such as the ones of Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tenser, etc.

Thinking about it.

[jrients]

I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that the Dragon article "Thoughts on the Speed of a Lightning Bolt" will back up my position, even though it is definitely written with a pro-MU stance. Heck, I'm pro-MU like all get out. I just don't think spellcasting in melee is a good thing.

[coffee]

"Some Thought on the Speed of a Lightning Bolt" was written (by Jim Ward, if I recall correctly) in defense of the expanded initiative rules (including segments) from Eldritch Wizardry.

I find that system to be way too complicated. But then, I find a lot of the combat rules to be complicated; I prefer to wing it.

My bottom line is this: If you're casting a spell and the other guy gets initiative and hits you before it goes off, you lose the spell. Period. Ditto potions, ditto scrolls. I'd be willing to allow wands and staves to act like guns; if they're drawn, you can use them in melee (and, most likely, once you use them you'll be out of melee pretty quickly...)

Anyway, these are my thoughts. My goal isn't to quell discussion on the part of others, it is simply to keep things uncomplicated for myself.

[Mordorandor]

Zulgyan, I'm curious to revisit this. I laid out my thoughts in this thread, and I'll say in this thread I'm hard press to understand the reference to two attacks.

Given that to be within 30 of a foe is to be engaged in melee, I'm not sure what it means to have to "close the distance," if within 30.

Where I ended up (noted in the other thread) is

"All said and done, I adjudicate that combatants that surprise foes can act in phase 2 with a half move (only) to get away or around the foes, OR act in phase 3 by firing artillery or using a magic spell, OR strike in melee (no need to move; or more aptly, according to Chainmail, those within 30 are able to be "be drawn into [melee] if the player to whom they belong so desires;" in which monsters in nearly every case will want to be drawn into melee to feast on some delightful party flesh."

Yet, after reading that, and somehow remembering that one can't use spells when engaged in melee, but having allowed for spell casting in this scenario (rationalizing that the surprised side can't threaten the Wizard), I'd allow for missile fire too in this situation.

[Desparil]

Oct 20, 2022 18:18:46 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Zulgyan , I'm curious to revisit this. I laid out my thoughts in this thread, and I'll say in this thread I'm hard press to understand the reference to two attacks.

Given that to be within 30 of a foe is to be engaged in melee, I'm not sure what it means to have to "close the distance," if within 30.

Where I ended up (noted in the other thread) is

"All said and done, I adjudicate that combatants that surprise foes can act in phase 2 with a half move (only) to get away or around the foes, OR act in phase 3 by firing artillery or using a magic spell, OR strike in melee (no need to move; or more aptly, according to Chainmail, those within 30 are able to be "be drawn into [melee] if the player to whom they belong so desires;" in which monsters in nearly every case will want to be drawn into melee to feast on some delightful party flesh."

Yet, after reading that, and somehow remembering that one can't use spells when engaged in melee, but having allowed for spell casting in this scenario (rationalizing that the surprised side can't threaten the Wizard), I'd allow for missile fire too in this situation.

My interpretation is that because surprise occurs during a fraction of a normal round and one side is, well, surprised, that the normal rules on melee distance are temporarily suspended. Hence being able to shoot a bow or crossbow at this short distance, since you're not actually considered to be in melee at the moment, and if the enemy rolled 2 on the surprise die being able to potentially make two attacks instead of just one as is normal for melee combat. The shortened time frame is where closing the distance comes in; normally being within 30 feet, the movement into melee is subsumed by the length of the combat round. However, since surprise is taking place in a much shorter period of time, you no longer get the benefit of the doubt on being able to comfortably close 30 feet and still have time to mount a meaningful attack; if you're more than 10 feet away, the distance costs you precious seconds that could otherwise have been used to attack.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 20, 2022 18:18:46 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Given that to be within 30 of a foe is to be engaged in melee, I'm not sure what it means to have to "close the distance," if within 30.

Wow, only 15 years between posts


It's clearer for me if I don't conflate melee range with actually engaged in toe to toe combat.

According to CM (CM2 p14), 3" is the distance at which a unit may be drawn into an existing melee, if various conditions are met. Namely, the unit has not already moved more than half its move, and the player chooses to join the melee.

This enables one unit to support another, because the enemy can't then engage a supported unit alone without its nearby friends immediately getting involved.

It also seems to me that archers moving 3" back out of melee range makes it pretty clear that the archers are not engaged at 3" distance.

That said, I agree that it's funky that M2M then says: when figures are within melee range (3") one or several blows will be struck. I reconcile this as a simplification/reduction of the mass battles rule for convenience in faster moving M2M games. Individual figures can still be drawn into melee in M2M in much the same way that units can in mass battles, and M2M players will almost always take advantage of this, so it's simply written in.

Over in D&D-land, it becomes a bit more nuanced with the introduction of important PC figures (over disposable mooks), surprise, encounter distance, spells, monsters... The explicit need to close to striking distance in the surprise scenario (U&WA p9), supports the distinction between 3" distance and actual contact. Seems to me that D&D zooms right in on CM's drawn-into-melee-at-3"-rule here. Contact is no longer simply assumed to happen (per the M2M rule); instead, we're now playing it all out, at another level of detail where every 10ft matters.

FWIW, the Wyvern's two strikes make sense thru the lens of the M2M first blow/initiative rule. The first strike happens in its free surprise segment (taken as a free melee round). The next round (being the first "proper" round), the Wyvern has the first blow/initiative because it is clearly the "attacker". Therefore the Wyvern will have two strikes in a row before the players have an opportunity to return a blow.

So, from that perspective, when surprise occurs either:

1. The distance is 10ft. The attacker gets a surprise blow AND the first blow position in the first round. So 2 blows.
2. The distance is 20-30ft. The attacker closes to contact, AND then gets the first blow position in the first round. So 1 blow.

It seems a short leap from this to the EW (and AD&D) complete surprise (2 blows) and regular surprise (1 blow).

[Mordorandor]

Oct 21, 2022 1:08:40 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

It's clearer for me if I don't conflate melee range with actually engaged in toe to toe combat.

While I'd say it's clearer for me if we do conflate melee range with actual melee engagement, I'm thinking we end up at the same conclusion ...?

If I'm presuming combat to be abstracted (vs choreographed, let's call it), then some language in the guidelines seems "descriptive" to me rather than "mechanic" in nature. And if I take at face value the guideline that melee engagement occurs up to 30 feet, then "close the distance" becomes just a narrative device. I hear the narrator saying, "Combat is an abstraction, so don't take it literally that someone with a sword 30 feet away is actually hitting a foe at that distance ... the attacker closes the distance to strike ... but don't worry about some game mechanic to make that happen."

From a game perspective/implication, I take this to mean all combatants within 30 feet are considered engaged in melee. "Don't worry about exact positions ... melee is a jumbled mess of chaos, especially in that 30 x 30 room ... just assume everyone is engaged now and declare intentions accordingly."

This is when I rely on the Chainmail guideline that "2. All types of troops are considered to control the space 1" on either side of themselves to stop infiltration."

If a party of adventurers in two ranks -- three in the front rank and three in the back rank -- stumble into a situation with 6 Orcs in a 30 x 30 room, I might say something like, "The 6 Orcs are sufficiently dispersed that they are all engaged in melee with the front rank of three adventurers, but because of the 1" infiltration rule, the second rank of adventurers are not considered engaged in melee, allowing that MU in the second rank to be free to use spells. Send me your intentions."

As for the rationale for the limited number of actions, the narrator implies (a) surprised foes are not a threat (b) a surprise round is "shorter" in duration (maybe even "nested" within the larger "real" round, if you will), such that surprising combatants don't have the time to take full-round actions. From a procedural standpoint, this means "move and fight" is unavailable, only "move" or "fight." Makes sense to me, given surprise happens at 10-30 feet. Most (if not all) of the surprising side will be engaged in melee anyway (within 30). But the difference is, because the surprising side isn't a threat, actions that normally would not be allowed to the attacking side in melee are now allowed, such as disengaging from melee without being threatened, using spells, and using missile weapons.

And agreed on the rationale behind the Wyvern getting two back-to-back strikes. After the first strike in the surprise round, the referee adjudicates a normal, full round of combat, using the guideline of "the referee resolves blows first in subsequent rounds for the combatant who had the chance to resolve first blow in the preceding round."

The Wyvern doesn't get two strikes in one round but gets first strikes for two consecutive rounds.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 21, 2022 8:29:03 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

If I'm presuming combat to be abstracted (vs choreographed, let's call it), then some language in the guidelines seems "descriptive" to me rather than "mechanic" in nature. And if I take at face value the guideline that melee engagement occurs up to 30 feet, then "close the distance" becomes just a narrative device. I hear the narrator saying, "Combat is an abstraction, so don't take it literally that someone with a sword 30 feet away is actually hitting a foe at that distance ... the attacker closes the distance to strike ... but don't worry about some game mechanic to make that happen."

I appreciate the prevailing narrative around abstract combat, but how do you reconcile this approach with the surprise rule (U&WA p9) which has:
<<If monsters gain surprise ... they will either close the distance ... or attack>>.

This seems more mechanistic than descriptive to me. If monsters are at 10-30 feet they will either close the distance or they will attack. The Wyvern example is explicit that they can do one or the other, not both. Hence, as I read it, monsters at 20-30ft distance must close the distance in their surprise segment instead of attacking--which they can only do from 10ft distance. Are you reading it differently?

[Mordorandor]

Oct 21, 2022 18:46:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Oct 21, 2022 8:29:03 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

If I'm presuming combat to be abstracted (vs choreographed, let's call it), then some language in the guidelines seems "descriptive" to me rather than "mechanic" in nature. And if I take at face value the guideline that melee engagement occurs up to 30 feet, then "close the distance" becomes just a narrative device. I hear the narrator saying, "Combat is an abstraction, so don't take it literally that someone with a sword 30 feet away is actually hitting a foe at that distance ... the attacker closes the distance to strike ... but don't worry about some game mechanic to make that happen."

I appreciate the prevailing narrative around abstract combat, but how do you reconcile this approach with the surprise rule (U&WA p9) which has:
<<If monsters gain surprise ... they will either close the distance ... or attack>>.

....

Well, upon closer reading, I must admit perhaps another approach to interpreting that section.

I wonder if the sentence about monsters is a subordinate clause that applies to monsters only. Kind of like infravision (monsters get it, but not those in service to PCs) and opening doors (PCs must force them, monsters move through them without trouble).

So for all combatants, PCs or monsters ...

".... If the possibility for surprise exists roll a six-sided die for each party concerned. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates the party is surprised. Distance is then 10-30 feet. Surprise gives the advantage of a free move segment, whether to flee, cast a spell or engage in combat."

I'm reading "engage in combat" to mean actually participate in, conduct, or resolve combat, i.e., make attack rolls. 

But for monsters, a slight clarification/change ...

"If monsters gain surprise they will either close the distance between themselves and the character(s) (unless they are intelligent and their prey is obviously too strong to attack) or attack."

So monsters don't automatically get to engage in combat, but PCs do. If monsters surprise, we must check to see what the distance is, and only if in certain proximity to the party do monsters get the chance to strike. That distance is not called out explicitly but is strongly implied that a monster must be up 10 feet away to strike; otherwise, it must "close the distance."

Given how lethal monster can be, and given PCs with torches never surprise, perhaps this is a way to give the party a chance, since it's really only PCs that will be surprised most of the time.

I'm thinking this might be a great feature of the game.

"Yes, I know it's weird that you had to force that door open, but Ted the Dwarf, the monster, didn't need to force it when he chased after you. And I agree it's even weirder he lost the ability to see in the dark as soon as he succumbed to your charm person spell, making him one of your retainers. But hey, at least when he surprised you, he had to close the distance to attack you, something you never need to do as PCs."