Ranger's Surprise

[AxeMental]

BTB is a ranger's ability to avoid being surprised a 1-6 mean that the most he can be surprised is one seg., or does it mean in a surprise situation role a d6 if a one comes up, then role surprise as normal (so a thief could still surprise the ranger 1-4in 6).

[Gerto]

Sorry I can't help you with your question, but I just want to say I had an entirely different idea of what this post would be by the subject "Ranger's Surprise". Something about dual wielding.... Ok, Im going to stop now

[foster1941]

BTB neither -- a ranger's being surprised 1 in 6 means he's surprised 1 in 6 less often than normal, so if a thief would normally have a 4 in 6 chance of surprising an opponent, he'd have a 3 in 6 chance of surprising a ranger (4 in 6 less 1 in 6). See the second example at the top of DMG p. 62.

[AxeMental]

Thanks Foster, I new I recalled you (or someone) mentioning this paragraph before. What I don't like about this explination is that it doesn't mention Ranger by name (presumably other monsters or characters could have the benefit of being surprised only on a 1-6 (instead of the standard 1-2 in 6) but that doesn't mean they are as sensitive as a ranger (after rereading much of "The Fellowship" last year, this is almost laughable, didn't the elves say it was nearly impossible to sneak up on a ranger?). Also, the PH goes out of its way to spell out (surprise 50% of the time and only surprised 16 2/3 % of the time) suggesting (to me at least) that no other factoring is needed. This is by far the greatest ability of this class, and IMO follows more closely the ranger abilities of Strider (which is likely the sole model for this class). The Ranger is a special case (given his training and natural ability) and this should have some real tangable meaning. Reducing a surprise from 4-6 to 3-6 isn't much. So, although I clearly see the point your making, I'd aire on the side of class feel. So, I guess, once again , I don't agree with your BTB interp. It doesn't feel right (though it does seem logical) and seems pieced together compared to the clearly stated power in the class description. Has anyone ever asked Gary what he intended on this?

I guess using the PH way to handle this situation is to simply require the rangers group to role a 1 and only allow that thief 1 seg of surprise (on surprise) due to the Rangers 6th sense and general sensibility of his environment.

Paragraph 3 on p. 24 actually hints that such ranger abilities screw up surprise "Prior detection negates the possibiity of surprise...noise can negate surprise..." I realize this is more related to the idea of unilateral surprise, but still, I could see the first bit being very applicable to a ranger in the woods. After all Rangers are bad-asses, not candycane sissy boys. The other option is to assume the ranger surprise and surprised roles are seperate from roling normal surprise (I don't see this contradicting the ability on pg. 24.

Also, its possible the person who put together the surprise rules in the DMG weren't considering rangers at all (as there not mentioned).

[foster1941]

You're of course free to change the rules to whatever you want if you think it improves your game, but there's no ambiguity that BTB a ranger doesn't have any better chance of avoiding surprise than anyone else who is surprised 1 in 6 (and note that there are various characters/creatures who are surprised less than 1 in 6 -- dark elves are surprised 1 in 8, gray dwarfs 1 in 10, barbarians in familiar terrain 5%, the Grandmaster of Flowers 2%, etc. -- so if the intent was really that rangers are less liable to surprise than 1 in 6 they presumably could've/would've said so).

Also, rangers are mentioned in the surprise rules in the DMG, in the second paragraph under the surprise heading on DMG p. 61, so the idea that Gygax somehow forgot about their existence when writing that section of the rules seems extremely unlikely.

If you don't like the rules, change 'em, but don't pretend that's not what you're doing. As I've had to say way too many times at DF, there are places in the AD&D rules that are ambiguous, where interpretation and judgment calls are necessary and there may not be one "correct" reading, but this isn't one of them.

[AxeMental]

Foster: "if you don't like the rules, change 'em, but don't pretend that's not what you're doing."

I'm not "pretending" anything, I just see ambiguity where you do not I suppose. I just want to make sure "everything" is being considered before reaching a consensus. After all I've seen "concrete" BTB interps. turn into mud over months of debate.
The mentioning of hte ranger on pg 61 does suggest your interp. is the BTB one. However, the PH was written first, and the flavor of the character was likely to have been taken in its most literal since ("...are themselves surprised ONLY..). Although the DMG often trumps the PH, I don't think that it should be the yardstick to determine whats the final BTB method; sometimes if there is no major conflict the one that produces the best result should IMO be used (favoring those BTB rule interpretations that maintain the spirit of the game and its components...esp. when your bringing in stuff from UA...talk about bad taste in your mouth).

Anyhow, thanks for giving it some thought.

[foster1941]

Sorry I jumped on you in the last post, but as you probably know I've been spending some time at DF lately (not by choice...) and that's one of my biggest peeves with the "1E fans" there -- the way they try to shield their house rules by acting like there are ambiguities in the BtB rules that aren't really there, to the point that "BtB" discussion is all but impossible there, so when I saw you making that same sort of argument it pushed me over the edge, so to speak.

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but I really don't think there's any ambiguity in how the surprise rules apply to rangers.

Note also that while some of the examples I cited of characters with better chances to avoid surprise than rangers came from "UA" (though remember that even the barbarian originally appeared in Dragon in July 1982), others don't -- the monk's %ile-based surprise chance is in the PH, just like the ranger's, and while the dark elf's 1 in 8 chance is mentioned in UA it originally comes from the dark elf write-up in module G3, also from 1978 -- so both of these references are contemporary with the PH ranger description and pre-date the DMG surprise rules.

[AxeMental]

I know what you mean, and, in all honesty, sometimes have a hard time destinguish between the BTB and house rule. I suppose what gives me pause is the gospel like interpretations by both StormCrow and ScottyG (both in conflict) concerning initiative, magic casting, weapon speed, and then SKA's interpretations which in the end matched alot of what Gygax claimed he intended suggesting both were wrong (so something as simple as when a spell begins is up in the air).

A recent thread that I found interesting from K&K concerned the phases of D&D and AD&D; someone mentioned he considered the appearance of each core AD&D books as a seperate phases to the game (something I never experianced getting into the game after all three core books came out). I suspect the phase I might have liked "Best" would have been with the appearance of the PH but before the DMG.

[Ska]

I beleive this means instead of the standard 1-2 segments of standard surprise out of a 1d6, that the Ranger can only be surprised on the roll of a 1 on the d6.

So, if a ranger rolls a 2 on the d6 dice for surprise he is not only not going ot face 2 segments of surprise by his opponent, but will not be surprised at all.

I think this represents the ranger facing less time surprised more than anything else, plus being less likely to be surprised.

Ex. A halfling villager sneaks up on a ranger with a club. The halfling surprises on 1-4 (d6). The ranger rolls to see if he is surprised and for how long. The ranger rolls a 3. Now, if this were a normal fighter the halfling would have 3 surprise segments in which to attack the ranger, but due to the ranger's training etc., he will recover faster than a non-ranger and will therefore only suffer 2 segments of surprise.

[AxeMental]

Looks like SKA is in 100% agreement with you Foster. And, after sitting and rereading the DMG section on surprise last night, and glancing over the ranger, thief, assassin and monk classes....I have to admit....it looks like the ranger is no exception and you are correct, your description is indeed the only way to keep it all consistant (and after re-reading it can't believe I thought differently). I considered sticking to my house rule concerning rangers and surprise, but then thought...what a f**king 3tard power player I've turned into....and will for now on be going BTB.