Re: mechanics of surprise

On Mar 6, 9:25 am, Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Another problem is the tendency, in many games, for a party of PCs to
> *be* a party, outnumbering one or two "big" foes in an encounter. In a
> D&D like system, a single big foe with 160 hit points can shrug off a
> 40 point surprise round attack much better than a typical PC party of
> 4 with an average of 40 hit points per character. A single surprise
> attack by the big foe will likely put down one PC, putting the party
> as a whole into a death spiral.

Hmm. I have problems with this example...

I wonder however how valid this example really is. What GM attempts to
balance a foe against a party of four (something that takes some
effort) and then rolls for surprise to make it a battle against a
party of three thereby defeating his purpose?

Perhaps it was player driven? The players thought with four they had
an excellent chance and launched their assault, upon being surprised
they find they're reduced to 3 vs. 1. Isn't this the nature outcome of
player choice? After all, they made the decision to launch an attack
that would only work if everything went according to plan.

So on one hand, this self-defined Gamist sees bad GMing, and on the
other bad player tactics. He doesn't see a problem with the surprise
rules in either case.

> If a party of 4 PCs gets suprised by a dozen weaker foes, it's more
> plausable that the surprise attacks will be spread out among the PCs,
> which helps wrt the party being able to put up a good fight
> afterwards.

Silly weaker foes. Don't they know they need to focus their attacks in
the D&D world to reduce the offensive potential of their victims?