New Posts For Thread: Cannot be surprised = never?http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29634441/Cannot_be_surprised_=_neverHow much is a DM's hands tied if a player has a feat which says "cannot be surprised".Working within the RAW, does this mean that once a player has this feat, every possible surprise attack is doomed to failure (not be a surprise). Is this feat theI've stated thrice that it is not a rule. Merely a clarification. The rules have always been subject to interpretation on whether you can ready an action outside of the initiative structure. Both methods have merit, and a DM could use either method whttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29634441/Cannot_be_surprised_=_never?post_id=528327743#528327743I've stated thrice that it is not a rule. Merely a clarification. The rules have always been subject to interpretation on whether you can ready an action outside of the initiative structure. Both methods have merit, and a DM could use either method wWed, 23 Jan 2013 12:04:45 -0600That makes it a rule...how?http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29634441/Cannot_be_surprised_=_never?post_id=528326871#528326871That makes it a rule...how?Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:53:13 -0600Again: it was never actually a stated rule 3.5e. It was simply a concensual understanding based on the stated rules. The D&D community discussed the matter at some length (several times)... both in 3.5e and 4e. And the writer's themselves have previohttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29634441/Cannot_be_surprised_=_never?post_id=528326221#528326221Again: it was never actually a stated rule 3.5e. It was simply a concensual understanding based on the stated rules. The D&D community discussed the matter at some length (several times)... both in 3.5e and 4e. And the writer's themselves have previoWed, 23 Jan 2013 11:44:56 -0600This is not valid 4e rules logic.We cannot assume that just because they didn't say anything new in the 4e material that rules from prior systems apply.If they say nothing in 4e, then they said nothing in 4e. 3.5 is irrelevant, always, as is Spyro thttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29634441/Cannot_be_surprised_=_never?post_id=528315591#528315591This is not valid 4e rules logic.We cannot assume that just because they didn't say anything new in the 4e material that rules from prior systems apply.If they say nothing in 4e, then they said nothing in 4e. 3.5 is irrelevant, always, as is Spyro tWed, 23 Jan 2013 08:40:18 -0600Uh, D20 rules do NOT apply to D&D[/quote]Are you trying to say "D&D 3.5e rules do not apply to D&D 4e"? If so, did you possibly misunderstand what I wrote? Besides, the RotG quote was not even a 3.5e rule (it was merely a clarification).[/quote]I mehttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29634441/Cannot_be_surprised_=_never?post_id=528310829#528310829Uh, D20 rules do NOT apply to D&D[/quote]Are you trying to say "D&D 3.5e rules do not apply to D&D 4e"? If so, did you possibly misunderstand what I wrote? Besides, the RotG quote was not even a 3.5e rule (it was merely a clarification).[/quote]I meWed, 23 Jan 2013 05:31:44 -0600