D&D 5E How does Surprise work in 5e?

[pemerton]

I would interpret the statement to say a character is surprised if and only if it doesn't notice a threat. So either both have to be true or both false for the statement to be true.

I think this is probably right. In natural language instructional contexts, it is quite common to use "A if B" meaning "A if, and only if, B". The "only if" is an implicature generated by a shared understanding that the person giving the instructions has not underdescribed the salient range of cases.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but I don't think that changing "if" to "if and only if" changes the meaning in the way I think you are intending. It still would not preclude the possibility of a creature having noticed one threat, but not having noticed another threat, being surprised because that creature has, by definition, not noticed a threat.

Agree also.

As I said upthread, the issue here isn't about the interpretation of "if" but rather the interpretation of "a" in the phrase "a threat". Does "a threat" mean "at least one threat" or "all the threats"? Both readings are acceptable in English, but obviously it makes a big difference which way you interpret it.

 

[pemerton]

nowhere do the rules define a threat as being an entire side of a conflict. In fact, they don't define threat at all, which is why I posted a dictionary definition up thread. The DM should determine whether something actually poses a threat. Personally, I'd draw the line at something that can actually do some damage to its opponents, beginning with anything with a CR above 0. If it is impossible for the unnoticed creature to actually inflict harm because of magical protections or high AC, then it is not a threat, but this is something for the DM to decide.

On the interpretation that you favour (which I think I also favour), I think the GM absolutely has to engage in adjudication as to what counts as a threat, to head of silly corner cases.

 

[pemerton]

You are right that this is a separate issue. The "a threat" techically could mean a singe threat or any threat. From context I would say the latter is intended since the former leads to absurd results (e.g. A single hidden goblin freezing a party that sees a threat of a dozen ogres).

I think the absurdity is best managed by the GM adjudicating the notion of "threat" in a sensible way.

For instance, as I posted upthread, I don't think a single goblin is a threat to a party that is geared up to charge a dozen ogres.

 

[fjw70]

I think the absurdity is best managed by the GM adjudicating the notion of "threat" in a sensible way.

For instance, as I posted upthread, I don't think a single goblin is a threat to a party that is geared up to charge a dozen ogres.

Even a dozen charging goblins shouldn't get a free round if another dozen goblins are hidden. The situation still doesn't make sense.

I just see no benefit in using the "a single threat" interpretation. A DM could manage it but the other interpretation makes things simpler and just makes more sense.

 

[Hriston]

Why would you expect "regular old surprise" to be in the rules? It's not a rule.

Did you see the smiley-face?

Oh... and I couldn't find the Cooper Color Code in the rules.

 

[Hriston]

I don't mind rules with imprecise language, nor do I mind making things up (on the contrary, I enjoy it!). However, it's pretty clear these rules don't work. To be honest, they feel like something is missing...

...they're so...skinny. Even 1e had more detailed surprise rules than 5e!

It sure did! I think what's missing is some of the fluffy descriptions of the mechanics those older editions had. The 1e DMG devoted an entire page (pp. 61-62) to surprise. I know this isn't about recreating the surprise rules of editions past, but I think it can be instructive to delve into the sources to inform our understanding of the original purpose and intent of some of these rules. Here's the part where Gygax describes what surprise actually is:

"When one side or another is surprised, this general term can represent a number of possible circumstances. In the first place it simply represents actual surprise - that is, the opponent was unprepared for the appearance/attack. The reason for this could be eating, sleeping, waste elimination, attention elsewhere, no weapon ready, etc. While each possible cause of surprise could be detailed, with a matrix and factors of time for recovery from the condition calculated to a nicety, the overall result would not materially add to the game - in fact, the undue complication would detract from the smooth flow of play.

The second factor represented in surprise is morale. What is the effect of being taken unaware and/or unprepared upon the surprised party? Reactions are not only hampered by circumstances of a physical nature. Panic or fear reactions to the situation take their toll. Again, this is all subsumed in the single surprise roll determination for each side, and in the simple set of rules governing what transpires when one or the other is surprised.

Finally, the surprising group must be able to assess the situation and act upon it, so surprise doesn't mean that the party with the advantage has automatically achieved victory and triumph. What is gained is the opportunity to act as is seen best in the circumstances - be it to flee the encounter, get the "drop" on the surprised, or to attack with spells, missiles, or blows. Of course, the other side is then forced to react to whatever the surprising side has chosen to do."

So, he breaks surprise down into three different, possible types. The first is what most are assuming is meant by surprise; you're circumstantially not ready for a fight, i.e. "plain old surprise."

The morale factor is a bit more wargamey and, I think, is causing some of the discomfort people might be having with this rule. It temporarily takes control of the character away from the player, akin to a charm effect, leading some to see surprise as something almost magical, i.e. not plain old surprise.

The third category is probably the most relevant to this discussion because it deals with the deficit of foresight and short-term planning that those who are surprised have relative to those who have surprise.

Anyway, just thought I'd remind everyone where this stuff actually comes from, not that this information isn't readily available.

 

[Essenti]

The implementation of surprise as some sort of stunned condition at the start of combat is just plain silly... I have no plans to even use that implementation of surprise as a condition. I think that reactions and delay-action rules already allow for ambushes to occur naturally.

The reaction is a really powerful, interesting, and useful concept for 5e, especially with the delayed-action you can use with them. It allows ambushes to occur more naturally, since those hidden archers are taking a triggered reaction to attack the PCs at the very start of combat. But it also allows PCs to make tactical decisions that could afford them some form of action even during an ambush.

If a player had the foresight to state a condition to take a triggered reaction (if the bandit does *whatever*, I will loose an arrow at him) they are obviously prepared to deal with THAT situation. If the PCs are unaware of the hidden archers, then they have no opportunity to state a triggered reaction to them, but they could react to the bandits in front of them if the PC stated their intention to do so.

I see no need for the surprise rules at all, they just get in the way.

 

[Cyberen]

The implementation of surprise as some sort of stunned condition at the start of combat is just plain silly... I have no plans to even use that implementation of surprise as a condition. I think that reactions and delay-action rules already allow for ambushes to occur naturally.

The reaction is a really powerful, interesting, and useful concept for 5e, especially with the delayed-action you can use with them. It allows ambushes to occur more naturally, since those hidden archers are taking a triggered reaction to attack the PCs at the very start of combat. But it also allows PCs to make tactical decisions that could afford them some form of action even during an ambush.

If a player had the foresight to state a condition to take a triggered reaction (if the bandit does *whatever*, I will loose an arrow at him) they are obviously prepared to deal with THAT situation. If the PCs are unaware of the hidden archers, then they have no opportunity to state a triggered reaction to them, but they could react to the bandits in front of them if the PC stated their intention to do so.

I see no need for the surprise rules at all, they just get in the way.

This.
Also, on the balance side, giving away a full round of action, and possibly 2 in a row, when combat is meant to take 3 rounds, is really overkill.
Rather than using triggered reactions, I would rather give auto-init to the ambushers, with maybe advantage on their attacks if a flat footed condition seems relevant (for instance, when the attack occurs outside of a situation considered as dangerous), in order to avoid a side acting twice in a row.
Split ambushes, as the one described in the OP, are not tactically optimal, if you intend to fight, as it puts a lot of pressure on the open group : not giving your hidden allies away, and not acting before the signal is given, while beign very exposed. I would give them a WIS check not to blow the plan, then disadvantage on their Init. Far simpler to turtle, block the road with rocks, and negotiate from behind a rock...

 

[Warbringer]

IMHO, Chris Perkins got this wrong.

There are two types of rules in the game for surprise: not in combat and in combat.

The not in combat rules grant a "round" of free action and the in combat rules grant advantage + special damage (rogues).

The rules that grant these benefits are essentially the same - not noticed; the benefits are different. Without this differentiation then not noticed becomes de facto action denial, and I don't belive that is the intent.

 

[fjw70]

IMHO, Chris Perkins got this wrong.

There are two types of rules in the game for surprise: not in combat and in combat.

The not in combat rules grant a "round" of free action and the in combat rules grant advantage + special damage (rogues).

The rules that grant these benefits are essentially the same - not noticed; the benefits are different. Without this differentiation then not noticed becomes de facto action denial, and I don't belive that is the intent.

What rules allow rogues an in combat surprise?