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

[Warbringer]

What rules allow rogues an in combat surprise?

That's my point.

In combat if an opponent is unaware (failed perception vs. stealth) of the rogue he gains advantage and can use sneak attack. If combat is not yet engaged, he would gain "surprise" from the same mechanic.

No?

 

[fjw70]

That's my point.

In combat if an opponent is unaware (failed perception vs. stealth) of the rogue he gains advantage and can use sneak attack. If combat is not yet engaged, he would gain "surprise" from the same mechanic.

No?

Ah, you are calling attacking while hidden in combat surprise.

If you are hidden before combat starts you can surprise your opponents and essentially get a free round. If you stay hidden while attacking then you can also get advantage.

If you attack from hidden during combat then you get advantage. Rogue get the sneak attack with the advantage.

I don't agree with Perkins ruling but I don't think it was wrong. I think it was a DM making a ruling that he thought his players and the audience would enjoy.

 

[Thyrwyn]

essentially, yes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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."

I believe I'm the only one who has referred to "regular old surprise" in this thread, and even though I do believe in Gygax type #1 surprise, when I said "regular old surprise" I was referring to something quite different (partial information/deceptive tactics leading to bad decisions on the part of the surprised party). By using scare-quoted "plain old surprise" to refer to Gygaxian type #1 surprise I think you are conflating two separate kinds of surprise.

 

[pemerton]

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

Upthread I compared the surprise rules to Steel in Burning Wheel. Steel is primarily a morale mechanic - it has the effect you describe, of temporarily removing the player's control of his/her PC.

Thanks for the reminder that Gygax had that factored into his surrpise rules!

 

[pemerton]

Rather than using triggered reactions, I would rather give auto-init to the ambushers

Isn't this how it worked in the playtest, for at least some of the time?

 

[Warbringer]

Ah, you are calling attacking while hidden in combat surprise.

If you are hidden before combat starts you can surprise your opponents and essentially get a free round. If you stay hidden while attacking then you can also get advantage.

If you attack from hidden during combat then you get advantage. Rogue get the sneak attack with the advantage.

I don't agree with Perkins ruling but I don't think it was wrong. I think it was a DM making a ruling that he thought his players and the audience would enjoy.

Fair point, Mr Perkins is definitely a master at building fun at the table for the players and audience.

 

[Hriston]

I think you may be misreading the article. Jeff Cooper didn't invent the state of mind he calls "Condition White", he just invented the term, and I linked to it because the terms are convenient in explaining surprise. When you're reading a book in a library, and suddenly werewolves charge in and attack you, only a very special kind of person (Alert) is able to instantly transition to deadly-threat mode. Everyone else is caught in Condition White: no threat expected, mechanically "surprised" and unable to take reactions. However, if you're already in Condition Red (regardless of whether or not you call it by that name) and ready to kill some goblins at the slightest provocation, having somebody else charge you from the side will not catch you psychologically unready, so you won't freeze up, and you still get to act on your turn as normal and you get reactions. It doesn't matter if that "somebody else" turns out to actually be a third party who will kill goblins as well as you. In game turns, you were aware of a threat, so you are not surprised.

Here's the thing, Cooper's Color Code is not a comprehensive scientific study of the real mental-states that people in combat actually experience. It is an ideal that is presented for training purposes, to help you get into what Cooper calls the combat mindset. In Cooper's own words it is, "a means of setting one’s mind into the proper condition when exercising lethal violence." So, under Cooper's system, a person's mental state is not dictated by the circumstances he or she finds themselves in, but is under the control of the person as far as what they think is appropriate. Cooper explains that, "some students insist upon confusing the appropriate color with the amount of danger evident in the situation. As I have long taught, you are not in any color state because of the specific amount of danger you may be in... your combat mind-set is not dictated by the amount of danger to which you are exposed at the time. Your combat mind-set is properly dictated by the state of mind you think appropriate to the situation." So you can't assume that just because someone is in a fight that they have gone to condition red, or that if someone notices a threat that they are in condition orange. They may not even know that the threat is a threat. Only the DM knows for sure whether a monster or NPC means to do a character harm. Noticing a threat is completely different from identifying a threat as such. Sure, if everyone followed Cooper's teachings they might be able to make better decisions in a combat situation. I don't know if that's ever been proven. But it's very clear that this is not the way people naturally act. If they did then Cooper wouldn't have had to invent the Color Code to teach them how to get into the Combat Mindset. As I said up-thread, it's very unlikely that D&D characters and monsters are trained in these methods, so you don't know what their mindset is given a particular set of circumstances. I would wonder if we are both reading the same article if you hadn't provided the link yourself.

 

[Hriston]

... if the surprise rules are meant to work in scenarios like the one I described in my OP (I don't think they are), then EVERY encounter with multiple enemies should involve the most stealthy of them hiding to surprise the PCs. Then, once the PCs are surprised by that single monster, the surprise rules have that surprised condition allow ALL the other monsters (they could be clumsy trolls out in the open) to suddenly gain a round of free attacks. Why? Because the PCs are "surprised."

Obviously, this doesn't work because it defies common sense.

... applying that rule to all situations gives crazy results...

1 Goblin Rogue surprises the PCs, therefore his 30 Hobgoblin allies (who obviously failed to be disguised as human soldiers in heavy cloaks) get to take advantage of the PCs' surprised state and wail on them the first round of combat.

... I wonder how you guys don't see this as crazy?

I agree it is crazy.

... this logic leads to absurd conclusions.

So if the PCs are walking down the road and see a group of ogres charging them then a single hidden goblin could lock the PCs down in the first round. That makes no sense at all.

Only an unnoticed threat triggers surprise. If the PCs are gearing up to fight ogres, a single goblin is not a threat.

To give an extreme example, if an army is about to attack another army, a child with a kitchen knife suddenly sprining out from behind a tree is not a threat.

Interpreting what counts as a threat strikes me as a sensible, rather than ad hoc, application of "rulings not rules".

... "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 GM absolutely has to engage in adjudication as to what counts as a threat, to head of silly corner cases.

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.

Many have given examples of absurdities that could result from an interpretation of the rules that would allow a creature that is aware of a large threat, but not aware of a smaller threat, to be surprised by the threat that wasn't noticed. Others, and I'll admit to not having been one of them, have made the case that this is the place for the DM to adjudicate what constitutes a hidden threat relative to any threats which are not hidden. The relativistic approach may be beneficial when one considers the absurdity of a party of adventurers not being surprised by an ancient red dragon that had gone undetected behind a pile of treasure because they were being verbally threatened by one of her kobold servitors. When the great worm leaps into the air, unleashing a torrent of fire onto the unsuspecting travelers, the resolve they had felt, just seconds before, to quickly put an end to the kobold's impertinence, might dissolve into panic and disorder if it wasn't for the, to my mind, rather heavy-handed ruling that the detection of a single adversary makes all surprise impossible.

So what about some house-rules/rulings that would help the DM decide whether an unnoticed threat might cause surprise considering that some other threat has already been noticed? How much bigger of a threat would a hidden creature have to be than an unhidden one to still cause surprise. On the other hand, how small of a threat would a visible creature have to be to not upset the surprise caused by a greater threat that is hidden? I've already mentioned 0 CR as a threshold that I would use, but I'd like to hear how others might gauge the relative threat when there is more than one hostile creature present and at least one of them has hidden successfully.

 

[Azrothan]

The relativistic approach may be beneficial when one considers the absurdity of a party of adventurers not being surprised by an ancient red dragon that had gone undetected behind a pile of treasure because they were being verbally threatened by one of her kobold servitors. When the great worm leaps into the air, unleashing a torrent of fire onto the unsuspecting travelers, the resolve they had felt, just seconds before, to quickly put an end to the kobold's impertinence, might dissolve into panic and disorder if it wasn't for the, to my mind, rather heavy-handed ruling that the detection of a single adversary makes all surprise impossible.

Rather than looking at house ruling surprise, look at the actual encounters you're preparing.
In the case above, is the kobold meant to stall the party? And if so, is it obvious it's stalling? Why is the kobold there at all? And why wasn't it hiding? Do you want the dragon to surprise the party with the actual rule for surprise? If you want it to surprise, why attack with it prior to them dispatching the kobold? (I'm sure the dragon can hear that they're about to finish it off)

I use the interpretation of the rule that I've been mentioning throughout the thread because it will serve all the functions I need from the surprise rule. It will require the entire party/monsters working together to pull of a surprise, making it so the clonking warrior can actually spoil the surprise - or in the case of monsters, that lone goblin standing around picking his nose instead of actually hiding with his friends.

For all those other instances where you might have planned for surprise, but didn't get it (like the example with the kobold and the dragon), there is still the unseen attacker rule. Normally it gives advantage on attack rolls - so perhaps those that doesn't notice the dragon prior to the breath weapon attack should be at a disadvantage on the saving throw.