D&D 5E Assassinate

[Hriston]

you are only right at your table, at mine, or the two I play at you are wrong we do not play it that way nor do we agree with your interpretation...

Of course, but you must admit that you are not using the game's definition of "surprise". Why would anyone expect you to follow the rules about when it ends?

 

[Celtavian]

Where does Mearls endorse out-of-initiative attacks?

My statement was agreeing with the post I quoted. Coredump is right that according to Mearls there are not out of combat attacks.

 

[Celtavian]

First of all.... being invisible *DOES* give advantage on attack rolls.
Second...what are you talking about?? You quoted me, but I said *nothing* about gaining advantage on attack rolls from 'exceptional stealth'....??

My entire passage is about getting advantage on the *initiative* roll (and/or disadvantage for the target)

I meant advantage on initiative rolls. Apparently that's what happens after you work 16 hours.

I don't hand out advantage on initiative rolls for "exceptional stealth." That would devalue enhance ability dexterity. I believe it would set a bad precedent.

 

[Celtavian]

Not really. Surprise is an exception to the general rule that you can take your reaction whenever circumstance or an ability triggers it. For the period in which you are surprised, which is from the beginning of combat until the end of your first turn, you cannot take you reaction. It really has nothing to do with when your reaction refreshes, especially considering you haven't had an opportunity to take a reaction yet. It wouldn't make sense, for example for you to be able to take your reaction in the first round before your turn, and then not be able to during your turn.

Yeah, it is an exception...now that Mearls has confirmed it is an exception.

I'm saying absent clarification, it is not too great a leap to assume you lost a turn because you can't take reactions like you normally could at the start of your turn.

 

[Hriston]

My statement was agreeing with the post I quoted. Coredump is right that according to Mearls there are not out of combat attacks.

Then I misunderstood, but your intent doesn't seem to have been to agree with Coredump since his post wasn't citing Mearls, but was rather citing the rules.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, it is an exception...now that Mearls has confirmed it is an exception.

I'm saying absent clarification, it is not too great a leap to assume you lost a turn because you can't take reactions like you normally could at the start of your turn.

Sure, but it's a leap nevertheless. Read at face value, the Surprise rules simply impose some restrictions on your activity during and before your first turn. To assume that means you lose a turn is adding a layer of complexity that isn't there.

 

[Celtavian]

Then I misunderstood, but your intent doesn't seem to have been to agree with Coredump since his post wasn't citing Mearls, but was rather citing the rules.

And Mearls agrees with that rules interpretation. There are no out of combat attacks. That is why I clarified.

 

[Hriston]

And Mearls agrees with that rules interpretation. There are no out of combat attacks. That is why I clarified.

Ok, now I understand. It's so easy to read intent that isn't there into text-based communication.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Of course, but you must admit that you are not using the game's definition of "surprise". Why would anyone expect you to follow the rules about when it ends?

I disagree, the word surprise has a meaning... to not see something coming, to be taken by surprise... the game ADDs 'if in the first round of combat.... no where does page 189 (the only surprise rules I can find) say "Ignore what the word surprise means in every day language and instead make it a term that only ever means in the first round of combat"... so yes, you can surprise someone when you do something surprising...

I really don't understand how it is possible to read the word surprise, and not think it means surprise...

Just like when someone said person A can't surprise you if you know person B is there.... or to put this in a very easy to understand analogy, if my girlfriend walks up to you and says "I need help I'm lost, can you show me on my phone's map where we are?" and I am hiding near by, when you look at the phone to help I can't jump out and surprise you with a knife... after all you knew she was there, she isn't surprising you... and according to you guys if two people are working togather they can't set up for one to surprise the target unless they both do...


back to the three round assassin feast that actually happened in my game... the Drow attacked the wizard with assassinate (auto crit, sneak attack and did like 90% of the wizards HP in one hit) the PC bard assassin broke invisibility and hit the drow with an assassinate (autocrat sneak attack) round 2 the drow turned on the PC and hit with 2 attacks for almost no damage, the wizard readied and action to disengage after the PC went, then the PC hit the drow with sneak attack (Another enemy adjacent...aka npc wizard) then wizard backed off round 3 the drow hit the PC 2 more times, then the wizard cast magic missle, then moved back into melee, then the PC killed the drow with a sneak attack...

end result was the plan worked... and My group even after this thread was mentioned still belive we are playing by the rules....

 

[epithet]

And Mearls agrees with that rules interpretation. There are no out of combat attacks. That is why I clarified.

Well, there can't be "out of combat" attacks, because an attack is, pretty much definitively, combat. I do think that you can have out of initiative attacks, however. If you're attacking an incapacitated target, you hardly need initiative, because "Who goes first?" isn't a question when only one of you goes.