D&D 5E Assassinate

[redrick]

Boots of Elvenkind give you advantage on stealth checks, because you're silent. If being silent gives you advantage, it just makes sense that being invisible would likewise give you advantage.

Not being seen does not provide an advantage to being stealthy --- it is a requirement.

A cloak of invisibility does give AN advantage to hiding. It lets you do it. Almost everywhere. Your boots of eleven kind won't do that for you. They just make you less likely to make noise while sneaking around under total cover.

IF you have ruled that a character can hide in a situation where they can be seen, invisibility will put a finger on the advantage/disadvantage scale. Sure. But that's not the textbook stealth scenario in D&D.

Think of it like this -- if you take that cloak off and somebody is looking at you, can you still hide? If no, be happy with your cloak.

If yes -- are you totally concealed? If yes, you are already relatively invisible to that person. Being invisible twice doesn't help.

If you are able to hide from someone looking at you and are not totally concealed (before factoring in invisibility), sure, your invisibility now might you Advantage. These particular situations are not the norm in my games, but maybe they are in yours.

 

[epithet]

Not being seen does not provide an advantage to being stealthy --- it is a requirement.

...

And being invisible gives you a big advantage in "not being seen" over using simply using shadows, cover, and distraction.

 

[MG.0]

Not being seen does not provide an advantage to being stealthy --- it is a requirement.

A cloak of invisibility does give AN advantage to hiding. It lets you do it. Almost everywhere. Your boots of eleven kind won't do that for you. They just make you less likely to make noise while sneaking around under total cover.

IF you have ruled that a character can hide in a situation where they can be seen, invisibility will put a finger on the advantage/disadvantage scale. Sure. But that's not the textbook stealth scenario in D&D.

Think of it like this -- if you take that cloak off and somebody is looking at you, can you still hide? If no, be happy with your cloak.

If yes -- are you totally concealed? If yes, you are already relatively invisible to that person. Being invisible twice doesn't help.

If you are able to hide from someone looking at you and are not totally concealed (before factoring in invisibility), sure, your invisibility now might you Advantage. These particular situations are not the norm in my games, but maybe they are in yours.

Explain the difference between a cloak of invisibility and a cloak of elvenkind. Note that I'm not talking about boots of elvenkind.

One gives you advantage on stealth checks due to camouflage, the other makes you invisible... and that makes zero in-game sense.

I'm not saying that invisibility needs to give you advantage...In fact I'm not sure what the solution is just yet, having just recently discovered this anomaly. The only thing I am sure of is that the whole invisibility, camouflage, hiding , stealth, advantage, disadvantage thing needs work to make it self-consistent and believable in-game.

 

[Hriston]

I don't assume the rules are not cohesive, in fact I absolutely believe they work together.

Maybe you need to explain the difference between cohesive and integrated, because just up thread you were telling me I had a problem. Particularly, how is a concept of surprise that is associated with a clearly discernible penalty that lasts for a specific duration at a specified time integrated with a concept of surprise that has absolutely no effect unless an assassin happens to be nearby?

Here is my understanding of the intent of the rules: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!" That's what the DMG says, anyway.

I think you're confusing RAI with RAF here, but yes, we all know this. You seem to be assuming that because I have advocated for what I would call a more conservative reading of the rules, that I think the rules are more important than having a good time. What have I said that would make you think that, or is this just some kind of straw-man? If your assassin player needs to auto-crit someone every time the party wins surprise to have a good time, far be it from me to take that away from him or her.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think you're confusing RAI with RAF here, but yes, we all know this. You seem to be assuming that because I have advocated for what I would call a more conservative reading of the rules, that I think the rules are more important than having a good time. What have I said that would make you think that, or is this just some kind of straw-man? If your assassin player needs to auto-crit someone every time the party wins surprise to have a good time, far be it from me to take that away from him or her.

I think part of the problem is you think you have the one answer that is correct. Other people think THEY have the one answer that is correct. Now I don't know for sure if my answer is THE ONE, but it is the one that has given us both ease of play and fun at table... so I don't understand how my interpretation could be THAT far off when it works perfectly at the table... pages ago we got past the point where anyone was going to change there minds...

 

[MG.0]

... pages ago we got past the point where anyone was going to change there minds...

Dang it, one more page and everyone would have agreed. Now we have to start over...

 

[Arial Black]

Simple, if the assassin is somehow prevented from attacking, or chooses not to, then the target was never actually surprised or in combat! You can't really be surprised by something that didn't happen. He continues doing whatever he was doing before the round started. Consider the initiative roll in that case to be how fast the target WOULD have reacted if the attack had happened.

If the assassin attacks the target later, the target will still be surprised because it is the first round of combat from the target's perspective. I would also continue to use the initiative already rolled, rather than re-rolling. This assumes of course that nobody else gave the target cause for concern while the asassin hesitated.

So....the same result as my interpretation gives in that circumstance...!

....except my way doesn't have the target frozen in time, perpetually unable to move or act on it's turn, because every turn is its first turn as long as the assassin's actions don't reveal his presence...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Explain the difference between a cloak of invisibility and a cloak of elvenkind. Note that I'm not talking about boots of elvenkind.

One gives you advantage on stealth checks due to camouflage, the other makes you invisible... and that makes zero in-game sense.

I'm not saying that invisibility needs to give you advantage...In fact I'm not sure what the solution is just yet, having just recently discovered this anomaly. The only thing I am sure of is that the whole invisibility, camouflage, hiding , stealth, advantage, disadvantage thing needs work to make it self-consistent and believable in-game.

Let's look at a few different cases:

1). Standing in the middle of a brightly lit room.

A)cloak of invis: invisible just standing there, stealth check to move undetected.

B) cloak of elvenkind: easily seen, no stealth check allowed at all.

2) lightly obscured:

A) CoI: invisible if standing still, no stealth check needed. Stealth check to move undetected.

B) CoE: can't hide here (absent class ability), stealth check with advantage of moving from previously hidden location.

3) heavily obscured

A) CoI and CoE: hidden from view.

4) have cover

A) CoI: invisible, no stealth check needed. Stealth check to move undetected, even into areas with no cover.

B) CoE: can make stealth check with abstract to hide. Makes stealth check at advantage to move, but must stay in cover or becomes visible.


So, in almost all cases, the cloak of invisibility is superior.

 

[MG.0]

So....the same result as my interpretation gives in that circumstance...!

....except my way doesn't have the target frozen in time, perpetually unable to move or act on it's turn, because every turn is its first turn as long as the assassin's actions don't reveal his presence...

I think our methods are more similar than you realize, and the problem I see with yours is that the target is frozen for that first round because of a 'surprise' attack that never happened. My way, the target isn't frozen for even that brief period. He isn't even in combat and is free to continue doing whatever he was doing before the assassin announced his attack, e.g. walking, reading a book, eating a sandwich, etc. He might even wander away.

Think of it this way: I see the surprise and initiative rolls as *potential* things. They are triggered by the announcement of an attack, but they have no reality if the attack never comes.

An example:
An assassin and a wizard are travelling astrally and somehow manage to sneak up on an Astral Dreadnought. They are currently hidden from it. The assassin decides to attack. The party has surprise, but the wizard rolls a higher initiative than the assassin and decides to end the astral spell rather than let the assassin attack. Silently the party disappears having never given their existence away.

Question: Was the Dreadnought ever in combat?
My answer: No. He continues about his business the entire time.
Yours: Yes, and he was surprised and unable to move for one round, although he never understands why.

Another example:
The same setup, but this time the wizard delays the assassin, using his action to convince the assassin to wait a turn until he can put away his wand of hold person and get out his wand of fireballs. The assassin waits. The first round passes, but there was no combat (from the creature's perspective), so the creature goes about his business, maybe even leaving the area. If the assassin attacks during the next round, then the creature is still surprised and initiative stays as was originally rolled.

A last example:
The same setup, but this time the wizard delays the assassin by using the wand of hold person on him. The assassin fails his save and is paralyzed. The first round passes, but there was no combat (from the creature's perspective), so again the creature goes about his business. If the assassin attacks the next round, then the creature is still surprised and initiative stays as was originally rolled, although he may wish to attack the wizard instead, possibly giving away the party's existence to the creature and getting them both killed.

 

[MG.0]

4) have cover

A) CoI: invisible, no stealth check needed. Stealth check to move undetected, even into areas with no cover.

B) CoE: can make stealth check with abstract to hide. Makes stealth check at advantage to move, but must stay in cover or becomes visible.


So, in almost all cases, the cloak of invisibility is superior.

Sorry, not buying it. While I agree that invisibility should grant stealth checks where none are possible otherwise, I find it completely unbelieveable that a cloak which camouflages its wearer could ever offer a stealth advantage over one that grants invisibility. Having even one scenario where that is true breaks suspension of disbelief and is an indicator that something is wrong.

Camouflage can never be more stealthy than invisibility.

The question then becomes: How do we make it make sense while altering as little as possible?
I'm not certain yet, but I will be thinking about it.