D&D 5E Assassinate

[bgbarcus]

The idea of invisibility being less useful for Stealth than camouflage strikes me as so ridiculous that it demands a ruling from the DM. At a minimum, advantage on stealth should be given to invisible creatures.

Also, keep in mind that skill check rolls are only supposed to be used when there is a good chance of failure. In most cases the passive skill is used and that, with advantage, guarantees a minimum of 15 on stealth for an invisible creature.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The idea of invisibility being less useful for Stealth than camouflage strikes me as so ridiculous that it demands a ruling from the DM. At a minimum, advantage on stealth should be given to invisible creatures.

Also, keep in mind that skill check rolls are only supposed to be used when there is a good chance of failure. In most cases the passive skill is used and that, with advantage, guarantees a minimum of 15 on stealth for an invisible creature.

yes, and I have a lot of faith that a bunch of us have ruled that invisible targets that are not doing something odd AND no one is looking for them don't need to make stealth checks...

 

[Ovinomancer]

yes, and I have a lot of faith that a bunch of us have ruled that invisible targets that are not doing something odd AND no one is looking for them don't need to make stealth checks...

You got a chicken dinner from me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I might agree with your logic here, except for the fact that stealth isn't broken up into sight/sound/scent/whatever. The same Dex 12 Wizard attempting to hide in dim light gets an advantage over attempting to hide while invisible -- because dim light somehow makes him less noticeable in all ways over being invisible.

That's not really how it works, though. The Dex 12 Wizard attempting to hide in dim light has that represented by a Stealth check. This encompasses the non-visual aspects of hiding (because whether you can be seen or not is purely binary and up to the DM in most cases). A Perception check to notice them isn't based on vision, so it shouldn't have disadvantage. Two separate axes.

To whit, this argument insists that dim lighting not only makes it more difficult to see you, it also makes it more difficult to hear you, smell you, intuit your existence, and/or guess about your being.

Yeah, I don't think you should be applying the dim-light disadvantage on Perception checks to notice stealth'd characters.

Similarly, the cloak of elvenkind does the same thing for hiding behind a ficus -- it enhances your total stealth ability moreso than invisibility does, meaning you're altogether less noisy, smelly, possessing of a detectable aura of presence, etc.

I find it entirely believable that a cloak of elvenkind is actually helping you be more stealthy in ways that have nothing to do with being seen.

Invisibility should be at least as good as adaptive camouflage or dim lighting.

It's better. If you've got dim lighting, you might or might not be seen. If you're invisible, you simply won't be seen.

This has no bearing on whether or not you can be stealthy, except that "not being seen" is a prerequisite for trying to be stealthy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This has no bearing on whether or not you can be stealthy, except that "not being seen" is a prerequisite for trying to be stealthy.

then why does the adaptive camo give advantage?

 

[MG.0]

If you turn invisible and run up behind a ficus and try to hide, there is no chance whatsoever of you being seen. There is a chance that you bump the ficus or that an enemy hears your footsteps or that a dog smells you. A Cloak of Elvenkind might help that because it cushions your movement, softens your footfalls. Invisibility doesn't help with that because all it does is make you invisible. If you bump a ficus (blow a Stealth check), you'll still be invisible, you just won't be hidden.

Except the description of the cloak of elvenkind doesn't say it does aything of the sort, it merely makes you harder to see. Ergo, Invisibility should grant an equal or greater advantage in every situation.

Now, the boots of elven kind silence your footsteps, giving advantage on stealth checks that rely on sound.

Compare:

If I have a character wearing a cloak of invisibility and boots of elvenkind (Advantage to auditory stealth checks only)

vs.

If I have a character wearing a cloak of elvenkind and boots of elvenkind. (Advantge to all stealth checks - visual or auditory)


Yeah, that's broken.
Not to mention that the stealth check system itself kind of falls apart with the separation between sound and vision. When exactly should a rogue with boots of elvenkind get advantage vs one wearing a cloak of elvenkind? Does anyone really know, or is everyone guessing?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your supposed to apply rulings, not rules, which is one of my issues with the arguments being presented about how you automatically know where an invisible person is unless the succeed on a stealth check.

 

[Arial Black]

The rules tell us what happens if you're surprised.

Yep: vulnerability to Assassinate, and you cannot move or act until your first turn is over.

So when you are surprised, as per the rules, a certain thing happens that only happens before and during your first turn.

Although you are vulnerable to Assassinate only if you are still surprised when that attack hits, there are many possible causes of being unable to move or act. Therefore, 'unable to move/act' is not the same thing as 'surprised'.

Also, cause goes before effect, not the other way round. 'Surprise', among other things(!), causes 'unable to move/act'; 'unable to move/act' does not cause 'surprised'; nor is it equal to 'surprised'.

That means that after your turn, the thing that happens if you are surprised isn't happening any more. That's what I'm saying.

You are saying that.

But the rules do not.

If you speed, you get a fine. But the moment you pay that fine has absolutely nothing to do with when (or if) you stop speeding.

If you are surprised, you cannot move/act on your first turn, but the timing of that penalty has nothing to do with when you stop being surprised. You are surprised for as long as you don't notice a threat. Your reaction speed measures how soon you act, when you notice that there is something to react to, it doesn't inform you that there is a threat.

If the intent was for Assassinate to operate independently of this, I would think it would have been easier to say you can auto-crit a creature that hasn't noticed a threat.

Since it says that a creature who doesn't notice a threat is surprised, it kinda does!

 

[Hriston]

I completely disagree with your take on this issue. In my mind (and game,) the "mechanical" inability to move or act on your first turn is 100% the result of the "fictional state" of being surprised (as is the mechanical auto-crit of assassinate.)

In your games, how do you narrate the inability to move or act if it is not that the person is surprised? How does it make sense in the fiction for the assassin to auto-crit if the target is able to react normally?

This is what I was referring to earlier when I distinguished a role-playing game like D&D from the tactical simulations it grew out of. The mechanics of the game must serve the fiction of the role-played narrative, not form an unnecessarily restrictive framework into which the role-playing is forced to awkwardly fit.

Alright, but how, in your opinion, do the mechanics not serve the narrative the way I interpret them? How do they form an "unnecessarily restrictive framework"?

 

[Hriston]

Although you are vulnerable to Assassinate only if you are still surprised when that attack hits, there are many possible causes of being unable to move or act. Therefore, 'unable to move/act' is not the same thing as 'surprised'.

"If you’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action". The implication of this is that if you can move or take an action then you are not surprised.

Also, cause goes before effect, not the other way round. 'Surprise', among other things(!), causes 'unable to move/act'; 'unable to move/act' does not cause 'surprised'; nor is it equal to 'surprised'.

No. Not noticing a threat causes you to be unable to move or take actions until the end of your first turn. Which of these would you call "being surprised"?

You are saying that.

But the rules do not.

The rules say exactly this: "If you’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can’t take a reaction until that turn ends." Which is exactly what I said. The thing that happens if a creature is surprised (being unable to act or move), ceases to happen at the end of its turn.

If you speed, you get a fine. But the moment you pay that fine has absolutely nothing to do with when (or if) you stop speeding.

If you are surprised, you cannot move/act on your first turn, but the timing of that penalty has nothing to do with when you stop being surprised.

This mechanical penalty, as you conceive it, seems rather disassociated from the fictional conditions it is supposed to simulate. Are we to imagine our characters waiting for their time in the penalty box to be up because they have transgressed against the commandment, "Thou shalt notice a threat"?

You are surprised for as long as you don't notice a threat.

How long do you think the "start of the encounter" lasts? That's the period of time in which you are surprised if you don't notice a threat.

Your reaction speed measures how soon you act, when you notice that there is something to react to, it doesn't inform you that there is a threat.

No, of course not. That would be silly. Is that what you think I've been saying?

If so, you must be confused, so allow me to explain without any reference to the word "surprise". Your reaction speed (i.e. your initiative) measures not only how quickly the actions you take are resolved, but also how quickly you recover from being unable to move or act due to having not noticed a threat. For example, a wizard who has thus recovered may cast Shield in response to an attack that will hit him, regardless of whether the attacker had previously been noticed, whereas a wizard who hasn't yet recovered could not cast his spell.

Since it says that a creature who doesn't notice a threat is surprised, it kinda does!

A creature who doesn't notice a threat is not surprised at any time other than the start of the encounter. That's when it says the creature is surprised.