D&D 5E Assassinate

[Arial Black]

Assassinate requires that the creature still be surprised when the attack hits to qualify for critical damage. Being surprised before you are hit, but not when you are hit, does not qualify.

When the bullet hits you, you have been hit. At that point, you become aware of the threat, but you have already been hit, and auto-crit.

The bullet only does critical damage if you are still surprised when it hits. It hasn't already hit you when it hits you.

Yes, it has!

If an alarm is set to go off at precisely 6pm, then it hasn't gone off before 6, and as soon as the clock strikes 6 the alarm has gone off. There is no measurable period of time during which it is 6pm for a while. As soon as it arrives, 6pm is in the past.

Slowing down time for the purpose of examining the situation with the bullet; as the bullet travels toward the target, he has no idea that he is being attacked. He only becomes aware when the bullet hits or misses, and while the bullet is en route then it hasn't hit or missed yet. Because the target is surprised, if it hits, then it will be an auto-crit.

The target has no idea about the attack until it hits, and as soon as that awareness begins then he has already been hit. Why? Because being hit (in this case) causes the target to become aware of the threat.

Cause precedes effect. This is known as 'The Arrow Of Time', and governs the entire universe above the quantum level. I don't believe for a single moment that 5E is written for us to use quantum uncertainty to resolve the rules without bothering to mention it.

 

[Hriston]

When the bullet hits you, you have been hit.

I'm confused. At that point have you been hit twice?

At that point, you become aware of the threat, but you have already been hit, and auto-crit.

So you're saying that you become aware of the threat after you've been hit. That's not what the rules say.

If an alarm is set to go off at precisely 6pm, then it hasn't gone off before 6, and as soon as the clock strikes 6 the alarm has gone off. There is no measurable period of time during which it is 6pm for a while. As soon as it arrives, 6pm is in the past.

So an alarm going off in the present is an alarm going off in the past? I don't buy it.

I would counter your statement, however, by saying that there is no measurable period of time during which you have been hit and yet you are unaware of your attacker. The two events are meant to coincide precisely.

Slowing down time for the purpose of examining the situation with the bullet; as the bullet travels toward the target, he has no idea that he is being attacked. He only becomes aware when the bullet hits or misses, and while the bullet is en route then it hasn't hit or missed yet. Because the target is surprised, if it hits, then it will be an auto-crit.

Let's back up a moment, shall we? The actual wording of the rule is that, "when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." An attack is a d20 roll that determines whether your attack hits or misses. The question is, what does the attack roll represent in the fiction? Does it represent the moment the bullet pierces the victim's body? Or does it represent the assassin's attempt to aim and fire his weapon? I would argue for the latter. It's not a matter of being hit (or missed) by the bullet itself, but rather of the attack being determined to be a hit or a miss. This is why Shield works.

The target has no idea about the attack until it hits, and as soon as that awareness begins then he has already been hit. Why? Because being hit (in this case) causes the target to become aware of the threat.

No causality is given in the rules, only the coincidence of making the attack and giving away your position.

Cause precedes effect. This is known as 'The Arrow Of Time', and governs the entire universe above the quantum level. I don't believe for a single moment that 5E is written for us to use quantum uncertainty to resolve the rules without bothering to mention it.

I wouldn't get too hung up on cause and effect. The rules aren't written that way. If it says, Y happens when X happens, it just means that X and Y happen at the same time, not that X caused Y and so really happened first. Believe it or not, that would be overthinking it.

 

[Monk55]

I'm confused. At that point have you been hit twice?



So you're saying that you become aware of the threat after you've been hit. That's not what the rules say.



So an alarm going off in the present is an alarm going off in the past? I don't buy it.

I would counter your statement, however, by saying that there is no measurable period of time during which you have been hit and yet you are unaware of your attacker. The two events are meant to coincide precisely.



Let's back up a moment, shall we? The actual wording of the rule is that, "when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." An attack is a d20 roll that determines whether your attack hits or misses. The question is, what does the attack roll represent in the fiction? Does it represent the moment the bullet pierces the victim's body? Or does it represent the assassin's attempt to aim and fire his weapon? I would argue for the latter. It's not a matter of being hit (or missed) by the bullet itself, but rather of the attack being determined to be a hit or a miss. This is why Shield works.



No causality is given in the rules, only the coincidence of making the attack and giving away your position.



I wouldn't get too hung up on cause and effect. The rules aren't written that way. If it says, Y happens when X happens, it just means that X and Y happen at the same time, not that X caused Y and so really happened first. Believe it or not, that would be overthinking it.

It seems you are focusing on the word "make" when you should be focusing on the word "when." There is a reason why the first clause and the second clause are separated by a comma. The first clause indicates that you must be hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, nothing more. The second clause indicates that you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. Clearly, "when you make an attack" (when you loose the bowstring) and "when the attack hits or misses" (when the arrow pierces the skin or sticks in the tree next to you) are not the same point in time. In other words, the assassin is stealthy/hidden until the arrow pierces the skin or sticks in the tree next to the target, according to my reading of this rule.

To use your example of the dice roll, when the d20 leaves your hand is when you make an attack, when the d20 stops rolling and a number comes up is when the attack hits or misses. Two different points in time in both cases.

 

[MG.0]

In other words, the assassin is stealthy/hidden until the arrow pierces the skin or sticks in the tree next to the target, according to my reading of this rule.

That is one interpretation. There are others.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

lets just use a normal conversation...

I almost jumped a mile when my girlfriend yelled "Surprise" and jumped out of the dark room...

The surprise happened when she did it, there for she surprised me...

 

[Monk55]

That is one interpretation. There are others.

Thanks for the input, Captain Obvious!

 

[Hriston]

It seems you are focusing on the word "make" when you should be focusing on the word "when."

But I am focusing on the word "when", meaning "at or during the time that", and particularly with the connotation "at any time that" or "whenever" rather than "after". Note that none of these meanings dictate causality in one direction or another. If you impose causality, it restricts events to a certain order that is not present.

There is a reason why the first clause and the second clause are separated by a comma. The first clause indicates that you must be hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, nothing more.

Yeah, I haven't forgotten that we're talking about someone attacking from hiding. How else would they be revealing their location?

The second clause indicates that you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. Clearly, "when you make an attack" (when you loose the bowstring) and "when the attack hits or misses" (when the arrow pierces the skin or sticks in the tree next to you) are not the same point in time.

They are represented by the same die roll, which is why I was arguing for an interpretation that associates that die roll more with the former moment than the latter since it is the effort of the bowman that is being represented. The actual impact of the arrow is better represented by the damage roll, if any.

In other words, the assassin is stealthy/hidden until the arrow pierces the skin or sticks in the tree next to the target, according to my reading of this rule.

You can narrate the results in any way you wish. That shouldn't change the way the mechanics are supposed to work.

To use your example of the dice roll, when the d20 leaves your hand is when you make an attack, when the d20 stops rolling and a number comes up is when the attack hits or misses. Two different points in time in both cases.

And yet both represented by a single die roll which is different from the damage roll. To my mind, it is the damage roll that represents the fictional impact. Narratively speaking, the attack roll is the moment in which the assassin aims and shoots. How well he does this determines whether the shot is a hit or a miss. At that point in the narrative the arrow is still in flight, but whether it will hit or miss is now known to all. This is how the wizard knows to cast shield. When the arrow does indeed strike it's target is when you roll damage.

 

[Arial Black]

I wouldn't get too hung up on cause and effect. The rules aren't written that way. If it says, Y happens when X happens, it just means that X and Y happen at the same time, not that X caused Y and so really happened first. Believe it or not, that would be overthinking it.

Okay, the rules represent stuff actually happening in the game world. It's not just a massive co-incidence that the target starts bleeding when you shook your spear. The game mechanics of the attack roll represents your attempt to strike the target, but no matter how high you roll, it doesn't mean you hit. Whether you hit is partly dependent on the target, in terms of AC and other abilities they may have.

It's not 'overthinking it' to understand what 'attack roll' and 'hit' represent; it's assumed we understand that, since we're playing a sword & sorcery game.

 

[Hriston]

Okay, the rules represent stuff actually happening in the game world. It's not just a massive co-incidence that the target starts bleeding when you shook your spear.

If all you did was shake your spear it would be a coincidence unless there was also some magic involved.

But seriously, just because two things always happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. They could both be caused by some other event, for instance.

The game mechanics of the attack roll represents your attempt to strike the target, but no matter how high you roll, it doesn't mean you hit.

It does if you roll a 20.

Whether you hit is partly dependent on the target, in terms of AC and other abilities they may have.

Yeah, but that's the DC for the attack roll, so we're still talking about the same mechanic. The attack might hit but not actually impact because it is deflected by a shield spell.

 

[Arial Black]

And yet both represented by a single die roll which is different from the damage roll.

Actually, the attack attempt is represented by the attack roll, but whether or not it actually hits is determined by a combination of the attack roll and the target's AC, and maybe other abilities.

To my mind, it is the damage roll that represents the fictional impact.

The damage roll is a consequence of the attack roll, and only if that roll actually results in a hit after combining with the target's AC (and overcoming other possible defences).

Narratively speaking, the attack roll is the moment in which the assassin aims and shoots.

Yes.

How well he does this determines whether the shot is a hit or a miss.

No.

At that point in the narrative the arrow is still in flight, but whether it will hit or miss is now known to all.

"There's many a slip twixt cup and lip."

No matter how confident in your aim, you cannot actually know whether you hit or miss until you actually hit or miss.

You shoot an arrow at the surprised target. You roll a 17 on the d20 (pretty good!), and have an attack modifier of +5; did you hit? You cannot know! You know you would hit AC 22, but is that good enough?

The attack roll by itself does not determine if you hit. Aiming really well does not mean that the arrow will strike the target.

This is how the wizard knows to cast shield. When the arrow does indeed strike it's target is when you roll damage.

The shield spell, despite its trigger being 'when you are hit', actually represents the wizard believing that he will be hit if he doesn't throw up a shield at the last moment. The spell does not allow the wizard to actually get hit then go back in time to change the past!