Now you've jumped the shark, dude! When you are reduced to using "level of abstraction" to bolster you're otherwise counter intuitive, illogical BS, it's time to give it up. "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways." So if I use a more simulationist approach as opposed to your abstractions, then the "hit" rule changes? Absurd! Your argument does not quote rules, it uses suggestions. My parting shot is simply this: People like me will never sit at your table and people like you will never sit at mine. Good riddance to this thread!
D&D 5E Assassinate
- Thread starter Jaracove
- Start date
Now you've jumped the shark, dude! When you are reduced to using "level of abstraction" to bolster you're otherwise counter intuitive, illogical BS, it's time to give it up. "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways." So if I use a more simulationist approach as opposed to your abstractions, then the "hit" rule changes? Absurd! Your argument does not quote rules, it uses suggestions. My parting shot is simply this: People like me will never sit at your table and people like you will never sit at mine. Good riddance to this thread!
Good riddance indeed. Given this obnoxious tone, please do not post in this thread again. If you can't be civil, don't post.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
Did he not know youre a mod (of sorts)?
Arial Black
Adventurer
I agree. The issue of whether or not he remains hidden hinges on things like, does he stay in cover? Is there a darkness that the assassin can see through but the victin cannot, etc. What it does not hinge on is whether or not he is able to take reactions, nor does whether or not he notices the threat hinge on how fast he is.
Oh, in that example, just like I've described many times in this thread, the victim is no longer surprised as soon as he notices a threat. If he can see the assassin running toward him with a knife, he still takes the 'cannot act/react' penalty that he got for being surprised at the start of combat, but since he rolled a higher initiative and is able to use reactions, he can use a reaction against this attack, because he can see it!
If the attacker shot unseen from cover, then even though the (faster) victim is allowed to take reactions, he cannot react to that attack because he doesn't know about it, unlike the example where the assassin runs into plain sight to attack.
Simples.
I agree. The issue of whether or not he remains hidden hinges on things like, does he stay in cover? Is there a darkness that the assassin can see through but the victin cannot, etc. What it does not hinge on is whether or not he is able to take reactions, nor does whether or not he notices the threat hinge on how fast he is.
Oh, in that example, just like I've described many times in this thread, the victim is no longer surprised as soon as he notices a threat. If he can see the assassin running toward him with a knife, he still takes the 'cannot act/react' penalty that he got for being surprised at the start of combat, but since he rolled a higher initiative and is able to use reactions, he can use a reaction against this attack, because he can see it!
If the attacker shot unseen from cover, then even though the (faster) victim is allowed to take reactions, he cannot react to that attack because he doesn't know about it, unlike the example where the assassin runs into plain sight to attack.
Simples.
I would play it the same way in that example, but for different reasons. I've said before I think the difference between our interpretations is pretty minor in actual play.
I play surprise (or the effects of surprise if you prefer) as starting when the target notices a threat and ending as soon as the target is able to react to the threat (when the target's turn has passed and he gets his reaction back).
In that example:
The assassin succeeds on his stealth, so we know the target will be surprised if the assassin attacks. What happens next depends on initiative: If the assassin loses, the target is surprised when he sees the assassin, but has recovered by the time the assassin attacks. If the assassin beats the target on initiative, the target is horrified to see the lightning quick assassin running from behind a boulder and stabbing him before he even knows what happened. He saw the threat before the blow landed, but he was caught off-guard anyway.
What I like about basing it off initiative is allowing a scenario with, let's say, three assassins behind the boulder. If two quick assassins beat the target on initiative they are both able to use their Assassinate abiliites, but the third was too slow and so only makes a normal attack. I think it works really well.
In the case of an assassin who is completely hidden, it would have to be a very extreme example before I disallowed the target's reaction. An invisible, silenced, magically odorless bowman firing from point blank range might do it. Even then there are narrative ways to allow the reaction anyway: A stray leaf blows into the assassin's vicinity and stops when it hits him, giving the target just enough of a hint that he instinctively shifts his weight, causing the assassin's carefully crafted death blow to become a normal attack.
To each his own.
Last edited:
I have read it and understand it, I don't agree with it 100%, Assassin running from behind a rock (movement less than 30) I see the Initiative roll impact, I don't see it when the Assassin is using a Bow, has stealth and surprise but lost initiative. The Assassin fires the Arrow from 30 feet, takes less then a second for the arrow to hit but some how the victim wins the initiative and the assassin lost the autocrit. the victim does not know the assassin is there but wins the initiative
When the Arrow hits (in the back), the Assassin is no longer hidden, the damage is done, Roll Initiative
The Games that I'm in do it that way when we play 5.0, (we have never played an assassin running from a rock), we don't have assassins with an intelligence of 3 either
Last edited:
