D&D 5E Assassinate

[Arial Black]

But nothing about casting shield says you need to perceive the person making the attack or the person casting the magic missile spell.

Not only does it apply to all reactions, it applies to all actions too! You must be able to perceive a creature or force or attack or...whatever...in order to target it. This is why it doesn't need to be part of every description.

If you target an attack, then you must perceive the attack. Not the creature doing the attacking, but the attack itself.

 

[Paraxis]

Not only does it apply to all reactions, it applies to all actions too! You must be able to perceive a creature or force or attack or...whatever...in order to target it. This is why it doesn't need to be part of every description.

If you target an attack, then you must perceive the attack. Not the creature doing the attacking, but the attack itself.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this, because we both seem to be reading the same rules and somehow you are getting a completely different understanding.

Every reaction that needs a visual component states it in the description, every single one.

A few don't have that component like shield and monk deflect missiles are on a hit, and do not have "from a creature you can see" like say hellish rebuke spell does.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The noble recognises the 6th level fighter as a friend, and has no reason to expect an attack nor expect that the fighter has been mind controlled.

So, this is auto-death for the mayor, right? Wrong!

I'm sorry but you don't have the ability to unilaterally call people wrong... please show what makes your thoughts more important then mine, or anyone else here...

Well, it is the way you run it! But run properly,

excuse me... my way is proper, and in this case something that happened in a game I was a PC in, not the GM... so don't try to pretend you got elected 'king of rules"

there is an opposed Deception/Insight check to see if the mayor notices something wrong;

um...nope, the mayor isn't looking for deception, he doesn't get a free "Hey what is about to happen roll"

some look in the eye, some lack of emotion, some discernible clue. You may expect the mayor to lose this contest, and if he does then he's surprised. But he may win the contest and not be surprised. He may also be faster than the fighter, and get his retaliation in first!

since you like quoteing rules, even ones that don't exsist please show me where the rules say any of this...

Let's say the mayor lost the contest; for whatever reason the mayor did not notice a threat, so he is surprised. If the mayor is faster, he can't act on his first turn but he can react and he can react to that attack because the fighter helpfully brought it to his attention by saying, 'Hey Jon'! So the mayor might be able to cast shield or use Uncanny Dodge or use any useful reaction.

while I do find it funny that the mayor is now a rogue wizard in your scenario... I am yet to hear anything saying I am wrong other then IN YOUR OPIONON YOU WOULD RUN IT DIFFRENT THEN MY DM... see that is the thing you are no more wrong AND no more right then the DM that ran it...

The trouble is that, out of the four possibilities, you have decided what the result will be! That's what the rules are for! That's what the skills of the player and character should affect!

the rules say the DM decides when and if to roll dice...

Although the DM can, in theory say, 'Rocks fall, everybody dies!', this is not meant to be a masturbatory fantasy where one guy abuses his role as DM to narrate an inescapable death to a bunch of 'players' who have no real agency.

and not one scenero that I have mentioned, not in my Tuesday game with a PC assassin and a few NPC assasins, not in either in this most recent time did that happen... so what are you saying here?

As written, the rules make it fair on both sides by the mechanics of both rolling for initiative and an opposed check to determine surprise.

I think the way I and my group read the rules is fair to both sides...

please walk me through when you think I or any DM I play under was unfair...

 

[MG.0]

Example 1: The 6th level fighter with his +2 volcanic axe (deals 2w of damage but it's all fire damage) gets mind controlled to kill the mayor... the mayor is a book stat noble...

the player walks up behind him and yells "Hey Jon," and when he turns he says he swings with power attack... the entire fight is 1 roll "Just see if you hit him, or if you roll a 1"

I don't really agree.

The fighter would be rolling deception vs the passive insight of the mayor since the mayor isn't actively looking for trouble from the fighter. If the mayor wins, he notices the fighter is up to something and isn't surprised. Then it would come down to initiative. If the mayor loses, he is probably dead. If he wins, he might be able to run away, or at least yell for help. It also matters if other people are around that might also notice the fighter's murderous intent quickly enough to intervene.

Edit: There's nothing wrong with doing it your way. I just think situations are not so black and white.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

What [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] said.

I do just "decide" if something happens or not, even though there are rules for rolling dice for it, a couple times a session. Sometimes I think about a situation and just can not see any reasonable chance of some particular outcome, or, to put it another way, a situation where "chance" isn't going to play much of a part. This can be anything. From Saving throws against spells, to Death Saves, to Attack, Skill or some other roll...including Initiative.

If a DM can run a fair and "neutral" game where he can just upright decide "Hmmm.... no. He goes first, sorry", or "Hmmmm.... no. He has no clue. You go first. Roll...". ... and your players accept that (such is the case with my group and my game), IMHO this is more describable than where the players argue with the DM, flipping open books and pointing to rules, then insisting on some dice roll or another. This is a player <--> DM trust issue. No amount of rules layering, or "Sage Advice" reading, nor RPG Forum post debating is going to change that.

Anyway, I think this is what GMforPowergamers is trying to get at. Sometimes the DM can see a situation and decide how it will start/play-out/end without having to resort to dice rolling. Trusting players will have no problem with this. Untrusting players will have problems with it. Why are the untrusting? Who knows? Faaaaar too many variables, from actual personal history, to being 'new' to the DM and his style, to the DM just being a total d-bag and not earning it. But no matter what it does boil down to this: The dice can be used or not, and in the case of an invisible assassin successfully sneaking up on a totally unsuspecting wizard... a DM just deciding "No, you can't get your Shield spell up" is totally and completely within his/her rights.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[MG.0]

Hiya! What [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] said. I do just "decide" if something happens or not, even though there are rules for rolling dice for it, a couple times a session. Sometimes I think about a situation and just can not see any reasonable chance of some particular outcome, or, to put it another way, a situation where "chance" isn't going to play much of a part. This can be anything. From Saving throws against spells, to Death Saves, to Attack, Skill or some other roll...including Initiative.

I agree there are times it is OK to just rule something happens or doesn't happen. I do think most situations allow some uncertainty though.

 

[Arial Black]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this

Yeah, I'm getting that impression.

A few don't have that component like shield and monk deflect missiles are on a hit, and do not have "from a creature you can see" like say hellish rebuke spell does.

I'm AFB right now, but let's say Deflect Missiles doesn't say that the monk needs to see the attack coming...

Why not? If he is snoozing, does he wake up and catch the arrow, even if he fails his Perception? What if the monk is blind; does his 'allowed to take reactions' status allow him to know where the arrow is to catch it, even if he fails Perception checks?

There's no way a monk could catch the arrow if he didn't even know about the attack and did not detect it, just because his reactions are not restricted.

 

[Paraxis]

Why not? If he is snoozing, does he wake up and catch the arrow, even if he fails his Perception? What if the monk is blind; does his 'allowed to take reactions' status allow him to know where the arrow is to catch it, even if he fails Perception checks?

There's no way a monk could catch the arrow if he didn't even know about the attack and did not detect it, just because his reactions are not restricted.

If the monk is snoozing he would be unconscious and not able to take reactions.

Incapacitated is the condition that prevents you from taking actions or reactions.

The paralyzed, petrified, stunned and unconscious conditions all also make you incapacitated.

So as long as the monk meets all the requirements to use his deflect missiles ability they can use it. Those requirements are having a reaction to use, being able to use a reaction (so not being incapacitated for example), and being hit by a ranged missile weapon.

In your example a blind monk who is meditating is attacked with a ranged missile weapon, they can indeed use their deflect missiles ability. Now we can get this back to the topic of surprise, if the monk is surprised they can not use reactions until they have taken their first turn.

So this is how it would play out in my game.

Blind elf monk who is meditating during a long rest is in a "semi-conscious" state, I rule that they are not unconscious some DM's rule differently. An assassin fires a bow out from the cover of trees and darkness (not that it matters because the guy is blind) at the monk. Initiative is rolled. If the assassin goes first all is good for him, the monk is still surprised and can't use reactions the assassin if he doesn't roll poorly and miss will hit and do his sneak attack damage and it will be a critical hit. If on the other hand the blind monk wins initiative (doubtful because I would most likely apply disadvantage for being in the middle of meditation and being ambushed) and goes first by the time the assassin fires his arrow the monk can use their reaction to deflect the missile and because the monk is no longer surprised the attack is not an automatic critical hit. The monk will reduce the damage by 1d10+ dex mod + monk level, if the monk reduces it down to 0, and has a free hand, they could catch the arrow and throw it back at the assassin, as the reaction interrupted the assassins turn the assassin hasn't had a chance to bonus action hide yet, and the attack revealed the assassins location, the monk spends a ki point and hurls the arrow back at the assassin, with disadvantage obviously because he is blind.

I think the above works by the rules of the game, and for narrative reasons no matter who wins the initiative. I even think the monk throwing the arrow back is much more entertaining for everyone at the table.

 

[Arial Black]

I'm sorry but you don't have the ability to unilaterally call people wrong... please show what makes your thoughts more important then mine, or anyone else here...



excuse me... my way is proper, and in this case something that happened in a game I was a PC in, not the GM... so don't try to pretend you got elected 'king of rules"

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not saying, 'What I say is more right than what you say because I'm King of the Rules'. I'm saying that the rules say that combat takes place in Combat Rounds.

It would have no value to debate the things DMs are allowed to use 'rule 0' for, because they can do whatever they like, until their players leave.

I am discussing the actual rules.

um...nope, the mayor isn't looking for deception, he doesn't get a free "Hey what is about to happen roll"

Fair enough. In that case the fighter would roll his Deception against the passive Insight of the mayor.

while I do find it funny that the mayor is now a rogue wizard in your scenario...

Oh, it's quite possible that the mayor doesn't have any useful reaction.

the rules say the DM decides when and if to roll dice...

Sure. The DM can just tell you who wins every combat, instead of letting you roll dice and make your own decisions. If he does that, why would anyone want to play? At this point it's just "Magic Story Time". The only thing players have in this game is agency; the fact that they choose what they do and how they do it, with some idea of the odds. If the DM takes that away by just telling them the result of a conflict, giving them no chance to affect the result when the expectation is that the whole point of the game is that players do affect the result, then there is no point playing.

I think the way I and my group read the rules is fair to both sides...

please walk me through when you think I or any DM I play under was unfair...

Okay.

My latest PC has become the mayor of a small village. He has great Insight skills to gauge the mood of the people, as well as great Cha skills, of course.

One day, his friend Fred the 6th level fighter is somehow 'magicked' into assassinating my mayor PC. Did the fighter fail a save against this, or did the DM 'decide not to bother rolling' and just decide that Fred would 'obviously' fail any save so why bother rolling?

So Fred gets close to me; and why not? He then says, 'Hey, pal!' and the DM decides I'm dead.

Boy, that was fun!

Alternatively, the DM could ask Fred to make a Deception check against my passive Insight. The DM might give him disadvantage if Fred is fighting against the control, or advantage if the magic is powerful. Either way, there shouldn't be no chance at all that I notice something wrong! That doesn't seem either reasonable, fair or fun. If there is a check and the result of that check means I'm surprised, so be it.

If I'm surprised, I may be faster and if I have a useful reaction then I could use it. This would be denied to me under your DM.

If I'm not surprised, he might be faster than me but I'd be able to use a reaction. This would be denied to me by your DM.

I could be unsurprised and faster than Fred. I might have noticed something wrong. I might have the Alert feat, or a Weapon of Warning. I could then attack Fred (hopefully with something non-lethal). This would be denied to me by your DM.

Basically, it's like Brazil playing San Marino at soccer; you may believe Brazil will win 10-0, but that's the game. What is not the game is the referee saying "I can't be bothered to play because it's obvious Brasil will win, so I'm just going to award the game to Brazil without a ball being kicked".

I want to play the game, not be a helpless spectator while someone else tells me how I did.

 

[Arial Black]

So this is how it would play out in my game.

Blind elf monk who is meditating during a long rest is in a "semi-conscious" state, I rule that they are not unconscious some DM's rule differently. An assassin fires a bow out from the cover of trees and darkness (not that it matters because the guy is blind) at the monk. Initiative is rolled. If the assassin goes first all is good for him, the monk is still surprised and can't use reactions the assassin if he doesn't roll poorly and miss will hit and do his sneak attack damage and it will be a critical hit. If on the other hand the blind monk wins initiative (doubtful because I would most likely apply disadvantage for being in the middle of meditation and being ambushed) and goes first by the time the assassin fires his arrow the monk can use their reaction to deflect the missile

Although the monk is able to use reactions in the general sense, the monk has not succeeded on a Perception/Stealth contest, and for the monk, absolutely nothing has happened. The contrast between the assassin or the monk winning initiative is not something that actually happens in the game world; it is not an event.

What actually happens is that, while the blind monk is meditating, a completely undetected assassin shoots the monk. Whether or not the monk is faster doesn't affect what the monk notices. The way you run it, faster characters gain supernatural senses which warn them of attacks even though their actual senses did not. You are giving the ability to sense danger to rolls which have nothing to do with sensing danger.

It would be like archery skill helping you in Arcana checks.

and because the monk is no longer surprised

Woah, woah, woah! Easy tiger! Who says the monk is no longer surprised? The rules certainly don't! The monk is still sat there with his empty eyes closed and he hasn't seen or heard the assassin at all! He has not 'noticed a threat'.

the attack is not an automatic critical hit.

It is, because the monk is just as surprised now as he was a moment ago. Once the arrow bites, then he'll notice a threat!

The monk will reduce the damage by 1d10+ dex mod + monk level, if the monk reduces it down to 0, and has a free hand, they could catch the arrow and throw it back at the assassin, as the reaction interrupted the assassins turn the assassin hasn't had a chance to bonus action hide yet, and the attack revealed the assassins location, the monk spends a ki point and hurls the arrow back at the assassin, with disadvantage obviously because he is blind.

The monk doesn't gain supernatural senses just because he's got a high initiative roll! He still hasn't noticed the assassin, has no way to see an arrow fly toward him (because he already failed his Perception/Stealth contest), and so cannot target the arrow attack in any way.