D&D 5E Little rules changes that still trip you up

[Flamestrike]

It does none of those things. The auto-crit on the Assassinate ability is a minor benefit that Assassins get. I think the only reason it is there is because they probably already have advantage on an attack if they have surprised their opponent so they need something else if they also win initiative in that circumstance.

On topic this is a common rules mistake in many AL games I participate in.

So many DMs grant advantage against surprised foes. Ive had to point out to several that being surprised in and of itself doesnt grant advantage to your attacker.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is not accurate. First, you get one free object interaction. Second, there is no such thing as an off-hand in 5e, until you use two-weapon fighting to trigger a bonus action attack. And, then, you choose which attack is off-hand at the time of the attacks. So, in your scenario, free hand uses object interaction to unlock the door while the other makes a regular attack (or more, with extra attacks). Of course, you would need a free hand, so two-weapon fighting isn't relevant, anyway.

Free object, another rule I tend to forget about. But the idea that you can make a bonus attack with your “off-hand” but you can only swing that arm when you attack, does sometimes confuse me when their turn is spent doing something like dragging someone or grappling or something else, door was bad example.

The charmed target also can't attack the person who charmed them, which can be quite useful.

I was aware of the “gateway effect” that Banana was talking about, but completely forgot it prevents them from attacking you. Which should get added to my list I suppose.


On assassin surprise, I’m mostly with I’m a Banana.

Let’s change the language a little bit in his example.

Order of Operations:
1 - Assassin: "I’m planning on shooting my bow at the unaware guard!"
2 - DM: "Okay, the guard is surprised. Roll initiative."
3 - Init is rolled. Guard wins.
4 - DM: "Okay, the guard is not surprised anymore because of reasons. Your turn."
5 - Assassin: "Okay, I don't shoot the guard. I’ll wait til he comes back around and try and line up another shot”
6 - DM: "Uhh...okay, no combat happens, and the guard continues on its patrol, still unaware of you. "
7 - ...etc?

So here, the Assassin never declared an action, they never said they were doing something. So they are not retroactively undoing an action, just changing their mind.

Better?
Ah, but an Assassin has no way to know what the initiative result was and that they no longer have the crit… because why? Obviously they are making a different attack now than they were before, something has changed because the enemy is more alert, able to react.

And honestly, the ability to react bugs me. An assassin rolls a 37 stealth versus a noblemen in his study. Initiative is rolled. Nothing at all has happened for him to notice the enemy in the room, but suddenly he is more alert and ready to react. I can see the movie visuals you guys are talking about, but for me that creak of the bow, or glimpse in a mirror represents failing the stealth check, because now the enemy knows where you are. Not failing the initiative.

 

[Flamestrike]

Let’s change the language a little bit in his example.

Order of Operations:
1 - Assassin: "I’m planning on shooting my bow at the unaware guard!"

DM: 'OK, nothing happens. The guard opens a Playboy mag (Play-orc?) he had lying around and starts flicking through the pages'

Your move.

 

[abirdcall]

On topic this is a common rules mistake in many AL games I participate in.

So many DMs grant advantage against surprised foes. Ive had to point out to several that being surprised in and of itself doesnt grant advantage to your attacker.

Absolutely. To tie it back into the thread I am sure people try to treat being surprised as being 'flat footed'.

To be clear, I said 'probably'.

I think it is likely in the design of the Assassinate ability they needed to address the problem of redundancy. Rogues want to attack from hiding. Attacking while hidden does grant advantage so the Assassinate power that grants advantage when winning initiative is redundant when the Rogue is doing what they want to be doing. The solution is to give them an extra bonus when they win initiative and already have advantage. A good way to have that apply to the most common form of advantage a Rogue will be getting and tie it into the narrative is to apply it to surprise. This is conjecture of course, but the rules are clear and have even been clarified (I think it was a Sage Advice column at some point).

 

[abirdcall]

Ah, but an Assassin has no way to know what the initiative result was and that they no longer have the crit… because why? Obviously they are making a different attack now than they were before, something has changed because the enemy is more alert, able to react.

And honestly, the ability to react bugs me. An assassin rolls a 37 stealth versus a noblemen in his study. Initiative is rolled. Nothing at all has happened for him to notice the enemy in the room, but suddenly he is more alert and ready to react. I can see the movie visuals you guys are talking about, but for me that creak of the bow, or glimpse in a mirror represents failing the stealth check, because now the enemy knows where you are. Not failing the initiative.

You are misinterpreting what it means to win initiative and then are troubled by your own misinterpretation. Of course you are troubled by it because it doesn't make sense.

Think of it this way: The Assassin fires the bolt at their target. Target rolls initiative, if they fail they don't get a chance for a special reaction. If they succeed they do.

Also, 99% of characters won't have a reaction to use anyway. Even if the guard does succeed on initiative, they are highly unlikely to have a reaction to use. In this case it just means that they adjusted themselves (or whatever) in a way that the Assassin didn't anticipate, and so they only do sneak attack damage, not an auto-critical.

I get that you think things represent different things. Here is the thing: This isn't 3.x or 4e or some other different game.

This is how 5e has always been. You just misinterpreted how to play it and haven't been playing by the rules the whole time.

I get that much of the terminology is the same or similar to previous editions, but this is a new edition which means that it is a new game. It has different design goals and the rules are constructed in a different way. I am personally 100% on board with the new design philosophy which is probably why I read it correctly from the start.

Transition periods are always the most difficult thing to handle. In this case we are looking at how different games handle the transition from a loose narrative timing structure to a strict turn based one. 3.x is very strict in what you can do turn by turn and is much more simulationist in its approach than 5e is. 5e is more concerned with representing tropes and story beats and is more narrative in its structure than 3.x. As a result they have entirely different ways of handling a similar situation. It is because they are different games.

 

[Olrox17]

The discussion on surprise is getting interesting. However, I'm not exactly sure how the interpretation that ad_hoc's and others are giving would work in a more complex scenario. An example:

A party of four characters, thanks to a pass without trace spell, is moving very stealthy. Two of the characters have the assassinate feature.
The party come across a group of guards they want to ambush. Each guard is a different type of NPC, so they each get an initiative roll.

When does the combat actually start?
Does it start when one of the characters declares an attack and a target?
Or do you require that each character specifies an action and a target before initiative is rolled?
Do you allow the assassins to pick a surprised target, or do they just have to guess and hope they pick one that hasn't rolled high initiative?

I'm not trying to say your approach is wrong or anything, I'm just genuinely confused on how it works on complex scenarios.

 

[abirdcall]

I'm not trying to say your approach is wrong or anything, I'm just genuinely confused on how it works on complex scenarios.

It isn't my approach.

It is the rules of 5e.

See pg 189 of the PHB for the order of combat.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant but it is there. The best thing to do is to forget how previous editions did things. Don't make assumptions, just follow the 5e rules only.

Btw, whether or not there is a Pass Without Trace spell or whether characters have the Assassinate ability is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Olrox17]

It isn't my approach.

It is the rules of 5e.

See pg 189 of the PHB for the order of combat.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant but it is there. The best thing to do is to forget how previous editions did things. Don't make assumptions, just follow the 5e rules only.

Btw, whether or not there is a Pass Without Trace spell or whether characters have the Assassinate ability is irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm just asking for clarification. After all, this discussion wouldn't have happened without different interpretations of the rules, right?
Pass without trace was just there to give a justification for a full stealth party. You can remove it from the example and assume the entire party is stealthy (for whatever reason, good rolls, good skills etc).
Assassinate could relevant though. But you can ignore it if you wish, it's a secondary concern.

The most important questions about my hypothetical scenario were:


1-Does combat start (i.e. initiative is rolled for everyone) when one of the characters declares an attack and a target?
2-Or do you require that each character specifies an action and a target before initiative is rolled?


Edit: I should probably clarify further. I'm a DM in a game in which the entire party is trained in stealth with good dex. Two of the PCs are rogues (expertise stealth), one is a bard (expertise stealth) and another is a shadow monk (shadow monks get to cast pass without trace). You can see how my hypothetical scenario can be a very common occurrence in my game.

 

[Ahrimon]

I look at this as a difference between being totally caught off guard and unprepared and on edge or a heightened sense of awareness. The character with alertness can be completely caught off guard but they'll never be surprised because of their "spidey sense". Whether it's a heightened set of reflexes, a preternatural awareness, or something mystical. They're caught off guard but not "surprised". It's the same with being hidden. Just because you are hidden doesn't mean that no one knows or suspects that someone is there.

This works for initiative too. In my games it would go like this.

1 - Assassin (hidden): "I'm going to shoot my bow at the unaware guard!"
2 - DM: "Roll initiative."
3 - Initiative is rolled. Guard wins.
4. - DM: "Just as you prepare to draw your bow back the guards ears perk up. He appears to be on alert. Your turn."
5. - Assassin (still hidden): "Okay, I don't shoot the guard. I'll wait until he comes back around and try to line up another shot."
6. - DM: "Ok, but it may be a while, something seems to have spooked the guard and he's looking around nervously. As you wait, you notice him talking to another guards who is acting more alert now."
...

 

[FarBeyondC]

When does the combat actually start? Does it start when one of the characters declares an attack and a target?

Yes.

Do you allow the assassins to pick a surprised target, or do they just have to guess and hope they pick one that hasn't rolled high initiative?

If for some reason I was hiding initiatives from the players (normally I have all initiatives out in the open so that everyone knows the turn order), then the assassins would have to guess and hope. Otherwise, except for the player that started combat with their attack declaration, I'd let everyone choose their target (including still surprised targets).