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

[machineelf]

So in your example above the assassin would not get his auto-crit since the guard went first.

That's not my interpretation of it. The guard didn't go first; he lost his turn in the first round because he was surprised. He only had a chance to use a reaction because his initiative was high enough, but using a reaction isn't going first. It's a reaction to an event at some point in the round. Normally someone can use their reaction at any point in the round. But when someone is surprised, they can only use their reaction after their initiative order (where they cannot do a normal action) has passed. In my interpretation the assassin still auto crits.

 

[abirdcall]

That's not my interpretation of it. The guard didn't go first; he lost his turn in the first round because he was surprised. He only had a chance to use a reaction because his initiative was high enough, but using a reaction isn't going first. It's a reaction to someone who has acted to attack you or someone else. In my interpretation the assassin still auto crits.

He didn't lose his turn.

He specifically gets a turn.

Here is the quote again from pg. 189:

"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."

Once your turn ends all consequences of surprise are over. Ergo, you are no longer surprised.

It is further clarified here:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016

 

[Xetheral]

How does this work out in play? Do you, as a DM, ask your players what they consider to be a threat or not? Or, as a player, when you encounter a creature, do you declare whether you consider it a threat? If so, I see no reason why a player wouldn't always automatically assume that every creature encountered is a threat. If not, then is it up to the DM to decide what the PC thinks? To me, that's not an acceptable division of duties at the table. I'll decide what my PC thinks is a threat, thank you very much. What I'm reading in this thread, however, is that if my PC sees an orc then my PC thinks it's a threat, and if my PC spends the night with a princess then my PC thinks she isn't a threat. That's the DM telling me how to play my character, which to me is unacceptable.

Basically what Plaguescarred said. I usually assume PCs consider all objective threats to be subjective threats. When there is a question, I rely on a contest (if the threat is purposefully trying to conceal its threatening nature) or a check (if other circumstances might conceal the threat).

In the other direction, where the threat posed by the PCs may go unnoticed by the NPC opponents, I either use a die roll as described above, or, since the perceptions of NPCs are entirely up to me, simply grant the PCs surprise by fiat.

Examples:

• A threat trying to remain entirely unnoticed: Stealth vs (Passive) Perception, as described in the example in the book.
• Getting close to someone in a tightly-packed, anonymous crowd without appearing threatening: Deception or (maybe) Sleight of Hand vs Perception, or Passive Perception, or Insight, or Passive Insight, depending on the specific circumstances.
• A sorcerer casting a Subtle Dominate Person to have the target unexpectedly attack its allies: Fixed-DC Insight check if observed between the casting and the sorcerer spending his next action to assume total control, or the sorcerer's Deception (possibly at disadvantage) vs Insight if observed after assumption of total control.

 

[machineelf]

You're right about the way they clarified that rule. That seems silly to me ant completely not what the intent seemed to be to me in the player's handbook. So I'm going to just have to house-rule in my games that surprise ends at the end of the round, not the end of the turn. I'm not sweating it.

 

[abirdcall]

You're right about the way they clarified that rule. That seems silly to me ant completely not what the intent seemed to be to me in the player's handbook. So I'm going to just have to house-rule in my games that surprise ends at the end of the round, not the end of the turn. I'm not sweating it.

It is basically the entire point of not having a surprise round as they did in 3.x.

The intent of the assassinate ability has always been that they need to win initiative to utilize it.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

By that reasoning you could say that no one can be surprised because they know a threat could come from anywhere at any time, so they are always alert to danger.

But the requirement is that they notice a threat. That is seeing, hearing, feeling or smelling it.

 

[Ahrimon]

That's not my interpretation of it. The guard didn't go first; he lost his turn in the first round because he was surprised. He only had a chance to use a reaction because his initiative was high enough, but using a reaction isn't going first. It's a reaction to an event at some point in the round. Normally someone can use their reaction at any point in the round. But when someone is surprised, they can only use their reaction after their initiative order (where they cannot do a normal action) has passed. In my interpretation the assassin still auto crits.

But the guard did go first, he won initiative. He just couldn't take any actions. And now that his turn is over he can take reactions and is no longer susceptible to the assassins auto-crit. There is no "lose your turn when surprised" in 5e, but there is can't take an action on the first round when you are surprised. Functionally they're pretty much the same thing but in the rare vs assassin case it makes a difference.

That's how I read the rules, and it's pretty much RAW and RAI from everything I have read in the books and from the devs. But every DM is always free to run the game how they see fit.

 

[machineelf]

It is basically the entire point of not having a surprise round as they did in 3.x.

The intent of the assassinate ability has always been that they need to win initiative to utilize it.

Sure, I get that. But I don't see why they felt the need to do it. I don't think the assassination ability was too powerful if they hit at any point in the first round while sneaking. I'll have to think about it, but I just don't think it's worthy the trouble of explaining the nuance of this rule to my assassination rogue player and nerfing his ability. I think I'm gonna let him have his fun. But you do seem to be correct about this rule. I'll have to give it some thought about how I'm going to deal with it for future assassination rogues in my game. I'll likely adopt the rule at that point.

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, I get that. But I don't see why they felt the need to do it. I don't think the assassination ability was too powerful if they hit at any point in the first round while sneaking. I'll have to think about it, but I just don't think it's worthy the trouble of explaining the nuance of this rule to my assassination rogue player and nerfing his ability. I think I'm gonna let him have his fun. But you do seem to be correct about this rule. I'll have to give it some thought about how I'm going to deal with it for future assassination rogues in my game. I'll likely adopt the rule at that point.

Fair enough. I wouldn't change it mid-campaign but I also wonder how often it comes up. Is the entire party stealthy? A typical D&D party will have 1 or 2 heavy armour users with disadvantage to their stealth which makes surprise a rare event.

I think it helps to change your thinking on it. As you have been playing it with as stronger than it is, you are seeing it as a nerf. When in fact, it was created this way from the very beginning.

If I had to guess at the design process I would say the auto-crit was not intended to be the main part of the ability. That it was added so that Assassins got something out of the ability when they win initiative and already have advantage due to being an unseen attacker.

Advantage on winning initiative is a strong ability.

 

[machineelf]

When in fact, it was created this way from the very beginning.

Oh yeah? I was under the impression that in the first printing of the 5th ed. books they referred to the "surprise round," and they only changed this with the errata and the second printing. My group also started playing with the D&D Next playtest, so maybe that's what I'm remembering?

In any case, it would be a nerf from my player's perspective.