D&D 5E 5e Surprise and Hiding Rules Interpretation

[Jon Gilliam]

New FAQ!

• If the party finds a trap at the entrance to a room where creatures are lying in wait to surprise them with an ambush, does that mean the party is immune to the surprise since they've noticed "a threat"? No, when the PHB says that any creature or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter, it intends that to be read in the context of the sentence that comes before, telling the DM how to determine surprise by comparing creatures passive Perceptions to their opponent's Stealth checks. For the purposes of surprise, "noticing a threat" exactly means perceiving a hidden opponent or being aware of an unhidden one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Since you state this so assertively, have you watched the he Sage Advice video on beginning combat and in the Sage Advice podcast on hiding? And have you also read through the answers to the two questions on surprise in the Sage Advice Compendium? If not, go invest the time in listening to the designer of 5e discuss these topics, and see if you come away with the same opinion.

All of these cases confirm that surprise is determined through the mechanic of Stealth versus passive Perception. The Sage Advice Compendium has this to say:



Let's see what we have there... surprise is being

• Caught off guard
• Failing to notice foes being stealthy
• Being startled by an enemy with a special ability
• All of your foes catching you unaware

Even if you could be "caught off guard" by an opponent in a disguise, you still wouldn't be surprised if "even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares." What the language "notice a threat" intends in the PHB p. 189 when it says is to mean "failing to notice an opponent in hiding." That's apparent because that sentence comes immediately after the sentence describing how surprise is determined by comparing Stealth to passive Perception. To make "notice a threat" mean anything else, you have to pluck that second sentence out and read it in isolation, but that second sentence is even part of the same paragraph. You're stretching the rules and reading sentences out of context to give them the possibility of saying what you want them to say.

No, you are conflating distinct clauses in order to over-analyze and bend the meaning of the text.

You also consistently ignore language that makes it clear that most of these clauses are not absolute, because they are intended to require DM interpretation and discretion, and allow for creative play.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

No, you are conflating distinct clauses in order to over-analyze and bend the meaning of the text.

You also consistently ignore language that makes it clear that most of these clauses are not absolute, because they are intended to require DM interpretation and discretion, and allow for creative play.

Nope, you're just not right - I've done no such thing. What you're doing instead is trying to justify your house rules as being RAW when they're not, and refusing to acknowledge official sources of where the designers of the game clarify what the intention of the words they wrote in the rulebooks were.

If you're playing under Rules as Written, it's the rules themselves that make it clear when the DM decides something and when they don't. For example, they make it clear that the DM decides the circumstances appropriate for hiding, and they intentionally do not provide a mechanic to determine that. Jeremy Crawford even talks about how 4e provided such a mechanic, and they decided against doing something like that for 5e because it was too complex.

With surprise, they make it clear that the DM only determines not decides who might be surprised, and they specify a mechanic to do just that.

You're also trying to imply that a DM can't decide to do something different than the Rules as Written, and that it's therefore draconian to decide what the rules say and that the designers intended a particular interpretation. And that's just not true - if you don't like what the designers intended, you can house rule whatever you want. But, you shouldn't pretend you're running the rules as written.

 

[SkidAce]

How do you give a hidden threat a Stealth score? Hiding a threat (pretending to be an ally) is Insight vs Deception, not Stealth versus passive Perception, and the mechanism the PHB tells the DM they should use for determining surprise is Stealth versus passive Perception, p. 189:

In the above example, I would do exactly THAT "Insight vs passive Deception".

Some flexibility is needed, but it works...it gives me a DC to base what may happen. A more skillful threat such as a master assassin might have a higher deception, and thus be more able to succeed at hiding their threat.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

Here's a question we're wrestling with at the moment. Let's say you're unhidden in a lightly-obscured area, and another creature wants to try to target you with a spell attack that requires line of sight. Does that creature first have to do a Perception check to "see" you for the attack, even if you're not hidden (haven't taken the Hide action)? If they fail the perception check, do they still attack at disadvantage as per the Unseen Targets rule even though you're not hidden, or after failing the perception check are they not able to target you at all and can't cast the spell? If the creature doing a spell attack doesn't need to do a Perception check first, what's the point of Perception checks being at disadvantage in lightly obscured areas?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You're also trying to imply that a DM can't decide to do something different than the Rules as Written, and that it's therefore draconian to decide what the rules say and that the designers intended a particular interpretation.

You’re either trolling me right now, or didn’t actually read what I wrote.

Either way, you outlook and approach in this thread is very out there, and your responses to people pointing out flaws in your reasoning are...not great.

Enjoy your houserules, bud.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

You’re either trolling me right now, or didn’t actually read what I wrote.

Either way, you outlook and approach in this thread is very out there, and your responses to people pointing out flaws in your reasoning are...not great.

Enjoy your houserules, bud.

Take care!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Here's a question we're wrestling with at the moment. Let's say you're unhidden in a lightly-obscured area, and another creature wants to try to target you with a spell attack that requires line of sight. Does that creature first have to do a Perception check to "see" you for the attack, even if you're not hidden (haven't taken the Hide action)? If they fail the perception check, do they still attack at disadvantage as per the Unseen Targets rule even though you're not hidden, or after failing the perception check are they not able to target you at all and can't cast the spell? If the creature doing a spell attack doesn't need to do a Perception check first, what's the point of Perception checks being at disadvantage in lightly obscured areas?

I'm going to be honest, here. If this is a question that's tripping you up, you should evaluate whether the objective in your OP is actually possible. RAW is absolutely clear on this matter. Light obscurement only applies disadvantage to WIS (Perception) checks. That's the only thing it does.

If you want to create a houserule that creatures must make perception checks to be able to see another creature in light obscurement, go right ahead, but RAW doesn't even suggest such a thing.

You might also consider that being hidden is not the only way to be an unnoticed threat. These are different sentences that do not reference or rely on each other. Being hidden is definitely one way to be an unnoticed threat, but not the only way. The structure of the surprise rules is that being hidden is inclusive, but not exhaustive. Being hidden is the most common way surprise happens, so it gets specific attention, but that doesn't make it the only way. This is clear because being hidden isn't the only way to be an unnoticed threat. The rules for 5e are not like 3e -- they do not cover in detail all outcomes/options. Playing as if they do will lead to dissatisfaction.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

OP: I don't really have an interpretation on your take of the RAW with surprise and hiding and all the stranger interactions between the two. My GM philosophy is that it is my job to adjudicate in a way that makes sense between what the players are trying to accomplish in the world their characters live in and the rules that govern how their actions are supposed to work in the game itself.

I am going to give you a good example of "When RAW only goes wrong" that happened to me in an actual D&D game (although this was many many years ago and in 1e).

In the story, our characters (the PCs) had captured a bad guy and tied him up in a chair. He was immobilized. He was just some low-level human thug who we were trying to question. During the questioning my character, a wizard, picked up a cocked and loaded heavy crossbow and pointed it at the thugs head and demanded an answer from him. When the thug refused to talk I said I was going to kill him with the crossbow.

RAW doesn't work #1: According to the rules of 1e, my wizard cannot use a crossbow. Despite having an 18 on my Intelligence stat, technically I am unable to pick up a loaded crossbow, point it at something I want to shoot, and pull the trigger to shoot it. Now, if you want to argue that doing so in a battle is different than shooting a guy tied up in the chair, I would 100% agree with you. It makes no logical sense, however, to not allow a character to shoot a tied up target at less than 1' distance when all they have to do is literally pull a trigger.

After finally arguing my case enough to shoot the NPC in the head with a heavy crossbow we get to the second point.

RAW doesn't work #2: I was asked to "to-hit" on the heavy crossbow. For a point-blank headshot on a helpless low level target. At a severe penalty because "wizards don't use crossbows normally". Really? OK fine, I hit AC5.

RAW doesn't work #3: I was asked to "roll damage" and rolled a 1. For a point-blank headshot on a helpless low level target I did 1 damage? Really? How about I throw down the crossbow, tell everyone to leave the room, and then just fireball the whole place because this is ridiculous.

******

The point of my anecdote above is to say that no set of RAW rules is going to make sense, or even be preferable to use 100% of the time. Your job as the GM should to apply the rules in the circumstances that make sense, go narrative when they don't, and even improv in the corner cases as they come up. I don't think its advisable, or good gaming, to expect that you can hammer out a flowchart to follow that will ALWAYS make sense.

That being said, if your gaming group prefers to play with a solid set of rules that are always followed instead of trusting you to GM a fair take, all the power to you and your players. I just feel that doing this actually opens you up to some strangeness that might get exploited (like in 4e when the darkness spell actually made light or the bag-of-rats.

 

[Maxperson]

To give another reason why "threat" cannot be read so expansively and in isolation in the sentence "Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." : a trap is certainly "a threat", but disarming a trap as they approach an ambush doesn't inoculate the party from the possibility of surprise, even though they've noticed "a threat."

Sure it does. That trap cannot surprise the group any longer. Now the threat of the ambush that they don't notice... The sentence is clearly talking about threats noticed.