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

[BigZebra]

Being hidden and surprise are two different things.
You can surprise someone, without being hidden.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

There is nothing in the surprise rules that says it requires hiding. The rules give a way to be unnoticed, but never say "this is the only way to be not noticed as a threat", which you seem to be reading into those rules.

That isn't RAW, that is inventing a house rule.

The rules clearly say "notice a threat". Threat, not being a defined game term, falls back on the plain English meaning.

A person standing next to you that looks like an orchestra member with no weapons neither hiding, nor are they a "threat you noticed", in plain English.

They did not say "notice an opponent", and replacing one word with another is not reading the rules as written.

How the DM adjudicates them pulling that off is not detailed in those rules right there. But there are plenty of rules on how disguise works in 5e.

Is is good that you are now claiming that the word "threat" means "opponent", because we can now be clear why you are misreading the rules as written.

...

But to be clear, if Bob had zero plan to engage at that moment (he was going to attack in 1 minute when the clock strikes 12), didn't see Alice, and Alice attacked, would Charlie be surprised? What if he beat Alice's stealth check?

If Bob saw Alice, but intended to keep his cover, would Charlie be surprised?

If Bob changed his mind after combat began, does Charlie retroactively become unsurprised?

You want to cover edge cases.

...

My point is, the rules are really clear. If you notice a threat, you aren't surprised on the first turn of combat. If you don't notice a threat, you are surprised on the first turn of combat.

If someone is hidden from you, you don't notice them. If you don't notice them, you don't know they are a threat. This is not the only way to not notice a threat; there are both disguise methods and deception methods, for example. They are covered in the rules for disguise and deception.

Also if you take a look at this question from the Sage Advice compendium, I think that lends some guidance as well:

Surprise rules work for two opposing sides. What happens with surprise when a third group of combatants sneaks up, hidden from the melee, and ambushes?
The surprise rule is relevant only when a combat is starting. Any ambushes during the fight use the rules for Dexterity (Stealth) checks.

What this says to me is this: when you're determining surprise for an ambush you would use Stealth checks (Hiding), and if you're determining what happens in an ambush after the start of combat, you still use Stealth check (hiding), even though you're not using the surprise mechanic.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

Being hidden and surprise are two different things.
You can surprise someone, without being hidden.

If you've got an argument from the text, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you do you.

 

[Flamestrike]

You're written a lot to respond to, so I'll take it in chunks. I'm uncertain that we have any real disagreement on this first point. Your allies clearly notice you, and that is clearly not enough for surprise where opponents must notice a threat. So, I stand with my previous statement : whenever opponents notice you "as a threat", your allies meeting the same criteria notice you as a threat as well. I don't think there's a reason to call that out more emphatically.

But, it is the case that non-hidden opponents are automatically noticed and do make your entire side of the combat "immune" to surprise. We make the case for that in this FAQ, which asks the same question in a different way:

• Does all of one side of an impending combat need to hide to have surprise? Yes. If even one opponent (one threat) is noticed by a member of the opposing side, then that creature is not surprised. All opposing creatures will perceive the presence of an unhidden party member as a threat and will therefore not be surprised. Since surprise is determined prior to the DM establishing the location of the characters and monsters, characters who do not declare they are hiding are assumed to have their presence perceived by their opponents in determining who is surprised.

Would you be surprised if you were sitting down to dinner with your Mum or someone you implicitly trusted, and in the middle of a pleasant chat about the weather she suddenly tried to stab you in the face with a kitchen knife?

If the answer to that question is 'Yes' then you agree it is possible to be surprised when combat starts (your Mum tries to stab you in the face) and you're unaware of a hostile threat when the aforementioned face stabbing happens.

It's a judgement call (generally most creatures are wary - particularly in dungeon environments) but its useful when a trusted ally or fellow PC (unknowingly dominated) or a Doppelganger or similar suddenly attacks.

Instead of Stealth v Perception, run it as Deception v Insight.

If you want RAW for that, it's under 'the DM is always right and can make rulings whenever they want'.

 

[NotAYakk]

This is the rules you want to play by:

The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice any opposing creature is surprised at the start of the encounter.

These are the rules as written:

The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.

I agree that if you rewrite the rules as written to what you pretend they say, you have a case.

Without that rewrite, you aren't using the rules as written.

That is fine, but don't pretend you are playing RAW. You are restricting surprise by replacing a word in the rules.

Your rules are consistent with themselves, and I hope they make you enjoy the game. Just don't pretend your specific reinterpretation of the rules is what the rules must be read as.

 

[BigZebra]

If you've got an argument from the text, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you do you.

They are two orthogonal concepts.

Surprise is binary, between two sides. Either you are surprised or not. You can't be surprised by some and not by others.
Whether somebody is hidden is not binary. Some can be hidden, others might not.

It is not a requirement that all memebers of a party are hiding, for a surprise to happen.

If my fighter is talking to an orc, I am not hidding. He can see me. Meanwhile, my fellow rogue buddie, is sneaking up on the orc from behind. The rogue's stealth check succeeds, i.e. the orc is now surprised. Initiatives are rolled. The rogue has been hiding, so the rogue has advantage. My fighter has not been hiding, so he has no advantage. And the orc is surprised, and gets no turn on the first round.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

Would you be surprised if you were sitting down to dinner with your Mum or someone you implicitly trusted, and in the middle of a pleasant chat about the weather she suddenly tried to stab you in the face with a kitchen knife?

If the answer to that question is 'Yes' then you agree it is possible to be surprised when combat starts (your Mum tries to stab you in the face) and you're unaware of a hostile threat when the aforementioned face stabbing happens.

It's a judgement call (generally most creatures are wary - particularly in dungeon environments) but its useful when a trusted ally or fellow PC (unknowingly dominated) or a Doppelganger or similar suddenly attacks.

Instead of Stealth v Perception, run it as Deception v Insight.

If you want RAW for that, it's under 'the DM is always right and can make rulings whenever they want'.

I would be very surprised, since my Mom is dead, buried 6ft. under, and would definitely be in hiding.

I don't have the same conception of the game as you do, or the purpose of the rules. The rules are there to provide fairness to the players, and to keep the balance of power between the characters and the monsters to make combat the right level of difficultly to keep the game fun. The rules are not there to simulate how the laws of nature work in the real world applied to a fantasy world. The rules give a play-tested mechanic, and it's the job of the DM to narrate the results they give in a way that makes sense within the fantasy world.

That the rules empower the DM to make their own rules, that doesn't mean that there isn't an interpretation of the rules that corresponds to what the designers had in mind and what they play-tested when the game was being created. And if you're running a Rules as Written campaign, or something fairly close to that, that's exactly what you end up doing - coming up with your own interpretation of those rules that is hopefully consistent.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

They are two orthogonal concepts.

Surprise is binary, between two sides. Either you are surprised or not. You can't be surprised by some and not by others.
Whether somebody is hidden is not binary. Some can be hidden, others might not.

It is not a requirement that all memebers of a party are hiding, for a surprise to happen.

If my fighter is talking to an orc, I am not hidding. He can see me. Meanwhile, my fellow rogue buddie, is sneaking up on the orc from behind. The rogue's stealth check succeeds, i.e. the orc is now surprised. Initiatives are rolled. The rogue has been hiding, so the rogue has advantage. My fighter has not been hiding, so he has no advantage. And the orc is surprised, and gets no turn on the first round.

This is an argument from first principles and not an argument from the text of the rules. Basically, you're just saying : "this is what I like." Ok, great, you do you.

But from the rules as written, it is a requirement for all members of one side of an ambush (the only case where the surprise rules apply) to be in hiding in order to have any chance of surprising anyone on the opposing side. As to my arguments from the text, I've presented them in previous replies, so you can read them there.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

If anyone who is uncertain about how the designers of the game felt that combat should start want to hear from a designer, check out this Sage Advice video by Jeremy Crawford, the lead designer of 5e. He makes it clear that in the "surprise" dagger attack situation, that's an initiative roll (not surprise). He also makes it clear that surprise is meant for an ambush, and that it's resolved with Stealth checks. Take a listen

Roll for Initiative! The ins and outs of beginning combat - w/ Jeremy Crawford

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

 

[BigZebra]

If anyone who is uncertain about how the designers of the game felt that combat should start want to hear from a designer, check out this Sage Advice video by Jeremy Crawford, the lead designer of 5e. He makes it clear that in the "surprise" dagger attack situation, that's an initiative roll (not surprise). He also makes it clear that surprise is meant for an ambush, and that it's resolved with Stealth checks. Take a listen

Roll for Initiative! The ins and outs of beginning combat - w/ Jeremy Crawford

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

Yup. I listened to that as well. I also read the Sage Compendium, and you are correct that "you aren’t surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares". So it seems to support your case. He also does mention though, that stealth in general is in the DM's hands. I would have like it a bit better exlapined in PHB though.

I guess I am more on the line of:

Things You Didn’t Know About D&D 5E: The Surprise Round

One of the most commonly misunderstood mechanics in Dungeons & Dragons is surprise. Many players, either because they came from previous editions or learned from someone who had, believe that t…

dmsworkshop.com

But, I will have to agree that your version is more supported by the rules.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

This is the rules you want to play by:

These are the rules as written:

I agree that if you rewrite the rules as written to what you pretend they say, you have a case.

Without that rewrite, you aren't using the rules as written.

That is fine, but don't pretend you are playing RAW. You are restricting surprise by replacing a word in the rules.

Your rules are consistent with themselves, and I hope they make you enjoy the game. Just don't pretend your specific reinterpretation of the rules is what the rules must be read as.

The Sage Advice compendium makes it clear that "you aren't surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares", and what that means is that noticing a threat and one of your foes not catching you unaware mean the same thing, at least for surprise purposes. The video with Jeremy Crawford I posted a link to makes that fairly clear as well, if you'd care to watch it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."

I fixed the bolding to include something just as important as what you bolded.

In a fight, most creatures are alert to threats. Outside combat, that is not assumed at all.

The idea that you can’t use an unassuming character as bait for an ambush and gain surprise, or surprise someone in a crowd, or that an assassin can’t get surprise in a disguise, is absurd, and very much not RAW or RAI.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

I fixed the bolding to include something just as important as what you bolded.

In a fight, most creatures are alert to threats. Outside combat, that is not assumed at all.

The idea that you can’t use an unassuming character as bait for an ambush and gain surprise, or surprise someone in a crowd, or that an assassin can’t get surprise in a disguise, is absurd, and very much not RAW or RAI.

You can use an unassuming character as bait as long as they're not an opponent. That assassin's can't get surprise in a disguise is RAW, and not absurd at all. Watch the video linked previously if you want to understand how the 5e designers viewed surprise. Giving a disguised Assassin the ability to surprise allows them to Hide in Plain Sight, which is a 10th level ranger ability. There is no Hide in Plain Sight ability for Assassins.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can use an unassuming character as bait as long as they're not an opponent. That assassin's can't get surprise in a disguise is RAW, and not absurd at all. Watch the video linked previously if you want to understand how the 5e designers viewed surprise. Giving a disguised Assassin the ability to surprise allows them to Hide in Plain Sight, which is a 10th level ranger ability. There is no Hide in Plain Sight ability for Assassins.

No, it doesn’t. You’re drawing false connections.

Houserules are fine, but this is definitely a houserule, not RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

Hiding

• Definition of being "Hidden" : Being "hidden" from an opposing creature means that you could attack that creature without them being able to perceive that your attack is coming.

The definition of being hidden is being both unseen and unheard.

PHB Page 195, "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

 

[Guest 6801328]

I had trouble getting my head around the OPs rules. It seems awfully...legal. In my group whoever is DMing interprets the situation as best he/she can, and we're all pretty ok with the result. I guess we each learn each DM's particular style, and try to accommodate it.

But here's a general (slightly off-topic) question for everybody: I've seen comments from many people that suggest they let archers pop out of hiding and get advantage on their attack, but rule that you can't do the same thing with melee because you "can be seen" (at least in theory, if behind the target) and therefore you aren't attacking from Hidden.

1. Isn't that really a matter of degree, though? The archer is unhidden for some amount of time, whereas the melee attacker is unhidden for a generally longer time. But...both have to become unhidden in order to actually attack. It seems like a totally arbitrary (and unsupported by RAW) ruling to give it to ranged but not melee.
2. Is it really gonna break anything to allow the melee rogue to get advantage this way? It's not like the rogue can Disengage, Hide, and get a bonus attack as a repeatedly tactic every round. Even with swashbuckler or mobile you can still only do 2 of the 3.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

The definition of being hidden is being both unseen and unheard.

PHB Page 195, "If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

No, that's not the definition of hidden, that's simply specifying what subset of all the circumstances possible for hiding are always required to use the Unseen Attackers and Target rule. For example, you could hide and then begin movement from hiding. As you're doing your movement, you come out of darkness and through a patch of fog where your opponent can see you but not clearly, and then at the end of your movement you're back in darkness again. While in darkness, you're both hidden and able to use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule, but during your movement through the patch of fog, although you remain hidden, you could not attack at advantage using that rule as you are seen just not clearly.

The side box on p. 177 of the PHB makes it clear that being seen or heard are only guidelines. The errata for the PHB even specifically updates that language to "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”, adding the last word. Also if you listen to the Sage Advice video, posted above, Jeremy Crawford makes it clear that hiding takes into account any other criteria the DM believes relevant, and if you listen to this Sage Advice podcast, the designers make it even more clear that they intend for the DM to decide what circumstances are appropriate for hiding, including all of the following:

• any specific traits or abilities
• whether the creature can see you
• whether the creature can hear you
• whether the creature can perceive your presence in any way
• whether the creature is distracted
• whether the creature is in a high state of alert or especially vigilant
• whether the creature is able to determine your position
• whether the creature perceives your presence as a potential attacker
• whether you are leaving any signs of your passage

So, being both unseen and unheard isn't the definition of Hiding under RAW. Gargoyles hide in plain sight, as can 10th level rangers. If you'd just been sprayed by a skunk and smell awful, the DM could decide you're not hidden. The best you can do to provide a definition of hiding is to approach it operationally ... which leads to our definition:

• Definition of being "Hidden" : Being "hidden" from an opposing creature means that you could attack that creature without them being able to perceive that your attack is coming.

That is wide enough to encompass all the other guidelines as well as this condition from the PHB p. 177:

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."

With that provision, it makes clear that being "seen" doesn't mean being in plain sight of a creature, and takes into account the creature's mental. Even an invisible creature that remains unheard may not be hidden. PHB p. 177:

"An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it has to remain quiet".

Jeremy Crawford in the video I linked to previously mentions how an invisible creature jostling a table or causing footprints in the dust could be given away by "signs of its passage," for example.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

I had trouble getting my head around the OPs rules. It seems awfully...legal. In my group whoever is DMing interprets the situation as best he/she can, and we're all pretty ok with the result. I guess we each learn each DM's particular style, and try to accommodate it.

But here's a general (slightly off-topic) question for everybody: I've seen comments from many people that suggest they let archers pop out of hiding and get advantage on their attack, but rule that you can't do the same thing with melee because you "can be seen" (at least in theory, if behind the target) and therefore you aren't attacking from Hidden.

1. Isn't that really a matter of degree, though? The archer is unhidden for some amount of time, whereas the melee attacker is unhidden for a generally longer time. But...both have to become unhidden in order to actually attack. It seems like a totally arbitrary (and unsupported by RAW) ruling to give it to ranged but not melee.
2. Is it really gonna break anything to allow the melee rogue to get advantage this way? It's not like the rogue can Disengage, Hide, and get a bonus attack as a repeatedly tactic every round. Even with swashbuckler or mobile you can still only do 2 of the 3.

That's an interesting question ... my take on it is that as long as you don't use any movement from where you're hiding to do your attack, then the circumstances appropriate to hiding likely haven't changed and you can take advantage of the Unseen Attackers rule to to a ranged attack, but that if you move out of that position and approach a creature to do a melee attack that you can't remain in hiding unless the DM decides that the creature being attacked is somehow sufficiently distracted (say if you're emerging from a crowd of people, and the creature was distracted by the movement of the crowd so that they didn't notice you approach). That's from this sentence from the Hiding side-box in the PHB p.177:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

No, it doesn’t. You’re drawing false connections.

Houserules are fine, but this is definitely a houserule, not RAW.

No, this isn't a house rule - it's an interpretation of RAW based on the text of the rulebooks and what the designers have to say about it. You haven't added any argument from a source here - you've just decided to resolve your cognitive dissonance by arguing your case by simply reasserting it. Surprise is determined via Stealth versus passive Perception, in a procedure described mechanically in the PHB, and determining surprise in any other way is a house rule. Disguises are therefore not relevant to surprise unless the DM decides they're relevant to being hidden, and anything other than that is also a house rule. Both of those things are well supported by the source material, and I've provided detailed references to all of them above.

• Can I initiate surprise by deceiving an adjacent opponent into believing I'm actually an ally and then suddenly attacking? Not unless you are also hidden, since surprise requires hiding. Even if your opponent believes you are an ally, they still remain alert for signs of danger, and unless the DM decides they would be sufficiently visually or mentally distracted, the movement of your attack would be noticed as you began it. The initiative roll would determine who acts first, but if your opponent who had been successfully deceived previously (Insight vs Deception check) wins initiative, they may choose to do nothing to counter your attack on their turn if they momentarily believe the initiation of your action is due to something else other than commencing an attack. If the DM decides all of your opponents for the coming combat are somehow sufficiently distracted by your deception that they wouldn't notice an attack coming, and if the DM decides that all circumstances are otherwise also appropriate for hiding, only then could you attempt to hide in plain sight to them and initiate surprise (and only as long as all of the other members of your side of the combat are also able to hide, in plain sight via distracted opponents or otherwise).
• Can I initiate surprise by deceiving an adjacent opponent into believing I'm actually an ally and concealing my dagger thrust as I attack? No, because you would have to be hidden to initiate surprise, and if you were able to conceal your attack this way for surprise purposes, you would in effect be hiding in plain sight, which is a special ability of 10th level rangers. Per the rules, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, and without any special ability or trait indicating otherwise, any concealment of your thrust during attack is included in your bonuses and modifiers on your to hit roll. Note that even the Assassin rogue archetype's "Assassinate" ability doesn't automatically assume you have surprised a creature (since it provides an additional benefit if that is the case), and it doesn't require a Stealth check. Similarly, the rogue's "Sneak Attack" ability doesn't presume you have surprised the target, only that you have advantage on the attack roll.
• Can a ranger with the Hide in Plain Sight ability attack at advantage using the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule? Yes. Rangers with this ability are in plain sight, but they are hidden and may not be seen because their presence may not be perceived. Camouflage disrupts the visual processing of the eye, in effect giving the ranger a very limited kind of invisibility. When using this ability, opponents with passive Perceptions lower than the ranger's Stealth check not only do not notice their presence and position, they cannot see them without actively searching.
• Can my character who is not a ranger hide in plain sight by camouflaging themselves? Maybe, since there is the ranger's ability, Hide in Plain Sight, as precedence, although doing so would not provide the other bonuses associated with the ranger ability and would carry all the limitations. The DM would decide if this is possible given the circumstances, how long it might take to set up the camouflage, and what penalty to the Stealth check might apply given the character's amateurish attempt and the difficulty of remaining motionless.
• Can my character hide for surprise by disguising themselves as a rock? Yes, but only under similar prescriptions as if you tried to hide in plain sight by camouflaging yourself, and the DM decides whether this is possible given the circumstances. The DM could optionally consider the results of some skill check in crafting the disguise (maybe a Nature check would be appropriate) when deciding if the circumstances were appropriate for hiding. If the disguise were poorly enough constructed, it might alert opponents to your position rather than distracting them from your presence.
• Can I hide in a crowd of people and then initiate surprise by attacking opponents even if they would see me approach from the crowd? The DM would decide based on the circumstances. The DM can choose to allow a character to continue to be hidden as they approach a creature if circumstances would have that creature being distracted, as by a crowd (PHB p. 177, Hiding side box).

 

[Jon Gilliam]

New FAQ based on my discussion with @Maxperson :

• Can I always use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule if I'm hidden from my opponent? No, the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule is more strict than the criteria for hiding, requiring you to be both unseen and unheard. An example would be if you hid and then began moving, taking you through an area where you're seen but not clearly seen. As you're doing your movement, you come out of darkness and through a patch of fog where your opponent can see you but not clearly, and then at the end of your movement you're back in darkness again. While in darkness, you're both hidden and able to use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule, but during your movement through the patch of fog, although you remain hidden, you could not attack at advantage using that rule as you are seen just not clearly. As another example, if your character is invisible but walks through a patch of flour on the floor, during the movement through the flour your character might not be hidden since their signs of passage are giving away their location. However they are still an Unseen Attacker and still an Unseen Target for purposes of that rule.