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

[Neonchameleon]

The Sage Advice Compendium provides the following response by the 5e designers to clarify what that meant:

To be surprised, you must be caught off guard, usually because you failed to notice foes being stealthy or you were startled by an enemy with a special ability, such as the gelatinous cube’s Transparent trait, that makes it exceptionally surprising. You can be surprised even if your companions aren’t, and you aren’t surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares.

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

And see my replies to others above. The designers didn't intend "threat" to read as anything other than "an opponent on the other side of combat," and surprise was intended to represent an ambush where all of one or both sides are hiding with Stealth to catch the other side unaware and startle them.

Your second bullet point is a misrepresentation. You say "Failed to notice foes being stealthy" - but the actual thing you are trying to summaries starts "Usually". Which means that there are explicitly times that the rest of the sentence doesn't cover. Also your bullet points lack indenting so they provide a misleading representation.

A better summary would be

• You are surprised when you are caught off guard. This can be because:
  • You failed to notice foes being stealthy
  • An enemy has a special ability that surprises you
  • Other unusual circumstances that are not covered by the above two options.
• Surprise works at the level of the individual not the group; one person can be surprised when their allies aren't and vise-versa
• If one foe alerts you the attack is coming you are alerted.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

You might think that if the designers meant for "a threat" to just mean an opponent or a foe, that they would have clarified that, maybe in the second edition or the errata. But, I think they did in fact clarify that - they just did it in the Sage Advice Compendium.

The original wording in the PHB was : "Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

The Sage Advice Compendium in response to the question about surprise, used the following language : "You can be surprised even if your companions aren't, and you aren't surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares."

Notice how the Sage Advice restates the same thing that the PHB did, but uses the word "foes" instead of "a threat".

It does it again in this sentence: "In other words, once a fight starts, you can't be surprised again, although a hidden foe can still gain the normal benefits from being unseen."

That clearly implies that what initiates surprise is "a hidden foe." In fact, the Sage Advice response meant to clarify surprise doesn't use the language "a threat" at all.

Read the last sentence of that response : "You can still try to hide from your foes and gain the benefits conferred by being hidden, but you don't deprive your foes of their turns when you do so." That clearly is presuming that you gain surprise by being hidden.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

The reason Assassins don't assassinate via surprise is they have the Assassinate and Death Strike abilities, which gives them a bonus IF their opponent is surprised. If the assassin's assassinate ability was meant to be surprise-based, it would assume your opponent was surprised. Instead, these abilities are written from the perspective of IF the opponent is already surprised (implying that's likely by something else, not the assassination attempt itself) then the assassin gets an additional bonus.

Losing a round in combat is Huge ... it's one of the most severe penalties you can incur in 5e, and it can be the determining factor in a boss fight. So, surprise shouldn't be easy to come by, and a single character shouldn't be able to initiate surprise.

My primary objection is that allowing just any character to make what is in effect an assassination attempt via some improvised surprise rule (since the rules don't give any way to decide surprise other than by Stealth), gives them a bigger bonus (their opponents losing a turn) than the Assassinate ability itself, and a bonus almost as powerful as a Death Strike.

It's all out of proportion to the requirements to attempt it. All you need is a good Charisma score. And it makes it impossible for the DM to then decide who is and is not surprised using the rules. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can compare a characters Deception score to, I don't know, "passive Insight" to determine surprise.

If the designers had intended characters to initiate surprise via Deception, and particularly if they intended Assassins and Rogues to routinely do this as a fundamental part of their class characteristics, they would have written a rule that allowed the DM to know what they're supposed to do when that happens.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

Returning to the case where you're adjacent to an opponent who you've deceived into believing you're an ally, and you want to initiate surprise by suddenly attacking. To me, that sounds awfully close to how a rogue's "Sneak Attack" ability is described: "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction."

I think if the designers had intended sneak attacks to be surprised-based, they would have done that in the rogue's ability. But if you read that ability, surprise doesn't even allow you to do a Sneak Attack. Sneak attacks only apply IF you have advantage on the attack roll on an adjacent enemy, and surprise doesn't give you advantage.

So my question is this : If even a rogue can't do a Sneak Attack on an opponent who is deceived into thinking they're an ally without extenuating circumstances (somehow acquiring advantage first), why should any ole character be able to improvise a sneak attack with a surprise round?

Just to put a finer point on that, the rogue's Sneak Attack is assumed to apply during a surprise round because the designers are assuming that if you surprise a creature, you're hidden from them, and already have advantage from attacking out of Hiding. So, that supports the case that surprise assumes Hiding, not Deception.

 

[Maxperson]

You might think that if the designers meant for "a threat" to just mean an opponent or a foe, that they would have clarified that, maybe in the second edition or the errata. But, I think they did in fact clarify that - they just did it in the Sage Advice Compendium.

They did say it. They said, "Roll initiative" which you only do when facing a foe.

The Sage Advice Compendium in response to the question about surprise, used the following language : "You can be surprised even if your companions aren't, and you aren't surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares."

Notice how the Sage Advice restates the same thing that the PHB did, but uses the word "foes" instead of "a threat".

Probably because people tried to incorrectly apply "threat" and "surprise" to traps and such outside of combat, because they didn't understand the rules.

It does it again in this sentence: "In other words, once a fight starts, you can't be surprised again, although a hidden foe can still gain the normal benefits from being unseen."

That clearly implies that what initiates surprise is "a hidden foe." In fact, the Sage Advice response meant to clarify surprise doesn't use the language "a threat" at all.

You are assuming here. All that clearly states is that you can't be surprised by someone who hides once combat has begun.

Read the last sentence of that response : "You can still try to hide from your foes and gain the benefits conferred by being hidden, but you don't deprive your foes of their turns when you do so." That clearly is presuming that you gain surprise by being hidden.

No. It's only presuming combat has begun AND that hiding is a way to gain surprise. Nothing about those sentences indicates that hiding is the ONLY way to gain surprise.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The reason Assassins don't assassinate via surprise is they have the Assassinate and Death Strike abilities, which gives them a bonus IF their opponent is surprised. If the assassin's assassinate ability was meant to be surprise-based, it would assume your opponent was surprised.

No. Assassins assassinate through surprise when they can. Which is why when assassins assassinate through surprise they get automatic critical hits - which is a pretty huge bonus especially when you roll a lot of dice of damage. The ability is intended to encourage assassins to surprise people to make their assassination attempts.

The assassination doesn't hand the advantage of surprise but it does mean that assassins even more than other characters want to surprise their foes. They are just supposed to use the rest of their toolkit to handle that - things like their deception and their stealth skills, and teamwork.

My primary objection is that allowing just any character to make what is in effect an assassination attempt via some improvised surprise rule (since the rules don't give any way to decide surprise other than by Stealth), gives them a bigger bonus (their opponents losing a turn) than the Assassinate ability itself, and a bonus almost as powerful as a Death Strike.

Bwuh? Death Strike stacks on top of the surprise round. Advantage to attack rolls, triggering Sneak Attack and an automatic critical hit (which doubles the sneak attack) on top of gettting the free round is pretty clearly a far bigger bonus than just getting the free round. Assassins are intended to want to surprise their foes - and then put out a ridiculous amount of damage.

A level 3 Dex 16 assassin with a shortbow or shortsword will, on their surprise round, be attacking with advantage and do 6d6+3 damage if their attack hits. With their high dex it is likely that they act on the next round before their opponent, again with advantage, for a further 3d6+3 damage on whichever foe they choose to attack. That's really pretty good for a level 3 character - and far more than anyone else gets. Other people get the free round - but only the assassin gets free advantage and free critical hits so their free round is far better than anyone else's free round.

If the designers had intended characters to initiate surprise via Deception, and particularly if they intended Assassins and Rogues to routinely do this as a fundamental part of their class characteristics, they would have written a rule that allowed the DM to know what they're supposed to do when that happens.

If the designers had intended to cover every option they'd have written a very different game from 5e. They have however made clear (in one of the videos you presented) that catching someone by surprise does not require being hidden and can be done e.g. through an innocuous disguise when someone is not expecting trouble. They have written what happens in the case of surprise.

The only thing they have not done is given set DCs for all the ways you can catch someone by surprise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You might think that if the designers meant for "a threat" to just mean an opponent or a foe, that they would have clarified that, maybe in the second edition or the errata. But, I think they did in fact clarify that - they just did it in the Sage Advice Compendium.

The original wording in the PHB was : "Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

The Sage Advice Compendium in response to the question about surprise, used the following language : "You can be surprised even if your companions aren't, and you aren't surprised if even one of your foes fails to catch you unawares."

Notice how the Sage Advice restates the same thing that the PHB did, but uses the word "foes" instead of "a threat".

It does it again in this sentence: "In other words, once a fight starts, you can't be surprised again, although a hidden foe can still gain the normal benefits from being unseen."

That clearly implies that what initiates surprise is "a hidden foe." In fact, the Sage Advice response meant to clarify surprise doesn't use the language "a threat" at all.

Read the last sentence of that response : "You can still try to hide from your foes and gain the benefits conferred by being hidden, but you don't deprive your foes of their turns when you do so." That clearly is presuming that you gain surprise by being hidden.

Well, no. You can replace "threat" with "foe" and that still works. However, you smuggled in "hidden" which doesn't appear in either.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Returning to the case where you're adjacent to an opponent who you've deceived into believing you're an ally, and you want to initiate surprise by suddenly attacking. To me, that sounds awfully close to how a rogue's "Sneak Attack" ability is described: "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction."

I think if the designers had intended sneak attacks to be surprised-based, they would have done that in the rogue's ability. But if you read that ability, surprise doesn't even allow you to do a Sneak Attack. Sneak attacks only apply IF you have advantage on the attack roll on an adjacent enemy, and surprise doesn't give you advantage.

So my question is this : If even a rogue can't do a Sneak Attack on an opponent who is deceived into thinking they're an ally without extenuating circumstances (somehow acquiring advantage first), why should any ole character be able to improvise a sneak attack with a surprise round?

Just to put a finer point on that, the rogue's Sneak Attack is assumed to apply during a surprise round because the designers are assuming that if you surprise a creature, you're hidden from them, and already have advantage from attacking out of Hiding. So, that supports the case that surprise assumes Hiding, not Deception.

Cool, now do this for a non-rogue. Or, in other words, you've chosen the rogue as your example because it can be bent to your argument, even if through special pleading. Surprise is not rogue specific, so however you imagine a rogue that's not the general case.

It appears that your underlying issue is that you think surpruse is too strong an advantage so limitations on PCs gaining it are appropriate. I would take this as an opportunity to point out that GMs have inifinite dragons, so even if PCs get surprise all the time, it diesn't really impact the GMs ability to create challenges. Think putside your box, don't just try to make the box smaller.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Returning to the case where you're adjacent to an opponent who you've deceived into believing you're an ally, and you want to initiate surprise by suddenly attacking. To me, that sounds awfully close to how a rogue's "Sneak Attack" ability is described: "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction."

Close ... but no cigar. I think that this is meant to be one of the things that makes an assassin an assassin. The assassin of course does have advantage. The assassin can do it on their own, but the rogue needs just that bit more help (like an ally)

So my question is this : If even a rogue can't do a Sneak Attack on an opponent who is deceived into thinking they're an ally without extenuating circumstances (somehow acquiring advantage first), why should any ole character be able to improvise a sneak attack with a surprise round?

They can't - and no one ever claimed they could. Sneak Attack is a specific rogue class ability. Everyone can exploit a foe's distraction, but a rogue gets specific bonuses for doing it.

Just to put a finer point on that, the rogue's Sneak Attack is assumed to apply during a surprise round because the designers are assuming that if you surprise a creature, you're hidden from them, and already have advantage from attacking out of Hiding. So, that supports the case that surprise assumes Hiding, not Deception.

Except that a rogue's Sneak Attack isn't assumed to apply during a surprise round. The assassin on the other hand can pull some really interesting shenanigans because they don't need to interact directly with the hiding rules to get their super-sneak attack off. For example 80' away and round two corners, taking advantage of dash and a thrown dagger. And assassins but not rogues getting serious danger from pretending to be e.g. a drunk or a civilian or even committing murder on the dance floor is not something I have a problem with.

 

[Li Shenron]

By the time it took me to read and digest the whole thread, I could have probably run 100 ambushes scenarios, all of them awfully wrong by the RAW and yet perfectly fine for my players.