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

[Neonchameleon]

Assassinations don't directly require Stealth, because the assassin's abilities don't presume surprise, aren't surprise-based, and only apply if the assassin is already attacking a surprised creature, determined by the procedure given for determining surprise : comparing passive Perceptions to Stealth check scores. Anything else is a house rule and is found nowhere in the rules.

On the contrary. The idea that the only way of getting surprise involves comparing passive Perceptions to Stealth check scores is a house rule and found nowhere in the rules.

If they had meant that the only way rather than the most common way was the stealth check vs perception they would have said that. They didn't because they didn't intend that. To claim otherwise is to ignore both the rules as written and the rules as intended and substitute them for your house rules.

Wow, you all want to make a lot of that one word, "usually," in a Sage Advice response, while hand waving away that everything in that reply that clarifies and assumes that surprise is decided with Stealth. The general rule for deciding stealth presumes hiding, it says so right there, and nowhere is there any class or racial ability indicating a more specific rules overriding that.

Wow, you want to ignore the rules as written and the intent of the rules. D&D is not and has never been a game where the rules cover all situations - and 5e is fairly explicit about that. What is the mechanism for establishing things where the standard rules don't apply? "The DM determines who might be surprised"

And no, the rules aren't going to provide you hard guidelines - D&D 5e is not that game. D&D 3.0 and 3.5 tried to be, and 4e in different ways also tried. But 5e doesn't even try (they called this "giving power back to the DM").

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you for pointing me to these - there's a treasure trove of archeology here. I also think none of it represents a reflective interpretation of what was delivered with 5e, and almost all of it instead represents brain-storming primarily by Mike Mearls.

However, if you take a look at the articles under "D&D Next Goals", I found some interesting quotes in the archives you linked to:





Even at this early stage, they're thinking of "standard rules" and allowing flexibility for players while holding the DM to "rugged extensibility."

In the last article in this series, they have this to say about extending the rules :



So, I don't think these articles challenges in any way the idea that the designers intended a core set of fundamental rules, and that those rules themselves provide the structure for extending them in a modular fashion. What is more "core" to D&D than how combat starts and surprise determination?

Very little is more core to D&D that combat, true. However, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about how you're reading rules as if the book is a technical manual when it was, according to what you just read and acknowledged, not meant to be one. That means that when the rules say "the GM determines who's surprised" that it means just that -- the GM has the duty and authority to determine surprise. That it goes on to provide clear assistance for the most common case doesn't remove the fact that the rule is, bluntly, that the GM decides. That is the RAW, that is the most simple, highest level, clearest statement on surprise. Pulling up two sentences from further into the section as if that's the top level rule is not correct. That is how you determine surprise when stealth is involved, but the GM may decide other things.

'Rulings not rules' is the catchphrase of this edition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

150 posts arguing about the stealth rules? I know COVID quarantine has messed up everyone's sense of time, but I didn't think it was 2015 again...

 

[Jon Gilliam]

On the contrary. The idea that the only way of getting surprise involves comparing passive Perceptions to Stealth check scores is a house rule and found nowhere in the rules.

If they had meant that the only way rather than the most common way was the stealth check vs perception they would have said that. They didn't because they didn't intend that. To claim otherwise is to ignore both the rules as written and the rules as intended and substitute them for your house rules.



Wow, you want to ignore the rules as written and the intent of the rules. D&D is not and has never been a game where the rules cover all situations - and 5e is fairly explicit about that. What is the mechanism for establishing things where the standard rules don't apply? "The DM determines who might be surprised"

And no, the rules aren't going to provide you hard guidelines - D&D 5e is not that game. D&D 3.0 and 3.5 tried to be, and 4e in different ways also tried. But 5e doesn't even try (they called this "giving power back to the DM").

It's found here in the rules on p. 7 of the PHB:

This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3,
that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial
traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities,
and other game elements break the general ruIes in
some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the
game works. Remember this: lf a specific ruIe contradicts
a general rule, the specific rule wins.

Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance,
many adventurers don't have proficiency with longbows,
but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That
trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other
examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For
instance, an adventurer can't normally pass through
walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic
accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

There are no specific rules, either for racial traits or class abilities, that contradict and are more specific than the general rule of determining surprise on a Stealth vs passive Perception basis, and therefore that rule governs how the game plays.

 

[Xetheral]

So, it sounds like both sides of the argument agree that the "DM determines who might be surprised". But they disagree as to whether the subsequent text concerning Stealth/Perception is a prescriptive instruction reagrding how to make that determination, or whether it is a descriptive example of how that determination can be made.

Sounds like a pretty standard type of disagreement regarding textual interpretation. Both sides have offered extra-textual support that may-or-may-not be persuasive, but it does not appear that there is anything in the text itself that is dispositive. Accordingly, it would appear that the text can be fairly said to be ambiguous, yes? If so, it's up to each DM how to rule at their table, and neither way of ruling would be a houserule. Even so, DMs would be well advised to share their ruling with new players in advance, just so everyone is on the same page.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, it sounds like both sides of the argument agree that the "DM determines who might be surprised". But they disagree as to whether the subsequent text concerning Stealth/Perception is a prescriptive instruction reagrding how to make that determination, or whether it is a descriptive example of how that determination can be made.

Sounds like a pretty standard type of disagreement regarding textual interpretation. Both sides have offered extra-textual support that may-or-may-not be persuasive, but it does not appear that there is anything in the text itself that is dispositive. Accordingly, it would appear that the text can be fairly said to be ambiguous, yes? If so, it's up to each DM how to rule at their table, and neither way of ruling would be a houserule. Even so, DMs would be well advised to share their ruling with new players in advance, just so everyone is on the same page.

Yep, this has largely been my point -- it's not RAW, it's just how you're ruling. And so long as that's fun for you, it's the right way to play.

I've largely been pushing back due to the unspoken bit in Jon's argument that if you allow for surprise via any other method that stealth, you're not playing by RAW.

150 posts arguing about the stealth rules? I know COVID quarantine has messed up everyone's sense of time, but I didn't think it was 2015 again...

Jon's new here.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

Yep, this has largely been my point -- it's not RAW, it's just how you're ruling. And so long as that's fun for you, it's the right way to play.

I've largely been pushing back due to the unspoken bit in Jon's argument that if you allow for surprise via any other method that stealth, you're not playing by RAW.

Jon's new here.

It's funny that people a few posts back are wanting to parse the word "usually" in the Sage Advice Compendium as if it were an unearthed scrap of the original gospels, and now it's "extra-textual support."

The rules as they're written are clear : there's a rule printed that specifies how surprise should be determined with Stealth versus passive Perceptions checks, there is no alternative rule given anywhere in the rules, no module published by WOTC that ever sets up a surprise ambush meant to be ran on anything other than on a Stealth basis, and no argument that doesn't try to pluck words or sentences out of context that supports any other meaning.

It is not the case that all interpretations of the rules are equal, and it is not the case that the Sage Advice Compendium supports any other interpretation of that rule. Here's the intro to that Compendium..

Sage Advice Compendium:

Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

In other words, you can interpret things however you want at your table, but Sage Advice offers the official guidance on how to interpret the rules. It offers no alternative procedure to determine surprise, and it's clear that it presumes that any creature surprising you is hidden:

Sage Advice Compendium:

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 (see “Unseen Attackers and Targets” on page 194 of the Player’s Handbook).

And it also makes it clear that you're "usually" surprised by failing to notice foes being stealthy, although you can also be surprised by foes with an "especially surprising trait" such as with the gelatinous cube, which is a case of a specific trait over-riding the general rule:

Monster Manual entry for Gelatinous Cube's "Transparent" trait:

A creature that tries to enter the cube's space while unaware of the cube is surprised by the cube.

Note that the cube doesn't get some advantage to a Deception check - a creature is just automatically surprised. This fits exactly into the modular rule structure envisioned by 5e : the general Stealth-based rule applies unless and only unless some more specific trait indicates otherwise.

Sage Advice Compendium:

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 would have to reach so far you'd have to stand on your tippy toes to imagine any of that means anything else. I think some people who struggled with interpreting the text of the rule before the Sage Advice Compendium came out established an early idée fixe about what the rules meant, and having envisioned a square hole, they're now determined to stuff the round peg into it. But no matter how much you squint, it still doesn't fit.

If you intend to extend the core rules by replacing the surprise mechanic by something of your own creation or by some community content, that also fits into the 5e modular system - but, it's no longer running Rules as Written, even though the rules allow for it. If you intentionally make a one-off determination that you allow something as a one-off in play that determines surprise some other way, that's fine : you're running Rules as Written by default, and you've let your players know you may depart from that for one-offs.

But, none of that changes the rules or how the game intends for them to be used.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's funny that people a few posts back are wanting to parse the word "usually" in the Sage Advice Compendium as if it were an unearthed scrap of the original gospels, and now it's "extra-textual support."

Except that's not what happened, at all. Instead, people read 'usually' as the word usually, and treated it that way. You want to delete that word as not saying anything while sticking hard to other words -- in other words, it's not us doing the funny. Either deal with all of the words or don't, but don't try to make that other people's problem. My interpretation, for instance, fully encapsulates your own -- I allow for hiding to achieve surprise as the rules provide. That I also read the other words and see that this isn't the only way to achieve surprise isn't selective parsing.

And, no one here would argue that Sage Advice is anything other than 'extra-textual.' I mean, it definitionally is. Why would this be a bad thing? The Federalist Papers are extra-textual to the US Constitution, for example, but still very important in understanding it. Being extra-textual just means it's not in the text of whatever the focus of discussion is. It's a positional statement, not a value statement.

The rules as they're written are clear : there's a rule printed that specifies how surprise should be determined with Stealth versus passive Perceptions checks, there is no alternative rule given anywhere in the rules, no module published by WOTC that ever sets up a surprise ambush meant to be ran on anything other than on a Stealth basis, and no argument that doesn't try to pluck words or sentences out of context that supports any other meaning.

I mean, there's the big, starting alternative that says "the GM determines who's surprised." Scratch that, it isn't an alternative, it's the top level rule, under which the hidden rules operate without superceding.

It is not the case that all interpretations of the rules are equal, and it is not the case that the Sage Advice Compendium supports any other interpretation of that rule. Here's the intro to that Compendium..

Sage Advice Compendium:


In other words, you can interpret things however you want at your table, but Sage Advice offers the official guidance on how to interpret the rules. It offers no alternative procedure to determine surprise, and it's clear that it presumes that any creature surprising you is hidden:

Sage Advice Compendium:

No one disputes either of these statements you quote.

And it also makes it clear that you're "usually" surprised by failing to notice foes being stealthy, although you can also be surprised by foes with an "especially surprising trait" such as with the gelatinous cube, which is a case of a specific trait over-riding the general rule:

And here you're mixing an matching. The Sage Advice just says "usually." You can also be surprised by a specific rule, yes, no dispute, but the "usually" doesn't limit things to that. Nor does the actual rule, which is "the GM determines who's surprised." There's lots of other rules to give the GM tools to determine that, and it's up to the GM to decide how to use them. The 1/2 a paragraph under the surprise heading that talks to the usual case of hiding doesn't remove the GM's authority to decide, here.

Monster Manual entry for Gelatinous Cube's "Transparent" trait:


Note that the cube doesn't get some advantage to a Deception check - a creature is just automatically surprised. This fits exactly into the modular rule structure envisioned by 5e : the general Stealth-based rule applies unless and only unless some more specific trait indicates otherwise.

No dispute. This doesn't reinforce your argument, though, as it's a specific rule for only that monster, and such specifics are already covered in the general rules as to how they operate. To clarify -- you can be absolutely right about surprise and this works how it does; conversely, I can be absolutely right about surprise and this still works how it does. It doesn't support or detract from either argument. Hence, orthogonal.

Sage Advice Compendium:


You would have to reach so far you'd have to stand on your tippy toes to imagine any of that means anything else. I think some people who struggled with interpreting the text of the rule before the Sage Advice Compendium came out established an early idée fixe about what the rules meant, and having envisioned a square hole, they're now determined to stuff the round peg into it. But no matter how much you squint, it still doesn't fit.

Oh, and you talk about irony!

Seriously, if we parse that down to something more simple, it reads:

"To be surprised, you must be caught off guard, usually because condition A occurs or condition B occurs.... "

Okay, here's the rub. You read this as "it's usually condition A, or it's condition B." Other read this as, "it's usually condition A or B." The punctuation here helps split out the different readings. To you, it's mostly A but sometimes B, but never anything else. To me, that reads it's mostly A or B, but can be something else. Both are fine readings of this specific extra-textual advice (swidt). It's only when you bring it back to the rules that your reading doesn't jive well with me, because the rules say the GM determines and we already have rules for how GM's determine things. The bit about how stealth works really is just a restatement of the general rule of how GM's determine things that deals with hiding. I don't even need to consider gelatinous cube special abilities because they already trump general rules and so don't support or detract from either reading. I just need to look to the general structure of 5e, the tools provided for GMs to determine things, the framework for play, and the fact that the surprise rules start off with saying the GM determines surprise. Viola! So long as the GM thinks a thing might be sufficient for surprise, it's sufficient.

If you intend to extend the core rules by replacing the surprise mechanic by something of your own creation or by some community content, that also fits into the 5e modular system - but, it's no longer running Rules as Written, even though the rules allow for it. If you intentionally make a one-off determination that you allow something as a one-off in play that determines surprise some other way, that's fine : you're running Rules as Written by default, and you've let your players know you may depart from that for one-offs.

I haven't added one word to the rules, and have specifically references which rules I'm using -- references you have yet to address. Please don't accuse me of houseruling when I've done nothing but point at the rules and haven't added a word.

But, none of that changes the rules or how the game intends for them to be used.

You chastised me above for assuming to know the intent of the designers, but here you are doing it yourself. I assume you have some reference for this, because your cites of the rules and Sage Advice are, at best, open to liberal interpretation.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I want to call out the 3rd paragraph of Part 3.

The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. (Snip example of a situation that might come up) How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.

In the last sentence "you" refers to the DM. Therefore, one of the very first "rules" that 5e lays out is that it is your job as a DM to determine what happens if the players want to do something that isn't already spelled out explicitly in the rules.

Deciding how to adjudicate an action a player takes, regardless of if you reuse a similar set of rules laid out in the books or if you make up something completely whole cloth, is specifically spelled out as a job of the DM, within the greater ruleset that is 5e.

If you want to continue to argue "You can do that but its houseruling" at this point is semantics of arguing what the definition of houseruling is. Miriam-Webster defines it as " a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place" which 100% describes something that has happened in every game of D&D run by a human DM.

To reiterate a point made about 400 times already in this thread....the base design of 5e encourages and expects DMs to improvise in a lot of cases. That improvisation is both a "houserule" AND a part of the rules at the same time.

When the trombone wielding assassin shoots a poison dart from the bell and hits his mark in the neck for a stealthy kill and the DM decides to use the Suprise Round rules to adjudicate that action...they are literally following the instructions of what the DMG tells them to do in Part 3 listed above.

 

[Maxperson]

I think all of this makes it clear that in 5e, rules are rules that should govern game play - they're written not as guidelines or suggestions, and they intend the DM to specifically call out house rules or rule variants that are to be used in a campaign. The rules even suggest that when a DM makes a one-off call during play on the rules, that they follow up to arbitrate that rule better. And the rules even give a meta rule on how to arbitrate when one rule seems in conflict with another. Where's the racial trait or class ability that says those are exceptions to the general rule for determining surprise? There aren't any.

From page 4 "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

It's crystal clear that the rules are secondary to DM decision. It's so important in fact, that they put it in the very introduction to the book, rather than bury it deeper.

That jives with what the designers said about 5e It's a rulings over rules edition. It's designed for the DM to make rulings for tables that supersede the rules and/or fill in gaps.