D&D 5E Assassinate

[bgbarcus]

Sorry to derail, but I read the thread title again and my mind was having a hard time forming the correct word out of Ass Ass in Ate.

My mind finally fixed itself and formed the coherent word assassinate, but now I can't purge the incoherence. Hopefully it doesn't do the same to you. It's best not to do too much Anal Lysis on these things...

/derail

Too late. The painful over analyzing has already been done.

 

[Hriston]

Your hiding ninjas should not be able to gain surprise because they've already been recognized as a threat.

Correct.

However, if a new combatant entered the fight from an unexpected place (dropped out of the sky?), that would present the possibility for surprise with regard to just that new entrant and, most likely, only against his first target

No, having already noticed the threat of the ninjas, the skydiver's target could not be surprised.

As a DM, I would be more likely to allow my players to get away with that stunt than the monsters. The hissy fit some of my guys would throw if monsters got the extra shot at surprise would continue for weeks. Sort of like dealing with children, a DM has to pick his battles.

What's good for the players is good for the monsters as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bgbarcus]

Correct.



No, having already noticed the threat of the ninjas, the skydiver's target could not be surprised.



What's good for the players is good for the monsters as far as I'm concerned.

It would have to be an extreme case. Although the extra shot at surprise is most likely not intended to be allowed in the rules, I like the idea keeping the possibility open.

 

[MG.0]

The RAW makes sense to me, but okay, let's discuss 'surprise' outside of RAW.

You seem to have a knack for pulling the wrong meaning from text by taking it out of context. If you read my other reply you'd see that when I said "I won't argue RAW, because it's stupid." I didn't mean the rules are stupid, I meant arguing about RAW is a stupid pointless waste of time. It always devolves into pulling words out of context, torturing their meanings, or playing mind-reader with the author.

Lets look at a round from each of our viewpoints: A character doesn't notice a threat at the start of combat and is surprised by three Assassins' attacks. Initiative is rolled and Assassin #1 goes first, followed by Assassin #2, then the character and lastly by Assassin #3.

Here's the relevant section of the DMG:
-----
Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.
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.
-----

Your view: The first Assassin's blade hits the character and auto-crits. According to you, the character is no longer surprised. The second Assassin hits but cannot auto-crit because the character is no longer surprised. The character's initiative comes up and he can take no actions because he used to be surprised. The third Assassin then attacks with the same conditions as the second.

My view: The first Assassin's blade hits the character and auto-crits. The second Assassin's blade hits the character and auto-crits. The character's initiative comes up and he can take no actions because he is still surprised. The third Assassin goes but cannot auto-crit because the character is no longer surprised.

I can see how you are pulling your meaning from the text, but it seems particularly forced to me. Whatever. I use my way because it makes sense to me. I don't see how you can no longer be surprised and yet still suffer effects of having been surprised in the past. It seems silly.

I can also easily imagine this scenario playing out: A wizard is attacked by three assassins and is caught off guard by two quick attacks, but has the presence of mind to cast Shield (a reaction), deflecting the third assassin's blade.

 

[bgbarcus]

Has anyone considered the possibility that surprise rules were intentionally written to produce a variety of interpretations because someone at WotC is trolling us?

 

[MG.0]

Possibly. The truth is, that there will ALWAYS be ambiguity in the rules. I deal with converting natural language into precise instructions for a living and believe me, to remove all ambiguity the rules would have to four to five times as verbose as they have EVER been. That's why it's such a pointless exercise to debate the exact wording of the rules. The only sensible thing to do is read it in a way that makes sense to you and your players and leave it at that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm fairly certain that surprise was supposed to last until the end of the surprise round. It's just that reactions can be taken after your turn in the surprise round.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Possibly. The truth is, that there will ALWAYS be ambiguity in the rules. I deal with converting natural language into precise instructions for a living and believe me, to remove all ambiguity the rules would have to four to five times as verbose as they have EVER been. That's why it's such a pointless exercise to debate the exact wording of the rules. The only sensible thing to do is read it in a way that makes sense to you and your players and leave it at that.

at this point we hve at least 3 different honest reads of the rules... there is no way for anyone to be right...

 

[Hriston]

I'm fairly certain that surprise was supposed to last until the end of the surprise round. It's just that reactions can be taken after your turn in the surprise round.

There's no "surprise round" in 5e. It's just the first round.

 

[MG.0]

Supplies! (UHF or Borderlands, anyone?)