But that isn't the rule.
And nothing else in the entire game is tied to the end or start of a "round".
D&D 5E Assassinate
- Thread starter Jaracove
- Start date
But that isn't the rule.
And nothing else in the entire game is tied to the end or start of a "round".
Wow, thanks for posting and setting everyone straight! Where were you 47 pages ago?
Seriously though, it works better the other way. My way solves all the problems too.
Get a life, indeed.
sithramir
First Post
Wow. Shocking grasp and suddenly he notices a hidden creature! I'll have to investigate that spell. Seems useful
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
This is an incorrect understanding of what the attack roll is. From the Player's Basic Rules, p. 73: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses." Comparing the total to a target number is the third step in making a d20 roll (Player's Basic Rules, p. 4).
That should tell you that when "you are hit" the actual blow has not yet landed, and that you should apply this understanding to the rules for unseen attackers.
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
The wizard doesn't need to make a Perception check to notice the assassin because the assassin's location is revealed when the attack hits. This just so happens to be the trigger for the wizard to use his reaction and instantly cast Shield. Rules interactions like this are intended.
If this is truly the case, then 5th Edition was poorly done! What you are advocating is abandoning skill checks that explain the actions/inactions of characters/NPC's in favor of some streamlined process that defies logic. I'm not saying wizards can't throw up a shield at the last second, I'm saying that there has to be a logical course of events that can be narrated (and I'm sorry, but I can't come up with a logical, believable narration of a wizard that has no clue suddenly throwing up a shield to prevent an attack from a stealthy/hidden assassin just because a spell in the PHB says so). At least if the wiz succeeds in a perception check, the narration could include the creak of the bow as the arrow is drawn, or the twang of the bowstring as the arrow is released, or even the hiss of the arrow in flight, but for no reason at all, bah.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
First...no, I didn't read the whole thread. I read this one, the last one and that's it. So if what I'm saying has been said before...then chalk this post of to another "Me too!" post. At least it may give you and idea of how many other DM's see it this way.
Second: I go with "intent" over "mechanics" every time. Why? Mechanics can NEVER over all the nuances of how those mechanics would/could/should actually be used in the situations that come up in an RPG. Basically, think of the situation first, then see if a rule fits it. If so, go with it. If it's "close, but...", then use the rule as a base and adjudicated it (re: do your job as a DM) so that the rule mechanics make sense, go with that. If there isn't a rule for what's going on, then use your experience and other rules in the game as a guideline for making your own s#!t up (re: kind of one of the points of an RPG... and, IMHO, one of the most unique things about RPG's).
So... "Assassinate" basically has the intent of "If the assassin gets the drop on his opponent and hits, he does more damage because he's an assassin and trained to strike vital areas when his opponent doesn't see it coming or doesn't have time to react". In a nutshell... as long as his target is still thinking "Whoa! What should I do! Aaaaaaa!, the assassins training has already worked and the assassin is stabbing him in the spleen. What the individual "mechanics" of various other rules or situations shouldn't be the determining factor; that factor should be "Dude, he's an assassin! He just jumped out in front of you and stabbed you in the spleen before you even knew what was going on".
If you think of it in "movie" terms... it's like some hitman sneaking up behind someone, then reaching around and grabing their forehead to pull their head back, then with the other hand bring up a knife and slit the bad guys throat. By "mechanics", the forehead grab would be the attack, and then the hitman would be SOL for the 'assassinate' because the target gets a reaction; thus, ruining the "as long as the target hasn't taken an action" part. Does this make sense? Is it "cool" to run it this way? Would the player of an assassin be thinking "Yeah, that makes sense", or would he be thinking "WTF?!? What's the point of having Assassinate then?!? This sucks!"? If it's the latter...you're doing it wrong.
My suggestion, obviously, is go with RAI over RAW. If you allow a wizard to shoot up a Shield spell before an assassin can use his assassinate...well, it's your game and you have to live with all the other unforeseen consequences of that ruling. If you say "Normally, yeah, you could do it...but this guy is an actual assassin and is trained to be quicker than you. So no, you can't get your shield spell up"... well, it's your game and you have to live with all the unforeseen consequences of that ruling. Mind you, in the latter case, your rulings in the future will be harder for rules lawyers to argue with because you ruled in a "unique situation" and didn't just outright say "This is how the hard-coded rule works". Your choice.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
First...no, I didn't read the whole thread. I read this one, the last one and that's it. So if what I'm saying has been said before...then chalk this post of to another "Me too!" post. At least it may give you and idea of how many other DM's see it this way.
Second: I go with "intent" over "mechanics" every time. Why? Mechanics can NEVER over all the nuances of how those mechanics would/could/should actually be used in the situations that come up in an RPG. Basically, think of the situation first, then see if a rule fits it. If so, go with it. If it's "close, but...", then use the rule as a base and adjudicated it (re: do your job as a DM) so that the rule mechanics make sense, go with that. If there isn't a rule for what's going on, then use your experience and other rules in the game as a guideline for making your own s#!t up (re: kind of one of the points of an RPG... and, IMHO, one of the most unique things about RPG's).
So... "Assassinate" basically has the intent of "If the assassin gets the drop on his opponent and hits, he does more damage because he's an assassin and trained to strike vital areas when his opponent doesn't see it coming or doesn't have time to react". In a nutshell... as long as his target is still thinking "Whoa! What should I do! Aaaaaaa!, the assassins training has already worked and the assassin is stabbing him in the spleen. What the individual "mechanics" of various other rules or situations shouldn't be the determining factor; that factor should be "Dude, he's an assassin! He just jumped out in front of you and stabbed you in the spleen before you even knew what was going on".
If you think of it in "movie" terms... it's like some hitman sneaking up behind someone, then reaching around and grabing their forehead to pull their head back, then with the other hand bring up a knife and slit the bad guys throat. By "mechanics", the forehead grab would be the attack, and then the hitman would be SOL for the 'assassinate' because the target gets a reaction; thus, ruining the "as long as the target hasn't taken an action" part. Does this make sense? Is it "cool" to run it this way? Would the player of an assassin be thinking "Yeah, that makes sense", or would he be thinking "WTF?!? What's the point of having Assassinate then?!? This sucks!"? If it's the latter...you're doing it wrong.
My suggestion, obviously, is go with RAI over RAW. If you allow a wizard to shoot up a Shield spell before an assassin can use his assassinate...well, it's your game and you have to live with all the other unforeseen consequences of that ruling. If you say "Normally, yeah, you could do it...but this guy is an actual assassin and is trained to be quicker than you. So no, you can't get your shield spell up"... well, it's your game and you have to live with all the unforeseen consequences of that ruling. Mind you, in the latter case, your rulings in the future will be harder for rules lawyers to argue with because you ruled in a "unique situation" and didn't just outright say "This is how the hard-coded rule works". Your choice.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Nonsense.
The stealth/perception check determined that the target was not aware of the assassin before he started attacking. No attack is instant. Just because the assassin wants to attack the target quickly is no guarantee that is what happens. The assassin must do something to attack and that movement, drawing a bow, jumping out with a knife, or whatever, can be noticed and reacted to if the target is faster than the assassin.
No fancy leaps of logic or twisted narration is needed...a perception check wouldn't be in order because the assassin is no longer being stealthy.
In other words: Speed is equally important to an assassin as stealth.
The text of the assassinate ability says as much by giving advantage when a target has not yet taken a turn. It is not a big leap to tie the critical hit to this as well. To me, it is no leap at all as I believe it is how it was intended to work.
You are fine to use another method, but I'm kind of sick of people insinuating (and flat out stating) there is no believable narrative to this method.
Last edited:
The only "fancy leaps of logic or twisted narration" going on around here is by anyone who advocates that a hit doesn't actually hit until after it hits! Good luck with that one.
I am advocating nothing of the sort.
The narration works just fine my way, thank you very much. If you don't like it, fine, but if you can't understand it, that's entirely your problem. At least my method doesn't require stealing a reaction from a character that the rules plainly say he gets.
