D&D 5E Assassinate

[MG.0]

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".

But if the assassin is too slow, his stealth is irrelevant as the victim does have time to react as is clearly stated by the fact that after the target's turn has passed, they can take reactions.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Since all of those narrative elements are part of the attack that gives away the assassin's location, I don't understand why you feel like you are unable to use them or anything else your imagination can come up with to justify the wizard's reaction. The rules certainly encourage you to describe it this way by saying that once you attack from hiding stealth goes out the window. Since the assassin is unseen the attack is made with advantage, but it will not auto-crit if the wizard is no longer surprised. As has been pointed out, there are lots of ways this is believable.

 

[Arial Black]

As soon as the cleric is affected by the shocking grasp he notices the threat and is no longer surprised.

Wow. Shocking grasp and suddenly he notices a hidden creature! I'll have to investigate that spell. Seems useful

Nope, he doesn't notice or detect the hidden assassin. He notices that there is a threat; in this case, some unknown creature is casting damaging spells at him, apparently.

Knowing that you are 'in combat' like this makes you alert to danger in a way that you are not if you are surprised. This alertness is the opposite of 'surprised' as the game mechanic. If you are alert like this, you are not vulnerable to the auto-crit from Assassinate as you are no longer surprised, even if the assassin remains hidden.

 

[Monk55]

Since all of those narrative elements are part of the attack that gives away the assassin's location, I don't understand why you feel like you are unable to use them or anything else your imagination can come up with to justify the wizard's reaction.

Because the assassin was stealthy/hidden and the wiz did not notice any of those narrative elements, so there is no reason to allow the wiz to react to an act that goes unnoticed.

The rules certainly encourage you to describe it this way by saying that once you attack from hiding stealth goes out the window.

WRONG!!! The rule says the following: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. It does not say that "once you attack from hiding stealth goes out the window," it says that stealth lasts until the attack hits or misses the target. Don't bother going through your twisted, unnatural interpretation of a hit not actually hitting until after it hits. I and, apparently, many others on this thread are not buying it.

Since the assassin is unseen the attack is made with advantage, but it will not auto-crit if the wizard is no longer surprised. As has been pointed out, there are lots of ways this is believable.

Given what I've stated above, there is no way your scenario is believable.

 

[MG.0]

WRONG!!! The rule says the following: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. It does not say that "once you attack from hiding stealth goes out the window," it says that stealth lasts until the attack hits or misses the target. Don't bother going through your twisted, unnatural interpretation of a hit not actually hitting until after it hits. I, and apparently a lot of others on this thread, are not buying it.

WRONG!!! <-------- Look I can do it too! Shouting doesn't make it right, and in this case you are wrong.

Apparently you object to the Shield spell in its entirety since it allows precisely this and not just with regard to surprise, but any attack.

Riddle me this, oh genius:

If a wizard is in combat with several foes, some of which are invisible and silenced. Can he cast Shield to defend against an attack from one of the invisible creatures? By your stance, he "wouldn't see it coming" either, but the rules definitely allow it. I can think of more than a few narratives that would work in that situation to boot.

Someone here doesn't understand the rules...but it isn't me.


Edit:
This post was a little harsher than I intended. I really don't think either method is bad or wrong. It's just you seem to be taking a very adversarial "You are wrong!" approach that bugged me. I've left the text as originally posted because I don't believe in revisionist history, but wanted to add that I think we can agree to disagree. I will no longer argue the point. Suffice to say I am certain that the way I have chosen is the way I will continue to play as my group has already agreed on it...even the assassin.

 

[sithramir]

So far it seems the shield spell is the only thing that breaks the logic? It basically allows it to work even if you don't know about an attack. I would rule you don't get to use it against the rare event of a hidden (or invisible/silenced) attack hits the wizard. The problem seems to be the spell since its the thing being depended on.

Do other reactions like cutting words work without you being able to see? If so I'd agree that was the intent. If not then it seems it is the error.

Can the logic be used without dependency on the shield spell reading? I'm not convinced otherwise but would agree if there several other reactions to back it up. I know cutting words for instance states you must see so what other examples support the shield spell ?

 

[MG.0]

Do other reactions like cutting words work without you being able to see? If so I'd agree that was the intent. If not then it seems it is the error.

Shield is not really the issue. The issue is being able to react to an attack after being surprised. The rules specifically grant that ability. The attacker being unseen is irrelevant at that point.

Just because an assassin was hidden at the start of combat doesn't mean he can pull off an attack without the target reacting. Granted there are some scenarios that would seem to make it incredibly unlikely, but not impossible. For every one of those, there are dozens of scenarios were a reaction could be reasonably expected to happen. Jumping out with a dagger when you were hidden is not the same as being invisible and silenced. and a reaction is certainly possible if the assassin is too slow.


Edit: Barbarian ability Retaliation doesn't require sight. Neither does the Bardic ability Combat Inspiration. In fact Combat Inspiration would seem to work just like Shield, i.e. after the attack is rolled.

 

[Arial Black]

When the game tells you that you can attack creatures or target effects or other things you can do, it tells you the mechanics. Those mechanics do not give you permission to use them under any circumstances!

Just because you are able to use actions and able to attack, does not give you the ability to attack someone you don't even suspect exists.

The ability to take reactions doesn't give you the ability to react to triggers you don't know about.

 

[MG.0]

The ability to take reactions doesn't give you the ability to react to triggers you don't know about.

...and the assassin being hidden at the start of combat does not imply he remains hidden after attempting to attack.

Edit (Adding an example):

An assassin is hiding behind a boulder and surprises a target walking nearby. The assassin attempts to run out to stab the target. He loses initiative (maybe he stumbled over a small rock). Because of this the target is able to shake off his surprise and react as the assassin reaches him, even though he lacks the time to move or attack himself.

Being hidden and gaining surprise is not equivalent to being completely unperceived at the time the attack lands.

Do you really not see how that works, or do you just not like it?

 

[Hriston]

Because the assassin was stealthy/hidden and the wiz did not notice any of those narrative elements, so there is no reason to allow the wiz to react to an act that goes unnoticed.

All the wizard needs to use his reaction is an attack that hits. This has nothing to do with whether or not he notices the assassin, himself.

WRONG!!! The rule says the following: If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. It does not say that "once you attack from hiding stealth goes out the window," it says that stealth lasts until the attack hits or misses the target. Don't bother going through your twisted, unnatural interpretation of a hit not actually hitting until after it hits. I, and apparently a lot of others on this thread, are not buying it.

So the assassin stays hidden for the duration of a single die roll? Is that what's bothering you? Because once the attack is made, it will either hit or miss. There is no third option. The attack roll determines whether the attack is a hit or a miss, so as soon as the attack is made (i.e. the moment the die is rolled at the table) this question has been resolved one way or the other.

This really gets to the level of abstraction in the D&D combat system and what the attack roll represents in the narrative. A lot of people that have written posts on ENWorld don't narrate every attack that hits as doing real physical damage. A "hit" needn't ever make actual contact to incur hit point damage. A character might experience a reduction in hit points because of the effort it takes to avoid a lethal blow, or have their resolve worn down by the attempts of their foe to strike them, the loss of that resolve represented by taking damage. Not until the final blow that drops that character to zero hit points is there any reason to narrate a "hit" as making physical contact. If you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. How many times do you think someone can be struck with a sword before they lose enough blood to fall unconscious? Probably not too many, and yet high level characters are able to absorb tens of "hits" from such a weapon with no impairment to their functionality. This is what the Basic Rules have to say about this issue:

DESCRIBING THE EFFECTS OF DAMAGE

Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

So really the issue of narrating the "hit", and the logic of the resulting ability of a mage to cast Shield, is left entirely up to you as the DM, and any inability to credibly narrate these events is not due to any fault to be found in the rules as written, but is due entirely to a lack of imagination on the part of the DM.