D&D 5E Assassinate

[GMforPowergamers]

[/QUOTE]

The example situation I used is the very same example you gave me! The example with the 6th level fighter being brainwashed to murder the mayor.

In the example the minor npc stood no chance against the pc...pc and Nov are completely diffrent no DM I know throws auto loose but we sometimes have autowins...or at least close

We ARE playing the game go back and reread

You're saying that the DM assumes that the mayor has no chance to notice anything wrong, no chance to react faster if he does. I'm saying that the rules allow this to be played out, and the rules also assume that we are here to play, not that we turn up just to hear a story about how we died and there was nothing we could have done about it.

It is not the job of the gm to be a robot it is his job to determain success fail or roll...

Look, I'm not trying to be horrible to you or make you feel bad. I'm pointing out how bad I'd feel if the DM didn't give me a fair shot at trying to survive this assassination, and also point out that the decision to have the attack take place before the combat begins(???) takes away my fair chance to do something about it, no matter how unlikely. That's why there should be no combat outside of combat(!), and why the rules say that combat takes place in combat rounds.

Please refer to the rules on skills...the DM calls for them when needed... I also don't make pcs make str/athletic/swim checks to cool off in a pond...

Sure, the DM has total unlimited power to prevent you from making any roll; that doesn't mean that he should. This is why 'ROCKS FALL EVERYBODY DIES' is used as a shorthand to illustrate the inevitable result of the abuse of that power.

just because someone CAN abuse a power doesn't mean the do or will...you are pretending I auto killed pc's when I have only seen 1 5e death of a pc yet..the pc are not being killed... And you have yet to provide one reason why more rolls are better

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And we expect Brazil to hammer San Marino, but we still play. No matter how big a favourite the fighter is, it's not okay to just tell me that I'm dead. It should be played out. Fred may be a much better combat

et?

I don't know what sport those two cities play but if my nephews little league team played the Yankees I would be very board. As the gm I don't want run borring things...as a player I dint want to sit through boring things....

 

[clearstream]

Please quote a rule that says when surprise ends...I see one that says DM determines...

Let's set aside assassination for a moment, as that is the rule we disagree on. I suppose you will agree that the rules do say that all other effects of surprise are mechanically done and over with for each combatant at the end of their first turn (PHB189). So let me put your question another way. Please quote the rule that says surprise ever ends, if not for each combatant after his or her first turn? Are you ruling that surprise lasts the entire combat? If not, why?

Do you see what I mean? The rules say you are "surprised at the start of the encounter". What is the start of the encounter? For each combatant the start lasts until the end of their first turn, because that is when the effects of surprise are done with. If it ran further, why don't they continue to suffer any further effects? And to run it further is to ignore the "start of the encounter" language - and you're then on your own in deciding where surprise should end.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's set aside assassination for a moment, as that is the rule we disagree on. I suppose you will agree that the rules do say that all other effects of surprise are mechanically done and over with for each combatant at the end of their first turn (PHB189). So let me put your question another way. Please quote the rule that says surprise ever ends, if not for each combatant after his or her first turn? Are you ruling that surprise lasts the entire combat? If not, why?

Do you see what I mean? The rules say you are "surprised at the start of the encounter". What is the start of the encounter? For each combatant the start lasts until the end of their first turn, because that is when the effects of surprise are done with. If it ran further, why don't they continue to suffer any further effects? And to run it further is to ignore the "start of the encounter" language - and you're then on your own in deciding where surprise should end.

here is what I do... I decied if anyone could be surprised... if it's possible but I don't know I make it contested... if it seems like one side really did the work and 'got' the other I rule it just is... I use this little rule form page 189 of the PHB

Combat Step by Step
1. Determine surprise. The DM determines whether anyone involved in the combat encounter is surprised.

sometimes it's round 5+ when something suprising happens... if so 9 out of 10 times it doesn't matter... you know when it does, when you have a PC with assassinate....

now there is a rule about being surprised at the start of a fight...

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. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren’t.

how ever that doesn't contradict the rule I quited.... I use my judgment as a fair and balanced DM to rule, witch is what the book tells me to do....

 

[Paraxis]

Surprise can not possibly happen after the initial round of combat. There is no way to surprise someone mid fight.

COMBAT STEP BY STEP

1. Determine surprise. The DM determines whether anyone involved in the combat encounter is surprised.

2. Establish positions. The DM decides where all the characters and monsters are located. Given the adventurers’ marching order or their stated positions in the room or other location, the DM figures out where the adversaries are—how far away and in what direction.

3. Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative, determining the order of combatants’ turns.

4. Take turns. Each participant in the battle takes a turn in initiative order.
Begin the next round. When everyone involved in the combat has had a turn, the round ends.

5. Repeat step 4 until the fighting stops.

You go through the steps in order and step 5 is just to repeat step 4 until the fighting stops. Since you never go back to step 1 there is no way to "surprise" someone in the middle of a fight.

 

[clearstream]

here is what I do... I decied if anyone could be surprised... if it's possible but I don't know I make it contested... if it seems like one side really did the work and 'got' the other I rule it just is... I use this little rule form page 189 of the PHB

Sounds good. The DM decides if anyone is surprised. If they are surprised then the rest of the rules tell us how to implement that.

sometimes it's round 5+ when something suprising happens... if so 9 out of 10 times it doesn't matter... you know when it does, when you have a PC with assassinate....

I can see possible counter-arguments, but for now I want to explore a RAI that allows surprise to occur in any round of a combat. Partly because it is easy and fun to think of cases when that might happen! Setting aside the automatic crit proc, which we disagree about, we accordingly agree that a rogue could cause surprise in round 5, and if they did they would still need to roll a higher initiative than their target to proc assassinate's advantage rule. Right?

now there is a rule about being surprised at the start of a fight...

how ever that doesn't contradict the rule I quited.... I use my judgment as a fair and balanced DM to rule, witch is what the book tells me to do....

Are you saying that for a combatant surprised in round one of a fight, their surprise will last until the end of that fight? Just to be clear, that is assuming we're dealing with a single cause of surprise that happens right up front when the fight starts.

 

[Arial Black]

Just because someone CAN abuse a power doesn't mean the do or will...you are pretending I auto killed pc's when I have only seen 1 5e death of a pc yet..the pc are not being killed... And you have yet to provide one reason why more rolls are better

Lets get to the specifics of our little mini-debate: I'm not suggesting the DMs should never say that something auto-fails or succeeds without enforcing a roll. There are definitely times when that's a good and appropriate thing to do. I do it frequently when I'm DMing.

In case it wasn't clear, my problem here is that you have combat take place outside of combat rounds.

Sure, the DM can just narrate the result of some fights whether they are between armies, gods, or town drunks. I'm not saying that every single combat in the whole game world must be rolled!

I'm saying that the fights that are worth playing out, the ones that are the expected stuff of RPGs, the 'kill them and take their stuff' murderhobo activity, the duel at dawn between the PC and Baron Kittensquisher, these combats should not just be decided by DM fiat. These combats are why we play the game! This is why the game has any rules at all! Otherwise, the game would have continued as a game of 'let's pretend' and never have evolved into what the hobby is today.

Here's an example of what I mean: a band of orcs are intent on attacking a village, and the PCs have been hired/conned/persuaded/bribed/blackmailed/whatever into protecting the village from wave after wave of orc attacks. In this scenario, the PCs can't be everywhere at once. When they are not there, it's perfectly okay for the DM to just tell us what happened, who the orcs killed, what was stolen or destroyed, etc. But when a combat between the PCs and some orcs break out, the expectations of the hobby, the players, and the game rules themselves, is that the combat will be run according to the combat rules of the game you're actually playing, not just narrated by the DM.

Now, there are some rules that are optional, some tables use houserules, and that's okay. But no DM who wants to keep his players is going to just say, 'I won't bother with the combat rules for this one, I'll just rule that the orcs lose seven warriors but the thief and wizard died. Roll up new characters'.

Now, that's an extreme example. But it is possible to mess with the combat rules in such a way that, without meaning to, the DM takes away the players' fair chance (either for or against them), and one way of doing that is...allowing combat outside of combat, before the combat round begins.

If the DM has the first attack resolve before initiative is rolled-and remember, the rules do say that combat takes place in Combat Rounds-then the victim has his chance of noticing the threat and reacting faster than the attacker taken away by DM fiat. This is likely to result in a death which might not have happened if the combat was run in Combat Rounds, as the rules intend. This means that the DM has effectively almost chosen who lives and dies, instead of the combat playing out as it would have.

So, my problem is with 'pre-combat' combat. It takes away from the whole point of the players being there, and changes it to the DM choosing who he think should win.

 

[clearstream]

So initiative is not about whether you sense an enemy, it's about how fast you react, once you do react.

So an Initiative result has absolutely nothing to do with 'state of awareness'. Its only connection is that after your senses have detected a threat, your reflexes can then kick in. But your reflexes don't kick in until after your senses have detected a threat.

I take your point and yet one of the few effects in the game that gives you a straight Initiative modifier is called Alert and does so because you are "always on the lookout for danger". Contemplating both points, and the RAW that surprise only applies "at the start of the encounter" to a combatants in their "first turn of the combat" because they did not "notice a threat" makes me feel that the construction they are thinking about is one of flat-footedness. According to RAW even if a threat I hadn't noticed came up after my first turn of combat, I wouldn't suffer the main effects of surprise because they can only apply to my first turn and I am past my first turn. Say a rogue joins a combat part way through - it is still their "start of the encounter" but it is not mine. In summary, what RAW encourages me toward is a notion that before they get engaged in the fight combatants can potentially be caught flat-footed. But not after that, because they are then on balance, constantly moving and reactive etc.

Brilliant! This rules quote is exactly the thing that could have ended this thread 500 posts ago!

Can you give us a page number please? Or just quote the sentence, that would help a lot!

I can see I left my thought incomplete. Deconstructing assassinate we see two effects that can both apply at once but don't have to. One of those effects is applied only if a creature "hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet". So I guess you will concede that if the monk rolls higher initiative then after he has taken his turn in the combat the rogue cannot apply that effect to him. The rules do say that even if we don't quite follow why that should be so. From the posts I've skimmed it seems people who dislike this take the obvious route of inventing ways to start the combat without giving the monk an initiative roll until after their rogue has had his go. DM fiat, but not RAW.

The other effect relies on having surprise. The question hinges on when surprise ends and to an extent what surprise is. Under some constructions, surprise is a state that has two modes. In the first mode it prevents acting and reacting. Then at the end of a combatant's first turn it switches to a second mode where it no longer prevents acting and reacting and its only function is to allow the second effect of assassinate to apply. It is worth stressing that under that construction RAW gives no guide as to when the state of surprise should cease to apply. Presumably some time before the "middle of the encounter". An alternative construction would treat surprise as a state with one mode: it prevents acting and reacting. In obedience to the "start of the encounter" text, surprise ends when that one mode ends.

In summary, for one of the effects of assassinate the RAW does say what I said it says and that is what I intended to refer to. But for the other effect, it is up to you what you find the more plausible. Construing surprise - a basic rule - to have two modes and lose any clear end point, apparently in order to support a single class feature - doesn't seem like very robust thinking to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Lets get to the specifics of our little mini-debate: I'm not suggesting the DMs should never say that something auto-fails or succeeds without enforcing a roll. There are definitely times when that's a good and appropriate thing to do. I do it frequently when I'm DMing.

Then I don't understand your issue at all...

In case it wasn't clear, my problem here is that you have combat take place outside of combat rounds.

ok, I do that, and have for years...

Sure, the DM can just narrate the result of some fights whether they are between armies, gods, or town drunks. I'm not saying that every single combat in the whole game world must be rolled!

so I guess I;m lost again...

I'm saying that the fights that are worth playing out, the ones that are the expected stuff of RPGs, the 'kill them and take their stuff' murderhobo activity, the duel at dawn between the PC and Baron Kittensquisher, these combats should not just be decided by DM fiat. These combats are why we play the game! This is why the game has any rules at all! Otherwise, the game would have continued as a game of 'let's pretend' and never have evolved into what the hobby is today.

but none of my 'no role' examples fall into this category... so I am really confused...

Here's an example of what I mean: a band of orcs are intent on attacking a village, and the PCs have been hired/conned/persuaded/bribed/blackmailed/whatever into protecting the village from wave after wave of orc attacks. In this scenario, the PCs can't be everywhere at once. When they are not there, it's perfectly okay for the DM to just tell us what happened, who the orcs killed, what was stolen or destroyed, etc. But when a combat between the PCs and some orcs break out, the expectations of the hobby, the players, and the game rules themselves, is that the combat will be run according to the combat rules of the game you're actually playing, not just narrated by the DM.

OK, again you make up a scene where no one would suggest not rolling, and procide to tell us not to not roll...

Now, there are some rules that are optional, some tables use houserules, and that's okay. But no DM who wants to keep his players is going to just say, 'I won't bother with the combat rules for this one, I'll just rule that the orcs lose seven warriors but the thief and wizard died. Roll up new characters'.

and this has to do with my PC bard assassin, or the PC barbarian how again???

Now, that's an extreme example. But it is possible to mess with the combat rules in such a way that, without meaning to, the DM takes away the players' fair chance (either for or against them), and one way of doing that is...allowing combat outside of combat, before the combat round begins.

I guess a case could be made that under just the right circumstances that could happen... but lucky for us we have living breathing DMs who can handle corner cases like that...

If the DM has the first attack resolve before initiative is rolled-and remember, the rules do say that combat takes place in Combat Rounds-then the victim has his chance of noticing the threat and reacting faster than the attacker taken away by DM fiat. This is likely to result in a death which might not have happened if the combat was run in Combat Rounds, as the rules intend. This means that the DM has effectively almost chosen who lives and dies, instead of the combat playing out as it would have.

this is BS... I mean really. "You can't react to something you don't see coming" is not comparable to "Lets not roll for this fight you just loose."

PCs use the "Declair then act" as much if not MORE then the NPCs... before you are in combat the rules say you can do anything... if that anything does damage then it does... Initiative is for when the question comes up "Who gets to act when"

last night we even had a PC flip out (in character) and perform a spell because he thought there was going to be a finght that never happened... so no need for initative, he just bolted forward summoned his sword and cast mage armor... then the woman looked at him funny and made a joke about the falic sword and him premature casting...

So, my problem is with 'pre-combat' combat. It takes away from the whole point of the players being there, and changes it to the DM choosing who he think should win.

except it doesn't at all it rewards quick thinking and planning. It makes the PCs way more interested in the game

 

[Arial Black]

I mean really. "You can't react to something you don't see coming" is not comparable to "Lets not roll for this fight you just loose."

When the DM has the brainwashed fighter attack the mayor before initiative is even rolled, then your DM is choosing for the mayor to fail his skill checks and lose to the fighter for highest initiative.

It may be that the 'mayor episode' was one of those narrated encounters where you don't bother to roll any dice because the result is both unimportant and obvious. But if that is the case, why bother rolling the attack roll or damage roll? Just missing part of the combat rules (and thereby skewing the combat even more in the fighter's favour) is like having Brazil play San Marino but giving Brazil a 5 goal start because they will probably win anyway.

If the fight is important and relevant, then the DM shouldn't arbitrarily decide the outcome, or skew the result so much that he chooses for one side to fail to notice a threat AND lose initiative. And the DM is doing exactly that if he allows one side to attack before initiative is rolled.

Initiative is for when the question comes up "Who gets to act when"

"Who gets to act when...in combat!" Because we are talking about combat here; attacking enemies with weapons. According to the rules, 'combat', ALL combat, takes place in Combat Rounds.

Why? Because if you allow 'combat' before combat starts (think about that for a moment!) then it's like starting a boxing match by allowing only one boxer three free undefended punches before the bell rings to begin round one.