D&D 5E Assassinate

[Arial Black]

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".

You cannot react to danger before you notice the danger. It's a cause/effect relationship. What your reaction speed might be is irrelevant before you know that there is any danger.

Once you have noticed the danger, then your reaction speed measures how fast you react to it.

The Alert feat makes you immune to the game effects of surprise. It doesn't make you automatically perceive the hidden assailant, but it does mean that you can react to the slightest of clues so that you can always use reactions and you can move/act on your first turn, and you are considered (all else being equal) to constantly be looking out for danger, just like people who are already in combat. This makes you immune to the auto-crit from Assassinate, both in terms of fluff (unlike most people, you are always ready for danger unless unconscious or the like) AND crunch (you cannot be surprised while you are conscious).

Sure, the feat gives you +5 to initiative rolls, but that makes sense because you 'cannot be surprised', because you are 'always on the lookout for danger'.

It's not your 'reaction speed' that measures your ability to notice the threat in the first place, either with this feat or without.

Under some constructions, surprise is a state that has two modes. In the first mode it prevents acting and reacting.

Perhaps this is the source of our disagreement. 'Surprise' does not prevent acting/reacting, surprise delays acting and reacting. Under that construct, one of the effects of being surprised is that it delays your ability to take reactions until after your first turn, and delays your ability to act/react by about six seconds or so; one combat round.

The other effect of being surprised is not a delay in doing your stuff; the other effect is that, while you do not notice a threat, you can be auto-crit by Assassinate, precisely because you are not 'on the lookout for danger'!

 

[clearstream]

Perhaps this is the source of our disagreement. 'Surprise' does not prevent acting/reacting, surprise delays acting and reacting. Under that construct, one of the effects of being surprised is that it delays your ability to take reactions until after your first turn, and delays your ability to act/react by about six seconds or so; one combat round.

We want to avoid the fallacy of begging the question, i.e. we don't want to say that it must be that way solely because the desired interpretation of assassinate requires it. So we need a reason for a surprise that has two modes. (One mode for delaying first reaction until the end of a combatant's first turn, and a second mode for delaying first action until the start of a combatant's second turn.) One advantage with prevents is it only envisions one mode. And if there is no other difference between them, Occam's Razor would seem to prefer prevents.

The other effect of being surprised is not a delay in doing your stuff; the other effect is that, while you do not notice a threat, you can be auto-crit by Assassinate, precisely because you are not 'on the lookout for danger'!

Since we are thinking about game mechanics we can concentrate on what the rules allow, and then construct the narrative. One of the interesting aspects of the wording of Assassinate is the use of "In addition". That causes me to challenge my earlier idea that the two effects of assassinate are separable. We know that a rogue must beat a target's initiative in order to apply the advantage effect. For the sake of argument, let's temporarily accept the proposal that surprise ends at the end of a combatant's first turn. That would mean that the only time a rogue gets their crit is when it is in addition​ to having advantage.

We could then come back to the narrative construction in the obvious way, and everything would click together very nicely. Against that, I think a reasonable test for a version of surprise that runs past the end of a combatant's first turn, is to ask if working that way serves any purpose in the game other than allowing a rogue with the assassinate feature to get their crit in the absence of having advantage? Do you see what I mean? If it does have some other consequence - then that would offer a motive for the RAW needing to work that way. As a strawman, I suggest that it has no other consequence. Can we knock that one down?

 

[Arial Black]

There is 'surprised' itself, and then there are the effects of being surprised. There is a cause/effect relationship, which means that although the presence/absence of 'surprised' also means the presence/absence of the effects of surprise, the reverse is not true: the presence/absence of one or both of its effects does not determine the presence/absence of 'surprised'.

The cause: 'surprised'.

The effects:-
a.) delays your first actions and reactions of the combat
b.) while 'surprised' you are vulnerable to auto-crits from Assassinate.
c.) some monster abilities apply when attacking surprised creatures.
d.) possible other future stuff as yet to be determined.

The cause and effect are related, but are different things. For example, if you are immune to the game effect 'surprised' (Weapon of Warning, Alert feat), then you are not affected by any of the effects. But if you are immune to, or can ignore, the effect of one specific effect of surprise, this does not let you ignore any of the other effects, nor does it mean that you are not 'surprised'. The barbarian ability of Feral Instinct allows you to ignore the delay to your actions (if you start by entering Rage), but it does not mean you are not 'surprised' if you Rage, and you are still vulnerable to auto-crits from Assassinate and possibly some monster abilities too.

The effect of delaying when you can act/react is actually an instantaneous penalty that you take if you are surprised on your first turn of the combat. It is not an effect that switches on at one point then switches off at a later point; it does not have a duration. It is an instaneous effect, like 'paying a fine'.

But we do know that 'surprised' itself does have a duration! How do we know? Because some of the effects of 'surprised' happen 'while you are surprised'. Take the Assassinate ability: if you attack a creature while it is surprised, any hit is a critical hit. 'Surprised' itself must have a duration, but the effects of 'surprised' do not have or need a duration. The delay to your actions/reactions is an instantaneous effect, and your actions/reactions are delayed for the same amount of time whether or not you become 'unsurprised' before or after your first turn. Meanwhile, although the auto-crit is only valid during the duration of 'surprised', the auto-crit itself doesn't have a meaningful 'duration' at all, it simply applies to attacks that meet the criteria.

Although we do know that 'surprised' must have a duration, it is annoying that they didn't spell it out for us. How many posts in this thread so far?

I know that many people use the end of the surprised creature's first turn as the end of the duration of 'surprised', but there is no reason that your reaction speed should govern your awareness, no reason that the completion of the penalty for one of the effects of surprise should dictate the duration of any of the other effects, or of 'surprised' itself; like the tail wagging the dog.

It seems to me that the best clue we have is what causes 'surprised' itself: 'not noticing a threat'. If the effects of 'surprised' happen because, RAW, you didn't notice a threat, then there is no logical reason to continue to apply them if and when you do notice a threat!

 

[clearstream]

It seems to me that the best clue we have is what causes 'surprised' itself: 'not noticing a threat'. If the effects of 'surprised' happen because, RAW, you didn't notice a threat, then there is no logical reason to continue to apply them if and when you do notice a threat!

For the sake of argument, let's accept that as true. We can see that there must be a delay between noticing a threat and ending surprise. Imagine a stealthed rogue who gets two attacks, gets surprise on two targets and beats both of their initiative scores. She moves 10' to target A and attacks them getting advantage and auto crit. Target B is looking right at target A and the rogue, but from a further 20' away. The rogue then moves 20' to target B and attacks. Does that rogue get advantage and auto crit on target B? If we say yes, then noticing a threat must be delayed. Unfortunately nothing advises us when to delay to. Let's also consider the possibility of a third actor - a friend of the targets' - who beat the rogues' initiative and shouts a warning. Do we say that such a warning counts as "noticing a threat" and ends surprise? Again if we say yes, then how did our rogue who came out of hiding to attack and needed to move first, reach her second target in time for surprise to still apply given that target saw her coming? I feel certain a rogue should be able to auto crit when using a melee weapon so I feel forced to say that "noticing a threat" to end surprise is delayed - but I don't know when to delay it to!? Let's put our versions of surprise side-by-side.

Surprise version 1
Applied when "not noticing a threat" and ended sometime (we don't know when) after "noticing a threat". Upon first being applied it launches two delay effects. The first delays reactions until the end of a combatant's first turn. The second delays actions until the start of a combatant's second turn. Until it ends, surprise version 1 acts as a handshake for other effects. For avoidance of doubt, ending surprise version 1 does not end the delay effects.

Surprise version 2
Applied when "not noticing a threat" and ended at the end of a combatant's first turn. While active, surprise version 2 prevents actions and reactions and acts as a handshake for other effects. Ending surprise version 2 ends all its effects.

Surprise version 1 potentially cannot tell us when the handshake-effect ends. It begs the question because there isn't a mechanical motive for separating surprise and its delay/prevent effects, except in order for the handshake-effect to continue past the expiry of those delay/prevent effects (although it potentially can end before them!?) A second logical objection is Occam's Razor. And then, it seems to ignore the RAW that "a character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter". Specifically, they can still be surprised under version 1 at the end of the encounter​!

 

[Arial Black]

You can be surprised 'at the start of the encounter' and still be surprised at the end of the encounter! You may never have been aware of any of the combat which took place near you. Unlikely, but possible.

I don't know where you get the idea that 'my version' has a delay between 'noticing a threat' and 'no longer surprised'. That's not the case. If you start combat 'surprised' (which, by definition' means that you didn't notice a threat), then you are no longer surprised as soon as you do notice a threat.

How you notice a threat requires as much DM adjudication as 'not noticing a threat' requires in the first place. If you can see the assassin break cover and stab your mate, then you notice it, unless your DM can think of a reason you don't. In that scenario, the default assumption is that being able to see the stabbing is enough of a clue!

However, if the assassin was relying on Deception to appear innocent, concealed his blade and loudly proclaimed that this guy had collapsed for no reason at all(!), then there may be opposed skill checks; Perception/Sleight of Hand to notice the knife, Insight/Deception to believe the assassin?).

For the guy being stabbed, that's a pretty big clue that there is a threat when one of your favourite kidneys hit the floor. I'm not sure how the assassin can talk his way out of that one.

Since there is no artificial delay between 'noticing a threat' and ceasing being surprised, there is no possible confusion about how long the non-existant delay might be.

 

[clearstream]

You can be surprised 'at the start of the encounter' and still be surprised at the end of the encounter! You may never have been aware of any of the combat which took place near you. Unlikely, but possible.

Meaning that the RAW is literally ignored.

I don't know where you get the idea that 'my version' has a delay between 'noticing a threat' and 'no longer surprised'. That's not the case. If you start combat 'surprised' (which, by definition' means that you didn't notice a threat), then you are no longer surprised as soon as you do notice a threat.

So in your version of surprise, if an unnoticed rogue using a melee weapon wins initiative and moves and attacks, he loses the benefit of surprise for his attack because he is noticed when he moves. He won't be able to auto crit his target even though the encounter started with him surprising his target and he beat their initiative. Strangely, his target still suffers the other effects of your surprise even though they are no longer surprised, because those were "instantaneously" launched.

Contrasting the two versions is very revealing. Surprise version 1 contains mechanical oddities and redundancies, and contorts the RAW to fit a pre-conceived narrative. Far from applying only at the start of the encounter (RAW) it can apply right up to the end (your RAI). The other (my) version's main failing is that it doesn't fit some DM's pre-conceived narratives. It relies more upon the idea of being caught absolutely flat-footed (unable to react). It concedes a benefit to speed (advantage) and a benefit to speed + suprise (advantage + crit). I'll repeat both versions here for clarity.

Surprise version 1 (Arial's version)
Applied when "not noticing a threat" and ends upon "noticing a threat". Upon first being applied it launches two delay effects. The first delays reactions until the end of a combatant's first turn. The second delays actions until the start of a combatant's second turn. Until it ends, surprise version 1 acts as a handshake for other effects. For avoidance of doubt, ending surprise version 1 does not end the delay effects.


Surprise version 2 (vonklaude's version)
Applied when "not noticing a threat" and ended at the end of a combatant's first turn. While active, surprise version 2 prevents actions and reactions and acts as a handshake for other effects. Ending surprise version 2 ends all its effects.

 

[Arial Black]

Meaning that the RAW is literally ignored.

RAW is maintained. You are still surprised at the start. The duration of that surprise isn't directly specified in RAW, but a period of surprise which starts as combat starts but still hasn't ended when combat is over has not contradicted RAW in any way.

So in your version of surprise, if an unnoticed rogue using a melee weapon wins initiative and moves and attacks, he loses the benefit of surprise for his attack because he is noticed when he moves. He won't be able to auto crit his target even though the encounter started with him surprising his target and he beat their initiative.

Exactly. I notice that you find this strange, but I have to say that I find your version strange; the version where the assassin leaves cover in full sight of the enemy, walks 30-feet and then stabs, and the victim doesn't notice a threat until after he's stabbed? The victim sees a vicious felon advancing with a drawn blade and a 1000-yard stare and doesn't think this is a threat?

This is why assassins shoot from cover, and don't charge over open ground under cover of daylight shouting 'Death to optimisers!'

Contrasting the two versions is very revealing.

Sure is!

Surprise version 1 contains mechanical oddities and redundancies, and contorts the RAW to fit a pre-conceived narrative.

Version 1 doesn't contradict RAW in any way, makes sense in terms of Perception (and other awareness-type skills) governing when you notice a threat, and has absolutely no problems in adjudicating play in either fluff or crunch. If you think it does, describe a scenario and I'll relate how 'my version' deals with it, fluff and crunch.

The other (my) version's main failing is that it doesn't fit some DM's pre-conceived narratives.

'Your version' suffers the failing that it uses a measure of reaction speed for something not related to reaction speed, and mis-applies it to let it detect danger. It also means that a continuously oblvious victim is suddenly invulnerable to an assassin's auto-crit, not because he has noticed any danger, but because he has fast reflexes. He's still not actually reacting because he doesn't know there is anything to react to.

 

[clearstream]

Exactly. I notice that you find this strange, but I have to say that I find your version strange; the version where the assassin leaves cover in full sight of the enemy, walks 30-feet and then stabs, and the victim doesn't notice a threat until after he's stabbed? The victim sees a vicious felon advancing with a drawn blade and a 1000-yard stare and doesn't think this is a threat?

This is why assassins shoot from cover, and don't charge over open ground under cover of daylight shouting 'Death to optimisers!'

Version 1 doesn't contradict RAW in any way, makes sense in terms of Perception (and other awareness-type skills) governing when you notice a threat, and has absolutely no problems in adjudicating play in either fluff or crunch. If you think it does, describe a scenario and I'll relate how 'my version' deals with it, fluff and crunch.

'Your version' suffers the failing that it uses a measure of reaction speed for something not related to reaction speed, and mis-applies it to let it detect danger. It also means that a continuously oblvious victim is suddenly invulnerable to an assassin's auto-crit, not because he has noticed any danger, but because he has fast reflexes. He's still not actually reacting because he doesn't know there is anything to react to.

I feel like these suppositions arise out of a preconceived narrative (and an inexplicable grudge against rogues who use melee weapons!) They want the trigger for surprise and the effects of surprise to rely solely on a (continued) lack of perception. But the narrative that RAW better supports is one where the effects of surprise are about degrees of flat-footedness. Once you are no longer utterly flat-footed, surprise no longer matters. And even if you see the rogue coming, if her initiative beat yours you are still somewhat flat-footed when she strikes. To put it another way, if you can't react you are totally vulnerable to assassinate. And even if you can react, if you haven't gotten moving and on balance yet, she still gets an advantage. The Shield spell clues us in to the designers' thinking - it is a reaction to being hit that can turn that hit into a miss. The same thinking applies here. A target caught utterly flat-footed is one who cannot react to being hit to mitigate the damage (forestall the auto crit).

Version 1 produces a highly idiosyncratic dynamic around launching effects that end at different times. There isn't a reason other than if it matches your preferred narrative to prefer that version. To be clear, it is fine if a DM wants to go that route and I'm sure any good DM can make it work (so long as their melee weapon using assassins don't hate being penalised). But it's not sound game mechanics, nor does it adhere as completely to RAW as version 2.

 

[Arial Black]

Version 1 produces a highly idiosyncratic dynamic around launching effects that end at different times.

The effects don't 'end at different times'. A surprised creature has its ability to act/react delayed; specifically, he cannot act or react until after his first turn.

This does not represent a duration during which he is restricted, it represents a delay to when he can start acting/reacting. Why? Because he's 'flat-footed', caught on his heels.

There isn't a reason other than if it matches your preferred narrative to prefer that version. To be clear, it is fine if a DM wants to go that route and I'm sure any good DM can make it work (so long as their melee weapon using assassins don't hate being penalised). But it's not sound game mechanics, nor does it adhere as completely to RAW as version 2.

In what way does 'version 1' actually contravene RAW?

 

[clearstream]

In what way does 'version 1' actually contravene RAW?

Arial's surprise (what we're calling surprise version 1) adds words to RAW and ignores RAW in several places, but I will focus first on one example. Specifically, it adds the words "surprise ends on noticing a threat" to RAW. Those words do not appear in RAW. And in adding those words, surprise version 1 ignores other RAW that makes it clear that surprise confers to individual combatants. It instead necessitates that surprise is tracked to pairs of combatants. (Working through multi-way combats demonstrates that. Multiple assassins can lose surprise at various times to various targets.)

Surprise version 1 benefits ranged-assassins and increases the power of the Skulker feat, while penalising melee-assassins who will need to close without being noticed. The streamlined base rules of 5th edition don't include facing, so a DM might decide to adopt the optional Facing rules from the DMG to mitigate that. Albeit any melee-using creature closing from behind will then get advantage, making the first part of Assassinate meaningless for melee-assassins.

A possible defence for adding "surprise ends on noticing a threat" to RAW is if we decide that the first-turn effects of surprise expressed on PHB189 are not synonymous with being surprised. If so, then RAW does not tell us when surprise ends so we require additional words. Whatever words we choose can't be justified by our wanting surprise to continue past its first turn effects in order to serve as a handshake for features such as Rogue Assassinate and Kenku Ambusher. Because that commits the fallacy of begging the question (our premises directly or indirectly include the claim that the conclusion is true). Additionally, ending surprise on noticing a threat can result in surprise ending prior to its first turn effects completing, necessitating that we launch those effects before participants start taking turns! A baroque addition to the mechanic that falls afoul of Occam's Razor.

Conversely, if we decide that the first-turn effects of surprise are synonymous with being surprised, then all of RAW is sustained without added complexity.