D&D 5E Assassinate

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe the easiest way is allowing the assassin go on initiative 20 because he got the drop on the enemy. There does not need an ability check if the situation is clear.
And as I said earlier: RAW the rogue can start combat again and again until the initiative order favours him. He does not have to unhide... It is a terribly complicated situation... The rules are very clear and there is no question about who can be attacked with auto crit and who can be attacked with advantage.
On the other hand: it is also quite clear that the rogue does not really have to be faster against someone who was surprised but has beaten the rogue's initiative. Since surprising necessarily means the rogue is still hidden, he still has advantage on the attack roll. No matter when his turn in the initiative order is. So in this case we talk about a theoretical case. It may be relevant for a melee rogue who runs up to the enemy, but assassinate is most probably something you do at range. If you jump put of cover and attack alone, hoping to assassinate someone... maybe better be another kind of assasin. Use poison that makes the enemy sluggish or so. Or be really fast in the initiative order.

 

[Celtavian]

Read the Combat Step by Step sidebar on page 189 of the PH, especially points 4 and 5. Point 4 says that each participant in the battle takes a turn in initiative order. There's no exception for being surprised.

Point 5 says the round ends when everyone has had a turn. If surprised combatants were deprived of taking a turn, the first round would never end.

The turn would never end if you were someone that wasn't capable of saying, "You do not get to take a turn in the surprise round, move to the next unsurprised person in the round." This type of RAW interpretation is unnecessary in 5E. I see no reason to deprive the Assassin class of a key feature because of a very anal reading of the RAW. It's pretty easy to see the intent of surprise in this edition. It gives you a free round to act against surprised targets where they don't get to do anything.

What purpose does it serve to adjudicate the RAW in the fashion you're recommending?

 

[Celtavian]

I'll try this one more time.

Point 4 says that everyone is allowed to *TAKE* a turn.

Point 5 says that once everyone has *HAD* a turn.

It does not say, "once everyone has *TAKEN* a turn".

The Assassinate ability, requires a creature to have *TAKEN* a turn... Not *HAD* a turn, or *HAVE* a turn, but to actually go out and *TAKE* it. As in the phrase *TAKE AN ACTION*

Not sure how it can be more clear.

Consider the following sentences:
I had a turn, and I took it.
I had a turn, but I didn't take it.
I have a turn, but I can't take it.
I have a turn but I can't have it.
I had a turn and I had it.

Notice how some of those sentences are redundant/ make no sense, but others are not. Thats because Having a turn, and Taking a turn are not the same thing.

What is even clearer is the intent of this rule and how it should work. Not some attempt to paint the RAW as the correct or even intended method of adjudicating surprise. It makes absolutely no sense the way you are doing it.

Why would a target get to take a turn if he does not know the attacker is there? Explain the fiction behind this, not some reading of the RAW that makes little sense in the context of the situation.

 

[Hriston]

It seems like a nerf to me. Let's say I've got an assassin archer with Sharpshooter and he is perched, hidden in shadow, 300' away from an unsuspecting target, intending to shoot him with his bow. The target's passive perception is hopelessly outclassed by the assassin's stealth check. Okay, roll initiative! The assassin rolls badly, getting a 12, but the target rolls a 14, even though he's blind and crippled in one leg. At 14 the target gets its' 'turn' and at 12 the assassin fires, easily hitting.

In this circumstance, somehow, the assassin fails to get the critical his class ability gives him, however. Even though the target was never aware of the threat until the assassin fired. Not because an opposed Stealth/Perception check or any other reasonable game mechanic. Nope. It's because he took a shot in some existential fragment of time that denied him the benefit of the core mechanic of his class.

I'm not sure what's unreasonable about creatures being surprised only until their first turn is over. Remember it works this way for PCs as well as monsters. Limiting the window in which surprise is in effect makes the game less lethal for characters.

It's only a nerf compared to an interpretation based on an erroneous idea of how surprise works.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm not sure what's unreasonable about creatures being surprised only until their first turn is over. Remember it works this way for PCs as well as monsters. Limiting the window in which surprise is in effect makes the game less lethal for characters.

It's only a nerf compared to an interpretation based on an erroneous idea of how surprise works.

Erroneous? I would like to see what the game designers intended before I assume you are correct. What seems erroneous is that someone would be considered to have taken a turn when they were unable to do anything on their turn.

 

[Hriston]

I'll try this one more time.

Point 4 says that everyone is allowed to *TAKE* a turn.

Point 5 says that once everyone has *HAD* a turn.

It does not say, "once everyone has *TAKEN* a turn".

The Assassinate ability, requires a creature to have *TAKEN* a turn... Not *HAD* a turn, or *HAVE* a turn, but to actually go out and *TAKE* it. As in the phrase *TAKE AN ACTION*

Not sure how it can be more clear.

Consider the following sentences:
I had a turn, and I took it.
I had a turn, but I didn't take it.
I have a turn, but I can't take it.
I have a turn but I can't have it.
I had a turn and I had it.

Notice how some of those sentences are redundant/ make no sense, but others are not. Thats because Having a turn, and Taking a turn are not the same thing.

How do you reconcile this reading with point 4?

 

[garnuk]

How do you reconcile this reading with point 4?

Point 4 is telling you that everybody who is able to take a turn, does so in initiative order. And normally, everybody is given the opportunity to take the turn.

Point 5, then uses language which shows acknowledgement that some people may not have been able to take their turn. (Especially if for instance they try to ready an action and it never goes off)

 

[Hriston]

The turn would never end if you were someone that wasn't capable of saying, "You do not get to take a turn in the surprise round, move to the next unsurprised person in the round." This type of RAW interpretation is unnecessary in 5E. I see no reason to deprive the Assassin class of a key feature because of a very anal reading of the RAW. It's pretty easy to see the intent of surprise in this edition. It gives you a free round to act against surprised targets where they don't get to do anything.

That isn't accurate. You get to act on your turn while they don't get to act on their turn. They still get their turn as can be seen by the way the surprise rules were written.

What purpose does it serve to adjudicate the RAW in the fashion you're recommending?

I haven't recommended an adjudication. I'm giving my interpretation of the RAW which seems fairly straight forward to me. Another reading would require me to ignore blocks of text or distort the natural meaning of the words in front of me.

 

[Dragoslav]

I'll try this one more time.

Point 4 says that everyone is allowed to *TAKE* a turn.

Point 5 says that once everyone has *HAD* a turn.

It does not say, "once everyone has *TAKEN* a turn".

The Assassinate ability, requires a creature to have *TAKEN* a turn... Not *HAD* a turn, or *HAVE* a turn, but to actually go out and *TAKE* it. As in the phrase *TAKE AN ACTION*

Not sure how it can be more clear.

Consider the following sentences:
I had a turn, and I took it.
I had a turn, but I didn't take it.
I have a turn, but I can't take it.
I have a turn but I can't have it.
I had a turn and I had it.

Notice how some of those sentences are redundant/ make no sense, but others are not. Thats because Having a turn, and Taking a turn are not the same thing.

The rules are written in plain English, not mechanically precise terms like the 4e rules tended to be. Consequentially, they will be a little ambiguous when similar but different wording is used. Either way you phrase it, the rules are clear: each creature involved in combat has a turn that is resolved on a certain initiative number. You CAN move and take an action, but your turn ends regardless of whether you do so or not. If you are at 0 HP, you can't move or take any actions, but you still have a "turn" that begins and ends (you make a death saving throw at the end of it, so by your logic, if you can't move or take an action, how does your turn ever end to make the saving throw?). If you choose not to act or move, your turn still ends whether you like itor not, so you can't extend an effect that lasts "until the end of your next turn", for example, by not moving or taking an action. So you can't "take a turn" in the sense that you're using it: your turn just comes around, and if you are able to move or take an action, then you can choose to do so.

The basic rules are very... basic. You are well within your rights to house rule an insufficient or nonsensical rule, but the rule is what it is. The designers probably didn't have every corner case in mind when they wrote the rules, but that's why they emphasize house ruling so heavily, to catch situations where the basic rules are insufficient.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

when you consider what the thief gets I would not buff the ability too much.