A gamist construct intended to support a fictional/simulationist element such as someone sticking a knife in someone's back or shooting them with an arrow from an unseen location. All rules are generally gamist meant to simulate some aspect of fiction or reality unless they throw out any attempt to do so.
Quite right. The fiction that initiative represents should most probably be seen as the relative reaction speed of the participants. The assassin and his target make a contested dexterity check to see who's more on the ball. In a normal, non-surprise situation this would result in the participant with the higher roll getting to move and act first. When I said that initiative order doesn't exist in the fiction, I was talking about the participants taking discrete turns, and the illusion that one turn ends before another begins. But you are correct in pointing out that initiative does indeed represent something in the fiction.
Why would you consider a good representation one where an assassin for some reason can't use Assassinate against a target that can't see him?
Assuming the target is surprised at the beginning of the encounter, a higher initiative roll simply means that the target is too quick in reacting to the assassin's attack for Assassinate to work. This is represented by the target no longer being surprised, meaning that she can react normally. Of course, the assassin would still get advantage from being unseen and would only miss out on the critical damage.
How does the target see the Assassin or know he's being attacked if the assassin has not acted yet? How do you rationalize that in the fiction? Or are you completely unconcerned with the fiction?
I'm assuming that the target neither sees the assassin nor has any premonition about the coming attack. The target is surprised and on her turn her actions and movement are denied to her to simulate this lack of knowledge. When the assassin strikes, however, the target's higher dexterity check and the result that she is no longer surprised represent her ability to react normally to the attack.
I find your interpretation a very anal reading of the rule. It doesn't at all seem like the designers intended it. It makes no sense that the target of an assassin would somehow get to act if that target did not notice the assassin, thus avoiding the assassinate ability.
I didn't say she would get to act, by which I assume you mean move and take actions on her turn. The premise is that she's surprised on her turn. She avoids being
Assassinated when the assassin makes the attack, on
his turn. At that point she is no longer surprised due to her relatively quicker reaction time.
I wonder what percentage of people interpret the rule in the fashion you do.
Perhaps that would be a good subject for a poll.
I wonder if the game designers agree with that interpretation given it does not represent the fiction the rule is attempting to simulate of the deadly shot from a hidden place.
It seems to simulate the fiction of a Rogue, that relies on stealth, being successful when he is also quick. Since Dexterity is the Rogue's primary ability, I'm not sure what the problem is with his success being tied to that ability, unless you also want him to be successful when he uses that ability poorly. I understand that he has already successfully used his Dexterity, and skill with Stealth, to hide, but for the assassin to get the benefit of Assassinate he must strike quickly.
I also don't understand how you can interpret them as having taken a turn if they don't get to act. Seems like they've lost that turn. Unless they spell that out for you, you view it as them having a taken a turn. Where as I view it as them having lost their turn due to surprise.
What has been spelled out, both in the rules and in this thread, is that the surprised creature takes a turn in which it is unable to move or act. There is no "seems" about it.
