D&D 5E Assassinate

[epithet]

There's no inherent advantage conferred to stealth by invisibility. Who is harder to notice, the invisible person walking across a room in front of you (making footprints and footsteps, knocking things over, breathing, rustling fabric, etc), or the "visible" person hiding around a corner?...

Think about what you just said there. I mean, take it out of game terms... OF COURSE there is an advantage to being invisible if you're trying to sneak up on someone. If you're concealed behind a curtain, wait for the target to turn around and start reading at his desk, and sneak up behind him, that's a straight stealth check. If you're invisible, you'll have advantage because if you do make a slight noise and he glances over his shoulder, he won't see you and might think it was the wind.

Similarly, if you have crafted a disguise and are impersonating someone to get close to your target, you would roll a straight deception check. If you're wearing a magical illusion that makes you look exactly like someone, though, you'll have advantage on that roll.

That's part of the rule that says a DM can and should give advantage or disadvantage when it makes sense.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure what you mean by fixed distances. The reason I'm using doubled distances is that every resource I've consulted says the sound pressure level is reduced 6dB for every doubling of the distance from the source of the sound. This takes the inverse-square law into account because we are using decibels, as you pointed out above, so I'm not understanding why you're suggesting fixed distances or what those distances would be.



For clarity, my point wasn't that you could hear them clearly, but that under ideal conditions you could hear something, probably recognizing it as a voice, and know that someone was there.

Here's an example of my work:

Loud singing is measured at 75dB from 3' away from the source, so applying a 6dB drop per doubling of that distance you'd end up with a sound pressure level of 33dB at 384', and 27dB at 768', both of which are close to the sound level of a whisper measured from 6' away (30dB).

For ambient noise I'd use disadvantage on perception.

"Fixed" takes after its dictionary meaning - unchanging. So, the same distance every time vs doubling.

And I see our disconnect. Your talking sound pressure effect, not loudness. While loudness is somewhat subjective, there are general baselines that work well enough for this purpose. Loudness drops a bit more than twice as fast as sound pressure, which is why I suggested halving your distances.

 

[epithet]

...
There is no rule that says you become unsurprised, or that surprise ends, when you notice a threat. It doesn't say that anywhere, and it simply isn't true.

Your assumption that being surprised is the same as not noticing a threat is oversimplified. Please, show me where it says you become unsurprised when you notice a threat. You can't because it doesn't appear in the text.

This shows the flaw in your argument, because it ignores the definition of surprise given in the text:
This only applies if you are, currently surprised. Your interpretation amounts to you being surprised and not surprised at the same time.

Just like no rule says you are no longer surprised if you notice a threat in the meantime. That's because for you to suffer the penalty, you must be surprised. It follows that if you are surprised, then you must be suffering the penalty.

If you are not surprised, then why are you unable to react?

This is your other misconception. The truth is no creature is ever mentioned being surprised at any other time than at the start of the encounter. If you want to impose a penalty that resembles surprise at other times throughout combat that would be your houserule.

...

I think your problem is that you believe the guidelines in the hardcovers to be integrated - in other words, you think that they are intended to be a complete system contained "within the four corners" of the documents. They are not.

We are expected to bring our knowledge and common sense to the table with us, not just our rulebooks, and so we all know what 'surprise' is. You quote what you assert to be a definition of surprise, but it isn't. It says "When you are surprised, [things happen.]" If it said "when you're an adult you can vote," it would not be accurate to say that suffrage is the definition of adulthood.

The guidelines in the PHB provide you with a means by which to determine and use surprise, but ultimately in this role-playing game you have to determine whether something is unexpected to the point of being able to surprise you within the "theater of the mind." A couple of months ago, I read several comments that disparaged the guidelines in the PHB regarding stealth as being too vague, but those comments miss the point: you're meant to be role-playing that scenario out, not mechanically trying to force your players' actions into the narrow scope of the printed rules.

You know what surprise is, and you know that if you have perceived a threat you aren't surprised by a subsequent strike. You know that a surprise attack is definitively one where you have not perceived the threat before the strike. You don't need a rule to tell you that, it's knowledge you bring to the table. When you say "show me where it says you become unsurprised when you notice a threat," you are implying that the rules are complete and integrated, that they cover (or are intended to cover) any situation and remove the creativity of the player and the judgment of the DM from the equation.

It's certainly not just you, and certainly not just this thread, but there seems to be a great deal of focus on the "rules as written" that runs directly counter to the "intent as written" regarding the rules, generally.

 

[Arial Black]

I think your problem is that you believe the guidelines in the hardcovers to be integrated - in other words, you think that they are intended to be a complete system contained "within the four corners" of the documents. They are not.

We are expected to bring our knowledge and common sense to the table with us, not just our rulebooks, and so we all know what 'surprise' is. You quote what you assert to be a definition of surprise, but it isn't. It says "When you are surprised, [things happen.]" If it said "when you're an adult you can vote," it would not be accurate to say that suffrage is the definition of adulthood.

The guidelines in the PHB provide you with a means by which to determine and use surprise, but ultimately in this role-playing game you have to determine whether something is unexpected to the point of being able to surprise you within the "theater of the mind." A couple of months ago, I read several comments that disparaged the guidelines in the PHB regarding stealth as being too vague, but those comments miss the point: you're meant to be role-playing that scenario out, not mechanically trying to force your players' actions into the narrow scope of the printed rules.

You know what surprise is, and you know that if you have perceived a threat you aren't surprised by a subsequent strike. You know that a surprise attack is definitively one where you have not perceived the threat before the strike. You don't need a rule to tell you that, it's knowledge you bring to the table. When you say "show me where it says you become unsurprised when you notice a threat," you are implying that the rules are complete and integrated, that they cover (or are intended to cover) any situation and remove the creativity of the player and the judgment of the DM from the equation.

It's certainly not just you, and certainly not just this thread, but there seems to be a great deal of focus on the "rules as written" that runs directly counter to the "intent as written" regarding the rules, generally.

Something's wrong. I keep hitting 'Give XP for this post' over and over again, but it'll only let me give one lot! It deserves more!

 

[Arial Black]

There is no rule that says you become unsurprised, or that surprise ends, when you notice a threat. It doesn't say that anywhere, and it simply isn't true.

There is no rule that says you become unsurprised, or that surprise ends, after your first turn in combat. It doesn't say that anywhere, and it simply isn't true.

Given that both our interpretations are equally unstated, be must use our thinky bits to determine which better models the situation.

For my interpretation, I take 'you are surprised when you don't notice a threat' to mean that you are not surprised when you do notice a threat! Not explicitly written, but not a huge leap of logic.

Your interpretation is that because one of the two effects of being surprised is that you can't act on your first turn, that this is not only a limit of when the other effect ends, but also determines when surprise itself ends. The tail wagging the dog.

My interpretation has the natural connection which is stated in the rules (that 'surprise' = 'not noticing a threat') work both ways. But yours has the measure of your reaction speed inexplicably determine what you notice! That doesn't make sense!

Of our two interpretations, neither of which is specifically written, I think mine makes sense and yours doesn't.

At this point I doubt either of us will change the other's opinion on this, but I'm happy to let neutral readers see our respective cases.

If you are not surprised, then why are you unable to react?

The result of being surprised by the threat (one of the results) is that you were caught off guard and don't get your act together for a moment.

 

[redrick]

Think about what you just said there. I mean, take it out of game terms... OF COURSE there is an advantage to being invisible if you're trying to sneak up on someone. If you're concealed behind a curtain, wait for the target to turn around and start reading at his desk, and sneak up behind him, that's a straight stealth check. If you're invisible, you'll have advantage because if you do make a slight noise and he glances over his shoulder, he won't see you and might think it was the wind.

Similarly, if you have crafted a disguise and are impersonating someone to get close to your target, you would roll a straight deception check. If you're wearing a magical illusion that makes you look exactly like someone, though, you'll have advantage on that roll.

That's part of the rule that says a DM can and should give advantage or disadvantage when it makes sense.

I am thinking both in and out of game terms. This is not a "RAW" argument.

So, while I agree that this all comes down to the DM assessing the situation and assigning advantage and disadvantage where it makes sense, I disagree that it makes sense to say, generally, "someone who is invisible has advantage on stealth."

Take your example. Sneaking up on somebody across an open space (such as a room), is very difficult. This isn't a straight stealth check. Any number of things could go wrong. Generally speaking, to remain hidden, you need to be totally concealed for the duration of your action, movement, or what have you. So being able to sneak across an open room is already depending on the person you're sneaking up on to not be looking around. Unless the person is very engrossed in what they're doing, I'd consider it definitely to be a disadvantage situation. If the person is engrossed in what they're doing, the resulting disadvantage to their perception would net out the disadvantage to your stealth, and I'd just do it as a straight check. If that person is distracted, and you have total cover (due to invisibility or any other means), you no longer have disadvantage, but they still do, so, under those circumstances, sure, advantage. But, again, the advantage comes not from your invisibility, but from the comparative lack of attentiveness to the other senses.

Generally speaking, total concealment is a prerequisite for hiding. It really doesn't matter how you get it. If the circumstances warrant hiding without consistent total concealment, then invisibility will start tipping the scales of advantage and disadvantage. But I've seen a lot of table-top situations where folks have tried to argue that invisibility gives them advantage in doing things like sneaking down a hallway, or some other thing that would be impossible were they not invisible. That's all.

Ugg, sorry, missed my game two weeks in a row because of long work hours. Taking it out on arguing stupid rules crap on the internet.

 

[epithet]

...
Ugg, sorry, missed my game two weeks in a row because of long work hours. Taking it out on arguing stupid rules crap on the internet.

I completely sympathise, my game was down a week for one thing, then two weeks for another. I really want to throw some bad guys at a party of adventurers.

Since that's not gonna happen tonight... stupid rules crap! Basically, the way I see it is this. You can sneak up on someone normally as long as they're distracted. It's easier to do that when you're invisible, therefore, advantage. Now, the advantage from being invisible might be cancelled out by other factors to make the sneaker roll a straight dex(stealth), but any way you slice it you would rather be sneaking around invisible than not.

 

[epithet]

...
Take your example. Sneaking up on somebody across an open space (such as a room), is very difficult. ...

Also, I don't agree with that statement. I live in an older house with lovely hardwood floors that sing you a little song every time you walk across them, and even so I manage to sneak up on my wife and startle the crap out of her from time to time. Now, some other person (not me) might say that she's just prone to being completely oblivious to her surroundings, but I don't think it's really that hard to sneak up on someone when they're comfortable and relaxed.

 

[SkidAce]

I would just use situational application.

Sneakin up on a guard that's 100 feet away across an open field, and you are invisible? No stealth roll needed until you got within hearing range. I mean he might look around but he cant see you. As you get closer he may hear you however.

My work used to involve sneaking up on sentries, both real world and training. With camo in some thick brush I got to within 20 feet of a sentry, and he heard something. That dude had some serious ears. I stopped instantly. He turned and looked right at me. (It was also dim light). Didn't see me.

He went back to watching his area of responsibility until I tapped him on the shoulder.

In game terms, I was kinda invisible. Once close enough for him to hear me, his perception beat my stealth. He heard something. But, he couldn't see me so he went back to his job. I guess my next "stealth roll" was better (I took 10, hehe)

But after typing all that, its actually simpler....let the DM adjudicate based on the situation. If I had been sneaking up on a dude while invisbile but walking through mud...

 

[redrick]

I completely sympathise, my game was down a week for one thing, then two weeks for another. I really want to throw some bad guys at a party of adventurers.

Since that's not gonna happen tonight... stupid rules crap! Basically, the way I see it is this. You can sneak up on someone normally as long as they're distracted. It's easier to do that when you're invisible, therefore, advantage. Now, the advantage from being invisible might be cancelled out by other factors to make the sneaker roll a straight dex(stealth), but any way you slice it you would rather be sneaking around invisible than not.

Sure, I mean, it's however you want to arrive at your end result. In the case of sneaking up on somebody who is inattentive, I'd start with:

1. Sneaking across an empty room with no obstruction: Impossible
2. But the only people in the room are looking the other way. Possible, but at disadvantage, because the slightest glance in your direction will automatically give you away.
3. But you are invisible. Possible, no disadvantage. Just avoid making noise (as you would in any other stealthy situation with total cover), and they won't know you're there.
4. But the only people in the room are being very inattentive because they are focusing on something else, and don't suspect anything could happen in their home, so they are unlikely to notice noises and other disturbances, even if those disturbances are theoretically audible to them. The observer has disadvantage to perception and, for simplicity, we'll transfer this as advantage to the sneaking person. (Advantage that would cancel out with disadvantage were point 3 to be untrue.)

Your wife in her own home is most certainly at disadvantage to perception if she is comfortable, relaxed and believes herself to be completely away from harm. Frequently, in adventure settings, we are encountering people who do not meet all those criteria. What if she were comfortable and relaxed in somebody else's home? Or at a campsite? Or she was used to hearing gunshots and stories of robbery in her neighborhood?

But, yeah, anyway, whatever. It's how you want to arrive at what feels advantageous vs disadvantageous to you. I only respond because I've had situations where players have made very insistent arguments for advantage that were more or less, "but I'm invisible!" And I say to, to that statement, I don't care. Invisibility, in of itself, does not confer advantage on hiding. It confers the ability to hide. Along with a number of other more traditional means of obscurement. A person who is invisible still needs to go to lengths to hide themselves from the 4 other senses. (And from sight as well, depending on how visually their surroundings are impacted by somebody traipsing through them.)