D&D 5E Assassinate

[jgsugden]

Just reiterating something from early in the thread:

Stealth, surprise, invisibility, perception... these are incredibly hard concepts to put into game terms that are 100% internally consistent. If you do manage to create such a rule set it will be bulky and have far too many details to be manageable.

After playing D&D in 5 different decades, my belief is that this is an area where DM subjective judgment is the best solution and exact and consistent rules are a surprising enemy to fun. The existing 5E rules give the DM some tools: Perception scores, surprise mechanics, descriptions of invisibility, etc... The DM should understand the mechanics and then decide to use them as he sees fit... and players should accept the DM interpretation. As a player, you might double check to make sure the DM understood what you wanted to do, but as a player we should just accept if the DM says you can or can't do something, if you do or don't have disadvantage, etc... D&D is role playing. Role playing is story telling, not story coding.

 

[MG.0]

Stealth, surprise, invisibility, perception... these are incredibly hard concepts to put into game terms that are 100% internally consistent. If you do manage to create such a rule set it will be bulky and have far too many details to be manageable.

Certainly true, but that is no reason to avoid trying to make simpler, clearer, more consistent rules that are easier to process narratively.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And being invisible gives you a big advantage in "not being seen" over using simply using shadows, cover, and distraction.

It doesn't really, by the RAW.

Vision is a binary thing - either you can be seen clearly, or you can't. That's entirely separate from if you are stealthed or not.

If you can be fully seen, you can't stealth (against the creatures that can see you). If there were some ability that allowed you to stealth when you can be seen, presumably success on that roll wouldn't also make you invisible, it would just mean that even though you can be seen, creatures you beat on your Stealth check don't know you're there. Creatures who did beat your Stealth check would see you normally.

If there's dim light or darkness or cover or somesuch, you can't be clearly seen, so you can stealth. If you don't try to stealth in dim light, there's no problem - folks can see basically where you are, and they can attack you normally. If you don't try to stealth in darkness, folks can still tell basically where you are, and they can attack you normally, but they're blinded, so they're taking a penalty.

If you DO try to stealth in dim light, the observer can't rely on their vision very well, which is why dim light gives the observer disadvantage. Dim light doesn't help the person stealthing, it inhibits the person detecting. But if they succeed, then they can see you normally - you're not stealthed, so they can attack you no problem. If you succeed, they're not aware of where you are at all.

If you try to stealth in darkness (or while invisible), the observer can't rely on their vision at all, so they automatically fail. They can't possibly succeed on a Perception check to see you. You automatically hide from their vision. If you fail to stealth, they still can't see you, and still have problems attacking you. If you succeed on your stealth, they're not aware of where you are at all.

So being invisible automatically lets you not be seen. What it doesn't do at all is prevent others from being aware of where you are, which has nothing to do with vision or being seen, and what Stealth represents, by RAW.

Or, my personal takeaway: if you're invisible or in darkness, you're not stealthed. If you ARE stealthed when you can't be seen, the creature has to have some other way of detecting you that it's using, typically sound or scent.

 

[Arial Black]

I think our methods are more similar than you realize,

You may be right.

...and the problem I see with yours is that the target is frozen for that first round because of a 'surprise' attack that never happened. My way, the target isn't frozen for even that brief period. He isn't even in combat and is free to continue doing whatever he was doing before the assassin announced his attack, e.g. walking, reading a book, eating a sandwich, etc. He might even wander away.

Think of it this way: I see the surprise and initiative rolls as *potential* things. They are triggered by the announcement of an attack, but they have no reality if the attack never comes.

I have a slightly different take, but I'll illustrate it by first addressing your examples.

An example:
An assassin and a wizard are travelling astrally and somehow manage to sneak up on an Astral Dreadnought. They are currently hidden from it. The assassin decides to attack. The party has surprise, but the wizard rolls a higher initiative than the assassin and decides to end the astral spell rather than let the assassin attack. Silently the party disappears having never given their existence away.

Question: Was the Dreadnought ever in combat?
My answer: No. He continues about his business the entire time.
Yours:

Mine: No, combat never reached or involved the Dreadnought. It could have, either by the PCs interacting with him in a hostile way (attacking), OR if the Dreadnought had noticed a threat.

I wrote about this earlier in the thread. A creature who is surprised cannot act on its first turn of that combat. If the combat had been raging for several rounds, undetected by a creature in, say, another room, then that creature is not in combat, has no initiative score, and does not require Actions In Combat to do stuff; it just Does Stuff. Therefore, not frozen in time, despite not having any 'turns' or 'actions'.

As soon as the fighting bursts into that room, then the creature may or may not be surprised. If it is, then it cannot act on its first turn.

In your example, the Dreadnought was never in combat, never had an initiative, never had turns, never had Actions In Combat and never needed them to Do Stuff, so was never frozen in time.

Another example:
The same setup, but this time the wizard delays the assassin, using his action to convince the assassin to wait a turn until he can put away his wand of hold person and get out his wand of fireballs. The assassin waits. The first round passes, but there was no combat (from the creature's perspective), so the creature goes about his business, maybe even leaving the area. If the assassin attacks during the next round, then the creature is still surprised and initiative stays as was originally rolled.

Same here.

A last example:
The same setup, but this time the wizard delays the assassin by using the wand of hold person on him. The assassin fails his save and is paralyzed. The first round passes, but there was no combat (from the creature's perspective), so again the creature goes about his business. If the assassin attacks the next round, then the creature is still surprised and initiative stays as was originally rolled, although he may wish to attack the wizard instead, possibly giving away the party's existence to the creature and getting them both killed.

Again, same here.

It seems we end up the same, but for different reasons. At least as far as these examples are concerned.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It doesn't really, by the RAW.

Vision is a binary thing - either you can be seen clearly, or you can't. That's entirely separate from if you are stealthed or not.

If you can be fully seen, you can't stealth (against the creatures that can see you). If there were some ability that allowed you to stealth when you can be seen, presumably success on that roll wouldn't also make you invisible, it would just mean that even though you can be seen, creatures you beat on your Stealth check don't know you're there. Creatures who did beat your Stealth check would see you normally.

If there's dim light or darkness or cover or somesuch, you can't be clearly seen, so you can stealth. If you don't try to stealth in dim light, there's no problem - folks can see basically where you are, and they can attack you normally. If you don't try to stealth in darkness, folks can still tell basically where you are, and they can attack you normally, but they're blinded, so they're taking a penalty.

If you DO try to stealth in dim light, the observer can't rely on their vision very well, which is why dim light gives the observer disadvantage. Dim light doesn't help the person stealthing, it inhibits the person detecting. But if they succeed, then they can see you normally - you're not stealthed, so they can attack you no problem. If you succeed, they're not aware of where you are at all.

If you try to stealth in darkness (or while invisible), the observer can't rely on their vision at all, so they automatically fail. They can't possibly succeed on a Perception check to see you. You automatically hide from their vision. If you fail to stealth, they still can't see you, and still have problems attacking you. If you succeed on your stealth, they're not aware of where you are at all.

So being invisible automatically lets you not be seen. What it doesn't do at all is prevent others from being aware of where you are, which has nothing to do with vision or being seen, and what Stealth represents, by RAW.

Or, my personal takeaway: if you're invisible or in darkness, you're not stealthed. If you ARE stealthed when you can't be seen, the creature has to have some other way of detecting you that it's using, typically sound or scent.

Interesting. So if a person is wearing a cloak of invisibility and says they are standing as still as possible so the gobbos entering the room don't notice them, you require a stealth check. If that check is failed, the goblins know exactly where you are (accurately enough to target you with attacks). They suffer disadvantage to attack you though, because of all the invisibility.

But... if you're wearing a cloak of elvenkind, and you hide behind a conveniently placed large planter with a ficus in the same room, you still have to make the same stealth check to be unnoticed by the goblins, but this time you get to make the check with advantage. If the gobbos notice you, though, they see you so they don't take disadvantage on their attacks due to the lack of all the invisibility. You might get cover/concealment from the ficus, though!

That seems to heavily discount invisibility as a hiding tool. I'd rather keep the flavor and only call for a stealth check while invisible if you decide to move around.

 

[Coredump]

So you guys are saying that if I am invisible, and thus it is *impossible* to see me... there is no effect on my Hide or their Perception checks...

But if I am visible, and hiding in an area of Dim Lighting.... then they have a disadvantage on perception checks...


Sorry, but that makes no sense...

 

[Hriston]

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.

Considering the context, it would be correct to say that if you notice a threat then you cannot become surprised. The causal relationship only works one way in time. Once you've been surprised there are no take-backsies. What you have said is not only a leap in logic, it is an error in logic.

Now to address your straw-man arguments:

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.

No. My interpretation is that not being able to act or move on your first turn is surprise. The statement, "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", equates being surprised with not being able to move or act until your turn ends. The two are synonymous, so when you are no longer unable to move or act then you are no longer surprised.

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!

No. My interpretation is that your initiative determines how quickly you react to coming under attack. It has nothing to do with noticing anything. Not noticing any threats at the start of an encounter makes you surprised, but becoming unsurprised, because you are now able to react, does not make you suddenly notice threats. It only works in one direction.

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.

I think it's a mistake conceptually to separate mechanical surprise (not being able to move or act on your first turn) from the fictional state it is modeling. They are both surprise. One is not the result of the other. Being surprised by a threat has an in-game mechanical expression that we can also call surprise.

 

[Hriston]

So you guys are saying that if I am invisible, and thus it is *impossible* to see me... there is no effect on my Hide or their Perception checks...

Not addressed to me, but I want to respond because I agree with this. Yes, being invisible makes you unseen so you can try to hide. Normal rules apply.

But if I am visible, and hiding in an area of Dim Lighting.... then they have a disadvantage on perception checks...

Perception vs Stealth does not rely on sight, so no disadvantage, and only possible in dim light if you have Skulker or are a Wood Elf in natural dim light.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think it's a mistake conceptually to separate mechanical surprise (not being able to move or act on your first turn) from the fictional state it is modeling. They are both surprise. One is not the result of the other. Being surprised by a threat has an in-game mechanical expression that we can also call surprise.

I don't think it's a mistake. Saying that surprise ends when someone takes their turn on the first round adds a lot of complication to the game without really adding any benefit.

Contrast:
DM: "You are surprised by some enemies, they all managed to beat your Passive Perceptions with their Stealth checks. Roll for Initiative."
DM: "Alright, an Orc pops up over a barrel at the back of the room and attacks the fighter. He hits AC 19 and does 27 damage."
DM: "Now, the beginning of round 2. The fighter goes. You've just been hit by an Orc. You can see him behind a barrel. What do you do?"

vs

DM: "You are surprised by some enemies, they all managed to beat your Passive Perceptions with their Stealth checks. Roll for Initiative."
DM: "Alright, an Orc pops up over a barrel at the back of the room and attacks the fighter. He hits AC 19 and does 27 damage."
Fighter: "Hold on, I rolled a 22 for initiative. He went before me?"
DM: "Uhh...no, he goes at 19."
Fighter: "Then I assume he's doing an assassinate on me and that power only works if I'm surprised. I'm no longer surprised since I went before him."
DM: "Oh, right. I forgot I needed to check who went before the enemy in initiative. I just figured I didn't need to call out everyone's initiative in order since you were surprised and none of you could act. I guess the only way we'll really be able to tell who is surprised and who isn't is by wasting time calling out useless initiatives. Let's get to it then..."
DM: "Fighter"
Fighter: "I do nothing since I can't act this round."
DM: "Wizard"
Wizard: "I do nothing since I can't act this round."
DM: "Now the Orc goes. I guess he fires at the Rogue since the Rogue rolled lower initiative than the Orc. He hits AC 19 and does 27 damage."
DM: "Rogue"
Rogue: "I do nothing since I can't act this round."
DM: "Cleric"
Cleric: "I do nothing since I can't act this round."

Unless I'm missing some sort of nebulous "benefit" that you get from making surprise end when someone takes their turn. Other than it being a matter of principle that the end of someone's turn HAS to be when surprise ends.

 

[Arial Black]

Once you've been surprised there are no take-backsies.

Read what you just wrote again. You are either saying that, once surprised, you are surprised forever (which is absurd), or you are saying that surprise does end, but only when you say it ends. Because the rules don't say what you say; they don't link the end of surprise to the end of one of the effects of surprise.

My interpretation is that not being able to act or move on your first turn is surprise.

See, that's where you've gone wrong; right there!

The statement, "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", equates being surprised with not being able to move or act until your turn ends. The two are synonymous, so when you are no longer unable to move or act then you are no longer surprised.

"Only adults can vote, therefore 'adulthood' and 'voting' are synonyms". Nope.

"One of the effects of being surprised is that you can't act until the end of your first turn, and another effect is that you are vulnerable to Assassinate, therefore 'surprise' and 'not being able to act' mean the same thing"? Nope.

You keep ignoring all of the other effects of being surprised, leaving only 'cannot act', and then cite this as proof that 'surprise' only equals 'cannot act'. But 'vulnerable to Assassinate' is also an effect, therefore 'surprise' no more equals one effect than it equals the other.

You have no rules support for that equivalence, and yet the PHB does say, "Any character or monster who doesn't notice a threat is surprised", which seems to express equivalence. Certainly more so than the total absence of any rule which says that 'surprise' and 'cannot act' are interchangeable terms.