As Paraxis said, I was referring only to when a surprised creature can take reactions, which is very clearly spelled out.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Assassinate
- Thread starter Jaracove
- Start date
As Paraxis said, I was referring only to when a surprised creature can take reactions, which is very clearly spelled out.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Ok, I get what you're saying in what I snipped. I disagree with it in terms of "running it like this at the table", but that's fine. It's an RPG and everyone plays differently than everyone else....one of the big draws to the genre if you ask me.
With regards to "hit". I'm assuming most folks interpret "hit" as "hit the actual AC and ready to roll damage", not just "because HP's are nebulous a hit could actually be a miss" (not how I do it, but still...). Ok. Now, I (DM) roll to hit the wizards ac of... 12 lets say. I say "He hits". Wizard player says "I throw up Shield!". I say, "He hits and you take 34 points of damage". Wizard player says "What?! How!". I say, "His to-hit was 19; your Shield spell only takes you to 16 AC. He hits".
Is that your interpretation? That's how I read the whole "on a hit"...that the wizard player doesn't actually get to know the 'real' AC hit, so he can't decied "Oh, he got a 19, with my shield spell I'd only be 16... no point in wasting the spell then". Because that would most definitely not fly in my game.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Ok, I get what you're saying in what I snipped. I disagree with it in terms of "running it like this at the table", but that's fine. It's an RPG and everyone plays differently than everyone else....one of the big draws to the genre if you ask me.
With regards to "hit". I'm assuming most folks interpret "hit" as "hit the actual AC and ready to roll damage", not just "because HP's are nebulous a hit could actually be a miss" (not how I do it, but still...). Ok. Now, I (DM) roll to hit the wizards ac of... 12 lets say. I say "He hits". Wizard player says "I throw up Shield!". I say, "He hits and you take 34 points of damage". Wizard player says "What?! How!". I say, "His to-hit was 19; your Shield spell only takes you to 16 AC. He hits".
Is that your interpretation? That's how I read the whole "on a hit"...that the wizard player doesn't actually get to know the 'real' AC hit, so he can't decied "Oh, he got a 19, with my shield spell I'd only be 16... no point in wasting the spell then". Because that would most definitely not fly in my game.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Hiya!
Ok, I get what you're saying in what I snipped. I disagree with it in terms of "running it like this at the table", but that's fine. It's an RPG and everyone plays differently than everyone else....one of the big draws to the genre if you ask me.
With regards to "hit". I'm assuming most folks interpret "hit" as "hit the actual AC and ready to roll damage", not just "because HP's are nebulous a hit could actually be a miss" (not how I do it, but still...). Ok. Now, I (DM) roll to hit the wizards ac of... 12 lets say. I say "He hits". Wizard player says "I throw up Shield!". I say, "He hits and you take 34 points of damage". Wizard player says "What?! How!". I say, "His to-hit was 19; your Shield spell only takes you to 16 AC. He hits".
Is that your interpretation? That's how I read the whole "on a hit"...that the wizard player doesn't actually get to know the 'real' AC hit, so he can't decied "Oh, he got a 19, with my shield spell I'd only be 16... no point in wasting the spell then". Because that would most definitely not fly in my game.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Agreed, I wouldn't let them know either.
Of course sometimes I roll in view of the players which would make it moot, but I don't always do that.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I 9 out of 10 times call the AC but if I don't I let them ask "Will shield stop it?"
Arial Black
Adventurer
A couple of points to comment on...
By RAW, attacks (real, honest-to-goodness trying to kill the baddy attacks) are combat, combat takes place in combat rounds, initiative is rolled and surprise determined before any attack is resolved, including the attack that kicks off combat!
It has been suggested a few times in this thread that the initial attack should come before initiative is even rolled, and the reasoning seems to be that if the assassin gets surprise then he 'obviously' attacks before the (oblivious) victim could possibly do anything about it.
The trouble with this is that it assumes that the victim cannot do anything about it!
Whatever the rule is, it must be able to fairly replicate both situations: the one where the victim never has a clue about any danger until it's too late, AND the one where the victim does get a last minute clue. The chosen rules have to be able to simulate the victim sensing the attack at the last minute, just as easily as they simulate the victim being clueless.
The rules as written allow both situations to be fairly simulated. An attack 'outside combat'(?) doesn't allow the victim to sense the assassin and react faster, attacking the assassin before he can attack the victim. It may be unlikely, but the rules should be able to handle it.
Next: reactions. Just like actions, attacks, everything else, reactions need to have the right conditions to function. You need to be able to see (or otherwise sense) the target of your attack or the trigger for your reaction or held action, and this does not need to be repeated in the description of every attack or reaction or spell.
Imagine that your hands have been amputated and you cannot execute the required somatic component for the spell. Being 'able to take reactions' because it's after your first turn and can now take reactions again doesn't make your hands grow back! Before your first turn, you couldn't cast shield both because you cannot take reactions until after your first turn (because surprise) AND because you cannot cast the spell (because no hands = no somatic components).
You cannot cast shield to react to an attack you don't know about, just like you cannot make a weapon attack against a creature that you don't even realise is there. Being able to use reactions after your first turn doesn't remove the requirement to know about the attack that your shield will intercept.
By RAW, attacks (real, honest-to-goodness trying to kill the baddy attacks) are combat, combat takes place in combat rounds, initiative is rolled and surprise determined before any attack is resolved, including the attack that kicks off combat!
It has been suggested a few times in this thread that the initial attack should come before initiative is even rolled, and the reasoning seems to be that if the assassin gets surprise then he 'obviously' attacks before the (oblivious) victim could possibly do anything about it.
The trouble with this is that it assumes that the victim cannot do anything about it!
Whatever the rule is, it must be able to fairly replicate both situations: the one where the victim never has a clue about any danger until it's too late, AND the one where the victim does get a last minute clue. The chosen rules have to be able to simulate the victim sensing the attack at the last minute, just as easily as they simulate the victim being clueless.
The rules as written allow both situations to be fairly simulated. An attack 'outside combat'(?) doesn't allow the victim to sense the assassin and react faster, attacking the assassin before he can attack the victim. It may be unlikely, but the rules should be able to handle it.
Next: reactions. Just like actions, attacks, everything else, reactions need to have the right conditions to function. You need to be able to see (or otherwise sense) the target of your attack or the trigger for your reaction or held action, and this does not need to be repeated in the description of every attack or reaction or spell.
Imagine that your hands have been amputated and you cannot execute the required somatic component for the spell. Being 'able to take reactions' because it's after your first turn and can now take reactions again doesn't make your hands grow back! Before your first turn, you couldn't cast shield both because you cannot take reactions until after your first turn (because surprise) AND because you cannot cast the spell (because no hands = no somatic components).
You cannot cast shield to react to an attack you don't know about, just like you cannot make a weapon attack against a creature that you don't even realise is there. Being able to use reactions after your first turn doesn't remove the requirement to know about the attack that your shield will intercept.
This is correct.
This is not.
This is also incorrect, because casting shield has no such requirements.
The requirement for using your reaction to casting shield is being hit or targeted by magic missile spell.
Any attack that hits, any time you are targeted by a magic missile spell. That is it.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I have already disagreed with this up thread and I will again...
I'll do you one better, forget before... how about I think you can have a fight with NO INITATIVE ROLL at all...
Example 1: The 6th level fighter with his +2 volcanic axe (deals 2w of damage but it's all fire damage) gets mind controlled to kill the mayor... the mayor is a book stat noble...
the player walks up behind him and yells "Hey Jon," and when he turns he says he swings with power attack... the entire fight is 1 roll "Just see if you hit him, or if you roll a 1"
Example 2: High level NPC with a 23 AC normally, and the ability to parry for +4 once per round as a reaction... PC at 3rd level picks a fight with him and declairs "I swing with my knife and hit a 17..." I say "Pink, his armor holds and he laughs drawing his thin arming sword, he tells you he doesn't want to hurt you so just go away" since I have no intention of attacking back, I don't call for iniative at all... if he wants to swing again then roll... but he can just keep trying until he tires, SIr Gavon isn't fighting back...
Yup... that's the long and short of it, if I as the DM feel that there is nothing the victim can do about it then dice don't need to be rolled....
ok, so in a situation where speed and reaction matter, we roll initative, I agree there, I just disagree on when it matters...
yes, and my way does, if you plan it so there is no last minute clue, no roll needed... just like I don't make my players roll 2d12+17 against a target with 9hp... the roll is meaningless...
the rule is "It's up to the DM"
correct, so when My PC is invisable in a crowded street and the NPC has no reason to suspect someone is there, they are surprised and the the PC gets to use Assasinate, no rolls...(well roll to hit and roll for damage)
And if I would get surprise if I attacked in round one, but I don't attack until round 15, if I still am hidden I am still surprising you...
I thought this edition was about rulings not rules?
Arial Black
Adventurer
The specific trigger for any reaction spell (or Readied action) does not take away more general requirements that are not specific to that spell or action. Because they are more general or situational, they cannot be part of the spell (or action) description.
For example, I ready an attack action. The trigger I choose is 'when the enemy comes within my reach', and the attack is 'I attack him with my axe'. My enemy, on his turn, casts invisibility on himself and then moves adjacent to me. I get my reaction attack now, right? I mean, he's come into the reach of my axe, I'm still holding my axe, I haven't used my reaction yet; why can't I respond to this trigger to hit him upside the head?
Because you don't know that he's come into reach! The trigger must be observed by you in order for you to respond to the trigger, and this doesn't need to be written in every single spell description with a casting time of 'one reaction'!
It also applies to the shield spell, just like every other reaction; if you don't observe the trigger, you can't react to the trigger. And this bit of the obvious doesn't need to be written into the spell description because it's equally true for all reactions that have a trigger.
Arial Black
Adventurer
The noble recognises the 6th level fighter as a friend, and has no reason to expect an attack nor expect that the fighter has been mind controlled.
So, this is auto-death for the mayor, right? Wrong!
Well, it is the way you run it! But run properly, there is an opposed Deception/Insight check to see if the mayor notices something wrong; some look in the eye, some lack of emotion, some discernible clue. You may expect the mayor to lose this contest, and if he does then he's surprised. But he may win the contest and not be surprised. He may also be faster than the fighter, and get his retaliation in first!
Let's say the mayor lost the contest; for whatever reason the mayor did not notice a threat, so he is surprised. If the mayor is faster, he can't act on his first turn but he can react and he can react to that attack because the fighter helpfully brought it to his attention by saying, 'Hey Jon'! So the mayor might be able to cast shield or use Uncanny Dodge or use any useful reaction.
Of course, the mayor might be surprised AND slower; tough noogies your worship!
The trouble is that, out of the four possibilities, you have decided what the result will be! That's what the rules are for! That's what the skills of the player and character should affect!
Although the DM can, in theory say, 'Rocks fall, everybody dies!', this is not meant to be a masturbatory fantasy where one guy abuses his role as DM to narrate an inescapable death to a bunch of 'players' who have no real agency.
As written, the rules make it fair on both sides by the mechanics of both rolling for initiative and an opposed check to determine surprise.
You are sort of right, some reactions work that way like the ready action says.
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.
So in order to take a readied action the trigger has to be perceivable. That doesn't apply to all reactions.
Also unless the invisible person takes the hide action, you could argue they are in fact perceivable, but that gets into stealth rules which are very vague in this edition.
But nothing about casting shield says you need to perceive the person making the attack or the person casting the magic missile spell.
Last edited:
