D&D 5E Assassinate

[Paraxis]

All the stuff you commented on is what the past 55 or so pages have been about, "When does surprise end?" because the assassinate ability needs to know this, but it is never directly stated in the rules as surprise ends when X happens. I have stated my opinion on the matter of when surprise ends, and that matches with the way Mike Mearls handles it too, surprise ends at the end of the surprised characters turn when they can take reactions. If this isn't your take on those rules after 55+ pages of debate whatever else I say isn't going to change your mind.

As to this part here.

The monk doesn't gain supernatural senses just because he's got a high initiative roll! He still hasn't noticed the assassin, has no way to see an arrow fly toward him (because he already failed his Perception/Stealth contest), and so cannot target the arrow attack in any way.

The monk does know where the attack came from, because of the rules for unseen attackers and targets on page 194-195 of the PHB. The relevant part is.

If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

So normally the monk being blind would have to guess at the square his target is in, but the assassin has revealed his location by making an attack. The monk by using his reaction to act immediately after the attack hits is able to interrupt the assassin before they can move to another location or make a hide roll, so the monk knows where to attack with the deflected missile. Being blind the monk is still at disadvantage on attack.

The deflecting missiles part is all 100% by the rules, the only thing that isn't spelled out clearly in the rules for some people is when surprise ends. If you rule that surprise ends at some later time than after the monks turn is over the chances of them reducing the arrow damage down to 0 so they can throw it back is greatly reduced as they are dealing with a critical sneak attack. But even saying the monk is still surprised until say the end of the first round, they still have a reaction and can still deflect missiles.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Absolutely. I'm certainly not out here trying to change the way anyone plays their games, especially if they're having a good time the way they're already doing it.

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.

Yeah, that's how I interpret it. We roll attacks out in the open, so if I roll and tell the wizard it hits, he might be able to tell what the assassin's attack bonus is at minimum, and figure if it's worthwhile casting Shield. I don't tell the players what the monsters' stats are in general, though, so in some situations it would be more iffy as to whether the spell is going to be wasted. I guess this happens more on a low roll when the monster has a relatively high attack bonus. Then the wizard really doesn't know how high his AC needs to be to avoid the hit, so he usually tries anyway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not saying, 'What I say is more right than what you say because I'm King of the Rules'. I'm saying that the rules say that combat takes place in Combat Rounds.

It would have no value to debate the things DMs are allowed to use 'rule 0' for, because they can do whatever they like, until their players leave.

I am discussing the actual rules.



Fair enough. In that case the fighter would roll his Deception against the passive Insight of the mayor.



Oh, it's quite possible that the mayor doesn't have any useful reaction.



Sure. The DM can just tell you who wins every combat, instead of letting you roll dice and make your own decisions. If he does that, why would anyone want to play? At this point it's just "Magic Story Time". The only thing players have in this game is agency; the fact that they choose what they do and how they do it, with some idea of the odds. If the DM takes that away by just telling them the result of a conflict, giving them no chance to affect the result when the expectation is that the whole point of the game is that players do affect the result, then there is no point playing.



Okay.

My latest PC has become the mayor of a small village. He has great Insight skills to gauge the mood of the people, as well as great Cha skills, of course.

One day, his friend Fred the 6th level fighter is somehow 'magicked' into assassinating my mayor PC. Did the fighter fail a save against this, or did the DM 'decide not to bother rolling' and just decide that Fred would 'obviously' fail any save so why bother rolling?

So Fred gets close to me; and why not? He then says, 'Hey, pal!' and the DM decides I'm dead.

Boy, that was fun!

Alternatively, the DM could ask Fred to make a Deception check against my passive Insight. The DM might give him disadvantage if Fred is fighting against the control, or advantage if the magic is powerful. Either way, there shouldn't be no chance at all that I notice something wrong! That doesn't seem either reasonable, fair or fun. If there is a check and the result of that check means I'm surprised, so be it.

If I'm surprised, I may be faster and if I have a useful reaction then I could use it. This would be denied to me under your DM.

If I'm not surprised, he might be faster than me but I'd be able to use a reaction. This would be denied to me by your DM.

I could be unsurprised and faster than Fred. I might have noticed something wrong. I might have the Alert feat, or a Weapon of Warning. I could then attack Fred (hopefully with something non-lethal). This would be denied to me by your DM.

Basically, it's like Brazil playing San Marino at soccer; you may believe Brazil will win 10-0, but that's the game. What is not the game is the referee saying "I can't be bothered to play because it's obvious Brasil will win, so I'm just going to award the game to Brazil without a ball being kicked".

I want to play the game, not be a helpless spectator while someone else tells me how I did.

You just totally jumped the shark...if I through1st level pc with an AC 11 and 9hp against a baadguy. Throwing +8 tohit2d12 +17 damage I doubt the pc would say the skill check was the unfair part....

I'm not even Useing rule 0...I am saying when to roll or not is up to the DM

 

[clearstream]

Although the monk is able to use reactions in the general sense, the monk has not succeeded on a Perception/Stealth contest, and for the monk, absolutely nothing has happened. The contrast between the assassin or the monk winning initiative is not something that actually happens in the game world; it is not an event.

What actually happens is that, while the blind monk is meditating, a completely undetected assassin shoots the monk. Whether or not the monk is faster doesn't affect what the monk notices. The way you run it, faster characters gain supernatural senses which warn them of attacks even though their actual senses did not. You are giving the ability to sense danger to rolls which have nothing to do with sensing danger.

I feel like you are narrowing what initiative is. It can be as easily cast as a state of awareness - zazen - an interpretation supported by the fluff of the Alert feat.

Woah, woah, woah! Easy tiger! Who says the monk is no longer surprised? The rules certainly don't! The monk is still sat there with his empty eyes closed and he hasn't seen or heard the assassin at all! He has not 'noticed a threat'.

The rules do say that if the monk rolls higher initiative then after his turn he is no longer in the helpless state required for assassinate. He might not be able to perceive the rogue but he now lacks the acute vulnerability needed to be susceptible to assassination.

The monk doesn't gain supernatural senses just because he's got a high initiative roll! He still hasn't noticed the assassin, has no way to see an arrow fly toward him (because he already failed his Perception/Stealth contest), and so cannot target the arrow attack in any way.

Initiative is aptly named. The power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do. For assassination to work, the rogue requires an edge over their target expressed mechanically as higher initiative. But again I feel the real tension here is between DMs who are willing to narrate what player agency and dice decide, and DMs who want to control the narrative according to their own conceptions. Both approaches can be just as much fun at the table, but if we're discussing the game mechanics then the latter approach is a poorer guide than the former.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I feel like you are narrowing what initiative is. It can be as easily cast as a state of awareness - zazen - an interpretation supported by the fluff of the Alert feat.


The rules do say that if the monk rolls higher initiative then after his turn he is no longer in the helpless state required for assassinate. He might not be able to perceive the rogue but he now lacks the acute vulnerability needed to be susceptible to assassination.


Initiative is aptly named. The power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do. For assassination to work, the rogue requires an edge over their target expressed mechanically as higher initiative. But again I feel the real tension here is between DMs who are willing to narrate what player agency and dice decide, and DMs who want to control the narrative according to their own conceptions. Both approaches can be just as much fun at the table, but if we're discussing the game mechanics then the latter approach is a poorer guide than the former.

Please quote a rule that says whensuprise ends...I see one that says DM determains...

 

[Arial Black]

I feel like you are narrowing what initiative is. It can be as easily cast as a state of awareness - zazen - an interpretation supported by the fluff of the Alert feat.

PHB p189: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order."

So initiative is not about whether you sense an enemy, it's about how fast you react, once you do react.

PHB p176: "Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." The associated skills are Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth. 'Other Dexterity Checks' mentions stuff about physically manipulating things, like picking locks or tying ropes. Nothing about sensing danger or enemies.

PHB p178: "Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition." In addition to governing Insight and Perception, 'Other Wisdom Checks' includes 'get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow, discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead'.

So an Initiative result has absolutely nothing to do with 'state of awareness'. Its only connection is that after your senses have detected a threat, your reflexes can then kick in. But your reflexes don't kick in until after your senses have detected a threat.

The rules do say that if the monk rolls higher initiative then after his turn he is no longer in the helpless state required for assassinate.

Brilliant! This rules quote is exactly the thing that could have ended this thread 500 posts ago!

Can you give us a page number please? Or just quote the sentence, that would help a lot!

 

[Arial Black]

You just totally jumped the shark...if I through1st level pc with an AC 11 and 9hp against a baadguy. Throwing +8 tohit2d12 +17 damage I doubt the pc would say the skill check was the unfair part....

And we expect Brazil to hammer San Marino, but we still play. No matter how big a favourite the fighter is, it's not okay to just tell me that I'm dead. It should be played out. Fred may be a much better combatant than my mayor, but I still could notice something wrong, could still react faster when he taps me on the shoulder and says 'hey pal' as he lifts his greataxe for the killing blow, and I could still use my action to jump the fence (as opposed to 'the shark'!) and run away. The DM just telling me, 'You have no chance, you're dead' is not playing the game, it's refusing to play the game.

I'm not even Useing rule 0...I am saying when to roll or not is up to the DM

And the DM could decide not to make any rolls when the party are surprised by some ghouls, and just tell you that you lost and you're all dead. Having fun yet?

 

[Arial Black]

All the stuff you commented on is what the past 55 or so pages have been about, "When does surprise end?" because the assassinate ability needs to know this, but it is never directly stated in the rules as surprise ends when X happens. I have stated my opinion on the matter of when surprise ends

We can have no objection to each other putting our case, but that doesn't stop us from pointing out the errors we see in each other's argument.

The main culprit is the idea that 'you aren't surprised any more when you can move/take actions/reactions'. There are posts, even now, that boldly state that 'the rules do say this, when it's simply not the case. I don't think they're deliberately lying, I just think that it is a misunderstanding that has been repeated so many times that some people believe it to be true.

But it isn't. Here's a rule example which demonstrates that 'able to move/act' does not equal 'not surprised':

PHB p49, Feral Instinct: "By 7th level, your instincts are so honed that you have advantage on initiative rolls. Additionally, if you are surprised at the beginning of combat and aren't incapacitated, you can act normally on your first turn, but only if you enter your rage before doing anything else on that turn."

Note that the barbarian is still surprised, but he can move/act despite being surprised. How is this possible? Because not being able to move/act was never the definition of surprise, just one of its possible effects.

Note also that he is still vulnerable to auto-crits from Assassinate. Why? Because the auto-crit applies whenever the target is 'surprised', not whenever the target 'cannot move/act/react'.

The monk does know where the attack came from, because of the rules for unseen attackers and targets on page 194-195 of the PHB. The relevant part is.

If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

This is also widely misunderstood. In combat, the participants (the ones that aren't surprised) are aware that they are in danger, and are assumed to be looking around in all directions, ready to respond to any threat. BTW, this is why Assassinate auto-crits won't work on them. Therefore, when a hidden creature attacks, the victims notice.

But do they always notice? Is this 'noticing' a magical effect that always works even if the victim has no way to sense the attacker or the attack?

PHB p170, Skulker feat: "When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position."

But it magically does reveal your position, doesn't it? Even if you have no eyes and ears!

The Skulker feat represents training, not magic. Most people reveal themselves with the attack, but Skulkers have been trained not to. This would not be the case if the simple act of shooting a bow let the blind person see and the deaf person hear and the oblivious person...blivious?

The usual 'attacking gives your position away' is the usual consequence of shooting at people alert for danger and looking for the threat. When you attack, they see you because they are looking out for you, and you have no special training to offset that. They still have to be able to sense you, still have to be aware of a threat.

Losing your cover by attacking probably will give you away, but if you are invisible and silent, the target is deaf/blind, and you haven't managed to hit, then if he didn't notice a threat before then nothing has let him notice a threat now.

So normally the monk being blind would have to guess at the square his target is in, but the assassin has revealed his location by making an attack.

By what means? He can't see the arrow fly by or the bushes move. In theory, he could hear what's going on, so I'd probably let him roll a Perception/Stealth contest, but if he failed that (or was deaf anyway) he doesn't magically just know!

The monk by using his reaction to act immediately after the attack hits is able to interrupt the assassin before they can move to another location or make a hide roll, so the monk knows where to attack with the deflected missile. Being blind the monk is still at disadvantage on attack.

Daredevil could! Daredevil has super hearing! Daredevil has Radar Sense! Daredevil has the means to know where the arrow is, without using vision. But even Daredevil, if he was in a sensory deprivation tank or under the effect of a supervillain power that makes him unable to use any sense, even Daredevil would not be able to catch the arrow in those circumstances. Because shooting from hidden doesn't magically let the target know anything; the target still has to be able to sense the attack and/or attacker.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And we expect Brazil to hammer San Marino, but we still play. No matter how big a favourite the fighter is, it's not okay to just tell me that I'm dead. It should be played out. Fred may be a much better combatant than my mayor, but I still could notice something wrong, could still react faster when he taps me on the shoulder and says 'hey pal' as he lifts his greataxe for the killing blow, and I could still use my action to jump the fence (as opposed to 'the shark'!) and run away. The DM just telling me, 'You have no chance, you're dead' is not playing the game, it's refusing to play the game.



And the DM could decide not to make any rolls when the party are surprised by some ghouls, and just tell you that you lost and you're all dead. Having fun yet?

Once again your not Useing any scenero suggested you are making up unfair things then claimin I am na unfair DM because of YOUR made up scene.... Try giving me an actual example that was unfair I have given almost a dozen no roll scene and the best you can do is say "if you did x then y could happen" but y never would come up in my game...ever so it is pointless we do not skip the game we do not refuse to play the game we use the rules written in the book you should go check.. Every roll is at DM desecration I am a very fair DM some even say too nice to my pcs...so there will never be an encounter where the pcs just loose. There May be one were they just win...that is very diffrent.

There are rules we follow and rules you made up...stop saying "x gets a y roll" without a rule. Show me an insight roll guaranteed to any pc...

 

[Arial Black]

Once again your not Useing any scenero suggested you are making up unfair things then claimin I am na unfair DM because of YOUR made up scene.... Try giving me an actual example that was unfair I have given almost a dozen no roll scene and the best you can do is say "if you did x then y could happen" but y never would come up in my game...ever so it is pointless we do not skip the game we do not refuse to play the game we use the rules written in the book you should go check.. Every roll is at DM desecration I am a very fair DM some even say too nice to my pcs...so there will never be an encounter where the pcs just loose. There May be one were they just win...that is very diffrent.

There are rules we follow and rules you made up...stop saying "x gets a y roll" without a rule. Show me an insight roll guaranteed to any pc...

The example situation I used is the very same example you gave me! The example with the 6th level fighter being brainwashed to murder the mayor.

You're saying that the DM assumes that the mayor has no chance to notice anything wrong, no chance to react faster if he does. I'm saying that the rules allow this to be played out, and the rules also assume that we are here to play, not that we turn up just to hear a story about how we died and there was nothing we could have done about it.

Look, I'm not trying to be horrible to you or make you feel bad. I'm pointing out how bad I'd feel if the DM didn't give me a fair shot at trying to survive this assassination, and also point out that the decision to have the attack take place before the combat begins(???) takes away my fair chance to do something about it, no matter how unlikely. That's why there should be no combat outside of combat(!), and why the rules say that combat takes place in combat rounds.

Sure, the DM has total unlimited power to prevent you from making any roll; that doesn't mean that he should. This is why 'ROCKS FALL EVERYBODY DIES' is used as a shorthand to illustrate the inevitable result of the abuse of that power.