D&D 5E Assassinate

[clearstream]

[MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION], not sure if you noticed, but Jeremy Crawford answered your tweet today. He said, "The intent is that a surprised creature stops being surprised at the end of its first turn in combat." Thanks for wording the question in such a way that the sage decided to make it official.

Thank you for posting it up. I guess you can see that I didn't notice

 

[Arial Black]

The book does actually say that.

Then by all means cite it; page, column, paragraph.

The only way ambiguity becomes introduced is when you decide that surprise is not synonymous with its effects.

It cannot logically be synonymous with two or more different things.

The reason the thread hasn't ended is due to posters wedded to versions that add words and commit the ludic fallacy of finishing the narrative without rolling the dice.

You mean, like adding the words 'you are no longer surprised when you can take reactions?

That ignores the words "In addition" before the second ability. If you win initiative Assassinate gives advantage, and in addition if your target is surprised you auto-crit. The contrary view causes the words in addition to have no meaning. Which commits the legal fallacy of failing to concede meaning to words in rules.

Really? The Assassinate ability gives you *this* ability. In addition, it gives you *this* ability. No need for it to be one ability in two parts. Those words have a perfectly valid meaning that keeps them as two separate sub-abilities gained at the same time.

But even if they were independent effects, that wouldn't constitute a reason for surprise to extend beyond end of a combatant's first-turn. Because that would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question since it would include its conclusion directly in its premises.

You keep saying that, but conveniently forget that your case is as unwritten as mine, and begs the same question in the same way.

We are both forced to postulate both cases, and choose which makes the most sense.

Bottom line, the version of surprise you prefer adds words to RAW (about ending on noticing a threat).

So does yours.

You have argued that adding those words is logical, and logically the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim to prove it.

This also applies to you.

However, no proof has been offered beyond repeating a preconceived narrative demanding that surprise be not only caused but also maintained by not-noticing threats. Nothing in RAW points to that.

Actually, it has supporting evidence in the RAW; since the cause of surprise is 'not noticing a threat' by RAW, taking away the reason for surprise should take away the surprise.

While not proof, it is evidence. As opposed to the case you favour which has no such supporting evidence.

In fact, RAW expressly calls out that checking the noticing or otherwise of threats occurs outside of turns and rounds.

And now your saying that because you check to see if a threat has been noticed at the start of combat, that it is impossible to notice threats while actually in combat? That is absurd.

 

[Arial Black]

Wow! That argument pulls a couple of fast ones. It pretends to present an analogue of surprise while actually presenting something quite different. Let's dissect it.

You stipulate that "beam" lasts 10 rounds. That is not analogous to surprise. What would be analogous to surprise would be "beam lasts until your eyes melt".

But the rules do not say that surprise lasts until your first turn.

In theory, even if surprise lasted an arbitrary time, say 5 rounds, one of the effects of surprise could certainly still be to delay your first action/reaction until after your first turn. That would not have any affect on that 5 round duration, and those rules would work (mechanically) just as effectively as a rule which supported your version or a rule which supported my version.

Since they all would work mechanically, and there is no written rule to tell us, we must choose the one that makes sense.

 

[Hriston]

Thank you for posting it up. I guess you can see that I didn't notice

I've been checking my twitter semi-regularly because I'd asked for a clarification on this some time ago, but I didn't check it today. I became aware of the reply thanks to the new thread of official tweets started by [MENTION=6801221]Edwin Suijkerbuijk[/MENTION] which has already turned out to be a great resource. Thanks Edwin.

 

[Inglorin]

If the Assassin player loses and then says: "I stay hidden and don't attack." I would just say "Too bad. You started to move and they noticed you. Next round. They attack." That sort of metagaming is right out the window in my book.

That is exactly how I would handle it. An action doesn't necessarily start at my initiative. Actions only get resolved in initiative order. So the high init orc could actually react if he sees the assassins coming due to winning the initiative.

 

[clearstream]

[MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION], not sure if you noticed, but Jeremy Crawford answered your tweet today. He said, "The intent is that a surprised creature stops being surprised at the end of its first turn in combat." Thanks for wording the question in such a way that the sage decided to make it official.

So it's not lost.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I've been checking my twitter semi-regularly because I'd asked for a clarification on this some time ago, but I didn't check it today. I became aware of the reply thanks to the new thread of official tweets started by [MENTION=6801221]Edwin Suijkerbuijk[/MENTION] which has already turned out to be a great resource. Thanks Edwin.

Will try to keep it updated

 

[Noctem]

If anyone has questions related to many of the topics in this thread, I made a guide which might help some:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Stealth-Hiding-and-You!&p=6702270#post6702270

 

[Horwath]

The rules for surprise are somewhat bull.... !

Initiative should be rolled after there is a reason for doing so.

Usually after you "detect" dagger/arrow in your kidneys.

Alert feat should be exception to this rule.

And really we should go back to surprise round. If you do not detect danger you are surprised. period.

then on the first round surprise ends. except for assassin, who still gets advantage on attacks if he is higher on initiative count that the surprised target.

 

[Noctem]

The rules for surprise are somewhat bull.... !

Initiative should be rolled after there is a reason for doing so.

Usually after you "detect" dagger/arrow in your kidneys.

Alert feat should be exception to this rule.

And really we should go back to surprise round. If you do not detect danger you are surprised. period.

then on the first round surprise ends. except for assassin, who still gets advantage on attacks if he is higher on initiative count that the surprised target.

That's exactly why my group uses a houserule to resolve whatever prompted combat first then figure how who is surprised (basically who didn't see it coming / notice a threat) and then roll initiative. That way you don't run into a bunch of the problems people always bring up when discussing this stuff. I think that going back to a surprise round wouldn't really change much in practice though it could allow for some shenanigans with specific NPC's for example who have bonuses during surprise. Like Bugbears for example.