D&D 5E (2024) How do you handle surprised but won initiative?

[Voadam]

Back to the OP (original premise in this case):

I find the narrative dissonance of, say, getting shot, and then standing around while someone jumps out of cover, runs across a field, and stabs me for a second attack, having gone twice, to be more difficult to handle than the idea that the ambusher popped up and I hair-trigger shoot them before they get their shot off. (If you'll forgive me for the run-on sentence). The newer way is not only easier (to me) to handle, but it also (IME) occurs less often. It's not easy to beat an ambusher with an initiative roll when you have disadvantage. I can happen, but it's not all that common.

I never took statistics but it seems like somebody beating the ambusher's initiative would happen fairly frequently when a solo ambusher attacks somebody in a party of PCs just from each PC rolling individually. Four or so people with disadvantage are going to have one of them beat the single non disadvantage roll fairly often I would think.

So leopard in the tree going for the squishy mage in the back, piercer/darkmantle dropping on somebody, black dragon lurking under the water.

 

[Deset Gled]

I never took statistics but it seems like somebody beating the ambusher's initiative would happen fairly frequently when a solo ambusher attacks somebody in a party of PCs just from each PC rolling individually. Four or so people with disadvantage are going to have one of them beat the single non disadvantage roll fairly often I would think.

So leopard in the tree going for the squishy mage in the back, piercer/darkmantle dropping on somebody, black dragon lurking under the water.

That just creates a different dissonance, though.

When the leopard jumps from the tree on the mage, why is the rest of the party even involved at all? Either they should have seen the leopard in the tree, completely negating the surprise, or they shouldn't know anything is even happening until the leopard has pounced.

 

[Reynard]

Since when must paradoxes not be true?

Sure. I should have said "contradiction."

I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean, I did go on for a bit after that.

Would not the point be: So that the Ranger (in that example) can say, "You hide over here" and use their abilities to coordinate with the party to actually achieve an ambush, in stead of the clanky paladin always giving them away.

I think that's probably better than a group stealth check (though ultimately it amounts to the same thing) because the Ranger player gets to actively feel like they've done the job, rather than "Everyone roll DEX Stealth!" (Set of 15, 19, 7, 4) - discount the last two and call it a success. Obviously, a group check can be narrated better than that, but I've certainly seen it done that way. I suppose that the Ranger player could say, "I give you a 15!" Which would be just as narratively weak, but at least they are granting the result, so it's not much more of a stretch to say, "I tell you to hide here and keep your mouth shut (and don't move your clanky armor!) - Have a 15!"

Which a fine way to handle it except now why are we even making a stealth check for anyone? "We hide and stay real quiet until the target arrives." It seems like an exercise in rolling dice just to pretend the GM isn't granting success automatically. Which I am fine with. In fact, I think it is better to examine the plan and f it makes sense, don't require a roll. Give the targets a Perception roll if appropriate, but don't ask the players to roll for something pretty much settled.

But still -- are we trying to encourage or discourage ambush as a tactic? How effective you make it, and easy or difficult to pull off, is going to determine that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I never took statistics but it seems like somebody beating the ambusher's initiative would happen fairly frequently when a solo ambusher attacks somebody in a party of PCs just from each PC rolling individually. Four or so people with disadvantage are going to have one of them beat the single non disadvantage roll fairly often I would think.

So leopard in the tree going for the squishy mage in the back, piercer/darkmantle dropping on somebody, black dragon lurking under the water.

Yeah, but I don't think that your scenario (a lone ambusher jumping a full party) ought to be all that common, so we're back to it being a non-standard (IMO) occurrence.

 

[Artamo]

The whole point of surprising your opponent is to, as far as possible, trivialize the combat. Why is this a problem?

And yes, it should be a "surprise round", or at least a "surprise [something]", extra to initiative, where the attacker gets to not only act first but the defender doesn't yet have all their active defenses - shield, dodging, etc. - going.

After that, things proceed normally, with the attacker rolling initiative as normal. And very intentionally this means that by the end of the first round the attacker has acted twice.

The point of surprise is to, ideally, tip the scale enough that it falls over. Othewise, why bother?

My answer is because the game as played today is not meant to be a simulation of skirmish warfare or tactics. Maybe in the past it was acceptable to consistently try to set up surprise attacks, but in the modern D&D game that’s just no longer the case for possibly most tables. I think more tables want to have a satisfying encounter that allows the players to use multiple abilities and actively be challenged by the encounter, and see how the story unfolds.

I know that’s anathema to many of the OSR mindset but…

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean, I did go on for a bit after that.

Yeah, but I didn't get why that equated to "why bother?"

Which a fine way to handle it except now why are we even making a stealth check for anyone?

I don't think you'd make a Stealth check for whoever was granted the Ranger's check result.

"We hide and stay real quiet until the target arrives." It seems like an exercise in rolling dice just to pretend the GM isn't granting success automatically.

I don't think you ought to roll dice if a different result is going to be granted. IDR the full rules on it, but I'm not sure the Ranger (in that case) can grant results to EVERYONE. It would, I think, be something the Ranger Player would actively choose to do to the PCs that they think are most likely to give them away? The rest would roll, I think.

Which I am fine with. In fact, I think it is better to examine the plan and f it makes sense, don't require a roll. Give the targets a Perception roll if appropriate, but don't ask the players to roll for something pretty much settled.

I agree. So you mean, "Why bother rolling?" (I thought you meant, "Why bother with those rules"). The answer is: You bother with what is worth bothering with - the other PCs, if there are any, if it makes sense to do so.

But still -- are we trying to encourage or discourage ambush as a tactic? How effective you make it, and easy or difficult to pull off, is going to determine that.

Yup. I haven't seen a problem with using 5e.24's method. Then again, I didn't see a problem with 5e14's either, nor with yours, and I have used all of them, depending on when we're talking about or what seems appropriate to me for any given ambush.

 

[Marc17]

That just creates a different dissonance, though.

When the leopard jumps from the tree on the mage, why is the rest of the party even involved at all? Either they should have seen the leopard in the tree, completely negating the surprise, or they shouldn't know anything is even happening until the leopard has pounced.

Nah. They just saw the leopard after it jumped and attacked it in mid-air. Them yelling to look out really doesn't affect anything as the mage never would have had time to act anyway. Fairly common trop in movies and literature.

Now, if you had a situation where there was no movement, no melee attack, etc. You possibly don't need to enter initiative. You just state "an effect happens", resolve it, and then let the PCs decide what to do next.

 

[Reynard]

Yup. I haven't seen a problem with using 5e.24's method. Then again, I didn't see a problem with 5e14's either, nor with yours, and I have used all of them, depending on when we're talking about or what seems appropriate to me for any given ambush.

Like I said, on reflection the 5e24 method is not a bad solution for "oh crap, orcs!"/"oh crap, adventurers!" But I wouldn't use it for an ambush scenario.

 

[Reynard]

Nah. They just saw the leopard after it jumped and attacked it in mid-air. Them yelling to look out really doesn't affect anything as the mage never would have had time to act anyway. Fairly common trop in movies and literature.

Now, if you had a situation where there was no movement, no melee attack, etc. You possibly don't need to enter initiative. You just state "an effect happens", resolve it, and then let the PCs decide what to do next.

This can get alittle muddy, though, from the perspective of who can see what when their initiative comes up. If the leopard has not leapt out until its turn, it is still hidden when the PCs go. What can they reasonably do, without using player knowledge, then?

 

[Maxperson]

When a combat is designed to last 3-5 rounds, having two rounds of attacks before the surprised side gets to go (as could happen in 5e14) was far, far too much. It worked fine when that didn't happen, sure, but the "monsters" had to be mighty quick for that not to happen. 5e24 works fine when everyone on the surprising side doesn't roll crap for init, or conversely, the surprised side doesn't roll too well. But still, when they do, there is plenty of "excuses" (many listed above) that explain it. Myself, I'd use any of those, and more, depending on exactly what the combat is about, and who is in it (on both sides).

This debate has me thinking of house rules to handle surprise. Right now I'm mulling over giving the ambushing side the option to 1) get a free round of combat, but suffer -5 to their initiative rolls, or 2) not have a free round of combat, but the other side has disadvantage to initiative. The monsters don't have to be nearly as quick if the PCs are all getting -5 to their initiative.

The ambushers get to decide whether probably going first every round is better than a free round of combat and likely not going first for the rest of the battle.