D&D 5E How does Surprise work in 5e?

[Hriston]

No you cannot. To repeat the formula:

Forall(creature): not exists(threat) s.t. notices(creature, threat) -> surprised(creature)

The bolded condition cannot be both true and false.

It's true that you can notice one threat without noticing another, but in this case it cannot be said (to an native English speaker) that you have not noticed a threat.

We're talking about a situation where there's a threat you didn't notice, right? I don't know about you, and I can't speak for all native speakers of English, but I am one, and to me that counts as not noticing a threat.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe it is time for Wizards to clarify just what was meant by this one phrase.

<snip>

it may be useful to delve a little further into what is meant in English by the indefinite article.

<snip>

I, rather clumsily, posted up-thread that I read this to mean "any threat." I did not mean that the word "any" should be substituted for the word "a", which leads to an entirely different reading

<snip>

With regard to the interpretation that "a threat" could mean "all threats" or "every threat," I'd like to remind everyone that the indefinite article can be semantically regarded to mean "one." Thus, "a character who doesn't notice one threat is surprised," should be equivalent to the present language

"Any" in English exhibits the same ambiguity as "a" - "fails to notice any threat" can mean "fails to notice at least one threat" or "fails to notice even one of the the threats". (In quantificational logic, the two readings are "For some x, x is a threat and x is not noticed" and "For all x, if x is a threat x is not noticed.")

"Fails to notice one thread" most naturally means "there is at least one threat not noticed" but can also be read, with a bit of strain, but not beyond all bounds, as "fails to notice even one threat". If the word one is emphasised, eg when spoken or via italics, then there is no strain at all: "You dolt, you failed to notice one threat" could easily convey the meaning that the dolt in question failed to notice even one threat.

Rewording it as "if a character does not notice any threat" would eliminate the ambiguity - in favour of the "no surprise unless miss all the threats" interpretation. Rewording it as "if there is any threat the character fails to notice" would also eliminate the ambiguity - in favour of the "surprised by even a single threat" interpretation.

I continue to think that there is a difference between relying on GM adjudication of a key term that picks up the fiction - eg "threat", "able to be seen", etc - and simple ambiguity (whether syntactic, as in this case, or around mechanical categories of concealment, as in the Stealth case), which just reflects bad drafting.

 

[pemerton]

You're confusing surprise and Frightful Presence. Surprise causes action-denial. The situation you describe here causes fright. That's what Frightful Presence is for.

Surprise in AD&D included morale as a factor. Part of what causes surprise - ie an inability to respond - is a failure of morale.

 

[pemerton]

It's true that you can notice one threat without noticing another, but in this case it cannot be said (to an native English speaker) that you have not noticed a threat.

Nonsense. I'm a native English speaker, and if I spot the sniper on the north side of the street but miss the sniper on the south side of the street, then it absolutely can be said of me that I have failed to notice a threat - namely, the threat posed by (or consituted by, depending whether you read "threat" as denoting an object or a state of affairs - either is good English) the sniper on the south side.

You are asserting that "fails to notice a threat" must be synonymous with "For all x, if x is a threat than x has not been noticed." Whereas part of the reason for inventing quantificational logic was the scope ambiguity inherent in ordinary English articles and adverbs of generality.

 

[pemerton]

Assuming that no one is taking actions before the first round of a combat encounter, can anyone explain the difference between the first round and the start of an encounter? It seems to me that they are the same thing.

I think the start of the encounter means the first event in the first round.

So if there are three groups - the PCs, ambushers A and collaborators B - then if B wins initiative, and acts, by the rules as written I do not think that A can then act and surprise the PCs, because it is no longer the start of the encounter.

This sort of "initiative purging" (a phrase my Rolemaster players use to use) is not uncommon in games with rigid initiative systems. I don't know the best way to handle it in 5e.

 

[Hriston]

Rather than looking at house ruling surprise, look at the actual encounters you're preparing.
In the case above, is the kobold meant to stall the party? And if so, is it obvious it's stalling? Why is the kobold there at all? And why wasn't it hiding? Do you want the dragon to surprise the party with the actual rule for surprise? If you want it to surprise, why attack with it prior to them dispatching the kobold? (I'm sure the dragon can hear that they're about to finish it off)

I use the interpretation of the rule that I've been mentioning throughout the thread because it will serve all the functions I need from the surprise rule. It will require the entire party/monsters working together to pull of a surprise, making it so the clonking warrior can actually spoil the surprise - or in the case of monsters, that lone goblin standing around picking his nose instead of actually hiding with his friends.

For all those other instances where you might have planned for surprise, but didn't get it (like the example with the kobold and the dragon), there is still the unseen attacker rule. Normally it gives advantage on attack rolls - so perhaps those that doesn't notice the dragon prior to the breath weapon attack should be at a disadvantage on the saving throw.

This isn't an encounter I'm preparing. I brought this up as an example to counter some of the other examples, and to show how limiting the conditions where Surprise applies to only those situations where every possible threat has gone unnoticed can lead to equally absurd results. Maybe I missed the mark with this, but I would like to answer your questions. First, no the kobold isn't stalling. He is taunting the characters because he knows what they don't know, that the dragon has his back. He's there to deny access to anyone attempting to gain an audience with the dragon. To me it's not a question of whether I want the dragon to surprise the characters, but is more of a question of what the dragon does that's in her own interests and then what the rules say about it, so if what she does fits within Surprise, and I think it does, then she would "have" surprise in the first round. That's my premise. She doesn't wait for them to kill the kobold because he is her loyal servant. If your suggesting that she wait until she's alone with the adventurers so that she "gets" surprise, that would just be metagaming. Why would she actually do that?

I feel like the surprise rule works just fine for me the way I interpret it and won't be house-ruling it any time soon. At least not until playing the way I think it is proves there's something that needs adjustment. I only asked my question because I found reasonable the suggestions about adjudicating whether something was a threat or not relative to other threats that may be present. If your going to take an absolutist stance towards Surprise, as I think I'm inclined to, then you probably won't need to make such rulings.

One more thing, the unseen attacker bonus doesn't apply in my example because the dragon reveals herself by using her movement to fly up above the treasure pile before discharging her breath weapon, and so is not attacking from a hidden position.

 

[fjw70]

"

I think the start of the encounter means the first event in the first round.

So if there are three groups - the PCs, ambushers A and collaborators B - then if B wins initiative, and acts, by the rules as written I do not think that A can then act and surprise the PCs, because it is no longer the start of the encounter.

This sort of "initiative purging" (a phrase my Rolemaster players use to use) is not uncommon in games with rigid initiative systems. I don't know the best way to handle it in 5e.

If A wants surprise then B will have to sit out the first round if they aren't immediately attacking. If B is attacking immediately then A won't get surprise but could still get advantage attacking while hidden. Of course no one can attack A until they reveal themselves.

 

[fjw70]

Maybe it is time for Wizards to clarify just what was meant by this one phrase.

No need. It is already perfectly clear from context.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nonsense. I'm a native English speaker, and if I spot the sniper on the north side of the street but miss the sniper on the south side of the street, then it absolutely can be said of me that I have failed to notice a threat - namely, the threat posed by (or consituted by, depending whether you read "threat" as denoting an object or a state of affairs - either is good English) the sniper on the south side.

You are asserting that "fails to notice a threat" must be synonymous with "For all x, if x is a threat than x has not been noticed." Whereas part of the reason for inventing quantificational logic was the scope ambiguity inherent in ordinary English articles and adverbs of generality.

The bolded sentence is a really good point.

 

[Warbringer]

"

If A wants surprise then B will have to sit out the first round if they aren't immediately attacking. If B is attacking immediately then A won't get surprise but could still get advantage attacking while hidden. Of course no one can attack A until they reveal themselves.

This is my interpretation also, but to come almost full circle, in the video, Chris Perkins did grant A surprise and denied their party thier actions against B, after B had one initiative.