D&D General Is Surprise worth it as a mechanic?

[DEFCON 1]

My rules on Stealth and Perception work fine, and thus the rules on Surprise work fine too.

Even if WotC were to remove Stealth/Perception/Surprise from the game going forward, I'd just use what I already have to keep them in the game and it would still be fine.

I don't need WotC's rules on these things to be able to use them effectively in my game.

 

[Laurefindel]

Also, for everyone else: the question isn't whether it's worth getting surprise, but whether it's worth having it as a mechanic from a design standpoint.

Yes, I believe surprise mechanics are pertinent, if only to offer a tactical element with clear mechanics in theatre-of-the-mind play.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Coming off one of the many perception threads as well as being in the process of writing up a lot of the minutia rules for my own system, I'm struck by the thought that... maybe surprise is not worth having as a mechanic.

The practical upshot is that it adds a level of tactics to the proceedings and possible variety to encounters. Then there's rogue-like characters who get some sort of alpha strike ability for acting in surprise.

On the other hand, it requires engaging the already historically janky Stealth minigame for one round of minimally different combat a small percentage out of the total combats in the game.

Now, obviously, it can be redesigned, but there's still the matter of it being something that comes up in a fraction of combats unless the players are actively trying to do it all the time.

I think keeping surprise as a mechanic is worth it, but I agree it is often minimal because typically less than half the surprised side is actually surprised.

However, for those subclasses were surprise can work great, it can be extremely effective.

Then you also have things like the Alert feat, which makes surprise impossible.

But the question is: is it worth devoting time redesigning and writing up a new set of surprise rules for the minimal effect it actually has? and if One were to redesign it, what would you want to do with it?

I'm hoping 2024 brings revised surprise rules.

Also, PCs and enemies should IMO be trying to get surprise as much as possible. Being able to act for a round when your enemy can't can be strong and shift things a lot.

One thing I would do is make surprise a group check. Then, if the group fails, they are ALL surprised. Now, for the individuals that did make the check, after their turn in the initiative, they could take reactions, but for those who failed individually, they could not until the first round is over.

I would also change the Alert feat to granting on advantage against surprise instead of making it auto can't be surprised.

 

[Jer]

Now, obviously, it can be redesigned, but there's still the matter of it being something that comes up in a fraction of combats unless the players are actively trying to do it all the time. But the question is: is it worth devoting time redesigning and writing up a new set of surprise rules for the minimal effect it actually has? and if One were to redesign it, what would you want to do with it?

I'm going to engage in just a bit of premise rejection here - in my experience the surprise rules are far less often used by the players trying to gain surprise on monsters, and far more often used by DMs whose monsters are trying to gain surprise on the PCs. Because the PCs are often noisy groups whose actions echo down the hallways and alert people that they're there, who can then lurk in wait to see if they want to try to attack them or avoid them. The number of times across all editions where I've used surprise rules because the players were intentionally trying to set up an ambush or even just move stealthily are dwarfed by the number of times I've had to use the surprise rules because the PCs had caused some kind of alert to be raised.

So the question isn't just is it worth it for the players, it's also a question of whether that sort of encounter and the bonus it provides has value or not. And contrary to what I say above - I'm not sure it does. If you're running a survivalist type game where every resource is tracked and the players are supposed to be playing super cautiously (tapping every 10' with a pole, search for traps at every opportunity, etc.) then surprise rules make a lot of sense to use and are valuable to that style of play. They encourage players to play cautiously, which is what you want. OTOH if you're playing a game where you want to encourage the players to take more risks and be more "heroic", or if you want to gloss over the kind of minutia that a survivalist game revels in, then doing that sort of thing as a DM runs counter to the kind of game you want the players to play and the surprise rules are less important unless the PCs want to set up an ambush or you do. In which case it might be more useful to have a set of "ambush rules" that are used just for that situation rather than the more general surprise rules, which are much more broad and count any sort of unexpected threat as potentially a surprise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Coming off one of the many perception threads as well as being in the process of writing up a lot of the minutia rules for my own system, I'm struck by the thought that... maybe surprise is not worth having as a mechanic.

The practical upshot is that it adds a level of tactics to the proceedings and possible variety to encounters. Then there's rogue-like characters who get some sort of alpha strike ability for acting in surprise.

On the other hand, it requires engaging the already historically janky Stealth minigame for one round of minimally different combat a small percentage out of the total combats in the game.

Now, obviously, it can be redesigned, but there's still the matter of it being something that comes up in a fraction of combats unless the players are actively trying to do it all the time. But the question is: is it worth devoting time redesigning and writing up a new set of surprise rules for the minimal effect it actually has? and if One were to redesign it, what would you want to do with it?

Nice to read you again.

I can see surprise going away as a subsystem, and perhaps handled narratively, with just a single passive Perception for some mechanical meat. Because the DM determines the DC, it would essentially be their call as to weather or not the surprise (I'm thinking ambush here) would be successful. As with other matters, you would of course need to trust your DM to be fair.

Not sure what the philosophy of your game-in-progress is though, so I don't know if that would work for you.

 

[Lanefan]

Is having a surprise mechanic worth it? Very much yes.

Is 5e's method of "there's-no-surprise-in-this-system-so-let's-fake-something-close" worth keeping or even seriously considering? Largely no.

1e had a good underlying system - simple group checks on d6 - but then of course had to overcomplicate it with Monks and a few other corner cases that came up far more often than a corner case ever should. But that underlying system is solid, and also neatly builds in how much the surpriser(s) get to do before the surprised can react or get defenses up*. It also allows for movement as part of surprise; instead of free attacks you might get free movement so as to close with the foes before they get their guard up (meaning the foes don't get any time for preparatory spells or missile attacks etc.).

Worth noting also that surprise in 1e is segment by segment rather than round by round. That said, the round length in 5e is way shorter, so it probably cancels out.

* - to me that's a key aspect of surprise: that a surprised foe (or a surprised PC) should have no active defenses. No shield, no parrying, no dodging. You don't know anything's about to hit you until after it's already hit you. Passive defenses, e.g. armour, of course work fine.

 

[R_J_K75]

We roll round to round in my game. We tried RAW for a campaign(year or so) and we all decided it was more fun to roll per round. Surprise stil made a significant difference in that first campaign.

We tried it about a year ago for a bit, 3 of us liked it but the other 2 players slowed things down enough that we went back to a single initiative at the start of combat. I prefer round to round.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Stealth rules.

It sounds to me like this is where your issue really lies then. The question is less “is surprise worth having a mechanic for?” and more “are stealth mechanics worth the design effort to fix?” And the answer kinda depends on the game you’re designing. If it’s a game about sneaking around in dark, monster-filled dungeons and trying to escape with their treasure and your lives, then absolutely. If it’s a game about larger than life heroes who fearlessly confront deadly perils head-on, then maybe not. If your game has a character archetype based on subtlety, like a thief, assassin, spy, infiltrator, etc. then you probably want some way for the system to handle that, but it could be specific to the archetype instead of a universal mechanic, if sneaking around is otherwise not a very important element of your game.

 

[R_J_K75]

But how do you determine surprise? That's part of my issue, being that you have to use an already bad mechanic to engage surprise right now.

For me the 5E surprise rules read pretty cut and dry and appear to work in theory but in practice I always get tripped up on them as DM when trying to implement them in game.

 

[Charlaquin]

For me the 5E surprise rules read pretty cut and dry and appear to work in theory but in practice I always get tripped up on them as DM when trying to implement them in game.

They seem really straightforward and usable to me, but it’s plain to see that I am the significant minority in that, so it’s hard to argue they wouldn’t benefit from some kind of clarification.