D&D 5E Little rules changes that still trip you up

[machineelf]

It also dawns on me that this (correct) view of the assassination rogue ability introduces a little bit of meta-gaming if the DM has different NPCs acting at individual initiative orders. The player can just pick an NPC to assassinate who has a lower initiative order than he does. Although this can be explained away in the narrative as the rogue picking the most unaware targets to strike first.

 

[Azzy]

It also dawns on me that this (correct) view of the assassination rogue ability introduces a little bit of meta-gaming if the DM has different NPCs acting at individual initiative orders. The player can just pick an NPC to assassinate who has a lower initiative order than he does. Although this can be explained away in the narrative as the rogue picking the most unaware targets to strike first.

Assuming the player knows what initiatives the NPCs are going at. If an NPC had highest initiative, but didn't do anything (because of surprise), why should the player know that the NPC had a higher initiative? Do you announce the NPCs/monsters initiatives when you DM?

 

[abirdcall]

Oh yeah? I was under the impression that in the first printing of the 5th ed. books they referred to the "surprise round," and they only changed this with the errata and the second printing. My group also started playing with the D&D Next playtest, so maybe that's what I'm remembering?

In any case, it would be a nerf from my player's perspective.

I have both the first printing and the 5th printing. Both assassinate and pg.189 are the same. The changes made are all errata as well, rather than actual rules changes. Typos were fixed basically.

It also dawns on me that this (correct) view of the assassination rogue ability introduces a little bit of meta-gaming if the DM has different NPCs acting at individual initiative orders. The player can just pick an NPC to assassinate who has a lower initiative order than he does. Although this can be explained away in the narrative as the rogue picking the most unaware targets to strike first.

This is as intended. The Assassin should pick a target that hasn't acted yet in order to get advantage on their attack. The assassin won't be able to do this to auto-crit when attacking a surprised foe. This is because the target didn't do anything on their turn so they have nothing to judge whether they beat their initiative or not.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do you announce the NPCs/monsters initiatives when you DM?

Yes, and sometimes list them where everyone can see them, so that we have an easier time keeping people moving instead of surprising them when I say it is their turn.

 

[nexalis]

Assuming the player knows what initiatives the NPCs are going at. If an NPC had highest initiative, but didn't do anything (because of surprise), why should the player know that the NPC had a higher initiative? Do you announce the NPCs/monsters initiatives when you DM?

I find that hiding NPC initiative rolls doesn't completely negate the initiative metagame. I had an assassin player who would suddenly change his mind about making a surprise attack if he rolled particularly low for initiative, even though he could not see what the NPCs had rolled. I solved this problem by rolling everyone's initiative behind the DM screen when there was a surprise round involved so that the players couldn't see their own rolls. Metagame negated.

 

[Azzy]

Yes, and sometimes list them where everyone can see them, so that we have an easier time keeping people moving instead of surprising them when I say it is their turn.

That being the case, you must already accept that metagaming in regards to initiative is going to happen.

 

[Hriston]

You think this way because you keep having the regular surprise definition in mind. My variant rule doesn't invoke ''threat'' at all in its text but instead says : ''Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a deception is surprised at the start of the encounter.''

I assume you mean to say, "at the start of combat." Does this rule apply to any sort of deception? Wouldn't it have to be an effort to convince the other party that you are not a threat? Do you not let players decide for their characters whether they are convinced by such efforts or not? As a DM, I would never tell a player that their character is convinced of something by a Charisma check made by a NPC.

If the party talk to NPCs who consider them as friendly, they don't perceive them as a threat anyway, that is the very reason why it rely on deception instead. Think how sucker punch often happens, when one is caught offguard because it never expected the other person to attack it while talking.

To me, a sucker punch is a matter of winning initiative. Both parties are aware of each other, and one decides to attack the other. Initiative is rolled. If the aggressor wins initiative then she gets in the first punch because her target is slow to react. If not, then her target might give her a quick jab while she's still in mid-swing.

The same way you do it for regular surprise rule to determine if you notice a threat, by having an contest. Here its a Charisma (Deception) vs Wisdom (Insight) rather than Dexterity (Stealth) vs Wisdom (Perception) normally used.

This assumes that the true intentions of creatures are automatically known unless they are making an effort to deceive. I would rather that their intentions remain unknown unless you make an effort to determine them. I say this because usually when you notice a creature then you aren't surprised when it attacks. If this depends on being able to determine that they intend to harm you then it must be fairly obvious when they do, only necessitating an Insight check if, like your PCs, the creature is attempting to hide its true intentions. My problem with this is that it creates the, to me, odd situation that, as a player, I will always be surprised unless I can first positively determine that my attacker means to do me harm, i.e., that in the absence of that information, because I failed an Insight check, I cannot decide that my character nevertheless remains suspicious of the creature's intentions and the possibility that it may indeed be a threat.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I assume you mean to say, "at the start of combat." Does this rule apply to any sort of deception?

It apply to a deception during a social interaction that lead to a combat because one attacked another unexpectedly.

Wouldn't it have to be an effort to convince the other party that you are not a threat? Do you not let players decide for their characters whether they are convinced by such efforts or not? As a DM, I would never tell a player that their character is convinced of something by a Charisma check made by a NPC.

When the PCs go back to their inn and talk to the innkeeper does he need to make an effort to convince them he is not a threat? When the PCs go buy some gear and talk to the store clerk does he need to make an effort to convince them he is not a threat? When your players failed an investigation check to find a secret door or make other deduction, you don't tell them they're convinced there's nothing? Or for a hidden creature they failed to see? If a NPC succeed at a Charisma check, he should appear convincing as well. You don't tell your players so much how to play then tell what their PC perceive or believe based on their senses or intuition.

because I failed an Insight check, I cannot decide that my character nevertheless remains suspicious of the creature's intentions and the possibility that it may indeed be a threat.

Just like for regular surprise rule you cannot decide that your character nevertheless remains suspicious of a threat to not be surprised if you failed to detect it by loosing the Stealth vs Perception contest. Likewise you cannot decide that your character nevertheless remains suspicious of a deception to not be surprised if you failed to detect it it by loosing the Deception vs Insight contest.

Such deception should usually be from people you're not suspicious of though. Personally i don't think i would use it in a situation where the PCs are highly suspicious of something, or at least would give them advantage on the check to reflect it if i'd do.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Guys, can you please take the assassin/initiative/surprise discussion to its own thread?

 

[Hriston]

Basically what Plaguescarred said. I usually assume PCs consider all objective threats to be subjective threats. When there is a question, I rely on a contest (if the threat is purposefully trying to conceal its threatening nature) or a check (if other circumstances might conceal the threat).

If the PC fails the contest, is it then assumed to consider an objective threat not to be a threat? I.e., does the result of the contest tell the player what her PC is allowed to think about the threat in question? Or does a failure simply result in the PC not knowing whether the threat is actually a threat or not?

Personally, I prefer the latter when it comes to narrating the result of an Insight check.