D&D 5E Non-stealth surprise

[weldon]

I don't. Or rather, I don't think the difference matters as far as the game is concerned. Unexpected isn't a defined game term.

My point was exactly that "unexpected" is not a game term. Some people seemed to be arguing that "surprise" should cover situations where the PC acts in an unexpected way because their understanding of "doesn't notice a threat" hinges on whether they "expect a threatening action" instead of "see the PC" before they act.

And you're correct that reaction is available in the first round after the surprised character's turn has passed. I hurried to simplify and left that out.

 

[Caliban]

My point was exactly that "unexpected" is not a game term. Some people seemed to be arguing that "surprise" should cover situations where the PC acts in an unexpected way because their understanding of "doesn't notice a threat" hinges on whether they "expect a threatening action" instead of "see the PC" before they act.

Exactly so. Which is why most people suggest using "Deception vs. Insight" instead of "Stealth vs. Perception" - because the PC is hiding their intent, rather than hiding their presence.

Or the DM could decide no roll is needed - either the guards are too alert to be taken by surprise, or to incompetent to notice the barbarian has been fingering his axe and glaring at them for the last minute.

It's all up to the DM, based on their assessment of the situation and how annoying the players are currently being...

 

[DemonSlayer]

Wow, guards sure do have a large support group in this thread.

Not all guards are hyper-vigilant and paranoid. Maybe a beloved King's personal guard are...but every day Joes on guard duty? Nah. It's just a job.

 

[guachi]

I think you are redefining what "neutral" means here.

Or at least, you are assigning a meaning to the word "neutral" that I wouldn't have considered.

And does being a Guard really mean you are on guard at all times, just because it's your job title?

Does being a Neutral Fighter mean I can't be surprised because I'm ready to fight at all times? (It's right there in the class description!)

Neutral in the context the OP describes means they neither consider you friend nor foe and has nothing to do with Law/Chaos or Good/Evil.

If you are a Guard in a throne room I would consider you on guard for dangers at all times unless otherwise noted. They don't suspect you of being hostile but, since they are neutral towards you, they consider you possibly hostile. I'd consider the possibility of being surprised by being attacked by the barbarian (surprised in a 5e mechanical context) to be zero.

 

[Caliban]

Neutral in the context the OP describes means they neither consider you friend nor foe and has nothing to do with Law/Chaos or Good/Evil.

That was me being funny. Sorry for confusing you.

If you are a Guard in a throne room I would consider you on guard for dangers at all times unless otherwise noted.

If you are the DM, great. That's your call.

Personally, I don't think being alert 100% of the time is humanly possible. Hence, a possibility of being caught off-guard if someone doesn't look like a threat. But perhaps my perspective is influenced by my ADD. It's certainly not possible for ME to focus on one thing for extended periods of time unless it's one of my personal interests. (I had a job as a security guard once. I learned that I make a terrible security guard and any would be thieves could load up a moving van with your stuff without me even realizing it.)

They don't suspect you of being hostile but, since they are neutral towards you, they consider you possibly hostile.

See, that's another bit I disagree with, and what I was referring to when I said you were assigning a meaning to "neutral" that I wouldn't consider.

You seem to be saying that "neutral" means "on high alert". I do not. Neutral means they are in their default state of alertness. That is determined by the DM, based on what they know about the guards and their assessment of the situation. There is not a universally true answer to the question "can they be surprised", other than "it depends".

Given that they are escorting a motley crew of armed individuals, the DM may decide that they are on alert and can not be surprised. (This seems to be your default answer, but it's not the only one.)

The DM may also decide that this is a peaceful, progressive kingdom that considers adventurers a valuable part of the economy, and armed groups of individual are wandering around all over the place, and the guards don't expect this group to be any trouble. Suprise is automatically successfully, because no reasonable person would attack the kings guard in broad daylight like that. The ensuing capture and execution may also be automatically successful, depending on how much of a dick the barbarian's player is being.

Or the guards may actually be "neutral" and neither be overly alert or overly lax, and the DM will call for a Deception vs Insight opposed check.

I'd consider the possibility of being surprised by being attacked by the barbarian (surprised in a 5e mechanical context) to be zero.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

 

[BoldItalic]

Do people accept Sage Advice as authoritative at all? I'm looking at the part that starts:

Does surprise happen outside the initiative order as a special surprise round? No, here’s how surprise works.

and goes on to say

If anyone is surprised, no actions are taken yet. First, initiative is rolled as normal.

Now, I concede that his doesn't preclude slaughtering a guard suddenly outside combat, but it does rather preclude claiming that surprise made it possible, which is what the OP was asking about.

I suppose it rather depends on whether you regard killing a guard as an "attack". If the DM simply declares the guard dead with no attack roll being made, then it's not technically an attack within the meaning of the rules and no combat is taking place. But then, the DM is eliminating an NPC for no other reason than that a player has asked him to.

And what happens if each member of the party declares that he eliminates his own choice of guard? Outside of combat, rounds are 10 minutes long and there are no turns. It all happens simultaneously. And the PCs aren't even limited to single action during that 10 minutes so even if the party is outnumbered, each PC can declare several such assassinations until there are no guards left. The party can slaughter an entire squad of soldiers without even entering combat. Is this how the game is supposed to be played? If so, I've been doing it wrong all these years.

 

[Caliban]

Do people accept Sage Advice as authoritative at all? I'm looking at the part that starts:and goes on to say

Now, I concede that his doesn't preclude slaughtering a guard suddenly outside combat, but it does rather preclude claiming that surprise made it possible, which is what the OP was asking about.

I suppose it rather depends on whether you regard killing a guard as an "attack". If the DM simply declares the guard dead with no attack roll being made, then it's not technically an attack within the meaning of the rules and no combat is taking place. But then, the DM is eliminating an NPC for no other reason than that a player has asked him to.

And what happens if each member of the party declares that he eliminates his own choice of guard? Outside of combat, rounds are 10 minutes long and there are no turns. It all happens simultaneously. And the PCs aren't even limited to single action during that 10 minutes so even if the party is outnumbered, each PC can declare several such assassinations until there are no guards left. The party can slaughter an entire squad of soldiers without even entering combat. Is this how the game is supposed to be played? If so, I've been doing it wrong all these years.

You really seem to be having trouble with this concept.

It's not supposed to be something that normally happens, and it's not a RAW thing. Sometimes the DM doesn't see the need to go to the trouble of rolling initiative and doing combat when a PC attacks a (usually much lower level) NPC.

Either they have no chance and are likely to be one-shot by the PC, or the DM just wants to hand wave it for the sake of time. Or the DM feels like letting the PC do something fun without letting dice get involved. (Not that slaughtering NPC's out of hand is my idea of fun, but I'm not going to judge...Ok, maybe I'm judging a little.)

If the DM decides this isn't a significant combat, why waste valuable game time on it? The game is as much about the story as about the combat. If the DM wants to resolve killing an insignificant NPC via story instead of dice rolling, it's their call.


Also... where are you getting this idea of "10 minute rounds outside of combat" from? That hasn't been a thing since 2nd edition.

 

[BoldItalic]

Also... where are you getting this idea of "10 minute rounds outside of combat" from? That hasn't been a thing since 2nd edition.

You're absolutely right. I should have said "1 minute", not "10 minutes". Thank you for correcting me.

One minute is only long enough to slaughter 10 guards (assuming it takes 6 seconds to kill one), so an average party of five PCs could only slaughter 50, not a whole regiment. Then, of course, the surviving soldiers would feel obliged to kill the party outright, which they are allowed to do automatically, still without declaring combat. As an exception, of course. They aren't allowed to do this often. Maybe only once and then never again. That's fair, isn't it?

No.

 

[Caliban]

You're absolutely right. I should have said "1 minute", not "10 minutes". Thank you for correcting me.

One minute is only long enough to slaughter 10 guards (assuming it takes 6 seconds to kill one), so an average party of five PCs could only slaughter 50, not a whole regiment. Then, of course, the surviving soldiers would feel obliged to kill the party outright, which they are allowed to do automatically, still without declaring combat. As an exception, of course. They aren't allowed to do this often. Maybe only once and then never again. That's fair, isn't it?

No.

Wait...do the NPC's in your game tell you what they are doing? Do they demand things of you, like equal rights with player characters? Do...do they have union meetings without inviting you?

I'm just saying...in my game NPC's are non-sentient story elements that I control. They don't have any thoughts or feelings unless I choose to portray them as having such. So the guards wouldn't "feel obliged" about anything, and certainly wouldn't demand the right to kill the party outright - since, you know, they don't actually exist.

It may be different for you though.

 

[BoldItalic]

Wait...do the NPC's in your game tell you what they are doing? Do they demand things of you, like equal rights with player characters? Do...do they have union meetings without inviting you?

I'm just saying...in my game NPC's are non-sentient story elements that I control. They don't have any thoughts or feelings unless I choose to portray them as having such. So the guards wouldn't "feel obliged" about anything, and certainly wouldn't demand the right to kill the party outright - since, you know, they don't actually exist.

It may be different for you though.

Yes, it is different, and that's quite interesting. My NPCs are more like characters in a play - they tend to write themselves - and I find that entertaining in itself. Maybe that's why I dislike the idea that they might be arbitrarily cut down by dictat - to me, they are "people" with a right to existence. I can quite see, though, that your way of using them is equally valid from a game point of view.

Maybe this should be a topic for another thread?