November's SAGE ADVICE Is Here!

November's Sage Advice column by WotC's Jeremy Crawford is up. This month deals with lightfoot halfing and wood elf hiding racial traits, some class features, backgrounds (you can have only one!), muticlassing, surprise rounds in combat, and more. Check out this month's Sage Advice here. The advice here has been added to the Sage Advice Compendium.

 

[abirdcall]

It's hard to visualise that a totally unaware person can be made aware, not through what he perceives but by a Dex check! Why is that so hard to grasp?

You don't need a perception check to see something that is plainly in the open such as an arrow coming at you.

If you are incapacitated you are not aware of your surroundings at all and so you don't get a chance. That is represented by the rules.

Shield, in terms of the action economy, is a reaction which can only be taken if you are hit by an attack or targeted by magic missile. When cast, you can change a hit into a miss, meaning that even though the trigger was 'you get hit', the spell results in you never getting hit in the first place!

The spell does not represent the 1st level wizard getting a javelin through his head, killing him by massive damage, then casting the spell(!) and having the javelin slide out of his skull and the wizard being resurrected and standing up from prone!

No one is arguing that is what happens. It's a last second defense against something that was going to hit you.

The spell represents putting a mystical shield between you and an attack, in response to an attack which would hit you if you didn't cast shield.

It also means that you must be aware of the attack before it hits, in order to actually use it. You can't cast it after it actually hits and damages you in the game world, only if it would have hit if you didn't get the shield up in time, represented in pure game mechanics as a successful attack roll.

If you don't know that the arrow is coming toward your head, then you cannot use shield to react to it. If the assassin charges out of the bushes into plain sight, shield away!

You have never seen this represented in TV or movies?

I have seen it countless times. It happens a lot in both noir and ninja stories but also pops up elsewhere. An assassin sneaks up on the hero and then unleashes their deadly attack completely unawares. Only the hero catches the poisoned arrow or blocks the garrote with their hands or whatever. This trope is even directly represented in D&D with the Monk arrow catching ability.

There are many other takes on this depending on genre from preternatural instinct (see Spider-Man), super reflexes, and even the coincidental dodge (trip and fall on a banana peel or get distracted by something unrelated). It really doesn't take much for the target to move in a way the assassin didn't predict and be a couple inches off their heart.

5e is not built to mimic reality. It is built to enable action fantasy genre tropes and it does a damn good job. If you are going to use assassins in your game, assassin tropes are going to pop up too.

 

[Arial Black]

You don't need a perception check to see something that is plainly in the open such as an arrow coming at you.

You do if the arrow is invisible and silenced. As you run it, the target can react even to that.

You have never seen this represented in TV or movies?

I have seen it countless times. It happens a lot in both noir and ninja stories but also pops up elsewhere. An assassin sneaks up on the hero and then unleashes their deadly attack completely unawares. Only the hero catches the poisoned arrow or blocks the garrote with their hands or whatever. This trope is even directly represented in D&D with the Monk arrow catching ability.

There are many other takes on this depending on genre from preternatural instinct (see Spider-Man), super reflexes, and even the coincidental dodge (trip and fall on a banana peel or get distracted by something unrelated). It really doesn't take much for the target to move in a way the assassin didn't predict and be a couple inches off their heart.

5e is not built to mimic reality. It is built to enable action fantasy genre tropes and it does a damn good job. If you are going to use assassins in your game, assassin tropes are going to pop up too.

Barbarians get an ability that lets them take actions while surprised. They have had some sort of preternatural sense in every edition. Such a barbarian would be able to react to an invisible, silenced arrow even without perceiving it, because they have that ability. It would be wrong to allow every character to do this even if they had no such ability.

As for other examples, noticing a threat at the last minute represents Perception beating Stealth, at the last minute. Once you've detected something, then you can react to it.

 

[Mirtek]

5th edition: You don't get the full benefits of surprise unless you ALSO beat them on initiative.

Isn't the assassin the only one who ever needs the full benefit?

As we've acknowledged, surprise is hard.

given how powerful ut is that's justfied

Most groups don't bother even trying to get it most of the time.

most groups don't like a full free rund of beating up their enemies?

Only a assaaain cares about the state of surprise mich, anyone else only cares that the enemy don't get to act in round 1

I personally think this disincentivises people in attempting to gain surprise because it's effectively a two-check process to get the full benefit.

but for anyone except an assassin the second effect is just icing on the cake and might not even exist as far as it affects them.

Most groups won't even have an assassin so even if they all win Initiative it won't be mich different for then from all having lost Initiative

 

[abirdcall]

You do if the arrow is invisible and silenced. As you run it, the target can react even to that.

The DM is still allowed to make rulings in highly specialized situations.

This is not 'how I run it', this is how the game is designed. This is not only right in the rules about how rounds work, but this sage advice has clarified it. Why are you still confused?

Barbarians get an ability that lets them take actions while surprised. They have had some sort of preternatural sense in every edition. Such a barbarian would be able to react to an invisible, silenced arrow even without perceiving it, because they have that ability. It would be wrong to allow every character to do this even if they had no such ability.

As for other examples, noticing a threat at the last minute represents Perception beating Stealth, at the last minute. Once you've detected something, then you can react to it.

No one is arguing that characters can take actions when they are surprised. Just that they can take reactions after their turn. It is right on pg. 189.

"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends."

It is not wrong to allow characters who have special reactions against being shot with an arrow to react to the arrow if they won initiative. It is part of the game. If you want to play another edition, then do so. In this edition a Monk who reacts quickly enough can catch an arrow that was fired at them.

It's so weird to me that you are completely okay with a barbarian using their ability as written here but not other classes. And the reasoning is that the barbarian had the ability in other games.

 

[Leugren]

Just in case it's not spelled out sufficiently in the Sage Advice Compendium, here is a post from Sage Advice in which Jeremy directly spells the out how the Assassinate ability is intended to work:

Daganev
Is it intended that an assassin must surprise their target and win initiative to use assasinate?

Jeremy Crawford
Assassinate does require the Assassin to have a higher initiative than the target. #DnD

If you don't like the rule, you are of course free to change it. It is nevertheless useful to understand the accepted RAI for two reasons:

1. The better you understand the RAW and RAI, the less likely you are to make bull-in-the-china-shop changes to the rules that unbalance the game or marginalize / give too much power to specific character concepts and abilities. This is particularly true for inexperienced DMs.
2. If you are involved in organized play, it gives you an idea of the types of rulings that you are likely to encounter most often so that you are not surprised or disappointed.

 

[Athinar]

That is the reason this issue continues to come up, because the rule makes no sense

They failed when it came to the assassinate and the assassin has to win twice to achieve the Assassinate or the creators of the game hated the assassin to start with

Plus, the damage done is just a flesh wound when it comes the challenge rating vis assassins levels (No instant kill like the assassins of old)

there are conditions that stop the assassinate, a Feat and the barbarian, oh well can't kill them all

 

[Flamestrike]

Seriously. It's a good example. But how would you adjudicate this scenario:

Bob: I swoop in. I've got my ring of invisibility on and my ring of silence.
DM: Alright. The guard doesn't see you. He goes back to reading his magazine.
Bob: I watch him for an hour
DM: He just sits around. He dozes for a bit. Reads his magazine some more.
Bob: So there's no indication he knows I'm here.
DM: No. Your stealth check passed his Passive Perception.
Bob: Great. What's he doing now?
DM: He's gone back to reading his magazine.
Bob: Excellent. I want to throw my invisible and silenced dagger at him.

[AT THIS STAGE THE GAME SWITCHES FROM NARRATIVE MODE TO COMBAT MODE]
DM Roll initiative. He's surprised.
Bob: Damn... a 9.
DM: 10! He wins!

What happens next? The act of throwing this dagger will not cause it to become visible or audible.

An extreme outlier, a DM would be within his rights int this situation to rule the inept guard cant possibly react to an invisible assasin throwing an invisible dagger. Thats what DMs are for after all.

That's peachy and all. But those aren't the rules I asked for. I saw those rules (I even mentioned them in the paragraph you quoted). Can you please direct me to where the rules in the PHB say "The ONLY way combat can be initiatied is when someone declares a hostile action". As I mentioned I can't find them.

Play changes from loose narrative play to the structured combat sequence when combat is initiated. That occurs when someone (either the DM or a player) declares a hostile action. Attacks happen in initiative order during combat.

When you see an Ogre in a room, you dont need to roll inititive to speak to it. You only roll initiative when hostilities break out. There are no free actions for people that surprise other people with hostilities. Actually there technically are free actions when people surprise other people or attack them from hiding or ambush them - the rules for such surprise attacks are in the PHB combat section under 'surprise'.

Bob says "I want to shoot my bow" at the NPC. Bob then wins initiative, does he get to change his mind and decide not to shoot the bow? Bob says "I want to shoot my bow" at the NPC. Bob then loses initiative and acts dead last. Does Bob get to change his mind and decide not to shoot the bow?

Bobs player has declared a hostile action. This switches play from narrative mode to the more tightly structured round by round/ turn based abstraction of the combat sequence. This was a decision that Bob made. Bob (the player) has total agency here remember.

If Bob wins initiative I assume he fires his bow. Why wouldnt he? In between him declaring his action, and his first turn in the combat, zero time has passed. I would certainly not let him 'take back' his declared action (I might though). If I did, then no harm, no foul. If he's hidden then initiative is ignored and narrative time continues. If he was in plain sight of the enemy, he's probably nocked an arrow and taken aim at a NPC so they would react accordingly (and initiative would probably be retained, and he may find himself getting attacked depending on the NPC).

If Bob only said he 'wants' to shoot his bow, nothing happens. There is no initiative roll. Wanting to do something isnt a hostile action. If Bob declares his 'is' shooting his bow at a NPC (i.e. he nocks an arrow and aims at someone, drawing back the string) then initiative is rolled, and the enemy get a chance to act in time to his trigger (via initiative) either ducking into cover at the last second, or whatever.

This is the logical disconnect.


The assassin has already beaten the guard Stealth/Perception-wise. The guard doesn't know the assassin is there.


How can a Dexterity check let you hear something that your Wisdom(perception) check didn't?

Youre narrating the abstraction of combat. Maybe the guard just gets a 'bad feeling' or luckliy ducks down to reach for his packet of smokes at the last second. Its up to the DM to narrate how it goes down.

Dont get me wrong, I'd narrate it differently if Bob had the skulker feat (the assassin would be unaware of Bob if Bob misses, so he narration would occur after the attack is resolved). In that case I'd narrate it as the inept guard moving at the last second (ruining the assasinate attempt). Or course, even with the skulker feat, if Bob hit the guard, (and he obviously needs to in order to trigger assasinate anyway) then Skulker aint gonna help one iota, and the Guard is fully aware of his presence (the crossow blot sticking out of his shoulder is evidence enough).

Its all an abstraction that is to be narratted accordingly. Just like hit point attrition (another abstraction). When you 'Hit' someone with a sword (via a sucessful attack roll) you dont always actually connect with them. They could have dodged at the last second (taking 'hit point damage') parried it (taking 'hit point damage') it glanced off their armor (taking 'hit point damage') or whatever.

Combat is an abstraction. From turn based activity (youre not actually standing around waiting for one person to move 30' and then attack, then another, then another etc - its all happening more or less at the same time) to hit point loss (most 'hits' are not actual wounds or even actually someone getting physcially struck) etc. Just narrate it accordingly.

 

[JohnLynch]

An extreme outlier, a DM would be within his rights int this situation to rule the inept guard cant possibly react to an invisible assasin throwing an invisible dagger. Thats what DMs are for after all.

Thanks. I was curious how you would handle it. Especially after reading:

Your narrating the abstraction of combat. Maybe the guard just gets a 'bad feeling' or luckliy ducks down to reach for his packet of smokes at the last second. Its up to the DM to narrate it.

This is a very 4th edition take on the rules with "rules first, narrative second" that was emphasised so strongly in the rules (with the presumption being that even oozes could be tripped and a DM must override that presumption). This was not a particularly popular way to run games and I personally have moved away from it (although I don't think I ever really embraced it and have been much more comfortable with rulesets that have the world operate in a way that makes sense to me and then have the rules bring form to that world).

Bob (the player) has total agency here remember.

Completely understood.

If Bob wins initiative I assume he fires his bow. Why wouldnt he? In between him declaring his action, and his first turn in the combat, zero time has passed. I would certainly not let him 'take back' his declared action (I might though).

Good to see you're somewhat flexible about that to best ensure fun is had during gameplay. Your earlier stances (where you lacked such qualifiers like "you might" allow combat to be left) and even here where you indicate that you ordinarily would not let him 'take back' his action is an interesting way to play. I've played for 7 years now and I've never seen such a rigid "Declaring you want to attack doesn't initiate combat" stance. I've never seen a DM demand to know what your hostile action is when you want to attack. In fact I've seen DM's say "hold on. We'll roll initiative" and then when that person wins initiative the DM asks exactly what the person will be doing with them having free reign to not make the intended attack. So you're statement of "wanting to attack doesn't initiate combat" was surprising to me because this is exactly what has initiated combat in every single game of D&D I've ever played.

 

[Valador]

Saying you 'want' to attack works better at my table. When a player has their mind decided to start combat they tell me they want to initiate combat or they 'want' to attack. Then we determine any surprises and then roll initiative. That way you go from narrative to combat and you avoid any awkward situations of the initiator declaring an attack but then roll low initiative. It also removes any weird situations where someone is surprised, yet gets their turn before you. In that situation they stay surprised and there is no "reaction" to the "hostile action" that initiated combat to begin with and you don't have someone getting an automatic perception check... The prior example clearly allowed the target to succeed in what would normally require a perception check.

That's just my two cents though. I could be totally out of the norm.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is a very 4th edition take on the rules with "rules first, narrative second" that was emphasised so strongly in the rules (with the presumption being that even oozes could be tripped and a DM must override that presumption).

There is a two part component here. The mechanical adjudications of actions (where rules like susrprise and so forth come in). You mechanically balance abilities around that framework. There is also the narrative aspect (describing those mechanical effects in a narrative style).

Take a character who falls into lava and survives (due to being high level and having a ton of HP). You can narrate it as him not actually falling into the lava (he instead lands on a isolated rock formation in the middle of a sea of lava, taking the appropriate lava damage) or whatever.

I've never seen a DM demand to know what your hostile action is when you want to attack.

'I attack' isnt enough for me. I want to know who and how you are attacking. Then we can move onto resolution of that action.

In fact I've seen DM's say "hold on. We'll roll initiative" and then when that person wins initiative the DM asks exactly what the person will be doing with them having free reign to not make the intended attack.

Why are the enemy rolling initiative? Why are they making a Dex check?

Initiaitve was only rolled once that PC declared they were attacking. Not when they declared they intended to attack, or were thinking about attacking; only when they actually swing their sword, cock back their arm to punch someone in the face, or draw back their bow, or start chanting the words to a fireball. At that point, inititive is rolled and everyone gets a chance to interrupt that action by acting quick enough.

If youre susrprised, you cant act fast enough to stop the action. Its literally impossible. You might be able to act fast enough or do enough to negate getting assasinated though.

If a PC declares he's shooting at some Orcs that the party are talking too, he takes aim and draws back his bow with a menacing glint in his eye. The Orcs (if they win the subsewuent initiative test) might be able to act in time to stop him. It works the other way too; if the Orcs declare attacks initiative is rolled. If the players roll higher, they might be able to fireball the orcs before they move more than a single pace forwards and before the war cry has been completed.