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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What you're describing is a completely different problem than the one this thread is talking about. If you have a player who would do this, it has nothing to do with how surprise, initiative, etc.. works. Maybe you didn't see that?

No, I'm pointing out that your houserule has serious issues. If you advocate for your houserule to be adopted outside of your table, then you can't also say 'but you can only do it if you have the right players.'

Well to be clear, the guide (since you didn't read it) covers multiple game elements. These include stealth, hiding, light and darkness, invisibility and surprise. You'll forgive me if I forgot something off hand. Furthermore, the guide explains the rules of the game specifically, I'm using a houserule to solve problems that the current system has created when it comes to an archtype feature built around obtaining surprise (which is essentially completely DM fiat and is super easy to control). I just don't want to allow surprise and then after initiative is rolled the assassin learns that he won't get to benefit from his feature because he didn't win initiative and I also don't want to allow surprise all the time to increase the chances of the assassin getting to benefit from it.

So since you immediately dismissed the houserule without even bothering to ask questions about it, I'll give a simple example of how the houserule works in practice:

Bobo the assassin is hiding in darkness. He sees his target getting close, who doesn't notice bobo thanks to his stealth vs passive perception roll which was high enough, and fires his crossbow causing him to lose hidden as a result. At this point, I fully resolve the attack made by bobo. Once the attack is resolved, I look and see who is surprised (if any). Anyone who did not notice bobo as a threat is now surprised. This includes his target if it's still alive. I then have everyone roll initiative and once that's done I follow the initiative order. If bobo's initiative is higher than his target, he can decide to attack his target again with any related benefit for his target being surprised. Then the next person goes and so on. Anyone surprised is surprised until the end of their first turn, after which they are no longer surprised and may take a reaction as normal. And so on.

So the scenario is simple, but it required multiple hoops by the participants to even allow for the "catastrophic" stuff you lament yourself about:

- Surprise was allowed by the DM. Let's face it, surprise simply doesn't happen at the table without DM approval. The entire scenario requires the DM to allow it to happen every step of the way. So by allowing an assassin to get surprise, you really shouldn't get to complain afterwards.
- Stealth vs passive perception had to be successful. If bobo had not managed to be hidden from his target, it would have noticed bobo and surprise could have been lost as a result based on DM fiat. This is because who an NPC considers a threat is up to the DM. Likewise, based on the description and story telling of the DM, the PC will decide who is a threat and who is not.
- Multiple attacks had to hit.
- initiative had to be high enough to beat the target's result so that you can benefit from the feature in question.
- Insert item here because basically the scenario could have multiple other hoops inserted or complications or consequences that I don't list here.

The reality is that you're doing what's called a knee jerk reaction. It's ok, it happens, but that doesn't mean that my suggested houserule is catastrophically wrong as you put it. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to suggest a scenario and we can discuss it so you can put your catastrophic fears to rest over the well being of my NPC's.

Lastly, I don't implement houserules without first discussing them openly with the group and voting if the houserule is used or not. I'm just explaining that for our group, the houserule has worked very well to remove problems we encountered with the current system as it stands and to make the assassin feature less rocket tag and more consistent across the board. And yes, it worked both ways and sometimes an NPC did get to have the triggering attack to start combat.

An example anecdote would be that the advisor to the king decided to murder the king at the ball. By the rules, I would of had to interrupt the party in the middle of the ball, ask for initiative for no reason (since nothing had happened yet that the party was aware of), roll initiative, win initiative and if I hadn't wait around for the advisor's turn to come up while the player's got even more confused, attack the king, and so on. VS with the houserule, the advisor kills the king out of nowhere, everyone is surprised, he runs off as people panic and the guards fumble to grab weapons and the encounter starts with the advisor running or whatever. I mean it's so much more fluid and immersive for everyone isn't it? feedback welcome of course.

You utterly failed to see ad hoc's point, which was that you're potentially allowing a character to get in three actions before the target gets in one. (1) your houserule free attack outside of initiative; (2) the attack in the first round while the target is still surprised; and (3) if the character one initiative, another attack prior to the target getting to act for the first time.

That's a bad houserule because it destroys the expected action economy of the game. If you don't believe it, follow ad_hoc's advice and do it to your players and see how much they like it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What you're describing is a completely different problem than the one this thread is talking about. If you have a player who would do this, it has nothing to do with how surprise, initiative, etc.. works. Maybe you didn't see that?

You should tell him that the benefits of his class involve him winning initiative.

That is what the power does.

Do you have the same conversation when the fighter misses with an attack?

The assassin failing to hit the heart because of any number of reasons is an extremely common trope. This isn't hard.

It is your job to set the expectations of the game ahead of time. In my game if a player wants to play an assassin I explain the class to them. I explain that it is a group game and while they will have opportunities to gain surprise it won't be every combat or even often. I explain that their power is quite good in that they wil often get advantage on their first attack which can help to turn the tide of battle. But I also explain that the other rogue archetypes are broader and to only take the assassin if they want that narrow specialty.

If you want to run a cloak and dagger game which is all about being sneaky and autokilling everything, and looking over their backs for the same, then go nuts. I think 5e is a poor rule system for that sort of game but you are free to do what you like. Just know what you are doing.

Assassinate is an initiative power. It has been clarified that it was intentionally designed that way. You misinterpreting it doesn't make the design bad.

I will reiterate: It is keyed off of winning initiative - Not on surprising. Surprising just changes the type of benefit you get when you win initiative because advantage would be redundant.

Is that clear now?

It's not clear to me, because, while I follow your argument about surprise ending after the first turn, that's not actually clear. I'll grant that your reading is consistent with the rules, but it's not the only available interpretation of them.

Further, that ruling leaves a very bad taste in my mouth because, despite your assertions otherwise, I do not think that a primary ability of a sub-class should be locked up behind three checks, one of which is very chancy (initiative) without specific and heavy investment (feats, items, etc.). It's not that powerful an ability to begin with (an auto-crit just isn't that big a deal, given it's a once a combat, only on surprise), and I think that anything that further cripples it, especially something as swingy as an initiative roll, is just bad for the game.

So, I've decided that surprise lasts until you act. One, that parallels the Assassin's other ability granted alongside assassinate that gives advantage until they've acted. Two, it allows an assassin that's done the work to close to the target unseen to get their namesake ability. Three, it's also consistent with the wording of the rules. Four, it still allows surprised persons to use an appropriate reaction, which fits narratively for me. Five, I'm just adding numbers, now.

As an aside, I'd also like to quibble with you about a monk being able to react to snatch an arrow flying at him. That ability requires the monk to be aware of the attack. I generally use that to mean aware of the attacker at the time of the attack, so, no, the monk wouldn't be able to react to the arrow shot from hiding. If you decide that the monk can perceive the arrow from an unknown and hidden attacker in flight and so can react to it, I shan't argue that point, but know that I disagree with you deeply. I'm not saying you should lose sleep over that, but you might be a bit restless. I can have that effect.

 

[Noctem]

Which you don't allow. That is the problem.



No it isn't. Characters don't preemptively roll for stealth on their arrow shots. They roll for stealth for sneaking.

The initiative roll represents their reflexes and whether they are able to react to a stimulus that they can perceive such as an arrow that is about to strike them.

This is super human stuff here. People can't catch arrows but Monks can. Don't take that away from them.

Which I don't allow what? I don't understand what you're saying.

I think you're attempting to create strawmen out of what I'm saying or you're mixing what multiple people are saying and arguing against this mixed argument like if we're all saying the same thing. Either way, this is confusing to read.

 

[Noctem]

This is the problem with creating houserules when you don't understand the standard rules.

The archetype feature is built around getting a bonus when you win initiative.

They get to use their ability in 2/3-3/4 of all combats or even more if combat with multiple creatures occur frequently.

The main part of their archetype feature is to gain advantage when they win initiative. Since they would already have advantage if they were attacking from hiding, if they win initiative and surprise the opponent they get a further benefit.

By misinterpreting the ability and creating houserules around it you are nerfing many other classes.

I think you should refrain from making ad hominem statements like claiming I don't know the rules. Try to tone down the aggression levels, you have no idea what you're talking about. Which classes exactly am I nerfing and how so, by allowing the triggering event to resolve first when an encounter starts?

 

[Noctem]

No, I'm pointing out that your houserule has serious issues. If you advocate for your houserule to be adopted outside of your table, then you can't also say 'but you can only do it if you have the right players.'




You utterly failed to see ad hoc's point, which was that you're potentially allowing a character to get in three actions before the target gets in one. (1) your houserule free attack outside of initiative; (2) the attack in the first round while the target is still surprised; and (3) if the character one initiative, another attack prior to the target getting to act for the first time.

That's a bad houserule because it destroys the expected action economy of the game. If you don't believe it, follow ad_hoc's advice and do it to your players and see how much they like it.

Well first, I didn't advocate or tell anyone to use my houserule. I explained the houserule I use to solve problems that our group perceived with the way the rules are currently working. Previous to the clarification from JC about when surprise ended, we also had a houserule about when surprise ended which lo and behold is the exact way JC said it should work. So kudos to us for understanding how things should work I suppose. Player buy in for houserules shouldn't be a surprising factor, I would expect most DM's to run houserules by the players before implementing them. That's just good DM'ing after all. And your previous example was a completely different problem because you presented a player who would immediately attack an NPC quest giver for no reason other than "I want to". That in of itself is a whole separate issue to the one we're discussing now. I hope you can see that.

My houserule specifically allows 1 attack outside of initiative if that is what triggers combat. The triggering attack is resolved, which then starts combat. Maybe you misunderstood that or I wasn't clear on that point. Second, the attack in the first round may or may not be against a surprised creature. Don't forget that winning initiative especially in encounters with multiple creatures is not a foregone conclusion. You don't just win initiative whenever you want after all. But yes, if the person who triggered combat also gets a high initiative they could potentially attack again. and third it is possible that the target gets to act again before the target gets a full turn, note though that what this really means is 1 (one) single attack more than what would have normally happened by the rules without my houserule. All I did was make sure that things were fluid during the start of the encounter. And it could also be that the triggering event ISN'T an attack but something else.

I'm sorry that you think that granting a single (1, one) attack somehow destroys the action economy of the entire game (zomg!) but since I've actually used the houserule in practice and since it's a houserule that I've used for a long time with multiple groups (I run games both in person and online) I really think that you both simply don't know what you're talking about.

Hopefully this explanation helps? But if it doesn't, it's ok! This is my houserule, you don't have to use it kiddo.

 

[abirdcall]

Further, that ruling leaves a very bad taste in my mouth because, despite your assertions otherwise, I do not think that a primary ability of a sub-class should be locked up behind three checks, one of which is very chancy (initiative) without specific and heavy investment (feats, items, etc.). It's not that powerful an ability to begin with (an auto-crit just isn't that big a deal, given it's a once a combat, only on surprise), and I think that anything that further cripples it, especially something as swingy as an initiative roll, is just bad for the game.

It's not 3 checks, it is 1 check, initiative.

The primary ability is to gain advantage when you win initiative. The auto-crit is not the main ability. It is something extra that they got because it wouldn't be fun to win initiative when surprising a foe and getting nothing out of it when you get something when you win initiative regularly.

The main part of the assassinate ability is to gain advantage on your attack when you win initiative.

 

[abirdcall]

My houserule specifically allows 1 attack outside of initiative if that is what triggers combat. The triggering attack is resolved, which then starts combat. Maybe you misunderstood that or I wasn't clear on that point.

No, we get it.

I'm sorry that you think that granting a single (1, one) attack somehow destroys the action economy of the entire game (zomg!) but since I've actually used the houserule in practice and since it's a houserule that I've used for a long time with multiple groups (I run games both in person and online) I really think that you both simply don't know what you're talking about.

Hopefully this explanation helps? But if it doesn't, it's ok! This is my houserule, you don't have to use it kiddo.

Yeah, I would never play in your game.

If you sprung that on me in the middle of a game I would walk out.

This scenario:

"While you are talking to the giants one of them has decided to attack. Bob, your mage gets hit with a boulder and takes 30 damage, you are unconscious. Okay everyone else roll initiative, let's fight."

Is completely unacceptable to me.

I find it completely bizzare that you find this fun.

 

[Ristamar]

You should tell him that the benefits of his class involve him winning initiative.

That is what the power does.

Do you have the same conversation when the fighter misses with an attack?

The assassin failing to hit the heart because of any number of reasons is an extremely common trope. This isn't hard.

It is your job to set the expectations of the game ahead of time. In my game if a player wants to play an assassin I explain the class to them. I explain that it is a group game and while they will have opportunities to gain surprise it won't be every combat or even often. I explain that their power is quite good in that they wil often get advantage on their first attack which can help to turn the tide of battle. But I also explain that the other rogue archetypes are broader and to only take the assassin if they want that narrow specialty.

If you want to run a cloak and dagger game which is all about being sneaky and autokilling everything, and looking over their backs for the same, then go nuts. I think 5e is a poor rule system for that sort of game but you are free to do what you like. Just know what you are doing.

Assassinate is an initiative power. It has been clarified that it was intentionally designed that way. You misinterpreting it doesn't make the design bad.

I will reiterate: It is keyed off of winning initiative - Not on surprising. Surprising just changes the type of benefit you get when you win initiative because advantage would be redundant.

Is that clear now?

You're acting like I'm confused about Assassinate. If you check the original Assassinate thread, I didn't misinterpret the ability or what it means to be surprised or when surprise ends. I even supported the merits of the rules, but it can result in some strange outcomes when always used RAW.

I'm merely stating two things:

1) Initiative, a Dexterity check, is a purely abstract construct used to provide an order of action in a turn-based combat system, so I suggest...
2) The Initiative check, just like any other ability check, can be adjudicated in special circumstances.

It find it strange that Initiative can infallibly carry the properties of a Wisdom check (i.e. perceiving stimulus) in respect to Assassinate and Death Blow by severely mitigating their efficacy. While we clearly don't agree on item #2, it doesn't mean I don't understand the rules, or that my Assassin PCs are constantly sneaking around and Assassinating in every encounter.

 

[Noctem]

No, we get it.



Yeah, I would never play in your game.

If you sprung that on me in the middle of a game I would walk out.

This scenario:

"While you are talking to the giants one of them has decided to attack. Bob, your mage gets hit with a boulder and takes 30 damage, you are unconscious. Okay everyone else roll initiative, let's fight."

Is completely unacceptable to me.

I find it completely bizzare that you find this fun.

Ok, I know you said you get it. But your posts just indicate the opposite...

I don't care that you would never play in my game. That's nice, I just really don't care lol.

I also specifically explained that all houserules are presented to the group and voted on. So I wouldn't be springing anything on anyone. See this brings me back to more reading less aggression.

And lastly, I think that since you're so unwilling to ask questions and just seem to be very happy with your knee jerk response (which is what your scenario also indicates) I don't see a way to have a discussion with you about the houserule at this point. So gl hf kiddo.

 

[abirdcall]

You're acting like I'm confused about Assassinate.

Yes I do because...

It find it strange that Initiative can infallibly carry the properties of a Wisdom check (i.e. perceiving stimulus) in respect to Assassinate and Death Blow by severely mitigating their efficacy.

If you are making your players make perception checks to identify that they are being shot with arrows then you a lot more problems in your game than I realized.


If you don't like the assassinate ability, then houserule the ability itself. Don't destroy the way surprise, initiative, and rounds work. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and causing complications with other class abilities. How about gaining advantage on initiative if you surprise your opponent instead of the auto-crit?