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.

 

[Flamestrike]

All I'm saying is that no where in the rules does it say you can't have an attack outside of initiative.

Yes dude, it does. The entire combat chapter tells you how to resolve attacks. You do so by:

• Determining surprise
• Rolling intiative
• Taking turns in that order
• Rolling to hit
• Rolling damage

Thats how you resolve attacks.

When an attack is declared (when combat starts) the game switches from narrative time to the more tightly structured turn by turn/ round by round combat sequence.

If you declare a hostile act against someone you are initiating combat. There is a chapter devoted to what happens next. Determine surprise, roll initiative etc.

Therefore, if DM wants, he can do it.

Mate, a DM can do whatever he wants to. He can rule a natural 20 auto kills a monster if he wants to. The rules for rolling a natural 20 dont expressly say that natural 20's dont auto kill.

For mine, the rules do tell me what happens when you roll a 20 on an attack roll, just like the rules also tell me what to do when hostilities break out and someone (PC or monster) declares they are attacking. They tell me to get everyone to roll initiative. Then determine surprise. Then take turns in order.

For what it's worth, it would be the very odd exception for there to be an attack outside of initiative in my game, but I can see how another DM could do it differently and that there's no rule reason why they couldn't. I get that you really, really want to be right, here, but you should step back and acknowledge that there's enough slop that someone might just be able to do it differently.

Again, you can do it however you want to. You can run it that the first person at your table to scream 'I ATTACK! gets a free attack in before rolling initiative if you want to. Youre the DM. According to the rules though, all that happens here is hostilities start, initiative is rolled, surprise determined, and actions taken in order.

Whats tripping you up is you're missing the narrative abstraction side of combat. When someone declares they are attacking (triggering an initiative test) all that happens is they start to attack (drawing a weapon, charging the PC's, starting to swing an axe, taking aim with a crossbow, starting to chant a spell or whatever). Everyone then gets an initiative/ dexterity test to determine if they get to react in time to that trigger.

Even hidden creatures can give away their presence (the twang of the bow etc).

Example:

Four PCs (Cleric, Monk, Wizard and Ranger) are walking down a forest trail. Hidden in the bushes ahead are 4 Bandits armed with bows. The DM secretly rolls a Stealth check for the bandits, opposed by the PC's passive perception and beats all the scores barring the Clerics. The DM determines that the Cleric (who is at the rear of the party) would probably not have enough time to warn the other PC's and the party stumble into the ambush.

The DM decides the Bandits will fire bows from hiding at the PC's. He states: 'As you walk along the forest trail, you suddenly hear the twang of bows being released from off the sides of the trail, and a hail of arrows scream towards you. You are all surprised aside from the Cleric. Everyone roll initiative.' (DM also pulls the Cleric player aside and tells him: 'You just managed to notice about four humaniods off in the bushes about 30' away on the left side of the trail').

The initiative results are:

Ranger 20
Wizard 15
Bandits 10
Monk 5
Cleric 4

Turn 1:

The Ranger goes first but is surprised and cannot act. Same deal with the Wizard. They stand there like grinning idiots as the arrows fly towards them in mid air.

Now its the bandits turn, and they resolve their attacks (with advantage against all PC's barring the Cleric thanks to being hidden). The Ranger gets hit and takes damage. The Wizard also gets hit, but he uses his reaction to cast Shield at the last second (shield does not require you to see the attack, and the Wizard is no longer surprised). The Monk gets hit also; in fact its a critical hit!. He declares he wants to use his deflect missiles ability, however the DM tells him he cannot becuase he unlike the wizard and the ranger, he is still surprised and has yet to act (so he still can not take reactions). He rolled so poorly on his dexterity (initiative) check that he cant react in time to the hail of arrows headed his way.

Fianlly, the arrow directed at the cleric missed.

Now its the Monks turn; he cant act, but can now take reactions normally.

Finally on turn 1 goes the Cleric. He shouts out 'Contact left, four bandits 30 feet out!' and moves to the Monk casting cure lwounds on him.

End of turn 1.

See how its supposed to work? All that attacking from hiding does is start the combat sequence (roll initiative, determine surprise, take turns in order). The DM in this instance narrated the abstration of combat as 'You hear the twang of bows and arrows take flight' before telling the Players to roll initiative. The players know why they are rolling initiative. They know why combat has started. The cleric even knows (as he saw the hidden bandits at the last second) how many enemies there are, where they are, and what they are doing.

 

[Flamestrike]

Trivially easy. English is an imprecise language. The definition of combat does not encompass all hostile acts.

In DnD, yes it does. You can rule otherwise, but by definition, hostilities in DnD occur within the combat round procedure.

For instance, if someone is assassinated from a distant rooftop with a long range rifle, no one is said to have been in 'combat.'

Within the rules language of DnD they are.

Declaring the attack stops narratve time and starts combat. Initiative is rolled. Surprise determined (very likely in this instance). Then the attack is resolved in turn order, with a surprised target missing turn 1.

If the surprised creature is fast enough, he catches the glint of the scope out of the corner of his eye, gets a bad feeling, luckily ducks at the last minute, or however else you want to narrate it. He still cant move or take an action, but he might be able to do something against the shot by using his reaction (like cast shield). After a turn of doing nothing, he then gets shot in the face.

If the assasin acts first, he shoots the victim in the face. Not only cant the victim take actions, but he cant take any reactions either. Also; thanks to our sniper being a 3rd level assassin, the shot is also an automatic critical hit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes dude, it does. The entire combat chapter tells you how to resolve attacks. You do so by:

• Determining surprise
• Rolling intiative
• Taking turns in that order
• Rolling to hit
• Rolling damage

Thats how you resolve attacks.

When an attack is declared (when combat starts) the game switches from narrative time to the more tightly structured turn by turn/ round by round combat sequence.

If you declare a hostile act against someone you are initiating combat. There is a chapter devoted to what happens next. Determine surprise, roll initiative etc.

Sure. Show me where it says that attacks can only happen in combat, though. I see where it says that they usually do, and that makes sense, but anything else is you promoting your interpretation as the rules. I actually agree with you -- I run with your interpretation of combat -- but I can see where there's room for other things.

For instance, if a character trips off a hidden crossbow trap, do you roll initiative before resolving the trap's attack? I don't.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In DnD, yes it does. You can rule otherwise, but by definition, hostilities in DnD occur within the combat round procedure.

Within the rules language of DnD they are.

Declaring the attack stops narratve time and starts combat. Initiative is rolled. Surprise determined (very likely in this instance). Then the attack is resolved in turn order, with a surprised target missing turn 1.

If the surprised creature is fast enough, he catches the glint of the scope out of the corner of his eye, gets a bad feeling, luckily ducks at the last minute, or however else you want to narrate it. He still cant move or take an action, but he might be able to do something against the shot by using his reaction (like cast shield). After a turn of doing nothing, he then gets shot in the face.

If the assasin acts first, he shoots the victim in the face. Not only cant the victim take actions, but he cant take any reactions either. Also; thanks to our sniper being a 3rd level assassin, the shot is also an automatic critical hit.

Again, trap attacks usually aren't resolved in the combat round procedure. So, if that's so, what's the functional difference between a hidden crossbow trap that gets triggered and an assassin's strike from hiding?

Personally, the only difference to me is the game element I'm modelling. An assassin's strike probably will include the character's reacting inside a combat scenario. A trap just does it's thing and everyone moves on -- no need for rigid narrative control of combat. But, still, the example of the trap clearly indicates that attacks and hostile actions can easily occur outside of the bounds of combat and initiative. It's just a matter of DM preference as to where to draw the line -- you're on the extremely tight end (as am I, generally), but others might be a bit looser. The rules support both.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sure. Show me where it says that attacks can only happen in combat, though.

Show me where it says fighters dont get the spellcasting class feature, or that natural 20's in combat dont automatically kill what they hit.

Attacks are resolved in initiative order, during your turn in combat. Its right there in the combat section of the rule book.

I reject your argument that becuase it doesnt expressly say that you cant make attacks outside of the combat sequence means you can.

It doesnt expressly say that rolling a '7' on a D20 doesnt grant you 50 immediate points of XP either. When I look at what does give you XP, there are very clear rules on how to award it. I suppose I can award XP for anything (a player that makes me a tasty coffee for example) seeing as it doesnt say I cant.

I see where it says that they usually do, and that makes sense, but anything else is you promoting your interpretation as the rules. I actually agree with you -- I run with your interpretation of combat -- but I can see where there's room for other things

Im not arguing that you cant as DM rule however you want to. I am saying that the rules are pretty clear that attacks (even ones from hidden enemies that also surprise you) are clearly intended to occur within the combat/ initiative/ turn based sequence.

There might be some exreme outlier that a DM could rule sits outside of the rules. But thats what the DM is for.

For instance, if a character trips off a hidden crossbow trap, do you roll initiative before resolving the trap's attack? I don't.

In 3E you did. Rogues got a bonus to initiative v traps from memory. 5E is less clear. It looks like traps dont get initiative and thus dont count. Seeing as they are not creatures, and arent using the rules for combat, they also cant surprise you, (meaning Monks can always deflect crossbow traps, and Mages can always use sheild against them).

Those class features are probably balanced around that fact.

 

[Flamestrike]

Again, trap attacks usually aren't resolved in the combat round procedure. So, if that's so, what's the functional difference between a hidden crossbow trap that gets triggered and an assassin's strike from hiding?

The rules.

Personally, the only difference to me is the game element I'm modelling. An assassin's strike probably will include the character's reacting inside a combat scenario. A trap just does it's thing and everyone moves on -- no need for rigid narrative control of combat. But, still, the example of the trap clearly indicates that attacks and hostile actions can easily occur outside of the bounds of combat and initiative. It's just a matter of DM preference as to where to draw the line -- you're on the extremely tight end (as am I, generally), but others might be a bit looser. The rules support both.

No, they dont. The rules for traps are different to the rules for combat. While the disticntion might seem artifical, its there for a reason (speed of play most likely) and is balanced around that assumption (with the interplay with other rules).

For example, we all looked at the assasin ability at first and were like 'wow'. The devs have been very clear that the 'wow' factor is balanced by a few limiting (rule) factors on getting the ability off successfully. Ignoring those limititing factors unbalances the ability.

Thats a more gamist approach than a simulationist one, but once you really get with the fact that the rules are an abstraction you're OK.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Show me where it says fighters dont get the spellcasting class feature, or that natural 20's in combat dont automatically kill what they hit.

It doesn't, and you're starting to catch on.

Attacks are resolved in initiative order, during your turn in combat. Its right there in the combat section of the rule book.

Yup, after you roll initiative, that's right. Doesn't say you have to roll initiative in order to resolve an attack, though. That's you reading in.

I reject your argument that becuase it doesnt expressly say that you cant make attacks outside of the combat sequence means you can.

The rules don't say lots of things that still happen. They provide a framework for the most common events that occur, to use to adjudicate those common events and to use as a guide to adjudicate uncommon ones. They are not comprehensive and proscriptive, but guidelines. DMs have the leeway to adjudicate situations not covered by the rules, or covered imperfectly. The rules, in this case, describe the common event of running combats under initiative. That doesn't mean that, since this was described, you must shoehorn all similar events into those constraints. If it makes sense to have an attack outside of initiative, then that's what's called for and the rules, again being neither comprehensive or proscriptive, allow for such rulings.

It doesnt expressly say that rolling a '7' on a D20 doesnt grant you 50 immediate points of XP either. When I look at what does give you XP, there are very clear rules on how to award it. I suppose I can award XP for anything (a player that makes me a tasty coffee for example) seeing as it doesnt say I cant.

Oh, you are starting to catch on!

Im not arguing that you cant as DM rule however you want to. I am saying that the rules are pretty clear that attacks (even ones from hidden enemies that also surprise you) are clearly intended to occur within the combat/ initiative/ turn based sequence.

i disagree, mostly because there's considerable general confusion on this matter and a number of people that think that such a ruling is detrimental to their games.

There might be some exreme outlier that a DM could rule sits outside of the rules. But thats what the DM is for.

I disagree that the DM is only there for extreme outliers and must, in all other cases, shoehorn all events into the narrow constraints of the rules. Rather, I think the DM is there to use the rules as guidelines to adjudicate player actions. The only real rule of DMing is to remain consistent in those adjudications.

In 3E you did. Rogues got a bonus to initiative v traps from memory. 5E is less clear. It looks like traps dont get initiative and thus dont count. Seeing as they are not creatures, and arent using the rules for combat, they also cant surprise you, (meaning Monks can always deflect crossbow traps, and Mages can always use sheild against them).

Rogues did not gain such a bonus in 3.x. Traps didn't roll initiative (usually) in that system either. So there is a long standing, common exception to 'all attacks occur within combat and therefore initiative [ed. paraphrasing here].' As for surprise, the DM determines when characters are surprised. That's the rule. Some rules are provided to help adjudicate surprise consistently if you roll initiative, but nothing there states that you can only be surprised if you also roll initiative. That's the most common case, granted, but if your reading of the rules extends to the ludicrous point that no one can ever be surprised by an unknown and unseen trap going off, you're now in the arena of breaking trope.

Those class features are probably balanced around that fact.

I sincerely doubt it. Especially since those abilities don't say anything about 'surprise' but instead have wording along the lines of 'attack you are aware of.' Hard to say that you could be aware of an unseen and undetected trap going off, neh?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rules./

Really? I missed that section. What page?

No, they dont. The rules for traps are different to the rules for combat. While the disticntion might seem artifical, its there for a reason (speed of play most likely) and is balanced around that assumption (with the interplay with other rules).

They are different? How so? They use all of the same mechanics -- attack bonuses, AC, hitpoints, save DCs, saving throws, etc. What leads you to say that they use different rules?

For example, we all looked at the assasin ability at first and were like 'wow'. The devs have been very clear that the 'wow' factor is balanced by a few limiting (rule) factors on getting the ability off successfully. Ignoring those limititing factors unbalances the ability.

Yes, the gatekeeping there is having to surprise your foe, which isn't a given and is often difficult. So both interpretations gatekeep that ability, although your chosen path makes it even more difficult.

Also, there's the very fair point that it's not that great of an ability to begin with -- generally on par with a Paladin's ability to decide to smite after rolling a crit. So there's no need to gatekeep it so heavily that it's even more rarely useful.

Thats a more gamist approach than a simulationist one, but once you really get with the fact that the rules are an abstraction you're OK.

At which point did you confuse me for a gamist or a simulationist? Aside from the fact that I find those distinctions to be, at best, marginally useful, my arguments aren't really one or the other (which is why I find such distinctions to be useless except in the extremes of example).

 

[Flamestrike]

They are different? How so? They use all of the same mechanics -- attack bonuses, AC, hitpoints, save DCs, saving throws, etc. What leads you to say that they use different rules?

The rules do. Traos dont act in initiative order, only creatures do.

They share similarities, but are not the same thing, nor are they resolved the same way.

Yes, the gatekeeping there is having to surprise your foe, which isn't a given and is often difficult. So both interpretations gatekeep that ability, although your chosen path makes it even more difficult.

Its just not 'my chosen path'. Its both the RAW and RAI of the abilitiy as stated clearly by the devs.

Also, there's the very fair point that it's not that great of an ability to begin with -- generally on par with a Paladin's ability to decide to smite after rolling a crit. So there's no need to gatekeep it so heavily that it's even more rarely useful.

That ability (smite) is balanced by the Paladin needing to roll a 20 to hit first if you want it on a crit. It already has its own gatekeeping (the long rest resource expenditure of a spell slot, a succesfull attack roll, damage of a particular type)

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rules do. Traos dont act in initiative order, only creatures do.

They share similarities, but are not the same thing, nor are they resolved the same way.

Pretty sure the attack of a trap is resolved exactly as the attack of a creature during combat.

Its just not 'my chosen path'. Its both the RAW and RAI of the abilitiy as stated clearly by the devs.

And you've chosen to follow them. They're not proscriptive, you know.

That ability (smite) is balanced by the Paladin needing to roll a 20 to hit first if you want it on a crit. It already has its own gatekeeping (the long rest resource expenditure of a spell slot, a succesfull attack roll, damage of a particular type)

I didn't say it was exactly the same, but roughly equivalent in power.