D&D 5E Surprise and Sneak Attack

[Swarmkeeper]

What @billd91 said

Also, this passage from the DMG (pg 236) (emphasis mine):

Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

So, no House Rule needed to adjudicate an automatic success for a PC insta-kill of an enemy in a situation where the DM deems it appropriate, @Maxperson. Not that there is anything wrong with House Rules. I've got several House Rules. But this is not one of them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree we can skip the whole combat part if there isn't a chance they'd live within the rules. If you have a commoner sleeping vs a Level 20 PC, no need to roll initiative. It's basically impossible for them to survive.

If we're talking about a sleeping ancient red dragon, they get their autocrits, their deadly strike damage if the dragon fails, their sneak attack. But they do not instantly kill the ancient dragon.

I think this is fair.

Agreed.

 

[Charlaquin]

The uncertainty rule is for ability checks, not combat. It appears nowhere in the combat section, but does appear in the ability check section. If you want to apply it to combat, you have to engage a house rule(rule 0).

It appears in the how to play section of the PHB as quoted earlier, and in the The Role of the Dice section of the DMG.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To further the plot, from the Combat section:

Actions in Combat

When you take your action on Your Turn, you can take one of the Actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a Special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many Monsters have Action Options of their own in their stat blocks.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the GM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

I mean... wut?

 

[Asisreo]

To further the plot, from the Combat section:

Roll20

I mean... wut?

Well, it's easy to argue that attacking someone is specifically the Attack option which is an action described elsewhere in the rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, it's easy to argue that attacking someone is specifically the Attack option which is an action described elsewhere in the rules.

It's also super easy to argue that it's the GM's call. And, I would normally agree with you. Sometimes, though, it's not.

 

[Maxperson]

It appears in the how to play section of the PHB as quoted earlier, and in the The Role of the Dice section of the DMG.

That how to play section is just a general overview of game play. It's not hard rules on how to play. The Role of the Dice section says this...

"Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful."

By likening the dice to rules and saying that they're just tools, they are reiterating rule 0 and saying that like rules, you can just ignore them and make your own decision. i.e. a house rule.

When a player declares an action like climbing a wall or attacking a goblin, he can and should be able to expect that the DM will be following the rules for ability checks and combat when he adjudicates and narrates the result in the vast majority of circumstances. The rest of the time, the DM is using rule 0 to change things, which is fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

That how to play section is just a general overview of game play. It's not hard rules on how to play. The Role of the Dice section says this...

"Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful."

By likening the dice to rules and saying that they're just tools, they are reiterating rule 0 and saying that like rules, you can just ignore them and make your own decision. i.e. a house rule.

When a player declares an action like climbing a wall or attacking a goblin, he can and should be able to expect that the DM will be following the rules for ability checks and combat when he adjudicates and narrates the result in the vast majority of circumstances. The rest of the time, the DM is using rule 0 to change things, which is fine.

The line you draw between which parts of the rule book are rules and which parts are “general guidelines” or “reiterating rule 0” is completely arbitrary and seems to be based on nothing more than whether or not you personally wish to observe them.

 

[Maxperson]

The line you draw between which parts of the rule book are rules and which parts are “general guidelines” or “reiterating rule 0” is completely arbitrary and seems to be based on nothing more than whether or not you personally wish to observe them.

Nothing is arbitrary about it. It's entirely based on reason, whether you agree with that reason or not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nothing is arbitrary about it. It's entirely based on reason, whether you agree with that reason or not.

What reason would that be?