The surprise round and you

[Flamestrike]

If an Assassin is able to successfully line up a shot against an unsuspecting common guard, why do you need to roll anything at that point? Is the situation that uncertain, or would the corpse at the gate now be a larger issue to be roleplayed?

Precedent mainly. It'd suck pulling that on a PC. That and its not a freeform rpg. There are rules for this kind of thing.

 

[Ristamar]

My point is, that both players and GMs in a game need to think "Are we OK if the antagonists can use this really powerful thing, as well as the protagonsits?" before applying such rules.

In my experience, players who suggest things like this are the loudest and quickest to complain when the GM uses the same rules against them.

So, whenver a player suggests a rule change like this, I make sure to explicitly ask them 'Are you OK when this happens to your character?"

The rules aren't symmetrical for PCs versus the rest of the world. I don't hear any players complaining that they don't have Legendary Actions/Resistance, nor do I hear them campaigning for the Veteran to get Second Wind or Action Surge.

 

[Agamon]

The rules aren't symmetrical for PCs versus the rest of the world. I don't hear any players complaining that they don't have Legendary Actions/Resistance, nor do I hear them campaigning for the Veteran to get Second Wind or Action Surge.

The general rules apply to all aspects of the game. Attack rolls, initiative, saving throws, etc. Exceptional rules, such those listed in a monster entry or under a class description obviously only apply to that exception. That would be why you don't hear these complaints.

 

[Ristamar]

The general rules apply to all aspects of the game. Attack rolls, initiative, saving throws, etc. Exceptional rules, such those listed in a monster entry or under a class description obviously only apply to that exception. That would be why you don't hear these complaints.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment, so far as to say it undermines the value of an experienced DM's prudence to bend the system to his/her needs for the sake of maintaining a foolish consistency.

That being said, I concur with [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]'s assessment for most encounters, though I can see why someone may break away from that methodology in certain edge cases.

 

[Agamon]

I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment, so far as to say it undermines the value of an experienced DM's prudence to bend the system to his/her needs for the sake of maintaining a foolish consistency.

Consistency is hardly foolish. Players need to know what the rules are to make any useful decisions in the game. Of course, if changes are announced ahead of time as house rules, that's fine.

But while house rules are fine, my assertion is going to be most people's experiences, as that is what is printed in the book.

 

[Ristamar]

Consistency is hardly foolish. Players need to know what the rules are to make any useful decisions in the game. Of course, if changes are announced ahead of time as house rules, that's fine.

But while house rules are fine, my assertion is going to be most people's experiences, as that is what is printed in the book.

I didn't state that all consistency was foolish, merely that being consistent only for the sake of being consistent can be foolish.

House rules are great for the expected annoyances and trouble spots that arise, but I don't believe a DM needs to have pre-ruled on every possible scenario before the game even begins in order for players to make informed decisions.

 

[Agamon]

House rules are great for the expected annoyances and trouble spots that arise, but I don't believe a DM needs to have pre-ruled on every possible scenario before the game even begins in order for players to make informed decisions.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I'm all for rulings for edge cases, but changing fundamental rules on the fly goes past my personal boundaries as a DM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Precedent mainly. It'd suck pulling that on a PC.

Well, then the PC oughta have thought better of who he pissed off to warrant getting an assassins' contract put out on his head then.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If an Assassin is able to successfully line up a shot against an unsuspecting common guard, why do you need to roll anything at that point? Is the situation that uncertain, or would the corpse at the gate now be a larger issue to be roleplayed?

If an Assassin Rogue is able to successfully line up a shot against an unsuspecting player character, do you need to roll anything in that situation?

 

[Quickleaf]

initiative is rolled when sometimes happens that tells everyone that a fight is just about to occur.

In this case the "something" is the crossbow bolt hitting (or maybe careening off a piece of armor) the guard in the back.

[MENTION=6804906]Fleetwood C. DeVille[/MENTION] This is my reading of the rules too.

According to the rules (PHB p. 189), initiative is rolled "when combat starts". If there's any ambiguity about whether combat is starting it's up to the DM to determine. In your example with the assassin sniping, it makes sense that the sniping attack is the precipitating event prior to combat starting.

Afterall, the PHB makes it clear that combat is "a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting." The key thing that I read is that combat is about two sides taking action. Your scenario is one-sided because none of the enemies are even aware of the attacker.

IF the guard had nearby allies who noticed the assassin, then rolling for initiative would make sense because it's clear that combat (in the sense of two sides taking action against each other) is starting.