AndrewJO wrote:
in that situation i would use deception vs insight to determine surprise.
AndrewJO wrote:
Kentus wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
This is tricky...
I agree with Lawrencehoy that there is no allowance in the rules for attacking outside of combat. Thus technically you would need to roll initiative before the monk attacked (or before the stealthed rogue attacked from above, or whatever). Noctaem even quoted the rules, you determine surprise, establish positions, roll initiative.... just left out the part that next you can actually attack. There is no provision for attacking *before* that all happens.
BUT...... I think that creates a bunch of....well....stupid scenarios. It makes *much* more sense in my mind to run it similar to how Noctaem describes. The attackers have a chance to get in the 'opening' shot. That will depend on their deception or stealth capability. In the above scenario, I would require the Monk pass a deception check to get in that shot, he has to fool the bad guys into believing he is no threat. (There are situations which would give advantage/disadvantage or even auto success/autofail to that check)
Same for the archer hiding in the trees, would need to be successful at hiding...which may or may not require a roll.
Anyway, the idea is the attackers have a chance of getting off a single opening shot, then everyone rolls for initiative and go from there. DM determines surprise as warranted.
I would run it this way in AL games. The current RAW just leads to some silly situations otherwise.
The other issue Lawrencehoy and Noctaem are having is just semantics.
Everyone rolls initiative. During the first round a Surprised Bandit does get a 'turn', but can't actually do anything. If you are an assassin, you would get the crit if you go before their init step, and advantage before or after.
Your other issue is spotlight. You should be able to fire the 'opening shot' sometimes, and let the Monk react. *especially* if you are an assassin or have Sharpshooter.
AndrewJO wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
There is no surprise round in 5e. That's a relic of previous editions. Everyone rolls initiative. Everyone goes by initiative order. If you are deemed surprised, all that happens is that you don't get to move or act before the end of your first turn. At which point you can take a reaction because you are no longer considered surprised. You should read pages 177 and 189 of the PHB for the rules we're discussing because you don't seem to know them.
"All except one person surprised" doesn't really happen, because only one side can be surprised. Even if the one character is the one who surprises the enemies, the rest of the group can still move on round 1.
I also agree that you can't attack without initializing combat.
Plus, can you really surprise an enemy when you are standing right in front of him? I would rule no. The rules are pretty clear to me, only if all group members are not noticed (successful stealth check against passive perception), you will even get to surprise anyone. That even goes for characters hiding in the trees. If they can see the enemy the enemy also has a chance to notice them.
So in the situation above, the moment the Monk says he wants to attack, I'd roll initiative for all and then combat starts normally, no surprise for anyone. If the wizard and ranger decided to hide, they'd roll stealth before combat and go into hidden status if the result is higher than all enemy's passive perception. So at start of combat they would be hidden, which gives them advantage if they attack and if the enemies go first, they most likely wouldn't attack them (they could guess their position and attack at disadvantage or use Perception to see if there are more enemies around, though).
Rya.Reisender wrote:
it's not about someone being an opponent. The text actually says "Any character or creature that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter". The monk is not a threat, with a deception roll potentially called for, until he attacks. The bandits may or may not notice the deception in play. Until he makes his attack, there's no reason to start an encounter. Once the encounter starts, the initiative order determines who goes first.
There's a surprising amount of houseruling and/or misinformation being claimed as rules text in this thread to be honest...
The reason why I personally wouldn't allow it is because, when the Monk starts to move his fist, the enemy will realize something is wrong and get a chance to counter. Whether the Monk or the enemy gets to hit first within the first 6 seconds time frame is already determined by initiative.
It's completely different from real surprise where you basically hit the enemy before he even knows you are there.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
@Noctaem
In this case, you are the one who is not according to the rules, though.
The rules clearly state: "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other."
The Monk doesn't try to be stealthy, so he is noticed, so surprise becomes impossible.
The sentence you quoted is part of the same paragraph and refers to what was written before it. The monk is a threat, even if the enemy's don't know that yet.
Noctaem wrote:
Surprise is used in situations where one side has gone completely unnoticed before springing their attack. It's not used in situations where someone initiates combat with a cheap shot (whether or not the poor sucker taking one to the face was "unaware" that he was about to get punked).
A creature loses the ability to surprise once its presence is known.
If the party in AndrewJO's scenario wanted to gain the benefits of surprise, the ranger and wizard should have mounted the attack in the midst of the monk's conversation with the bandits (since the bandits were unaware of their presence).
Rya.Reisender wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
jaelis wrote:
You could, as one DM I know, make several initiative rolls at the start of a session. He writes them on an index card he keeps for each character. It makes the strangeness some have moot. I don't do this. I just do like the OP's DM did and pretend there is a surprise round, even if there isn't. In most situations, the end result is the same.
If I actually did it by the rules I'd do it Noctaem's way as modified by lawrencehoy. Except there'd be a possibility of me not even requiring a deception check from the Monk depending on how well he is roleplaying.
The monk is only recognized as a threat if he fails a deception check vs insight since he's acting like an old man.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Sent to Jeremy via Twitter:
@JeremyECrawford Unanticipated sucker punch from visible creature calls for initiative. Is target 'surprised' in combat terms?
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It seems one of the two examples for surprise in the PHB actually disagrees with those who insist that the monk can't attack first before the encounter begins proper. The gelatinous cube in the example gets to engulf an adventurer, make his attack and resolve it completely, which then prompts surprise. So the Monk in the original example can in fact make his attack which prompts surprise.
I have no idea what you mean by saying my ruling doesn't allow for someone not to be surprised. You have no basis to make that statement in general and I've clearly explained how someone could not be surprised in previous posts for the original scenario with the monk. Seems completely baseless.
I could correct you on some of the other things you've said but that would just be me re-stating the same thing again and I don't see the value.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
So a Charisma Assassin that is built for Sleight of Hand assassination can't assassinate anyone out in the open, then play it off like they're just as shocked as everyone else?
A Femme Fatale Assassin can't do her work while... doing what she does?
I don't want to live in a world where those things can't happen.
Found this:
The Sage Advice wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
"The one true way of RAW" is simply this: "1. Determine surprise. The DM determines wheather anyone involved in the combat encounter is surprised." End of story.
You can split hairs and talk semantics till you're dead, but it doesn't change anything.
If the DM says the bandits don't notice the Monk as a threat, then he's not a threat. The fact that they can see him is irrelevant.
The book can't possibly be written to take every scenario into account. Stop screaming RAW, when the RAW is stated countless times as: "The DM makes the call."
Danny_Montanny wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
I think real world analogies are particularly hard for initiative issues. Since the real world isn't turn-based.
<3
Edit: Lucas and Jaelis said it better.
I liked it better when there were separate rolls for surprise.
You are taking the "doesn't notice a threat" completely out of context, though. Why not read the whole paragraph about surprise? The first requirement for surprise is that a side tries to be stealthy. If that requirement is not met, there is NO surprise, no matter what else happens. The "notice a threat" part belongs to the explanation how to be stealthy, has nothing to do with any other situation. It's not a separate paragraph, it's not an alternative possibility, it's simply an explanation how the DM has to handle it if a side tries to be stealthy.
Also why even discuss about what "notice a threat" means? There is a whole section written down in the basic rules (p.65)! It clearly states you notice a thread with passive perception. Nothing to do with deceive vs insight.
Going by RAW, surprise is only when the whole group tries to be stealthy and there are enemies that don't notice ANY of the group. A single person of the group being visible, even when deceiving the enemy makes surprise impossible (for both sides). 0% surprise chance. Nothing else is possible by RAW and no, the DM doesn't have the power to interpret that differently. The DM has to abide by the "If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other" part. The opening sentence "The DM determines who might be surprised" for the paragraph simple means that the DM does the checks according to the rules to determine surprise. It doesn't mean he can freely decide it.
Both cases discussed here are not RAW:
"Monk is the only one who can act the first round" -> completely impossible, even if the enemies were surprised, the wizard and the ranger could act on round 1. The rules don't support a situation where a single person gets a first attack in before even initiative is rolled.
"Enemies can be surprised because Monk deceived them" -> also not RAW, because the Monk didn't try to be stealthy, nullifying the main requirement for surprise.
So the only thing you can do as DM who wants to stay true to RAW is giving advantage. If the Monk for example rolls higher initiative than the enemy he attacks, the DM can decide that the Monk gets to roll advantage. This would be RAW. But surprise condition would never be RAW in this situation.
That doesn't mean you can't houserule for that, but please don't pretend you are playing by RAW when you are just not reading the rules correctly.
'Being stealthy' is not limited to 'use the stealth skill'.
'Stealth', used in military terms (and we are), is about not being noticed as a threat. Being invisible is certainly one way, but being camoflaged is another.
In the above case, the monk is 'camoflaged' as a harmless old man.
What's happening in this thread is that some people are deliberately viewing the rules in a skewed way and then saying the rules don't work like real life. But if you view the rules in a non-skewed way, then the rules simulate reality here pretty well.
Perception versus Stealth is only one way. Insight versus Bluff or Disguise is another.
As it should, these situations call for checks to determine if anyone is surprised.
Hmm, interesting interpretation of stealthy. I should go ask people not related to D&D if someone is considered "stealthy" when he is clearly visible but disguised. I'm curious what the common people think about that.
AndrewJO wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
1st thing I disliked about this edition is initative rolling at the start of "surprise round" and removal of mentioned.
And removal of delay action.
IMO, monk should roll deception check vs. passive insight. He would roll normal or with advantage/disadvantage depending on bandits mindset. Being as they are jut common thughs, I would give mong advantage on the roll.
As for initative per RAW it is rolled when first action is taken i combat.
I would rule it that it it rolled after all surprise attack are made and all parties involved are now aware of each other.
Rolling after surprise prevents meta-gaming from attackers. because after low roll you might decide to back of for reinforcements but after good roll you will try to stay for the kill.
It's better and more dramatic to roll after all surprise attacks.
As for monks friend the should delay their action(3,5E rules) or simply ready an action in response to monks attack and all would get the surprise. If they are hidden well enough OFC.
Horwath wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
Horwath wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Horwath wrote:
It looks like the Monk in the party found a way to trick the DM into giving him a free attack before combat started and is trying to exploit it over and over. It realy has nothing to do with suprise since he's just taking his free hit outside of initative.
I like the idea of what he is doing from a dramatic angle, but after a few times it's just exploiting. As a DM I would probably allow deception instead of stealth when determining suprise, but I don't see anything in the rules that supports that.
The DM should just do the same thing to him a few times until he gets the idea. Have a bandit walking down the road pretending to be an old man and then if he passes his deception check he could draw a sword, scream something, and then run 30 feet to stab at the monk. Then they can roll for initiative. After that he may not think that a deception roll is all it should take to get a free attack.
Another thing that bothered me is that these are bandits seeing an old man by himself. Instead of just ignoring him, why are they not robbing him or at least acting menacing?
Horwath wrote:
Yup, you can do reactions after your turn has passed on the first round when surprised. WotC already confirmed that.
Nobody talked about actions.
Plus initiative still matters even if we ignore that, because it makes the difference between the enemy acting two times in row or not. Surprised, but higher initiative is not very different from not surprised and lower initiative.
Another thing that bothered me is that these are bandits seeing an old man by himself. Instead of just ignoring him, why are they not robbing him or at least acting menacing?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
The player has his monk interact with the bandits, with the intention of getting them to believe that he is a harmless old man. When he believes he has been successful in his deception, he wants to launch a surprise attack.
Nothing wrong with any of that, but how does the DM adjudicate all that?
First, the deception. Has the monk made any attempt to look like an old man? Have the bandits heard the latest news about groups of their fellow bandidos being sucker punched by old men?
Have the monk roll Deception. This could be with either advantage or disadvantage. The monk knows how well he rolled.
This roll is against either the passive Insight of the bandits, or the active Insight of any bandit who has a reason to be especiallly wary (because of rumours about backstabby coffin dodgers or whatever), and this active Insight check may even be made with advantage. The monk would not know the result of any Insight check!
It's even possible that the monk asks the DM if he's fooled the bandits. Monk's Insight versus bandit's Deception, advantage/disadvantage, the usual.
If the monk feels happy enough to execute the sucker punch/sucker karate chop to the spleen, roll initiative. The monk knows his own initiative score, but does not know the scores rolled by the bandits.
DM counts down the initiative. If he gets to the monk first, the monk has his full turn. Any bandit who is not surprised (established by the skill rolls already taken) is able to take a reaction, assuming that they even have a reaction that they can take in the circumstances. Any bandit who is surprised may not take any reaction.
If a bandit goes first, if the bandit is not surprised then he gets a full turn, with the knowledge that he's seen the monk about to attack! This is like, 'Watch out! He's going for his gun!' and shooting him before his gun clears the holster. Good for him. He beat the monk with those surprise rolls AND beat him on initiative!
If the bandit is surprised, then nothing happens on his turn, but that bandit can now take reactions. If he has any useful reactions to take.
Continue the combat as normal, with surprise having the normal effect as I've just described.
In all likelihood, the monk will sucker chop a bandit successfully, because even if a bandit reacts faster, he won't be able to do anything until after the monk attacks. Only if the bandits have some reason to suspect the monk will the balance tip the other way, and isn't that how it should be?
When a baddy tries the same trick on the players, go through the same process. The players may ask for active insight rolls; if they do, they get them. If they don't, use their passive score. If they fail to spot the baddy and roll worse initiative than the baddy, at least they can't complain that you're being unfair in the way you adjudicated it.
Well, they can, but they won't be justified in complaining. : )
Removing "sucker punches" or other social surprises from the game would be a big mistake, for the reasons Danny_Montanny states. They're a big in fiction in various genres and stories and they create a lot of interesting and memorable situations. That said, they're not something covered in the default rules (which really do seem to deal strictly with visual stealth), so like many things they fall into DM adjudication.
In this particular case, it does seem like the DM might have been overly generous (which is part of the concern of the OP iirc), considering that if the bandits were on the road to rob people (old men or otherwise) they probably should have been a little more cautious and/or ready for hostility. I might have had one of the bandits talk to the monk while the others were quietly reading weapons in anticipation of robbing him, for instance.
But if the roleplaying really did support it and they treated the monk as nonhostile, I think the whole group should have gotten attacks: 5e surprise works negatively (removing actions) rather than positively as in prior editions (adding surprise rounds or actions). Assuming they see the monk as nonhostile, and fail to see the rest of the party in the woods, then the bandits fail to notice any threats and are surprised per 189, and thus fail to take actions. All members of the party have noticed threats, so they're able to act.
Concerning the rest of the monk's party, hidden in the trees...
You can still be surprised by creatures you didn't perceive as a threat, even if you are in the middle of combat! The limitations of being surprised still count, but only in relation to the creatures that surprise you.
Imagine you have been fighting for six rounds already. At this point, some enemies who've been hiding this whole time (you failed your Perception checks) decide to join the fray.
You cannot use any of your actions to deliberately interact with creatures you don't know are there (obviously), until they have acted, at which point you know that they are there. You can't use your reaction against the action of any creature that surprises you, even if you've been using reactions throughout the combat already. A duellist cannot use his reaction to Parry a melee attack from a creature he didn't know was there.
I'd use a check to establish if this new combatant surprises the guy already fighting. It could be Perception/Stealth, or Insight/Deception, depending on the reason the new guy wasn't perceived as a threat.
In the monk example, if the party had agreed to wait until the monk starts hostilities, include the party in the initiative order. This pre-supposes that the party were not noticed by the bandits anyway. If they were spotted, then combat would have started before the monk got his sucker punch in, so we'll assume that the party were not spotted.
The DM counts down. If the monk or a bandit goes first, see my earlier post. If a bandit goes first but does nothing because he is surprised, the party still waits. If a party member goes first, they cannot launch an attack (because they declared that they are waiting for the monk), but can do other actions, including readying actions triggered by the monk's sucker punch. Any action taken may give the bandits another chance to perceive the hidden party, if they aren't careful.
Even after the monk (perhaps literally) kicks things off, any attack from a party member other than the monk will be a surprise attack so long as no party member has given away the presence of an enemy in the trees. If one of the hidden party members is an assassin, then when he attacks his attack will be a critical hit (if it hits) if the bandit is surprised by an attack from the trees. If one of the other hidden party members had attacked first, then the bandits get a chance to perceive that new threat from the trees. Any bandit who was surprised by the hidden party is only surprised (for game purposes) until his next turn in the combat; after that, any attack from the trees is no longer a surprise attack, even if that individual attacker has not been spotted.
You can still be surprised by creatures you didn't perceive as a threat, even if you are in the middle of combat! The limitations of being surprised still count, but only in relation to the creatures that surprise you.
Here's where the "surprise" in the rules falls into play for this scenario.
The player has described what they want to do by clearly stating his or her goal and approach: "I want to act like an old man (approach) to try and gain surprise on the bandits (goal)." Now it is on the DM to narrate the result of the adventurer's action. If the DM believes that the ruse works, then it does. If the DM believes that it does not, then it does not. If the DM believes the outcome is uncertain, they figure out applicable mechanics.
There are not set rules for surprising someone when they can see you. Thus, it requires a ruling based in some part on existing rules. Now the DM has to decide what is fair and what will incentivize the particular behaviors they want to see in the game. Having the Monk make a Deception check vs the bandit's Insight in order to convince them he's harmless is one way to accomplish this. You could possibly assign advantage to the bandits because maybe they've seen ploys like this before. You could also say that if the Monk isn't successful that he will be the one surprised. I wouldn't want to use the rules against players to disincentivize cinematic play.
It's not about the rule, it's about the ruling. The rules are only part of the equation. Else what is the DM there for in the first place?
Well, it's debatable if it's clearly defined in the rules or not.
For me it's clear (all need to be stealthy, stealthy means to roll stealth against perception, only if all succeed over passive perception of an enemy that enemy is surprised) so there's no need for a ruling in the first place. But apparently others read the sentences that seem clear to me in a different way (you can be stealthy without a stealth check, the "noticing a threat" does not refer to the paragraph it's written in and not to the "noticing a threat" section in the PHB, but is a standalone alternative requirement, etc.), making a ruling a necessity.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
What is clearly defined in the rules is using Stealth vs Perception to gain surprise. What isn't, is any other conceivable way the PC wants to try to accomplish the same goal. For that, it requires DM adjudication. Not allowing something because "it's not in the rules" is in bad form and not at all what this game is about. There's way more than one way to gain the element of surprise in a combat situation. If you're just sticking to the only, be it the most likely, example, you're sorely missing out on the depth of what you can achieve.
If you add additional rules that's houseruling. And I'm not saying that this is bad, but I personally don't do it. I always play by RAW (I make that clear to my players beforehand), so adding extra elements not covered in the rule is nothing I do.
I think the reasoning "If the rules don't say you can't do that, you can do it" is a bit weak. The rules say you roll a 1d20 die on an attack. It does not say that you can't roll a 1d100 on an attack. But that doesn't mean you can.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Let me point you at a little tidbit that IS in the rules.
PHB p. 193: Improvising an Action wrote:
Some more quotes on that point, just from the Basic Rules:
... the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.
Adventurers can try to do anything their players can imagine...
Even in the context of a pitched battle, there’s still plenty of opportunity for adventurers to attempt wacky stunts like surfing down a flight of stairs on a shield, to examine the environment (perhaps by pulling a mysterious lever), and to interact with other creatures, including allies, enemies, and neutral parties.
I am sure the comments already have pointed out that this is a dm determination, and can change as they see fit. With that said, here is my take on it.
The monk does not get a free attack before the surprise round (in essence two surprise rounds likely). I would have the monk roll deception, and have their action create the combat and have the monk automatically go in the surprise round. Note that this does not mean that the monk goes first! The deception roll is the baseline for determining who goes in the surprise round.
I would have each character and opponent (or opponent group) roll their intuition skill and have to meet or exceed the deception DC to go in the surprise round. If they fail, no surprise round. If this is a normal practice for the party, I would have the characters get advantage on their roll, and allow them to use perception instead. For the opponents, it would likely be a straight up roll.
Then each character or group rolls initiative, and the surprise round goes first in initiative order. Then combat starts normally.
" I just can't agree with that because it's so restrictive and makes no sense." - Noctaem
The irony ...
Anyway back on topic regarding one particular point from our resident RAW "expert". There is absolutely, positively, no way you can resolve an attack outside combat i.e. roll to hit --> roll damage. The moment the monk states his intention to roll to hit, inittiave is rolled first. The step by step combat rules are pretty simple. Roll initiative --> take turns in initiaive order.
@Danny_Montanny
Surprise is a whole separate chapter that has nothing to do with improvised actions, though.
As I said earlier, by RAW, you would rather give the Monk advantage in his attack roll should he roll higher initiative, rather than giving all enemies the "surprised" state.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Surprise is clearly defined as that it goes by being stealthy and then explains exactly how to determine that.
Also as said, realistically, it's completely different when you attack while the enemy is completely unaware of you and when you attack while you are standing right in front of an enemy. In no way you'd ever get a 6-second acting advantage in the latter case.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Monk says "I sucker punch that dude".
DM "Punching requires an ATTACK ROLL. Hmmm let's see how combat works again ..."
Combat Step By Step
1. Determine surprise. The DM determines whether anyone involved in the combat encounter is surprised.
At this point you know WHO will not be able to act/react on their first turn.
2. Establish positions. The DM decides where all the characters and monsters are located. Given the adventurers’ marching order or their stated positions in the room or other location, the DM figures out where the adversaries are—how far away and in what direction.
Described in the OP scenario.
3. Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative, determining the order of combatants’ turns.
Notice noone has made attack rolls yet or dealt damage.
4. Take turns. Each participant in the battle takes a turn in initiative order.
Who goes first? Was that person suprised? If yes, they do not act, if no, they take their actions as normal. Repeat for each combatant.
5. Begin the next round. When everyone involved in the combat has had a turn, the round ends. Repeat step 4 until the fighting stops.
This "first round" is the SUPRISE ROUND" if you want to call it that. Why? Becuase its the only round in which any combatant will be suprised.
p3ck wrote:
I think WotC staff already clarified it once that attack actions are not supposed to be taken outside combat. So no, you can't do attack rolls outside combat.
Orethalion wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yes, I would never allow PCs to attack outside combat ever. No exceptions. If they want to attack someone asleep, I initiate combat and roll initiative for the sleeping person as well. The sleeping person would count as surprised on the first round when the group tries to be stealthy. Even if I exclude surprise, as long as the group doesn't make any sound and the person gets the turn, he/she will just continue sleeping as an action.
jaelis wrote:
Well, we're going in circles now. You can't attack outside combat, so you can't attack sleeping enemies if you don't start combat. Combat is there when one side wants to attack regardless of whether the other side can fight back or not. Combat is there to have clear timing rules, so it's needed whenever timing matters.
You can play like that in your games, but it's not according to RAW.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
When you make an attack roll it is pretty much assumed you are in combat. You can waive rolling initiative for inanimate objects since it can't fight back, but it is terribly unbalanced to allow people to attack before rolling initiative, then considering the opposing team surprised and also granting a surprise round. The way I would run it is: if a character decided they wanted to sucker punch someone, everyone rolls initiative and depending on the circumstances, that character would get to act in the surprise round, but nobody else would (unless they have the Alert feat or said beforehand that they were watching for any sudden moves, etc). Allowing combat actions out of combat completely bypasses many mechanics of the game (like the Alert feat and Weapon of Warning for example).
If the DM has a problem with the Alert feat (and similar effects) thwarting their NPCs attempts to get the drop on their players, they should consider just removing those from the game instead of rending them completely useless by negating them after the PCs have already made the investment. Not many things suck more than picking an option that seemed like a worthwhile pick only to have it become completely useless with no way to reverse your decision.
Orethalion wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
'I attack once which starts combat and surprises my opponent. They can't act, so I attack again, regardless of who wins initiative. If I win, I attack a third time before they can act.'
That's pure munchkinry, and indefensible, regardless of RAW, RAI, or any other acronym. I would ditch any DM who allowed it, and not invite back any player who argued for it.
danyc wrote:
Archery contest is an interesting point. My inclination would be to use checks rather than attacks for something like that. Or you could drop into initiative for it if it seemed necessary. Or just use attack rolls out of combat, its clear enough what is going on. There's a long way (IMO) from saying it's fine to do that to saying you should be able to snipe opponents outside of combat.
Here is the tweet:
Can a caster use 2 spells in surprise round with the ready action?
The Ready action is intended to be used after initiative has been rolled. Same for the other "Actions in Combat" options. — Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) September 27, 2014
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
danyc wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So.. from what i ahve read so far.. I should be running Combat / Iniative turns as follows ...
(Version 1, No-one in party has Alert feat)
Version 1 - Ambush by Invisible Bandits.
1. Determine Surprise. DM determines Awareness (passive percption vs Hidden "stealth" of bandits = All PC's surprised
2. Establish Positions. ( battle map appears and creatures/PC's placed on table)
3. Roll Initiative (establish iniative order. PCs roll 15+, Bandits roll 10).
4. Take turns (15+ = PC's cannot move or take an action, and can't take a Reaction until end of their turn. 10 = All bandits move & attack)
5. Begin Next round.
(Version 2, ALL PC characters in party have Alert feat)
Version 2 - Ambush by Invisible Bandits.
1. Determine Surprise. DM determines Awareness (passive percption vs Hidden "stealth" of bandits. Alert feat = No PC is surprised
2. Establish Positions. ( battle map appears and creatures/PC's placed on table)
3. Roll Initiative (establish iniative order. PCs roll 15+, Bandits roll 10).
4. Take turns (15+ = PC's can move or attack, but nothing has happened yet, and no PC has detected the invisible bandits. They keep walking down the road blissfully unaware, but may use Reaction if attacked. 10 = bandits move and attack)
5. Begin Next round.
danyc wrote:
brettlangbdl wrote:
Ah.. yes I wasn't clear there.. In both scenerios, the invisible bandits have beaten the characters passive perception, so the party is unaware of them. The only difference is that in version 2 all party members have the Alert feat so cannot be surprised. I created the scenerio to see if I had the hang of what happens where a group that can't be surprised (Alert) is still unaware of enemies in wait to attack..
(Version 2, ALL PC characters in party have Alert feat)
Version 2 - Ambush by Invisible Bandits.
1. Determine Surprise. DM determines Awareness (passive percption vs Hidden "stealth" of bandits. Bandits have higher Stealth than PCs passive perception, therefore are considered Hidden... However., Alert feat = No PC is surprised
2. Establish Positions. ( battle map appears and creatures/PC's placed on table)
3. Roll Initiative (establish iniative order. PCs roll 15+, Bandits roll 10).
4. Take turns (15+ = PC's can move or attack, but nothing has happened yet, and no PC has detected the invisible bandits. They keep walking down the road blissfully unaware, but may use Reaction if attacked. 10 = bandits move and attack)
5. Begin Next round ... ?
Guys guys!!! i found an awsome ability. Can't believe I missed it. PC's can conjure jepacks at will during combat. PHB doesn't say I can't so ... yeah ... I get one :-p
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Yeah, for an archery contest I'd probably just do a Dex ability check.
@brettlangbdl
Don't forget that it can also happen that some PCs can spot the bandits and others won't.
For example say the bandits roll for stealth and get 12, 15, 18, 21. The PCs have a passive perception of 10, 11, 12 and 13. In this case the PC with the passive perception of 13 will not be surprised (contest rules say that a tie results in "nothings happens" which in this case would be "not spotting a bandit").
Also, I'd rule that if you are not surprised because of the alert feat, you also spot the bandits due to the feat when the combat in initialized. If you are alert you keep looking around all the time and spot the bandits the moment they start moving.
I personally make this part of "establishing positions", where I make the bandits jump out of the bushes and establish that as their starting position where they are immediately spotted by the alert PCs.
Some more thoughts on the archery contest because it is interesting... I'm totally convinced now that checks/contests are they way to go. If you wanted to use attack rolls, here are some issues:
- What is the AC? Here it's not a question of hitting or not, it's how close to the bull's eye you get. Comparing checks handles that nicely.
- What does a crit mean? It's one thing to say you can damage an enemy 5% of the time, it's another to say you can hit any target you aim for 5% of the time.
- Would you really want to say a trained archer under competition conditions will miss the target entirely 5% of the time? Or what would you have a roll of 1 mean?
- If you hit the target are you really going to roll damage? If not, why call them attack rolls?
Orethalion wrote:
p3ck wrote:
jaelis wrote:
danyc wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Someone mentioned getting a free attack at someone who is asleep earlier and it made me realize that there is no 'asleep' condition in the game. I know magical sleep can put someone into the unconcious condition with a special modifier of them waking if an enemy damages them or an ally shakes/slaps them. Normal sleep does not need a slap to wake someone up, so I would think that a stealth roll would still be needed to suprise a sleeping enemy.
Someone who knows the rules better than I do may already know what the developers think, but I'd give someone advantage on their stealth roll to suprise someone who is sleeping. Even a sleeping person could hear the creak of a floorboard or the snapping of a twig so I would not make it an auto success.
Even if a sleeping creature is not suprised they would still start the combat prone and most likely unarmored. I probably would not argue with a player who says they keep a weapon within arms reach of where they sleep (even if they are in a normally safe location) so they would not need to use an action to get a weapon.
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Then how would you handle a dice game, where the objective is to acheive the highest total?
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
The rules are not 'silent on the issue' of attacking an enemy and trying to kill/injure them with that attack.
It's no more true that the rules are 'silent on the issue' of attacking outside of combat(?) than they are 'silent on the issue' of attacking an enemy while wearing a purple hat. You can say that the rules don't mention the combat effects of the colour purple, but it's disingenuous to say that this 'silence' means that the PHB doesn't cover how to adjudicate that attack, purple hat or no.
When using a weapon to attack an opponent, with (you hope) the advantage of surprise, it's disingenuous to say that the rules 'are silent on the issue' of how to resolve that combat. Establish surprise, roll initiative, take actions in turn.
There is no 'before combat' combat. The rules are not 'silent' on this; the rules are covered in the chapter entitled 'Combat'.
ArialBlack wrote:
jaelis wrote:
To borrow a phrase...bull! We're are not talking about 'actions that can be taken either in or out of combat'. We are talking about 'combat'...outside of combat!
The rules for combat are not absent, but are in fact entirely present and correct. When they say 'this is how combat works', this is how it works. It tells you that combat takes place during a 'combat round' (there's a clue in the name). The writer is under no obligation or expectation to have to state, 'BTW, you can't attack outside combat', because he's just told us that combat takes place in combat!
If the book has rules for flying, it doesn't need to have a separate rule telling you that if you cannot fly, you cannot use the flying rules.
You can certainly cast spells, run, help someone, etc. outside of combat. But you cannot engage in combat outside of combat! In order to try and stab a foe in order to kill him outside of combat, you would have to categorise that stabbing as somehow 'not combat'. And that would not be credible.
ArialBlack wrote:
I've done some homework!
Research
- In a contest, the ability checks are compared to each other, rather than to a target number. — DMG 238
- You can use attack rolls to resolve noncombat activities such as archery contests or a game of darts. — DMG 238
- An object's Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way). — DMG 246
Ruling
In an archery contest, the competitor's attack rolls are compared to each other, rather than to the bullseye's Armor Class (because damage is not the goal, and the target has no chance of dodging out of the way).
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I'd guess that explanation of object AC was written with melee attacks in mind... it's not especially hard to hit a small non-moving object with your sword, but hitting it with a bow from a distance would be harder than hitting a big object.
Of course it's a bit odd to imagine different ACs for melee vs ranged attacks.
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
So dare I ask Orethalion how you would handle a foot race? (Between creatures with the same base speed, naturally.)
Myself I'd probably call it a Str (Athletics) contest for a short race, and a Con (perhaps Athletics?) contest for a long race. But if you didn't feel free to treat it as a contest, how would you treat it? Roll initiative and whoever wins wins the race?
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Losing HP doesn't necessarily mean taking damage. Not in 5e anyway.
Because:
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and
mental durability, the will to live, and luck"
(basic rules, p.74)
Though unless you believe in objects having souls you might argue that only physical durability matters for objects.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I think we can all agree, without exception, that punching someone (making an attack roll and rolling damage) classifies as combat. I would REALLY like to see the argument otherwise.
If it is combat then the RAW are loud and clear. You follow the RULES OF COMBAT. No two ways about it. End of story.
Resolving combat "outside" the rules combat is to completely ignore the book. Can be done, but then none of the rules in the book are binding and absolutely everything is DM fiat.
p3ck wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
The Combat chapter (p189) of the PHB tells us the rules for running combat. It doesn't force is to run combat by the rules, but we are discussing the game rules in the Rules Forum, so not running combat by the rules is beyond the scope of this thread.
The Combat chapter starts by telling us the Order of Combat, which is: surprise/positions/initiative/turns. It then tells us what we can do in those turns, starting with Movement and Position and then going on to Actions in Combat.
Remember that. Actions. In. Combat.
What happens when you take the Dash action? What happens to my mini as the effect of taking that action? Nothing! Taking the Dash action doesn't move you anywhere. It simply lets you move further when you use your move.
What happens when you take the Disengage action? What happens to my mini? Nothing! Taking that action has no direct effect on the game world. It simply allows you to avoid OAs when you actually do move, later in the turn for the rest of your turn.
What happens when you take the Attack action? At the moment I take that action, what actual attacks are rolled? Nothing! None! Taking the Attack action simply allows you to execute a number of melee/ranged weapon attacks, from the moment you take the action until the end of your turn.
In 5E, 'actions', in and of themselves, do not actually do anything. They simply allow you to do what that action allows, from the moment you take the action until the end of your turn.
You're thinking, 'So what? What difference does this make in this thread?'
In the framework of the Combat Round, you cannot do anything, unless you take the action that allows you to do that thing! Exceptions are noted: one free interaction per round, move your speed, possible bonus action and/or reaction.
But these Actions, as noted by Crawford, are only for use in the Combat Round! Taking them outside of a Combat Round is not possible, RAW.
But wait! Does this mean that I cannot cast a spell unless I'm in combat?
No. You can cast any spell you can, without using the Cast a Spell action, any time you like, unless you are in combat! Outside of the Combat Round, 'Actions' are not required at all. 'Actions' are not for outside the Combat Round, but are absolutely required inside a Combat Round.
So, outside combat, you can dash, run, cast spells, anything you like (and within your capabilities).
Therefore, in theory, you can execute a weapon attack outside of combat without using any 'Actions' whatsoever.
The trouble is, in order to do what the OP complained about, you would have to rule that attacking with a weapon in order to damage/kill the target is somehow not 'combat'.
I believe that this circle is impossible to square. This attack is 'combat'. Attempting to describe it as somehow not combat is simply...cheating. It's a way to get around, by cheating, the party's immunity to surprise.
According to RAW, 'combat' takes place within 'Combat Rounds'. It is not true that 'the rules are silent on the issue'. The rules tell you that, 'The game organises the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns'. RAW, if it's 'combat', then it takes place in a 'Combat Round'. The game does not allow 'combat' outside of a 'Combat Round'.
The first strike that initiates combat? This is combat. It takes place entirely within a Combat Round.
What if the first strike takes you by surprise? Isn't this before combat? No. RAW, the effects of being surprised are the game consequences of what a surprised creature can/cannot do in the Combat Round! If that first strike takes you completely by surprise, then you can't use your reaction until your first turn and cannot move or take reactions during your first turn in the first Combat Round! Therefore, the 'surprise attack' takes place entirely within the first Combat Round.
There is no 'out of combat' combat in the game.
ArialBlack wrote:
Just putting out there but p238 of the DMG says " You can also use attack rolls to resolve noncombat activities such as archery contests or a game of darts."
So attack rolls can be used in "non-combat" situations.
I could also see a boxing or wrestling match as a non-combat contest, even though the 2 people are clearly in combat.
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
p3ck wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This whole "if it's not explicitly spelled out for us word-for-word it is not RAW; there can be no applied understanding, there can be no extrapolation, there can be no implication" craziness is something I just can't wrap my head around.
Orethalion wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
If I was DM in this scenario I would do the following.
Firstly, I wouldn't play my Bandits so dumb. I mean an old man is a easy target/mark. If this easy prey simply walks into our camp I would have my bandits ready to send a volley of Bolts into his chest. If the monk wanted to "sneak/infiltrate" into their camp he would have to come up with a much wiser ruse. After the monk was dead, I would allow the hidden Characters a surprise round on the laughing bandits as they looted the Monks corpse.
Lastly, If I was an naive DM who allowed this inane old man ruse to proceed, I would allow the hidden characters to participate in the surprise round, with the obvious punch being the trigger.
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
p3ck wrote:
p3ck wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Well, having been through this whole argument, here's what I would conclude:
1) The literal rules don't say anything about fighting outside of the normal combat system. As in, there is no text in the book (as far as I know) that explicitly addresses the point. If for some bizarre reason you had to formally prove what the rules say about it, you wouldn't have anything to go on.
2) The best interpretation of the rules is that, in any ordinary circumstances, you should use the combat rules for fighting. That means rolling iniative as soon as someone decides to attack a creature. This interpretation is strong because it follows the normal definition of "combat," it follows the guidance in the rules about what the combat rules are for, and it seems to follow the intention of the rules, based on Crawfords tweet. If my DM used a different interpretation, I would feel they were doing it wrong.
3) The book rules for surprise cover the situation where one party is unaware of the other. Any other application of surprise is up to the DM. I personally would use the surprise rules in a deception scenario like the OP describes. But if my DM decided not to use surprise in that situation, I would not feel like they were doing it wrong.
p3ck wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Well, there's a difference between "I would feel they were doing it wrong" and "They are doing it wrong." While I agree that the second point involves interpretation, I think there is one good interpretation and that others are inferior. (Based on the text, not just game play.) But as a question of interpretation, that can't be "proved."
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Orethalion is saying that it isn't in the rules in the way the rules say fighters get d10 hit dice. If someone said fighters get d12 hit dice, then they are just wrong, and I can point to the rule to say why. There's nothing comparable in the rules for making attacks outside of the normal combat rules.
p3ck is saying that any reasonable interpretation of the rules would indicate that you should use the combat rules when you're engaging in combat, and that any reasonable interpretation of combat would include a monk punching someone with the intent to kill them. That maybe be perfectly true without contradicting Orethalion's point.
I would agree that the punch starts combat. However, there is no requirement in the rules that combat continue beyond that point.
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
So you dispute that "any reasonable interpretation of combat would include a monk punching someone with the intent to kill them," as I put it before. So a surprise attack like that, in your mind, is not (or not necessarily) combat?
jaelis wrote:
So you would accept attacks outside of combat when there is no chance for victim to fight back? I can see that.
Any other situations? Would you say the OP situation with the monk would count as that here? It does not seem that way to me.
jaelis wrote:
So my question is, why do you see that as a reasonable interpretation, (though I understand it is not one that you would use personally)?
The point about both parties needing to particiapte in a combat is fair, but the monk scenario doesn't seem to involve that issue. Or do you think it does?
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Just for the record, I don't think an attack that targets a PC outside of "combat" is ever reasonable. Doing so denies them an agency the RAW leads them to expect.
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
To argue that punching someone with intent to harm/kill is not combat is disingenous and intellectually dishonest. So not much point in discussing that point further.
There are rules for combat. Punching someone and resolving the attack is combat. Ignoring the rules for combat is not playing the RAW. This is the "rules" forum and the OP certainly was asking for a houserule answer.
Chapter 9: Combat (PHB p189)
This chapter provides THE RULES YOU NEED for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field o f battle.
mrpopstar wrote:
p3ck wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
My assumption is that combat counts as combat. Any DM who rules combat as 'not combat' is acting against reason, therefore 'not reasonable'.
A DM who rules that the monk's sucker punch (which was using the combat rules to try to injure/kill the target) as 'not combat' is acting against reason, therefore 'not reasonable'.
ArialBlack wrote:
I think this is a long draw of the bow
How do you do an attack?
You do it on your turn
Your turn comes up in combat
Sure, golden rule nonsense insists the GM can just do whatever he wants.
But by RAW, your turn doesn't just come up out of the blue.
As other posters say, that's like saying the rules of monopoly don't say you don't get money out of the blue, so you do get money out of the blue.
An attack is a resource. You don't just get resources out of the blue (barring golden rule nonsense)
Orethalion wrote:
Wow this is a long and really evasive thread for what was a really legitimate question that got caught up in some serious minutiae.
My two cents:
Attacking someone is combat. So, combat happens according to the rules for combat, not for exploration.
So before anyone attacks anything, your DM determines whether there can be surprise. In this case, it seems pretty obvious that at the very least, the enemy bandits MIGHT be surprised.
Then the rules unambiguosly say you compare the party stealth checks to the passive perception of the bandits. If your DM wants to empower himself, he could allow the character triggering the combat to also use Deception to surprise the enemies vs. their passive insight, but most people will say that he was clearly visible and therefore has effectively a 0 stealth check.
Now we get into some argument territory. The rules say ambiguously that in order to be surprised, the target must not be aware of a threat. Now, this can be interpreted as "not aware of any threat" or "not aware of every threat".
1. An empowered DM could say, that if you succeeded on your stealth and the triggering character succeeded on his Deception, then the bandits were surprised.
OR
2. He could say that the monsters were not surprised because they were aware of the presence of a non-bandit, a presumed threat
OR
3. He could say that the bandits were surprised because they were not aware of every threat, even though they were aware of one (the non-bandit).
These are all valid under the rules.
Regardless of what choice he makes, now initiative is rolled. Everyone in your party will have a chance to go, which means you and the other archer probably ready an attack for when the triggering character blows his cover. The only question is whether the bandits also get to go in a way that interrupts your plan (scenario 2) or they have to wait until round two to move and take actions.
Noon wrote:
I believe the scenario was put forward where someone suggested that you could be hidden from an enemy and then attack that enemy and after that attack is resolved then initiative would be rolled for everyone.
Now my question is, why roll initiative at that point in time. Why not just resolve the next attack without initiative rolled. Why roll initiative and have combat at all since we can resolve any and all attacks outside combat?
Orethalion wrote:
Just to throw this out there... the rules say you can forage for food while travelling. If you absolutely can't make attacks outside of combat, does that mean foraging doesn't include hunting?
FrogReaver wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noon wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
The idea that you can use attack rolls outside of combat (hunting, archery contest) is a red herring here. Just because it is possible to make use of the attack roll mechanic to resolve something outside of combat does not mean that you can choose to define every attack roll as 'not combat', on a whim.
The attack in question here is the monk's sucker punch. Just because the attack roll mechanic can be used outside of combat doesn't mean that you can define this sucker punch as 'not combat'.
The fact that an attack roll is required is not the thing that defines this sucker punch as 'combat'. The thing that defines it as 'combat' is the fact that you are attacking an enemy with intent to harm. You are doing violence to a sentient being who hasn't given you permission to attack him. It's assault. No sane, reasoned consideration could reach the conclusion that this act of violence doesn't count as 'combat' in a way the game understands the concept of 'combat'.
Stubbornly insisting that it's just as valid to define this sucker punch as 'not combat' is simply untrue. Stubbornly insisting that the theory that the Earth is flat and should therefore be taught in schools alongside the 'Round Earth Theory' is as disingenous as insisting that the sucker punch could be 'not combat'.
'Teach The Controversy!'
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OK so we go with everyone rolls I first as soon as combat is entered.
What happens up to the point that the monk chooses to do his punch? Are the others aware that they are in combat? He has done nothing to make them think that they are in combat, in fact he is actively going out of his way to make them think they are not in combat.
So 3 people have higher I than the monk, can they attack? if they strike first clearly they are the ones starting the combat and it changes the narrative. The monk does not need to declare his intentions until it is his I that happens. They have no reason to hold their action because they are not aware that combat will start very soon, otherwise everyone will always have "I ready for when a surprise attack happens that I am not expecting".
So the monk attacks and then those further down the I order can make their actions but those with a higher I can't do anything, as their turn is gone for this round. Or do those with a higher I then get to go out of turn if they weren't surprised?
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Perhaps the issue is that the book doesn't define the word "combat" clearly enough?
Orethalion wrote:
"When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent." — Jeremy Crawford, Sage Advice
Context is key. Combat is in context whenever there is a struggle, battle, or contention within the game world that is not better served by the rules for exploration or social interaction.
grendel111111 wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noticing a threat in other words. Signs of violence or danger.
So if you go with what he said and don't make the monk automatically first in combat by making a DM ruling. And you don't let the sucker punch initiate combat. that means that the first round of combat basically means absolutely nothing until the monk takes his turn and makes the attack. So anyone who rolled higher initiative has nothing to do since:
The monk rolled deception or didn't show any actual sign of being a threat and hasn't shown any sign of violent intent as per the "acting like an old man who has come to talk with the bandits on the road". Unless the DM decides the bandits attack the old man by default even though he doesn't seem like a threat. He only acts in a violent way when he out of nowhere sucker punches a bandit. I feel that this Rodney guy is completely ignoring the whole "unanticipated" part of the whole scenario, and yes I realize there's a character limit issue as well. He doesn't know the monk is acting like an old man and may have rolled deception to lead the bandits to believe he's not a threat. Basically he's ruling that surprise is not given without all the pieces of the scenario so I would advise to take his responses with a grain of salt.
So you're taking away from anyone who has a benefit specifically related to the first round of combat, both PC and NPC. This is what I've tried to explain and demonstrate. I find it much better to resolve the triggering action, whatever it may be, first and then start round 1 of combat so that no one loses as a result.
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
No because Phillip hasn't done anything to indicate he's trying to be stealthy or make use of deception to approach them without being threatening. Quite the opposite in fact, he saw orcs who probably saw him as well. He then drew his weapon which is a threatening act and makes the orcs notice him as a threat (if they hadn't already) and charged toward them with presumably his weapon raised. The second he drew his weapon he became a threat and the orcs were able to notice him as a threat. Roll initiative.
If on the other hand he had approached a group of people without drawing his weapon, without making a threatening move or while being hidden. They might not immediately consider him a threat or notice him at all. So he can get close, then as he's getting into melee range he can draw his weapon and attack in the same action (as per the rules) which makes sense since swordplay and combat forms have named attacks that start with a sheathed weapon and involve drawing and swinging with the same arm motion in order to attack. If the opponents hadn't noticed him as a threat before hand I would consider them surprised, again as per the rules.
And finally, it depends on if the orcs in your example consider anyone who isn't an orc a threat. Your scenario is very vague in nature, so I can't possibly give a more detailed answer other than just giving you a general breakdown.
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Right it all comes down to if the bandits in the scenario consider the monk a threat by default. If they do, it doesn't matter what RP the monk is doing, old man or not, the bandits view him as a threat. If that was the case, they probably initiate combat themselves first before the monk even gets close. The deception fails. It's all about noticing a threat or failing to notice it.
Noctaem wrote:
I posted above about that exact point. You're right, it's all about what the bandits or the orcs in his own scenario view as a threat. I was mainly going by the presented premise in the OP that they didn't which allowed the deception roll and approach to begin with. Within the context of any scenario, what the involved elements consider a threat is paramount to resolving how surprise, combat start, etc.. will unfold.
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noon wrote:
Forgive me if this possibility has already been covered--I have been following the thread but may have missed something, and I am new here.
Let's say the monk had made his way into the camp, and has thus far succeeded on all deception checks. The bandits may perceive pretty much anyone (even each other, perhaps) as potential threats, but not active or actual threats at the moment. No bandit is aware of any additional party members in the bushes, who may have readied attacks keyed on the monk's sucker punch.
I'm a new DM, but here's how I'd play it from here--not stating that this is RAW, as I don't think this is specifically covered from what I've seen--just wanting to get a read on how close to or far from other DMs out there I might be on how I'd rule this (and I did tell my table at Session 0 that I'd be ruling on the fly when needed and we can clear up weirdnesses later).
The monk throws his sucker punch. Roll for initiative. I'd tend to give the monk surprise so even though we are now in initiative, we're in round 0 for a free strike if he was still successfully deceiving, and I'd allow any readied actions keyed on that strike to go off (Once that's resolved we're in full non-surprise initiative. By this interpretation, we're not attacking out of initiative (intent to attack is declared, initiative is rolled, surprise is determined, events carry on from there)). Is this unreasonable?
The PHB and DMG don't directly address this situation but from what I can tell the various parts when put together lead me to this.
TorOfArgo wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
The true test of whichever procedure will work best for any encounter is whether, if the tables were turned and the bandits were using the same tactics against the players' characters, could the DM account for all possible contingencies that the players could come up with in their characters' defense, while remaining fair and consistent.
-DS
Noctaem wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
I think we have 2 primarily different proposed methods for handling the sucker punch scenario for a single monk vs a single bandit.
All options: The monk approaches the bandit while trying to look like a non threatening old man. The DM calls for a skill check to see if the bandit can see through the disguise and calls for something like deception vs insight.
Option 1: If the monk wins that skill challenge then combat starts and the bandit is suprised. Since combat starts then initiative is rolled.
Option 2: If the monk wins the skill challenge then he can sucker punch the bandit outside combat which has the result of always surprising the bandit. As always after the sucker punch once combat is started then initaitve is rolled.
---------------------------------------
Option 1 simply uses a skill challenge appropriate to the scenario to determine surprise or no surprise. It then relies on the combat rules to resolve all combat related activities and attacks.
Option 2 begins the same way but that skill challenge has 2 effects. On a successful skill challenge it guarantees a single out of combat attack and also guarantees surprise at the same time. After the out of combat attack is granted it then relies on the combat rules to resolve every subsequent attack.
Option 1 guarantees the abiliity to use an action to sucker punch the enemy as long you win the skill challange. Then if you are fast enough in initiative you may get an attack off again before the sucker punched bandit can go.
Option 2 guarantees the ability to sucker punch the bandit and then attack him again before he or any of his buddies go. Then finally you may even get a 3rd attack off before he goes if you are faster in initiative.
Personally I'm going to pick the option that lines up closer to my reality based depiction of the sucker punch scenario.:
- There should be one sucker punch attack before anyone else involved in the scene can do anything.
- There should be the opportunity for an attack after the sucker punch as long as you are fast enough (in game terms this is iniiative).
-It should never happen in a sucker punch scenario that the enemies stand around doing nothing while you attack their friends 2 more times. One attack as the sucker punch makes sense. The seconds attack by being faster than all your opponents makes sense. The third attack before they can do anything makes absolutely no sense.
As such I can never accept Option 2 as a viable way to run a sucker punch scenario. However if there was a 3rd option that simply dropped the surprise and was the same as option 2 I could get behind that. Basically I don't care how it happens within the rules as long as you get the sucker punch attack before the enemy does anything and then get the chance to go faster than the enemy and make 1 more attack against him before he does anything.
An option where you had the same deception vs insight check and simply had it allow you to make an out of combat attack against the enemy I'm okay with (as long as it doesn't also cause surprise). If you want the sucker punch scenario to cause surprise then option 1 remains the best way to resolve it.
One other thing, Option 1 doesn't necessitate more rulings from the DM like option 2 and 3 does with reaction abilities and things like that. Option 1 we already have rules in place for if they get reaction abilities in the sucker punch scenario or not.
Noctaem: while Spider Sense and the Alert feat are different things, they have one crucial thing in common, the thing we are discussing: they make you immune to the effects of being 'surprised' in combat.
The game eaffects of being surprised are entirely effects on the combat round, and the things surprised creatures may or may not do within it.
Choosing to interpret that sucker punch as 'not combat' is a deliberate lie. Acknowledging it as combat but then resolving it outside combat is against the rules, since the rules tell us to resolve combat using a cycle of rounds and turns in initiative order.
So resolving that sucker punch is against the rules, and creates a situation where a creatures immunity to being surprised is simply ignored and makes him the victim of a surprise attack anyway, since that decision leaves the victim totally unable to do something about it, even when the rules would have him not surprised and reacting faster than the monk.
It also artificially denies the victim a chance to win a contested check for surprise, and the potential to notice the monk's body language and realise that he is about to strike.
Instead of using the rules to determine who 'wins' these contested rolls, it automatically lets the monk succeed on both the surprise rolls and the initiative rolls. You don't need to throw the rules away to get a fair result in the sucker punch scenario.
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Seems pretty simple to me: The DM determines who is surprised, says that right in the book. So if the DM determines that the monk can use deception to put the bandits off edge then he could very well surprise them. You have to remember that the other party members are hidden and as long as the monk has not raised any hairs for the bandits they should atleast have a chance at surprising the bandits, though this may mean the monk is surprised since he is not aware of what the party is doing as he works his deception (though I would rule the other way). But the book is pretty clear, stealth is a certain way to get surprise otherwise it is determined by the DM, whether he/she allows deception is up to them but probably should be a discussion between the group so everyone understands what could lead to surprise.
Personally I would allow this because 1) It can lead to interesting and fun situations, 2) There certainly seems like there are more ways to "surprise" someone other than stealth, 3) Why not?
As for the order of actions, as soon as someone determines that a combat based action will be taken, roll initiative. The characters are not acting in a vacuum, and the archer might see the monk tense up and know it is time and take his shot before the sucker punch (as an example). That might mean that the bandit might notice this too and if his initative is higher than monks he is no longer surprised by the fact that th monk just punched him, but still deceived enough that he was not able to act before it happened.
Let's say there are some bandits trying to prevent my allies and me from passing a bridge without paying them a very high bridge toll.
They ask are you going to pay the toll. My party refuses. Does combat begin when the first attack is made or does it begin before the first attack is made?
It's clear combat in normal situations begins before any attacks are made. How can that be? Because the game recognizes that the DM can determine when two opposing sides are about to battle each other and then turn the combat rules switch on by calling for initiative.
The same is true for the sucker punch example. The game recognizes that the DM can determine when two oppossing sides are about to battle each other and then turn the combat rules switch on by calling for initaitive.
So I'm not sure why everyone is arguing that combat should not begin without the monk actually rolling an attack roll to attempt to sucker punch the bandit. The combat rules are better at resolving the effects of that sucker punch and all subsequent actions than trying to give attacks outside of combat. It's really that simple.
The game gives us rules for handling two sides about to do battle against each other. These are the combat rules. Just because the game doesn't mandate you must always use these rules doesn't mean they should be ignored just because you want to ignore them. If you are going to ignore them at least have a good reason for doing so. And I'm sorry but giving an attack outside combat rules when the same effect can be acheived with granting surprise inside combat is not a good reason to start ignoring the combat rules.
As far as when combat begins: Combat can and should begin when two opposing sides are about to battle. That's what starts a combat encounter... 2 opposing sides about to do battle. The reason for the battle that's about to begin may be due to refusing to pay a bridge toll or from deciding to attempt to sucker punch the thief. Again, the game doesn't mandate you use the combat rules to resolve every battle that is about to begin but the combat rules are the only framework in the game for resolving a battle thats about to happen.
Personally I'm happy they don't mandate these rules be used every combat because there are certain battle-like situations that are better served with mechanics other than the combat mechanics. For example, trying to retreat from a battle with orcs could be handled by the combat rules or you could possibly resovle it better with skill challenges and such. But just because they didn't mandate using the combat rules in every combat-like situation, doesn't mean you are free to come up with your own mechanics for various scenarios just because you can. The game placed a combat framework in place and this should be used unless there is a good reason not to use it.
Noctaem: what is it about running the combat according to the rules is unsatifying in the sucker punch scenario?
What is it about a punch outside combat that makes it a fairer way to simulate what's happening here?
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Baphogoat wrote:
Baphogoat wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
p3ck wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Just a few things to put out there.
1) I don't see anywhere that combat creates a different kind of game to the rest of the game. It's almost like people are seeing a big COMBAT STARTS flash up and suddenly a different set of rules apply. No longer can the DM adjudicate the actions of the player because now it is "combat time" and a strict, board game like set of rules must be followed even if it really makes no sense. The basic structure of the game is still that way things run. DM sets scene, player declares action, DM adjudicated the results. Much of that becomes more structured during combat to help it move more smoothly, but crazy things can still happen that need the DM to adjudicate and so won't be in the "rules for combat.
In just the same way the idea that action x is written in the combat section means that you are not permitted to do that action unless it is in a combat round really doesn't make sense either, ("I can cast a bonus action spell in combat, but out of combat there are no bonus actions so you can't cast that spell").
An example would be a lone PC is chasing an assassin through the streets after he tried to stab the king. Each time the PC gets a clear shot he tries to shoot an arrow at the assassin. Do you break the chase scene each time he tries to shoot an arrow, roll for I (because now it is combat time) the assassin wins and moves out of line of site.... go back to chase scene and repeat.
Having said that I see nothing wrong with deciding that playing 5th ed as a board game, like advanced hero quest is in anyway wrong and if that is what the groups wants then go for it.
2) The OP was an example of a new DM finding her feet. Part of that is that the players need to guide her in helping to come to fair adjudications. If they don't give feedback then she likely can't see what the gap in her adjudication is doing. I do feel that you need to be consistent with adjudicating, but also if you see, or it is pointed out that a ruling is creating a loophole, or an imbalance then you can adjust it. I suspect that in the OP the New DM is assuming that the old DM / husband would not request anything that was unreasonable. In my experience a lot of people who both play and DM will try things when playing that they might not allow as a DM (due to POV bias).
3) In this particular instant, as can be seen by the levels of disagreement, it is a difficult situation to adjudicate (particularly for a new DM).
So here is my take on it (and yes I know it is not "RAW", but I think it has a better "feel" than following "RAW")
Following the normal combat rules for Initiative and deciding that everyone rolls as normal and just play out the combat round is unfair to the player trying to use deception to gain the bandits trust and then attack with "surprise", On the other hand a surprise round as described in the players handbook does not sit well either as no one is hidden. I personally feel the surprise rules are missing a "half surprise setting, but that is another discussion.
So this is what I would most likely do -
Monk rolls deception vs the bandits per to see if he has managed to gain their trust when he first approaches them, this can be modified by his disguise, how he is approaching them and what he is saying. If successful he has at least got in without being immediately filled with arrows.
When he attacks then we roll for I to set the order of the combat, He is however trying to get a sucker punch in so I would allow him to roll a deception against their perception to see if he lands his strike first, failure mean he goes at his normal I for the round, success lets him land his punch before anyone can do anything (he moves up the initiative to go first for this round (he does not get any extra attacks he just attacks first.) From the second round on he goes back to his normal place in round.
If he decides that he is going to signal his friends hiding in the forest so they to can join in on a sudden attack then he needs to make the signal before the attack. If he just makes an open signal, then everyone will see it (and combat just proceeds like normal). If he tries to be subtle then he will need to make a deception roll. The bandits make a perception roll to see if they notice his signal. If they do they can jump him and he will drop to lowest I for the first round of combat (then revert to normal). At the same time his friends also make a perception roll (with advantage because they were looking for the signal and knew it was coming). If they see the signal then they can attack at the same time as the monk makes his attack and get the same I bonus for the first round of combat.
So not true surprise, a small advantage and no extra "free" attacks.
Then after it plays out you look at the effect and determine if there are any changes to be made if a similar thing happens again.
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
"Silent is silent". "The rules are silent on the issue of attacking foes with deadly force outside of combat."
But "The chaos of combat is organised into a cycle of rounds and turns in initiative order" is not silence! It is telling us, loud and clear, that combat takes place in combat rounds.
I'm not saying that DMs cannot make houserules; I'm saying that this is the rules forum and we have a duty to address the OP's rules question using the rules. The rules say combat takes place in combat rounds. The combat rules are entirely capable of handling the sucker punch scenario, and using them in this scenario is superior to any other houserule solution posted in this thread.
It is certainly possible to make attack rolls outside combat (and therefore possible to make attack rolls without using an Attack Action), but in order to do so the attack in question cannot be actual combat, because if that attack is combat then we have to use combat rounds, and in combat rounds the appropriate Action In Combat must be taken which allows the attack and it will be in initiative order, and surprise may restrict the options of some combatants.
The only way the monk's sucker punch could take place outside of combat were if that attack were somehow 'not combat'. But attacking your foe with deadly force is combat! You don't need a book to tell you that! The book trusts us to judge fairly what actions count as combat, and if you rule that punching a foe with deadly force that starts combat is somehow not combat then that trust has been mis-placed.
The 'ruling' that the sucker punch is 'not combat' is not sincere. It is a ploy to avoid the consequences of your actions, to avoid the chance that the bandits could realise what you're doing and react faster than you. It is, simply, cheating.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If you were to understand the surprise rules to limit the skills used as only Stealth/Perception (a poor choice of interpretation), this doesn't take away the sentence about noticing a threat.
Instead of using that to claim that the rules, absurdly, do not cover sudden attacks from visible creatures, you can still use Stealth/Perception to notice the threat of the sucker punch (even though the bandits already know that the 'old man' is present, they don't know that he's a threat). Simply roll Stealth/Perception to see if the bandits notice the monk tense up ready to launch a sudden attack.
I think it doesn't make as much sense as using Deception/Insight, but if you insist on using Stealth/Perception then this is a way to do it while avoiding absurdity.
Orethalion wrote:
In the archer/guard/princess scenario, the guard may have Alert or a Weapon of Warning, he may have the Protection style allowing him to use his reaction to the attack roll against the princess.
Following the surprise rules means that if the guard is surprised then he cannot use a reaction before his first turn. If the guard is surprised but rolls higher initiative than the archer then he cannot act on his turn but will react fast enough to interpose his shield between the archer and the princess at the last moment (Protection is a good fighting style for a guard), meaning that the archer attacks with disadvantage (or maybe cancels out the archer's advantage).
If the surprised guard rolls a lower initiative than the archer then he cannot use a reaction to do that. Harsh, but fair.
If the guard notices the birds disturbed by the archer or hears a twig snap or hears the guard dogs bark or any of a thousand explanations as to why the guard's Perception was higher than the archer's Stealth (or has Alert or a Weapon of Warning), then he is not surprised.
If the unsrprised guard rolls a higher init than the archer then he reacts fast enough to perhaps move the princess to cover or close a door or, well, anything he can think of.
If the unsurprised guard rolls a lower init, then he can still use his reaction to interpose his shield, giving disadvantage to the archer.
These are the surprise and combat rules being used properly.
Giving the archer an automatic victory in Stealth/Perception is inappropriate and incorrectly circumvents some ability, or even a fair (if small) chance for the guard to react.
Giving the archer an attack outside of initiative denies the guard a fair chance to use his abilities to, well, guard the princess.
If you use the arrow hitting a log as a narrative device, you may feel that you don't need to use the combat rules, or even use dice at all! But if the princess or the guard is a PC then it would be totally inapropriate to use the narrative of, "The princess has been killed by an arrow. Roll initiative."
In the monk sucker punch scenario, that punch is combat, and you don't need a 1000 pages of written examples of which attacks are 'combat' and which are 'not combat'. The rules are written in such a way that assumes that the DM is unbiased and makes rulings accordingly. It is not a valid ruling that this sucker punch by this monk in this scenario is 'not combat'.
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
You can't claim context when it gives 2 scenarios and directly states how to resolve them in the same sentences, which has nothing to do with how to determine surprise btw, and then claim that the phrase that actually does state how to determine surprise says something it doesn't. That's just plain nonsense.
Sentence 1: DM decides who is surprised or not. Empowers the DM to be the arbiter of the game and make rulings on this section of the rules. Basically, even if the following scenarios are true, you still get to decide who is surprised or not.
Sentence 2: If scenario A happens, resolve it by doing x
Sentence 3: If on the other scenario B happens, resolve it by doing y (y being a reiteration of other rules found elsewhere in the book)
Sentence 4: To determine who is surprised or not, determine which character or monster noticed the threat before combat started.
Rules are written in basic english. The only 2 sentences which are linked directly are sentence 2 and 3 because they give the two sides of the same coin.
You're incorrect.
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Boating has plenty of hazards, including drowning. Sometimes waters are rough and a boat capsizes. Or maybe somebody doesn't really know how to use a boat and sinks! Either of these lead to a scenario where the character must swim.
The DM determines who might need to swim. If a person is in a boat that is damaged and sinks, they will need to start swimming. Otherwise, they will need to use their Intelligence (Survival) skill to properly navigate the boat, or else it will sink. Any character or monster who is in choppy water too deep for them to stand in makes a Strength (Athletics) check to tread water.
I just thought that was funny. It kinda popped into my head as a corollary.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
So you're seriously going to keep arguing that it's a rule and not a scenario? Even though it clearly gives a specific situation, then gives the specific way to resolve it. Not once but twice. Then gives the means to determine surprise, which was not done in the previous 3 sentences? Really?
And also, simply saying "so he showed that not everything uses the same rules, so what?" is weak as hell.
Just in case the OP is still around and looking for more advice:
Andrew,
Here is the argument which I would present to the DM (pre- or post-session, if that's the way your group operates):
The simplest 'Rules-As-Written' way to handle any similar situation where one or more creatures are attempting to attack from hiding in order to gain surprise versus another creature or creatures is to initiate combat and determine surprise.
The unique instance of waiting for a trigger, which, in the example, is the disguised monk's attack, makes the (surprise) attacks of the hidden PCs go either on their turn or during the monk's turn, whichever happens later in the round (whether or not there actually are any surprised bandits).
A better trigger would be any initiation of combat between the two parties. This would include a variety of events such as:
1. “Old man” monk attempts “sucker punch” on a bandit.
2. One or more bandits discover and attack one of the “hidden” PCs.
3. A bandit decides to pick on the “old man” monk by attempting to trip him from behind.
4. Hidden PCs hear combat start, but cannot see monk.
5. &cetera
The beauty of doing it this way is that successfully hidden PCs will almost always get surprise, regardless of how the scenario plays out or how the DM handles the deceptive monk! The monk will NOT be surprised by an attack from his hidden comrades, and will be able to act in the first round of combat. Perhaps a successful CHA (Deception) vs WIS (Insight) will allow the monk some sort of advantage in initiative, attack roll, or both.
-DS
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
AndrewJO wrote:
AndrewJO wrote: