In reading the rules I am confused about back stabbing. The way I'm reading it, is sounds overpowered. I seems like as long as he is attacking somone that another player is near he just gets the extra damage. Does the rogue have to move or hide before doing his Sneak Attack? It seems just automatic, like what the hobgoblins can do.
I have a related question about how surprise works. If a human character was entering a very dark room and knew that there was a rogue in there waiting to attack him but he can't see it because he did not make his perception roll vs the sneak roll, would the rogue still get advantage from a surprise attack? I was thinking no, but I just wanted to double check.
Drop your baggage from prior editions. Sneak Attack is no longer meant to represent stabbing your target in the back when they have no idea you are there. Sneak Attack now represents "underhanded" opportunistic combat techniques that focus on exploiting the opens that present when your target is having to split their attention between you and other enemies.
It is absolutely intended that you get the extra damage so long as another enemy of your target is nearby and not incapacitated - without that boost in damage, rogue characters would fall far behind all other classes when it comes to contributing meaningfully to combat.
Surprise is left largely up to the DM, as is stealth. The situation you describe seems like one in which I would have the human be surprised because they cannot see the rogue (because of the darkness) and cannot hear the rogue (because of the successful stealth check) which means the rogue is hidden. However, unless the rogue can see through the darkness the advantage they would get for the human not seeing them is negated by the disadvantage they would have for not being able to see the human.
To put that clearly as possible: The rogue would surprise the human, meaning the human would not act in the first round of combat, but the rogue would not be attacking with advantage unless they had some way (darkvision, for example) to see the human through the very dark room.
KaliRA73 wrote:
KaliRA73 wrote:
KaliRA73 wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Basic rules p.69
The DM determines who might be surprised. If
Yes, that is the part of the rules entry for surprise. It says the following.
1. The DM determines who might be surprised. This empowers the DM to make rulings at his table to determine if surprise is in effect and to also not follow the following example scenarios and how they should be resolved.
2. If no one at the start of an encounter is trying to use stealth to be hidden, everyone involved in the encounter notices everyone else. This is directly relevant to number 4 below. This is a specific scenario that the rules for surprise address and specifically call out hwo it should be resolved.
3. If someone does try to use stealth to be hidden at the start of the encounter, compare the stealth check DC to passive perception. This is just a reiteration of the stealth rules from elsewhere in the book. this is a specific scenario that the rules for surprise address and specifically call out how it should be resolved.
4. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter. This sentence tells us how the DM is supposed to make his/her rulings about surprise, see 1. Anything that is considered a threat, which is not noticed by a character or monster, can cause surprise. There are many ways to achieve this such as but not limited to: Being hidden and unnoticed (the scenario of the OP clearly states that the human character has noticed the rogue is in the room, who is a threat, he just doesn't know the rogue's location because it is hidden), rolling deception vs insight to not be noticed as a threat, etc..
These are open to DM interpretation of course because of #1 above. The DM is empowered to not follow the rules listed. No one is arguing that.
Hope this helps.
It comes down to what constitutes "noticing a threat".
The OP told us that the character knew the rogue was in the room. Therefore he was aware of (had previously noticed) the presence of the creature that posed a threat and its general location. He had noticed the threat. If someone had asked him "Is it okay to go into the room?" he would reasonably have said "Be careful, there's a rogue in there."
It would have been different if the character hadn't known of the rogue's existence and had no reason to expect there to be a rogue hiding in the darkness. Then, if he wandered into the room he might have been surprised.
If I look at my own feet and fail a perception roll, it doens't mean my feet have disappeared. It might mean I didn't notice my boot laces were undone but not that I didn't know I was wearing boots.
I read it like:
1. DM determines surprise by the system explained below.
2. If at least one person of a side does not try to be stealthy, there will be no surprise for the opposing side.
3. Everybody on the side that tries to be stealthy rolls stealth which is contested by passive perception of everyone on the opposing side.
4. Only if everybody that rolled stealth succeeded against the passive perception of a creature, that creature will be surprised.
I don't read that the explanation is just a "specific scenario" anywhere. It is pretty factual (no "may" or "might" anywhere). It's the exact rule on how to determine surprise. Noticing a threat directly refers to perception beating stealth, that's why it's in the same paragraph, imo.
Also, basic rules p.65 "Noticing threats"
Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the
BoldItalic wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Stealth is meant to be less hidebound and more DM judged in this edition, compared to some of the very detailed rules it's had in the past, so I wouldn't get too bogged down with trying to figure out RAW (well, I wouldn't most of the time, but especially here). I'd say there's just a few key points you want to keep in mind for 5e, especially considering your initial question:
- All a rogue needs for sneak attack is advantage (which is granted by numerous things) or a capable ally adjacent to the target. This even applies to ranged attacks, so you can plink away a bit back from the fighter who is toe to toe with your enemy, and get sneak.
- If the target of your attack can't see you, you get advantage, which triggers sneak per the above. If you can't see either, you get disadvantage, that will cancel out the advantage and prevent sneak attack. Note that stealth/hiding is not required for this, since it's a higher level of sneakiness than just being unseen. You can be singing in the dark, and so long as you can see and your opponent cant, you get advantage and thus sneak attack.
- Hiding/stealth is more than the above, it indicates being unseen and unheard. Being hidden means your opponent either doesn't know you're there at all, or that they've lost track of your position if they do know you're in the area. It usually involves opposed skill checks, Dexterity (stealth) vs passive Wisdom (perception) unless they search, in which case they get an active roll.
- How and when you can hide is going to be subject to a lot of DM/table variation. Some people think you need to be totally unseen and stay totally unseen while sneaking around, which makes stealth basically about sound since you're already out of sight. Others are more likely to rule that while you can't hide in plain sight, you can hide while out of sight and then possibly remain hidden for a few moments while moving around assuming it's reasonable RP wise (the sidebar on PHB 177 specifically calls this out as a DM-ruling area). This is probably something you want to clear up with your DM before playing a stealth-focused character, because the stricter version will make stealth mostly useless without magic or certain racial abilities (invisibility, wood elf, lightfoot halfling, etc).
- Surprise is now a status applied per combatant rather than a special pre-combat 'surprise round.' Anyone who is surprised can't take actions until after the 1st turn, but they don't inherently grant advantage. Of course, many surprise situations also involve being hidden (and thus out of sight) which may grant advantage anyway. But they're not the same thing. Assassination Rogues have a specific ability that makes them auto-crit against surprised targets, so the distinction really matters for them.
- People argue about how/when you get surprise. The 'doesn't notice a threat' text on page 189 can be interpeted either as 'a creature who fails to notice any enemies at all' or 'a creature who fails to notice even one enemy' . If you go with the prior interpretation any unhidden character (ie someone who fails to beat the passive perception of even one opponent) will mean there won't be surprise, although their hidden buddy will still get advantage for being hidden. If you go with the latter interpretation, any hidden character will cause any foes that fail their checks to be surprised. The latter option makes a single stealth character much more powerful/useful, although it can also lead to wonky situations where no one takes any actions on the first round :P
For what it's worth, I personally go with more permissive stealth (ie, you just need to be out of sight to start hiding and are hidden until spotted, you attack, or do something else to obviously reveal your position) but the less permissive surprise, which means stealth characters can do their stuff more often, but they also need to take more risk (say by moving ahead of the group) to launch a full surprise attack if the rest of the group isn't stealthy.
If one person is stealthy and are hidden, that can mean that surprise can affect people. The rules also state that you can in effect even surprise your own allies or that some people can be noticed while others are not. All it takes for a side to be stealthy is for 1 person out of the whole group to try. The others are automatically noticed.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I'm not inventing that, it's right in the rules I quoted above:
"Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."
It clearly says a threat and not all threats.
And are you saying that "allies are not threats" is not in the rules? Sure, it is not in the rules. Just how it isn't in the rules that a torch becomes unlit when it falls into water. It's just common sense.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Since the game effects of being surprised are that you can't use a reaction before your first turn and cannot do anything in that first turn, it also means that (all else being equal) if you are not surprised then you can use reactions before your first turn and you can do stuff on your first turn.
So how does this work when you have noticed some of your attackers but not noticed others?
Obviously (he says on the Internet!) the fact that you've seen some enemies means you can start doing stuff, and the fact that you haven't noticed someone else doesn't prevent you from taking actions against the ones that you have noticed!
On the other hand, you can hardly take a reaction to react to an individual that you haven't noticed, before your first turn.
How it should work is this: you have been ambushed. The DM calls for Perception/Stealth checks to determine surprise, and you have noticed enemies A and C, but have not noticed B or D.
Initiative is rolled. The result is the order: A B You C D.
A's turn. A did not surprise you, so you can use a reaction triggered by something he does.
B: he surprised you, so you cannot use your reaction to respond to what he does. After he does it, what he did may very well reveal his presence as a threat.
Your turn: because you have noticed enemies, you are not surprised by them and can act, but you cannot deliberately act against enemies that you didn't notice.
C: normal combat rules apply; you noticed him and you have already acted.
D: you can use a reaction against what he does, because the restrictions of being surprised mean you cannot use reactions before your first turn, but this is after your first turn, so react away. However, if D is an assassin then if he hits you it will be an auto-crit because you still don't know he is there (until after his first attack gives him away); D has still surprised you.
Does that all make sense?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
KaliRA73 wrote:
My suggestion is still just to read the tricky 'fails to notice a threat' line in the more sane of the two legit ways it can be read, which totally avoids the weird scenario ArialBlack describes.
The fact that one reading doesn't lead to totally incomprehensible outcomes is a good argument toward that reading being the intended one, imo 
QwertyAzerty wrote:
danyc wrote:
There's two ways to read it, which I mentioned above but will repost: 'a creature who fails to notice any enemies at all' or 'a creature who fails to notice even one enemy'
If you go with the latter, which some people seem to do because of the singular 'a' (even though the indefinite article there is referring to the word threat, which can of course refer to either a singular or plural number of actual entities, ie an army is still be referred to as a singular threat in English), you end up with the situation where if even one creature out a large number of creatures passes it's stealth check, it causes surprise, denying actions and leading to the weird 'why can't I react to the guy I can see?' scenario.
If you read it as the former, that doesn't happen, although it does mean the whole group needs to be stealthy.
ArialBlack wrote:
I expect clarification eventually via sage advise.
RAW, I read the line...
Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.
...as applying to each and every threat individually.
This means that if 10 baddies are sneaking toward you and you only notice one, then you are surprised by nine but not surprised by one. Since the rules consequences of surprise are the actions/reactions you may or may not take, this applies individually to each baddy: you can use reactions (before your turn) to react to creatures you notice but not to those you haven't. You can do stuff on your first turn, but not against the baddies that you haven't noticed yet (bearing in mind that some of those may have revealed themselves before your first turn).
Which part of RAW does this contradict?
ArialBlack wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
danyc wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
It turns out that we would run it the same way, and are just talking past one another. Oh, well! Internet. : /
I guess I'm saying that the guys you haven't seen can surprise you in terms of the Assassin abilities, but you are already acting and reacting in the first round to the baddies that you can see.
Macv12 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
I'm with mrpopstar on that one. I would rule no surprise too. But if the one that suddenly draws a weapon rolls higher initiative, I might decide that his first attack has advantage.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
Then you are unrealistically denying a legitimate, even common, assassination tactic: a betrayal by a trusted friend, who unexpectedly draws a hidden weapon and shanks the victim.
The rules scream out that this should allow the assassin to use his class abilities to assassinate, which rely on the target being surprised by that attack.
This is not automatic success for surprise. There is still the contested Deception/Insight roll, because surprise is not about who reacts faster (that's initiative) but about the victim either being caught unaware OR noticing the assassin's body language at the last moment.
If the victim does notice, then even if the assassin is faster then the victim can still use reactions and if the victim is faster then he can get his retaliation in first, to coin a phrase.
If the victim doesn't notice (the assassin's Deception roll was higher than the victim's Insight roll) then if the victim is faster then he can't do anything on his own turn but he can use a reaction to the sucker punch. If the victim is both surprised and slower, then he's, well, shafted.
This is entirely consistent with the rules. Saying that surprise is not possible in this situation is not accurate in terms of the rules and totally unrealistic and unsatisfying as a simulation and as a gaming experience.
mrpopstar wrote:
I think both interpretations (advatage on init vs actual surprise) are appropriate and valid in different circumstances, and this is definitely an area of DM's preference not strict RAW arbitration. As I've already said, I'd treat the monk scenario as one where at best he'd get advantage, while a quick dagger in the belly from a trusted friend I'd probably allow true surprise for. It is worth pointing out that where this is most relevant, with the Assassin Rogue, that the subclass includes social abilities and is actually inferior to the Thief rogue at sneaking up on people (lacking Supreme Stealth), suggesting that these 'friendly face' assassinations are as much an intended part of its MO as sneaking up and slitting someone's throat from behind.
Re: 'Draw a blade and attack' vs 'attack with drawn blade', I think this is a somewhat awkward distinction to make in 5e only because the edition, unlike prior ones, doesn't offer an option to distinguish builds in this dimension (ie, 3e's Quick Draw). Since basically everyone pulls their weapons at the same (fast) speed, I think it's again something that probably falls into DM sense and to some extent, even the genre you're playing in. I don't have much problem with a rogue popping a dagger out of their sleeve and striking in nearly the same motion, vs. simply holding the dagger behind their back or something. But drawing a broadsword while standing in front of the king and then hitting him with it is probably a bit much. Then again, if you change 'broadsword' into 'katana', and 'king' into 'corrupt shogunate official', maybe the quick draw surprise kill makes sense again
danyc wrote:
If you are in role-play mode and the old man pulls a shiv, that triggers combat mode - surprise is decided, initiatives are rolled and turns are taken. If the PCs were unready for combat - shields stowed, helmets off, weapons packed away, and generally relaxing, then surprise would surely be be appropriate. Otherwise, I would let the initiative rolls decide who gets the first blow. A PC with high Dex (and therefore likely to be high in the initiative order) might well react fast enough to intercept the old man's attack, or the old man might be too quick for them. If you want the old man to get in the first strike, you have only to give him Initiative 30 and it will look after itself but personally I wouldn't do that just arbitrarily.
mrpopstar wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Go walk through a good haunted house. You know full well that stuff is gonna jump out at you. If you say you're not surprised when it does, you're a damn dirty liar.
Knowing there's a Rogue in a room where you can't see a dang thing isn't gonna help you. You're probably more libel to be shocked when the attack finally comes because of how tense you'll be waiting for it. Or, you know, the Rogue can just wait for you to leave and surprise you somewhere else. It's a fantasy setting, just because you saw someone go in, how can you truly believe what you saw when magic might be involved?
Danny_Montanny wrote:
I love to be scared.
Love it, love it, love it.
The haunted house analogy is really good and I'll need to remember it for the next time there's an at-table argument about staying on guard/alert/etc.
@mrpopstar, I'm curious:
If your objection to the surprise mechanic is mostly the potential for surprise + win init for 2 successive turns and you favor the advantage on init approach, would you just alter the ability of an assassin playing at your table? Say, making the first clause about attacking someone who hasn't acted trigger the crit instead of just giving advantage?
And do you find the surprise + init thing problematic in outdoor, stealthy ambushes as well, or just face to face?
For the Assassinate ability, the first benefit is there to give them a boost to non-surprise combat as well as when they're surprising a target. So if they're faster than their enemies, they have the advantage.
I've never once had trouble adjudicating the combat rules when it comes to surprise.
danyc wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
danyc wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar writes, and keeps writing, 'If my senses perceive you, you do not gain surprise'. All this means is that he's wrong, lots of times.
What the rules say is, 'Any character or monster that doesn't notice a THREAT is surpried at the start of the encounter'.
Not, 'notice the existence of', not, 'notice the presence of a creature', but, 'notice a threat'.
The butler isn't a threat until he makes his move. That move doesn't start when his hidden blade is already out, it starts when he starts to go for his knife. His presence is obvious, but noticing his presence does not mean that you notice the threat. In order to resolve the question of whether or not the victim notices this threat, skill rolls are used: Deception versus Insight in this case.
So yes. RAW, the sucker punch can cause surprise in the rules sense, and is a pretty good simulation of reality.
'If my senses perceive you, you do not gain surprise' is simply not true, RAW, and doesn't make sense as a way to determine sucker punches.
ArialBlack wrote:
Threat is really a vague word, you can read it in many different senses.
A person can be a threat and a situation can be a threat. I personally would connect "threat" usually with a person. "That guy who doesn't like me and always tries to get me hurt is a threat" rather than "The moment the guy gives me a push while I'm standing at a cliff, it becomes a threat".
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Here's the deal, being a good DM is making sure everyone is having fun. If a player comes to you with a goal in mind (surprise that guy) and an approach (act drunk so he doesn't think anything of me until it's too late), it's your job to adjudicate that action within reason. Is it truly reasonable to say their action is an automatic failure? Binary restrictions don't have a place in a game that needs human reasoning to adjudicate.
If you're the DM, you're allowed to rule however you see fit, AL or not. You will find that when you make rulings that limit fun and creativity from the players, it will result in players not having very much fun. With that being said, there also must be a bond of trust between all parties. The players need to know that they can trust the DM to be fair, just as mulch as the players need to be trustworthy in their play.
In conclusion, just learn to say, "Yes, and..."
ArialBlack wrote:
"... but I've just been met with: "Yeah, but threat. You just don't understand."
Victimizing yourself now? We've explained it to you for a good 20 posts now and yet you're just completely stuck on:
"being seen means the same thing as being noticed as a threat, no surprise. The only way to gain surprise is to be hidden."
That's not in the rules at all. You're using the specific examples on how to resolve stealth in the surprise rules as the only means to gain surprise. That's your personal ruling or houserule. You're stopping every other scenario and your version of compromise is to force someone to hide in order to gain surprise, which isn't a compromise at all. If you're really an AL DM you shouldn't be using your personal houserules like this in a league setting.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar,
I still fail to understand your logic that being seen equates to noticing a threat.
1. Numerous examples have been given where the attacker was seen but the threat was not noticed. Can you elaborate on how any of those examples are wrong or misapplied?
2. I seem to recall your argument or implication at the start of the thread being was that surprise was ridiculously strong and that's why you limited it. Is that still the case?
3. In other words, if surprise was just advantage on your first attack would you allow the sucker punch to grant surprise?
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
As before, I'm not going to try to argue the actual debate with you any more since it's gotten repetitive. You're stuck on your interpretation of 'noticing a threat', and everyone else has tried and failed to convince you to broaden it. That said, I do want to address some of the comments about the frequency of this sort of thing and its appropriateness as a trope:
mrpopstar wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
danyc wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
danyc wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
A summary of the exchange up till now
Frogreaver: By rule can a PC deceive an NPC into thinking he is not a threat?
mrpopstar: I agree! Deception allows you to convincingly hide the truth.
Frogreaver: 2. When does combat start?
mrpopstar: I agree! Combat begins when the Dungeon Master calls for initiative.
mrpopstar: I believe a threat has been noticed because sides have been established and all combatants perceive each other.
Frogreaver: Do you believe that noticing another person is the same as noticing a threat?
mrpopstar: In D&D combat, yes.
Frogreaver: Maybe you can elaborate why you believe noticing another person in D&D combat is the same as noticing a threat? I think that's the part none of us are understanding. Where does that come from?
mrpopstar: You are in combat. Any combatant that is not on your side is a potential threat.
Frogreaver: 'm with you, except.... how do the bandits know that harmless looking old man is a combatant?
mrpopstar: He has enrolled himself in the chaos of combat and he is not on their side, so he is a potential threat.
mrpopstar: You seem to imply that combatants who have not yet taken a turn in combat are standing idle. That's not what the narrative assumes. The narrative assumes an explosion of chaos that we use rounds and turns to adjudicate the outcome of.
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
So surprise is determined before initiative is rolled.
IT goes:
determine surprise
determine positions
roll initiative
By the rules, you have to determine surprise first. Yet you claim that you don't give surprise because the old man who isn't a threat rolled initiative makes him a threat automatically (again going back to you metagaming mechanic knowledge into NPC actions or what you as the DM knows vs what the NPC knows), which you also claim is a perceivable act by anyone who is part of combat (complete fabrication here). You're not only contradicting yourself but you're flagrantly not following the PHB rules for how combat start works. You're also making it clear that you use houserules in AL sanctioned events.
Which location do you DM at?
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
[quote="Orethalion"]
The rules are all about going in turn order. X takes his turn, Y takes his turn, Z takes his turn, then repeat. Follow that with the fact that my PC can't react like he should be able to in simultaneous combat and you end up with that sort of philosophy being a home brew thing.
[quote]
That's why I view it like a playback. It is adjudicated granularly, but understood to be fluid.
It's important because until your intiative come up, you haven't acted, so you really aren't fighting anything. You're waiting patiently to enter the fight.
[quote="mrpopstar"]
[quote="Orethalion"]
The rules are all about going in turn order. X takes his turn, Y takes his turn, Z takes his turn, then repeat. Follow that with the fact that my PC can't react like he should be able to in simultaneous combat and you end up with that sort of philosophy being a home brew thing.
That's why I view it like a playback. It is adjudicated granularly, but understood to be fluid. It's important because until your intiative come up, you haven't acted, so you really aren't fighting anything. You're waiting patiently to enter the fight.
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Interestingly enough, using mrpopstar's reasoning I'm pretty sure i could come up with enough rule support to show that a DM can deny a surprise round by always starting combat as someone is starting to attack and thus since attacking makes you lose hidden you are no longer hidden and then combat begins and since you are not hiding you cannot surprise the enemy....
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
danyc wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Marked. Explosion of activity in topic - debate over definition of "threat." Every time.
Still think one should allow face-to-face surprise. It's a vital mechanic in a couple of games I've been playing recently, Assassin's Creed and Tenchu: Stealth Assassins.
People in AC (inexplicably) rarely think you're suspicious at a glance, even guards. The ability to walk right up to them and stab them in the gut is central to the game. The only times this doesn't work are when the enemy is actively suspicious of you; as in, you didn't surprise them.
Enemies in Tenchu also give you a half second or so standing in their face before shouting "NINJA!" Of course this generally follows having been stealthy, so could be considered movement during a surprise round. But there are also Disguise items, which are exactly what we're talking about. And, of course, the humble poisoned rice ball.
Mass Effect does this too, all the time. One notable example. Note that the reporter is surprised in the first couple games. By the third she's expecting the threat, so she isn't Surprised. She just rolls initiative against Shepard, fails, and sucks enough to go down after one hit anyway.
Talking to someone face-to-face before getting the jump on them is so much more dramatic and satisfying, it's a trope. You just don't achieve quite the same thing with initiative.
Macv12 wrote:
There seems to be an unstated difference of opinion about what it means when "The DM determines surprise" before initiative is rolled.
- The DM decides who, if anyone, is surprised and announces that decision so that everyone can apply it, as appropriate, during round one
- The DM decides who is surprised and applies the effects of it immediately, before initiative is rolled, perhaps by allowing creatures who are not surprised to make free attacks
I believe that meaning (1) is intended but it depends on what you think the word "determine" means. If you think it means "choose", then you go for (1) whereas if you think it means "resolve" you might go for (2).
BoldItalic wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It's important to note that surprise is not a condition, it's a determination of awareness. In situations where one side of the battle is unnoticed, they gain surprise over the other.
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
It could happen that a defender who is surprised but rolls high for initiative, is still unaware of hidden attackers when his turn ends, if the attackers rolled low in initiative and haven't yet revealed their position by attacking. The defender is no longer surprised (in the sense that he can now make reactions) but doesn't yet know what the threat is or where it is coming from.
BoldItalic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
danyc wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
danyc wrote:
mrpopstar, I think we have agreed that it does to a large degree depend on when combat is started.
Which is why it is soo important that you admit that if a combat is started while the rogue is still deceiving the bandit that
there is nothing that the rules dictate must have happen at the start of combat to immediatley end the rogues deception.
Therefore the rogue by rule can still be deceiving the bandit into believeing he isn't a threat or combatant at the start of combat.
So in this situation that I've described above. Whether or not you would make the rulings that get us here you must agree that these are valid rulings.
I just don't see how you can keep denying these things like you have done the entire thread.
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Let's not forget that I fully support Orethalian's proposal to use the skills with different abilities variant. I find it reasonable to compare the monk's Charisma (Stealth) check with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of the bandit in this scenario.
This whole conversation might have more to do with my understanding of the difference between Deception and Stealth than it does anything else.
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Funny enough, I can honestly say that in all my years of gaming, I have never seen a sucker punch in Dungeons & Dragons.
mrpopstar wrote:
The game has a surprise mechanic. The game wants us to use it.
If you roll for initiative before anyone is even thinking about violence, then what's the point. The PCs are having dinner with friends, no-one is even thinking about starting something, and the DM tells us to roll initiative. Why? There better be some ninjas about to abseil through the skylight or something, otherwise you've just wasted everyone's time.
If you roll initiative after the cowboy has already drawn and fired his pistol and his bullet has already killed your PC, you are going to feel cheated.
If your cowboy PC is in the saloon, quietly drinking with his mates, and unbeknownst to him, one of his 'buddies' is actually a deep cover assassin sent from a possible future to kill him before he can invent the cellphone, then you don't start combat after the shot, you start it when someone could, if they realised, shout, 'Look out, he's going for his gun!'
'Going for his gun' is something which can be percieved. A distinctive hand motion, a drop of his shoulder, a narrowing of his eyes could give away his intentions if only you are insightful enough to pick up on these clues. He is obviously trying to conceal his murderous intentions. This is where you call for opposed checks: Deception versus Insight.
If you win, then you have perceived these clues. You are not surprised in game terms. You act normally. Initiative is rollled. The assassin has not yet drawn his gun, but you have noticed that he is going for it, and seen the murderous look in his eyes. If you are faster on the draw (higher initiative) then you could very well out-draw him, and shoot first. But he was going for his gun! If he has the higher initiative, then because you realised that he was going for his gun then you can use a reaction if you have one that helps; perhaps you can use your reaction to take half damage or something, because realising that he was going for his gun gave you that split second chance to try to throw yourself out of the way.
But what if you failed to perceive his fatal intent? (his Deception beat your Insight) Then you are surprised. Initiative is rolled while his gun is still in his holster, and he is still going for it, but you didn't realise in time. If your initiative is higher, you could not move or act on your turn, but by the time the assassin goes then your faster reflexes allow you to use your reaction to dodge. But if he was faster, then you don't even get to do that reaction.
This is an example of the rules in action. The crucial thing is that, in a sucker punch scenario, the perceivable threat is not the mere presence of the cowboy, because you trust him. The perceivable threat is not after he has shot you! The threat that you can perceive is when he goes for his gun. Or goes for the knife in his sleeve, or tenses up just before he literally sucker punches you.
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Gareth has certainly perceived the Lady, but might not perceive the threat of the sudden push.
Insight allows you to perceive body language and other clues, and quickly understand what these clues mean. Anyone can see the way Lady Herring tenses her shoulders like that, but only those good at Insight realise that this body language indicates that an attack is about to be launched.
Perception is about the senses, but Insight is about understanding what the things you can see mean for predicting what's person will do in the immediate future. Insight, not Perception, is the appropriate skill to work out if Gareth is surprised.
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
You were just as wrong in the other thread. Realising that you are about to be attacked (or failing to realise) is what surprise is all about. You use the skills that make the most sense in the circumstances, and in the kinds of scenarios that are prevalent in our games, Stealth/Perception usually makes the most sense, Just like in one of the examples of surprise in the book.
But when the clue to imminent violence is from a sudden attack from someone you trust, perceiving their presence doesn't tell you anything. They've been present for weeks without initiative being rolled. What's needed is to realise that the subtle body movements that are obvious to anyone actually indicate an imminent attack, and this is not obvious to anyone, it takes insight into human behaviour and body language to realise that there is a threat.
The rules for passive checks, stealth, stealth while traveling, perception, noticing threats, noticing threats while traveling, and surprise all have common language.
ArialBlack wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
You can discuss this forever as even when we come down to a single sentence in the rules we have different interpretations of it. It already starts with "The DM determines it. [Explanation how to do it]." Some people see this as the DM can do whatever he wants and the below is just an example explanation. Other people read it as the DM determines it by using the following procedure.
The DM is a referee as stated in the rules.
In a soccer game "The referee determines offside". Does that mean he can freely decide it? Not really, he should try to determine it based on the given rules. Sure, he might be wrong on his decision often, but that's because he or his assistant didn't see it well enough. Sure if someone pays him well enough, he might decide in favour of one team, but that's not really in the sense of the rules when they say that he determines offside.
For me everything that follows in that paragraph is an explanation of the prodedure that the DM has to do to determine surprise. It is quite fixed about how to do it, it doesn't say anything about deception, that's for sure. And if you see it all in one procedure context that "noticing a threat" directly refers to perception > stealth and is not to be seen as something separate where you need to apply realism and think "Did he notice a threat?".
Others just see those sentences as single information-bits that handle example cases and single standalone rules.
There isn't really one absolute true reading, I have reasons for believing in my interpretation (e.g. "it's all in one paragraph so it belongs together"), but there's no clear proof.
My take on sucker punch scenario to avoid discussion about whether you can notice a threat before combat or not (let's assume 1 vs 1 to avoid complexity):
- before combat, nobody noticed a threat (deception)
- the moment monk says "I punch him", the monk starts moving his hand; at this point, the threat is noticed by everyone as the monk does not try to be stealthy, so there is no surprise
- the monk probably has 1-2 seconds advantage, that's about the time someone needs to react to something like that (about 1 second movement needed before it can even be perceived as unnatural movement, then another half second for a trained fighter to start reacting to it), so the DM is free to rule he has advantage in some way (like initiative roll)
Well anyway, what I learned from all these discussions:
a) Before I join a DM, I should ask him directly how he handles Hide and Surprise.
b) If I DM, I should write down how I handle Hide and Surprise before starting the game.
c) I'm really interested in an official statement.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
friends I do not know if this is the correct place for this type of post, but if it is not excuse me today in my meeting one doubts arose: After rolling the initiatives of the rogue group would attack first , however he was sneaky and narrate their attack said he would use stealth to take a vested at the opponent. Is that possible ? for therefore he would have to run and I 'd like to know , it is possible to run when using stealth ?
'The DM determines surprise'. Why did they write that sentence? Why did they waste valuable book space? The DM determines nearly everything anyway! It's pointless redundancy to say that the DM determines this too.
Unless there is another reason. I think there is. It is obvious to me, but I totally accept that different people read things in different ways.
For me, reading it as, 'The DM determines surprise, and this is the precise method he does so' makes it completely pointless and redundant to say that the DM dertermines surprise; they would have just written, 'Surprise is determined in the following manner...'.
So what is the other way of reading it? That the reason they go to the trouble of writing those 'DM determines' words is that the writers recognise that there are so many variations on possible surprise scenarios that to detail every possibility would add six extra pages to the PHB. They decided to prioritise 'rulings, not rules', and this is how they do that.
The DM is fully expected to decide for himself what the best way to resolve surprise is, given that only the DM knows the full story of what is going on. Some examples are given, but these are certainly not exhaustive. Stealth/Perception is the example, and to be fair this is the appropriate contest for the vast majority of combats faced by D&D adventurers, wandering through unknown areas and being attacked by obviously hostile monsters. The paragraph ends with the absolute crucial point of the whole exercise: surprise is all about noticing a threat, and this is the touchstone for every decision regarding surprise.
So while I admit that the paragraph in question can easily be understood either way in terms of what words mean, after analysis only one way actually makes sense. The other way has us trying to say that you cannot be surprised by a sudden attack from your grandma.
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Macv12 wrote: