Assassinate and Surprise

[Myzz]

Assassinate PHB 97: Starting at 3rd level, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop of your enemies. You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit.


Per PHB 189: ...Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter...

Per PHB 189 Combat Step by Step insert: determining surprise only happens at the beginning of combat.

1. Per RAW surprise is ONLY possible during the first round of combat.

2. What happens when unexpected foes materialize out of thin air?

3. RAW seems to trivialize an assassin "waiting for the right moment to strike"... creating "you must open combat so you can get the right moment"

4. Does Assassinate give too much power to an assassin if they were allowed to wait in the weeds (so to speak) and get a full round of crits in after combat has begun?

5. Even if that use of Assassinate were to be limited to 1 per encounter?

6. Or does that just create too many rules for a system that's supposed to be streamlined?

[b4ndito]

It isn't necessarily surprise it's also if you are before them in the initiative order

[Myzz]

It isn't necessarily surprise it's also if you are before them in the initiative order

That is true for the first half of Assassinate = gain advantage on all attack's before target acts that combat, thereby gaining sneak attack.

BUT for the auto crits, that only occurs on a surprised creature, which per RAW only occurs during the first round IF they are surprised, not necessarily just because they have not acted yet.

[Daishain]

I would be willing to grant surprise and all the benefits that brings to a careful assassin that used another conflict to draw the attention of his target. If anything, that would be even more effective in most cases.

It would only apply if all combatants not allied with the assassin had no reason to suspect that there may be another threat in play, so hiding after combat begins definitely does not help in this respect, and the same holds true if the visible threat is a bunch of ninjas or something that just jumped out of a tree.

With that stated, I would suggest limiting the encounters that make use of such a houserule. Players don't tend to react well to surprise TPKs they had little chance of avoiding.

[calebrus]

Surprise only occurs because the enemy (or you) weren't prepared to defend themselves because they didn't see the attack coming. Their guard was down, so they don't get to act this round.
Advantage on surprise attacks is the mechanical result of the target's guard being down.
Once they have acted, their guard is no longer down, which is why surprise can only happen on the first round.

[Myzz]

Surprise only occurs because the enemy (or you) weren't prepared to defend themselves because they didn't see the attack coming. Their guard was down, so they don't get to act this round.
Advantage on surprise attacks is the mechanical result of the target's guard being down.
Once they have acted, their guard is no longer down, which is why surprise can only happen on the first round.

By that logic a Guard on duty can never be surprised, since he always has his guard up... unless he's loafing, but then is he really on duty.

The idea is that you know of the threat... if an invisible creature, that you had no idea was there, attacks... then it should be counted as a surprise attack regardless of what round the invisible creature showed up and decided to join the fray.

[calebrus]

By that logic a Guard on duty can never be surprised, since he always has his guard up... unless he's loafing, but then is he really on duty.

The idea is that you know of the threat... if an invisible creature, that you had no idea was there, attacks... then it should be counted as a surprise attack regardless of what round the invisible creature showed up and decided to join the fray.

Guards can never be surprised? That's hogwash. Anyone can be surprised. No one always has their guard up.

As for any invisible creature getting surprise: Their being invisible is why they get advantage on attacks. Because the target can't see them. Mechanically it's the same as surprise, unless you happen to be an Assassin rogue.
It looks to me like you just want to fabricate excuses to roll double damage sneak attacks more often in combat.
Nope.

[Boci]

Guards can never be surprised? That's hogwash. Anyone can be surprised. No one always has their guard up.

As for any invisible creature getting surprise: Their being invisible is why they get advantage on attacks. Because the target can't see them. Mechanically it's the same as surprise, unless you happen to be an Assassin rogue.
It looks to me like you just want to fabricate excuses to roll double damage sneak attacks more often in combat.
Nope.

Why? Assassinate is situational enough that getting it twice in the same combat would require time spent out of combat, as well as a fair bit of luck and some favorable terrain. Why are you against that on principle?

[BootStrapTommy]

Optimal situation allows for two rounds of benefit.

In the surprise round, you have advantage and autocrit on any one who can't act.

On the next round, however, you can still milk the advantage, assuming you get superior initiative.



The idea is that you know of the threat... if an invisible creature, that you had no idea was there, attacks... then it should be counted as a surprise attack regardless of what round the invisible creature showed up and decided to join the fray. That grants advantage, not surprise.

The thing seems to be that people want to abuse Assassinate. But RAW and RAI, however, dictate it was a combat opener. For balancing reasons.

[calebrus]

Why? Assassinate is situational enough that getting it twice in the same combat would require time spent out of combat, as well as a fair bit of luck and some favorable terrain. Why are you against that on principle?

Because Assassinate is powerful enough to remove any appropriately leveled single target from combat with a single attack, pretty much without fail as long as you hit (and remember you have Adv on the attack, so you're most likely going to hit).
There's almost no reason to even roll damage. If you hit with Assassinate, you are almost guaranteed to kill whatever it is you hit.

It is powerful enough that limiting it to once per combat (and requiring setup for even that one time) should not be altered. So yes, I am absolutely against that on principal. Feel free to change it at your table if you want, but it's already OP and should not be changed.
If the opportunity is missed, then it's missed.

[Myzz]

ex 1: Creature X sees Assassin B turn invisible. B has advantage on X

ex 2: Creature Y is in a fight and never sees Assassin C who is invisible and has been lurking behind him since the fighting began. C has advantage on Y.

the result is the same, though it seems like it shouldn't be.

The point is that the way surprise and Assassinate are written it behooves the Assassin to stealth up ALONE ahead of the party and start combat before the party gets there... Which seems stupid!

I'd much rather prefer a scenario where the Assassin is stealthed slightly ahead of the party and as the 2 forces clash, the Assassin jumps out to wreck havoc!

I'm not advocating rolling more dice... I'm happy with letting assassins role 1 auto crit per combat as long as they were not detected. I am against taking that ability away from them, by way of them playing their character intelligently!

[BootStrapTommy]

The point is that the way surprise and Assassinate are written it behooves the Assassin to stealth up ALONE ahead of the party and start combat before the party gets there... Which seems stupid! Not sure where this comes from. If the entire party gains surprise, Assassinate comes into play for the assassin. Which is not unreasonable.

[Boci]

Because Assassinate is powerful enough to remove any appropriately leveled single target from combat with a single attack, pretty much without fail as long as you hit (and remember you have Adv on the attack, so you're most likely going to hit).
There's almost no reason to even roll damage. If you hit with Assassinate, you are almost guaranteed to kill whatever it is you hit.

It is powerful enough that limiting it to once per combat (and requiring setup for even that one time) should not be altered. So yes, I am absolutely against that on principal. Feel free to change it at your table if you want, but it's already OP and should not be changed.
If the opportunity is missed, then it's missed.

I really don't think this would be a problem. The assassin has to risk a lot to set this up, bowing out of combat and doing nothing for several rounds, and they have no grantee of succeeding. Unless it came up organically, trying to set up a second assassinate would likely be worse of an option for an assassin.

[calebrus]

I really don't think this would be a problem. The assassin has to risk a lot to set this up, bowing out of combat and doing nothing for several rounds, and they have no grantee of succeeding. Unless it came up organically, trying to set up a second assassinate would likely be worse of an option for an assassin.

This is simply not true.

Consider:
To get two rounds of sneak attacks in, you have to hit twice on two different rounds.
But you get two rounds of sneak attack in by only hitting once with Assassinate. And you can hide as a bonus action via Cunning Action.
So all you'd have to do is Cunning Action hide every round and you'd double your damage output, but you'd only need to hit once to do it (while you were rolling twice due to Adv).
You could do this every other round and lose nothing. You could do it every round and double your output.

There is a reason that Assassinate only works once, during the first round of combat, and only if you set it up. That reason is because Assassinate is INCREDIBLY powerful, and needs stipulations regulating it or it becomes OP.
Once again, do what you want at your table. But if you allow Assassinate multiple times you're making a mistake.

[Myzz]

Not sure where this comes from. If the entire party gains surprise, Assassinate comes into play for the assassin. Which is not unreasonable.

If your tank is wearing heavy armor... there is almost no way your entire party is going to get surprise...

IF your a party of 4 and you have 1 Heavy Armor Tank and 1 Life Cleric in Heavy Armor, half your party will not be in range when combat is initiated to take advantage of the Assassin Ability to Assassinate.


Perhaps the best example would be:

Assassin INFILTRATES an enemy organization, in the guard duty rotation. The party will join him at a predetermined time and place. The assassin approaches enemy gaurd disguised as an ally and makes idle chit chat while waiting for the party to show up. The Guard notices them (begin Initiative) and now when the Assassin stabs him in the back. Since the Guard was not surprised, he saw the party, the assassin does not crit... Even though the Guard was unaware there was a threat from the assassin...

I can't think of any other (sub)Class ability that can be so consistently tabled. Excepting never allowing a wizard to find any scrolls or other wizards spell books.

[Boci]

This is simply not true.

Consider:
To get two rounds of sneak attacks in, you have to hit twice on two different rounds.
But you get two rounds of sneak attack in by only hitting once with Assassinate. And you can hide as a bonus action via Cunning Action.
So all you'd have to do is Cunning Action hide every round and you'd double your damage output, but you'd only need to hit once to do it (while you were rolling twice due to Adv).
You could do this every other round and lose nothing. You could do it every round and double your output.

There is a reason that Assassinate only works once, during the first round of combat, and only if you set it up. That reason is because Assassinate is INCREDIBLY powerful, and needs stipulations regulating it or it becomes OP.

I never said the assassin should be able to use assassinate every round, just that an arbitrary once per combat limit is...well, arbitrary, and unnecessary. If the assassin simply hides and then attacks that shouldn't get assassinate, just advantage. But if he hides for several round, during which time he repositions himself without being seen once, and then attacks, that sounds like it should really be a second assassinate.

[calebrus]

If your tank is wearing heavy armor... there is almost no way your entire party is going to get surprise...

Group checks are a thing. You could very well get surprise no matter who is wearing heavy armor. One loud PC is no longer enough to ruin a stealth mission unless your entire group is terribly unlucky.

[Boci]

Group checks are a thing. You could very well get surprise no matter who is wearing heavy armor. One loud PC is no longer enough to ruin a stealth mission unless your entire group is terribly unlucky.

Could the assassin assassinate an enemy and an ally in the same combat?

[BootStrapTommy]

I never said the assassin should be able to use assassinate every round, just that an arbitrary once per combat limit is...well, arbitrary, and unnecessary. If the assassin simply hides and then attacks that shouldn't get assassinate, just advantage. But if he hides for several round, during which time he repositions himself without being seen once, and then attacks, that sounds like it should really be a second assassinate. What exactly about the waiting makes the two different?

[Myzz]

I'm not advocating rolling more dice... I'm happy with letting assassins role 1 auto crit per combat as long as they were not detected. I am against taking that ability away from them, by way of them playing their character intelligently!

I get not having more than 1 surprise allowed per combatant, if they were undetected prior to combat... or were an unknown source of threat (as in the case of a disguised assassin).

The point is Why should the assassin have to strike first (and start combat), which is the only way to get the surprise...

Not gain multiple assassinates during an encounter... simply waiting for the time to strike!

[Boci]

What exactly about the waiting makes the two different?

One involves an assassin jumping out from roughly the same position you last saw him, the other from a completely different location. The first one gives him an advantage, the second one surprises you.

[calebrus]

One involves an assassin jumping out from roughly the same position you last saw him, the other from a completely different location. The first one gives him an advantage, the second one surprises you.
I never said the assassin should be able to use assassinate every round, just that an arbitrary once per combat limit is...well, arbitrary, and unnecessary. If the assassin simply hides and then attacks that shouldn't get assassinate, just advantage. But if he hides for several round, during which time he repositions himself without being seen once, and then attacks, that sounds like it should really be a second assassinate.

round 1: Attack, CA hide, move
round 2: move, attack, disengage
Looks like I just fulfilled every requirement you stated. I even moved not once but twice *after* hiding, but before attacking, and still never lost an attack.

[Boci]

round 1: Attack, CA hide, move
round 2: move, attack, disengage
Looks like I just fulfilled every requirement you stated. I even moved twice *after* hiding, but before attacking, and still never lost an attack.

But its only 6 seconds between the attack. They are still focused on the assassin that just went missing. Give it a couple rounds though and they will have needed to switch their attention to another opponent. You are becoming the player you despise, trying to argue for assassinate every round. These aren't hard and fast rules I'm proposing, just that in the right circumstance, a second shot at assassinate doesn't seem unreasonable, in fact ruling it out entirely does.

[calebrus]

But its less than 6 seconds between the attack. They are still focused on the assassin that just went missing. Give it a couple rounds though and they will have needed to switch their attention to another opponent. You are becoming the player you despise, trying to argue for assassinate every round.

Now who's being arbitrary?
You can't see them and they are 30-60 feet away from where you think they are. That fulfills every requirement you set, and it doesn't lose any attacks.

And I'm not arguing for Assassinate every round. I'm trying to show you why your method doesn't work. You don't even want to allow what I just described, but it fills your requirements.

[Boci]

Now who's being arbitrary?
You can't see them and they are 30-60 feet away from where you think they are. That fulfills every requirement you set, and it doesn't lose any attacks.

These aren't hard and fast rules I'm proposing, just that in the right circumstance, a second shot at assassinate doesn't seem unreasonable, in fact ruling it out entirely regardless of circamstance does.

[Yagyujubei]

i would allow this to be activated once per combat only, under the normal RAW circumstances OR on a players first attack if they were to be completely hidden from the onset of battle.

I don't see this as being broken, as invisibility isnt THAT east to come by and in most any situation where this would be the case, as surprise round could have been achieved anyway.

[calebrus]

These aren't hard and fast rules I'm proposing, just that in the right circumstance, a second shot at assassinate doesn't seem unreasonable, in fact ruling it out entirely regardless of circamstance does.

Then why place a restriction on surprise at all? I mean, if the Assassin can get two Surprise rounds, why can't everyone?

[Boci]

Then why place a restriction on surprise at all? I mean, if the Assassin can get two Surprise rounds, why can't everyone?

Of course they can, but I thought only an assassin benefited from a surprise round over just attacking with advantage. But if other rogue archetypes, ranger or anyone wants to get a round when they act in initiative but treat their opponents as surprised, then sure, they can too.

[calebrus]

Of course they can, but I thought only an assassin benefited from a surprise round over just attacking with advantage. But if other rogue archetypes, ranger or anyone wants to get a round when they act in initiative but treat their opponents as surprised, then sure, they can too.

Assassin is the only one that benefits more from it as of this moment, but as more subclasses are created, that will not hold true forever.
They're future-proofing. You're breaking that future-proofing.

[Boci]

Assassin is the only one that benefits more from it as of this moment, but as more subclasses are created, that will not hold true forever.
They're future-proofing. You're breaking that future-proofing.

Well yeah, but maybe a future class will need a way to get a second surprise round to function, and will be underpowered with it. Then I'd be future-balancing. Did you consider that? Huh, huh, did you?

No, WotC most likely did not make it this way because because of future-proof. They did it because getting hard and fast rules for a second surprise attack is very tricky, and would be abused, as you kindly demonstrated. This is something that will need to be done by the group, which could simply be "yeah its unrealistic to dismiss the chance, but its too complex to be worth implementing".

[Myzz]

Assassin is the only one that benefits more from it as of this moment, but as more subclasses are created, that will not hold true forever.
They're future-proofing. You're breaking that future-proofing.

My point is that Surprise should be when Target A takes damage from Creature X, who was previously an unknown threat, regardless of what time increment that is.

Per RAW, the TIME increment seems to be the most important not the actual threat aspect!

[Boci]

round 1: Attack, CA hide, move
round 2: move, attack, disengage
Looks like I just fulfilled every requirement you stated. I even moved twice *after* hiding, but before attacking, and still never lost an attack.

Also, this seems wrong, unless I am missing something. In round 1: you cannot hide against a creature that can see you, given that you have just attacked, you are probably being seen. You would need light or heavy obscurement, or some special ability. In round 2: disengaging simply prevent your movement from provoking, it doesn't allow you to move. So you move, attack, then disengage, which does nothing.

[calebrus]

Well yeah, but maybe a future class will need a way to get a second surprise round to function, and will be underpowered with it. Then I'd be future-balancing. Did you consider that? Huh, huh, did you?

No, WotC most likely did not make it this way because because of future-proof. They did it because getting hard and fast rules for a second surprise attack is very tricky, and would be abused, as you kindly demonstrated. This is something that will need to be done by the group, which could simply be "yeah its unrealistic to dismiss the chance, but its too complex to be worth implementing".

It is not unrealistic to dismiss the chance, and it doesn't need to be implemented.
The implementation is fine. Surprise can only happen on round one.
Anything after the first round that would otherwise have been a surprise attack (if it had been round one) is instead a sneak attack. Sneak attack. Sneak attack. SNEAK attack.
Looks like it is working as intended, and need no change.


Also, this seems wrong, unless I am missing something. In round 1: you cannot hide against a creature that can see you, given that you have just attacked, you are probably being seen. You would need light or heavy obscurement, or some special ability. In round 2: disengaging simply prevent your movement from provoking, it doesn't allow you to move. So you move, attack, then disengage, which does nothing.

You can hide if you have cover, which you can get by a simple 5' move, then hide, then complete your movement.
This isn't 3e where you can only move once. You can move as often as you want, broken up how you want, as long as you have movement remaining.
Move (not all of your movement), attack, disengage, (finish movement)
In 3e, you would be right.
In 5e, I am right.

[Boci]

It is not unrealistic to dismiss the chance.

It is. I can think of several situations in which a sneak attack should get the benefits of assassinate. An assassin betraying an ally midcombat, or a new enemy arriving on scene.

Also in case you missed it. System is new, I'm not sure who is making the mistakes:


round 1: Attack, CA hide, move
round 2: move, attack, disengage
Looks like I just fulfilled every requirement you stated. I even moved twice *after* hiding, but before attacking, and still never lost an attack.

Also, this seems wrong, unless I am missing something. In round 1: you cannot hide against a creature that can see you, given that you have just attacked, you are probably being seen. You would need light or heavy obscurement, or some special ability. In round 2: disengaging simply prevent your movement from provoking, it doesn't allow you to move. So you move, attack, then disengage, which does nothing.

Okay, I see how that works.

[Psikerlord]

Why? Assassinate is situational enough that getting it twice in the same combat would require time spent out of combat, as well as a fair bit of luck and some favorable terrain. Why are you against that on principle?
Yeah, if the assassin "wastes" a round prepping for his ambush, whilst the other PCs are in there fighting already, I dont have any issue with it, balance wise.

[calebrus]

Yeah, if the assassin "wastes" a round prepping for his ambush, whilst the other PCs are in there fighting already, I dont have any issue with it, balance wise.

I can understand this view, at least, but I still disagree with it.
If you spend your round doing absolutely nothing but setting up another ambush attack, sure, that might be reasonable.

But here's the issue: You are actually benefiting.
Normally, you'd have to roll two attack rolls, and both would have to hit.
With this method, you would still roll two attack rolls, but only one of them would need to hit.
There would be zero reason for you to ever engage normally. You could only attack once every other round, and you wouldn't lose any damage. And not only would you not lose any damage, but you'd actually raise your damage, because you are much less likely to miss when attacking once with advantage, while some misses are likely when attacking normally, so it's a net gain.
Think about that.
Attacking once every other round is a net gain over attacking once every round.
There's something wrong with that....

[Boci]

I can understand this view, at least, but I still disagree with it.
If you spend your round doing absolutely nothing but setting up another ambush attack, sure, that might be reasonable.

But here's the issue: You are actually benefiting.
Normally, you'd have to roll two attack rolls, and both would have to hit.
With this method, you would still roll two attack rolls, but only one of them would need to hit.
There would be zero reason for you to ever engage normally. You could only attack once every other round, and you wouldn't lose any damage. And not only would you not lose any damage, but you'd actually raise your damage, because you are much less likely to miss when attacking once with advantage, while some misses are likely when attacking normally, so it's a net gain.
Think about that.
Attacking once every other round is a net gain over attacking once every round.
There's something wrong with that....

Only if you can hide without fail, which probably shouldn't be the case.

[calebrus]

Only if you can hide without fail, which probably shouldn't be the case.

And if you fail to hide you take a shot with your shortbow, probably with sneak attack because someone is engaged.
No loss.
Try again next round.

edit:
Plus, an Assassin will undoubtedly have expertise. He's not getting spotted very easily.

[Boci]

And if you fail to hide you take a shot with your shortbow, probably with sneak attack because someone is engaged.
No loss.
Try again next round.

You don't know if you've failed a stealth check. You'll know when you burst out of hiding the find the monster not that surprised, but not before you committed to your one round of doing nothing.

[calebrus]

Please don't base your rebuttal on the argument that he might fail his check.
An Assassin will have Expertise in Stealth if he's going this route. He's going to win that contest far more often than he's going to lose. And on the rare occasions where he does lose that contest, all it does is bring his damage down slightly.... but not enough to equalize what he's gained by only having to hit once with advantage to do double damage.
It's still a net gain, even when he very occasionally gets spotted.

[Boci]

Please don't base your rebuttal on the argument that he might fail his check.
An Assassin will have Expertise in Stealth if he's going this route. He's going to win that contest far more often than he's going to lose.

Sure, but he's still going to lose.


And on the rare occasions where he does lose that contest, all it does is bring his damage down slightly.... but not enough to equalize what he's gained by only having to hit once with advantage to do double damage.
It's still a net gain, even when he very occasionally gets spotted.

You are understating the loss of a failed second assassination check. The assassin has used an entire turn, and likely his bonus action on the turn before that, setting this up, as well as likely moving into a potion that is now sub optimal. This also assume that nothing changes in the battle to interrupt his plane, such as a monster moving away from him, or a spell area cutting him off, or being outside the range of healing. He also isn't going to be able to double attack ever, since he is using his bonus action to hide and disengage.

[ProphetSword]

If a DM wants to be nice and allow an assassin to get his surprise round off when he/she joins the fight, that's up to the individual table. It's not RAW, but I can see where that wouldn't break things if the assassin isn't allowed to do it more than once in a combat. I wouldn't do it, but everyone approaches things differently.

As far as allowing an assassin to do it more than once...yeah...that would be a disaster. Fulfilling the requirements is easy. Just have someone cast "Improved Invisibility" on him and you'll have a nightmare on your hands to contend with. Good luck with that.

[Boci]

If a DM wants to be nice and allow an assassin to get his surprise round off when he/she joins the fight, that's up to the individual table. It's not RAW, but I can see where that wouldn't break things if the assassin isn't allowed to do it more than once in a combat. I wouldn't do it, but everyone approaches things differently.

As far as allowing an assassin to do it more than once...yeah...that would be a disaster. Fulfilling the requirements is easy. Just have someone cast "Improved Invisibility" on him and you'll have a nightmare on your hands to contend with. Good luck with that.

That would be a problem for most groups. Still, some tables will enjoy that combo.

[Malifice]

This is simply not true.

Consider:
To get two rounds of sneak attacks in, you have to hit twice on two different rounds.
But you get two rounds of sneak attack in by only hitting once with Assassinate. And you can hide as a bonus action via Cunning Action.
So all you'd have to do is Cunning Action hide every round and you'd double your damage output, but you'd only need to hit once to do it (while you were rolling twice due to Adv).
You could do this every other round and lose nothing. You could do it every round and double your output.

Many DM's (myself included) don't allow cunning action/ bonus action hide to work in combat while the rogue is observed.

I only allow it in conjunction with the skulker feat when the attack from hidden misses. Or when invisible. Or when the rogue has been unobserved for at least a full turn prior (such as by leaving the room and doubling back around).


Once again, do what you want at your table. But if you allow Assassinate multiple times you're making a mistake.

Not necessary, and not true.

Assassinate is a critical hit (effectively double damage). So it counts as effectively 2 rounds of successful sneak attacks.

Allowing an assassin to (for example) drink a potion of invisibility, double back around the enemies he faces for a round or two and then launch another assassinate attack breaks nothing. In fact it is arguably mathematically sub-optimal to the Rogue simply staying in combat and obtaining sneak attack for those 2-3 rounds it took the assassin to get into position again.

I have no issue with allowing an unobserved assassin who enters an ongoing combat to trigger his assassination ability on any creature that is unaware of his existence for his first round of attacks. That includes giving him advantage on the attack rolls, and making all hits automatic critical hits.

[Arc-Royal]

My 2 cp regarding the whole "hide and reposition" thing:

If combat is ongoing, enemies are moving in less-predictable ways. I think getting sneak attack for successfully hiding and moving to a new location is plenty acceptable and strikes a good balance, since sneak attack adds so much damage (especially if, as has been pointed out, you have expertise in stealth, which makes passing your checks very likely, as it's opposed by passive perception unless your enemies are using their actions to do active searches (not a guaranteed success on their part, either), which drops their damage output.

I'm with calebrus on this. Unless combat ends and the enemies drop their guard, I'd personally rule against multiple assassinations in one combat. With regards to assassinating an ally mid-combat, A) what definition of "ally" are you using? and B) they're going to be moving and shifting about. This would take some HEAVY DM fiat to allow to pass in my book.

[Boci]

A) what definition of "ally" are you using? and B) they're going to be moving and shifting about. This would take some HEAVY DM fiat to allow to pass in my book.

Someone who (believes) they are fighting alongside you towards a common goal? What definition did you think I was using? Why wouldn't an assassin get assassinate for walking up to the cleric to help with the troll they are fighting against, only to draw the blade across his throat instead? Its DM fiat preventing that second assassinate, not enabling it.

[calebrus]

Its DM fiat preventing that second assassinate

It's the rules preventing it from being an Assassination. It's still a sneak attack and you'd likely get advantage on your attack roll (which is the part that would be DM fiat).

[MustacheFart]

It's the rules preventing it from being an Assassination. It's still a sneak attack and you'd likely get advantage on your attack roll (which is the part that would be DM fiat).

That's why any dm worth his salt will simply rule that such an act kills the ally because of stupid rules like that. It's the same thing with coup de grace. The fact that you need a mechanic to make sure you actually do enough damage to kill them when you clearly are in the position to get the job done is dumb and adversely affects roleplaying.

In my mind the mechanics are for when a situation can't easily be resolved by Captain Obvious. You give your cleric a surprise columbian necktie when about to deal with the troll? Okay cleric you're dead. No need to roll except maybe an attack roll to see if he trips or something. Otherwise let rp commence.

Also it's worth noting that anyone or thing worth assassinating a second time will be on guard the second after the first one goes off. Imagine:

Hrothgar: Holy **** an assassin just popped out and kill Marco the wizard. Where'd he go? He's hiding. Don't stay still to long! *blindly swinging*

Now you'll get advantage on subsequent sneak attacks because you do have the advantage but he's moving around too much to assassinate.

Assassinate is supposed to be striking a most vital spot in a very delicate precise manner. After performed once enemies are agitated enough to make that not possible.

DMs are already going to be leery of allowing surprise with an assassin rogue because it's a show stopper. I'm about to play a half orc barb/assassin rogue. In fact, I just took my first level of rogue. My plan for once I have the assassinate ability is to speak with my dm beforehand.

I plan to tell him, "look I don't want to kill any fun for anyone with this ability. Instead I want to use it as a tool. One that my party can use with it's team strategies when needed." At that point I'm keeping it in check, I'm letting everyone get involved. It's no different than a wizard fireballing a bunch of mooks. It keeps it as a cool tool available to us.

That's my rant lol.

[Xetheral]

DMs are already going to be leery of allowing surprise with an assassin rogue because it's a show stopper.

I disagree. I think most DMs will instead try to ensure there is plenty of opportunity for the Assassin Rogue to make good use of her signature ability.

[Bharaeth]

I'm about to play a half orc barb/assassin rogue. In fact, I just took my first level of rogue. My plan for once I have the assassinate ability is to speak with my dm beforehand.

Out of interest, what's the back story of the half-orc barbarian/assassin? I know classes can be played in unique ways, but I always imagined the styles of fighting of a rogue and a barbarian to do be somewhat non-complementary.

[calebrus]

That's why any dm worth his salt will simply rule that such an act kills the ally because of stupid rules like that.

I would have said: Any DM worth his salt won't let one party member assassinate another party member and continue to play the assassin as a PC.
Someone in my group does that crap, both of you roll up another character, because one is dead and the other just became a DM controlled NPC recurring villain. You don't intentionally kill another party member and get to remain in the party.

[Boci]

I would have said: Any DM worth his salt won't let one party member assassinate another party member and continue to play the assassin as a PC.
Someone in my group does that crap, both of you roll up another character, because one is dead and the other just became a DM controlled NPC recurring villain. You don't intentionally kill another party member and get to remain in the party.

I never said the ally was a PC.

[calebrus]

I never said the ally was a PC.

Irrelevant.
You don't intentionally kill another party member an ally and get to remain in the party.
If you intentionally kill an ally, you are the party's enemy and you become an NPC from that point on.

[Myzz]

In HotDQ, I spent a full level as an Wiz1/Assassin 3, and used Assassinate ONCE. After I used it the first time, DM never allowed me to get close enough to use it again. Enemies would 'hear' the Tempest Cleric fumbling around down the hallway in his chain and take a defensive posture and start initiative, before I could close on them...

Or combat would begin, and I was not the one to begin it... Horse beating Lord, that the Druid couldn't abide began it for us...

It just felt wrong that I couldn't sneak up behind someone an assassinate them after Round 1.

I don't mind there being only 1 assassinate attempted per assassin per encounter (heck I'm against multiple uses in 1 round), but I do think that an assassin should have the opportunity to use it after combat begins, if he was not perceived as a threat when combat began.

[Myzz]

Irrelevant.
You don't intentionally kill another party member an ally and get to remain in the party.
If you intentionally kill an ally, you are the party's enemy and you become an NPC from that point on.

unless the guy killed was the enemy...

OR... everyone was secretly thinking the same thing, but couldn't bring themselves to do it!

OR... no one else in the party is the wiser...

[calebrus]

unless the guy killed was the enemy...

OR... everyone was secretly thinking the same thing, but couldn't bring themselves to do it!

OR... no one else in the party is the wiser...

If he was an enemy, then how was he your ally?
I don't care what everyone was thinking, I care what everyone does.
If none in the party are the wiser, I am the wiser.

You don't kill allies and get to remain in the party. You may allow players to actively kill each other off, and kill off their allies, and stab your mother in the uterus.
I do not. That's what villains are for, and if the player does it, he becomes a villain NPC.

[Boci]

Irrelevant.
You don't intentionally kill another party member an ally and get to remain in the party.
If you intentionally kill an ally, you are the party's enemy and you become an NPC from that point on.

No, you're just dismissive a rather complex issue of morality and the nature of good, greater good and by any means neccissary. There are several scenarios in which an anti-hero could assassinate an ally without becoming their party's enemy. To say nothing of mind unintentional killing, like through mind control.


If he was an enemy, then how was he your ally?

Simple. He was pretending to be your ally and thought he was fooling everyone, turns out (too late) he wasn't.

Alternativly he genuinly thought the PCs were his allies, but they weren't. In this scenario the whole party is in on it.


That's what villains are for, and if the player does it, he becomes a villain NPC.

Fair enough. I don't play with such black and white morality, so these assumptions don't apply.

[calebrus]

No, you're just dismissive a rather complex issue of morality and the nature of good, greater good and by any means neccissary. There are several scenarios in which an anti-hero could assassinate an ally without becoming their party's enemy. To say nothing of mind unintentional killing, like through mind control.

Simple. He was pretending to be your ally and thought he was fooling everyone, turns out (too late) he wasn't.

Fair enough. I don't play with such black and white morality, so these assumptions don't apply.

--Nope
--Nope
--That's not intentional
--Then he's not an ally, is he?
--It's not about black and white morality. It's about party cohesion. When you kill an ally you declare yourself as an enemy. That's all there is to it. Unless you'd continue to hang out with someone that intentionally murdered your friend.... which you wouldn't. It's that simple.

edit:
Incidentally, I once had a party where one player designed his entire character around befriending and later betraying the party. That character immediately became a recurring villain, and one that the party absolutely despised. It was an amazing campaign.

[MustacheFart]

If he was an enemy, then how was he your ally?
I don't care what everyone was thinking, I care what everyone does.
If none in the party are the wiser, I am the wiser.

You don't kill allies and get to remain in the party. You may allow players to actively kill each other off, and kill off their allies, and stab your mother in the uterus.
I do not. That's what villains are for, and if the player does it, he becomes a villain NPC.

I am so glad you're not my DM. You're the kind of DM who defaults to fiat and obsessive control.

My opinion was based out of years of experience both bad and good. Some of the best roleplaying occurs when the party is faced with inner party conflict/drama. Roleplaying is the main purpose of the game after all. However that can only happen if the party is given the chance to handle such situations themselves.

I believe a dm is there to guide and facilitate roleplaying but not interfere unless absolutely necessary. They should act as an intermediary at times but always show respect for the creative process of their players as well as the players themselves.

You clearly do not follow such beliefs and resort to outright judgement, indicating you lack vision or respect for your players to handle anything themselves. This is sad and there are too many dms like you out there.

Anyway, back on topic. My reason for actually agreeing with you about the not allowing multiple assassinates in a combat is valid. Though mine are reasons of reality and what makes sense. They differ from your's in that way.

[Myzz]

If he was an enemy, then how was he your ally?
I don't care what everyone was thinking, I care what everyone does.
If none in the party are the wiser, I am the wiser.

You don't kill allies and get to remain in the party. You may allow players to actively kill each other off, and kill off their allies, and stab your mother in the uterus.
I do not. That's what villains are for, and if the player does it, he becomes a villain NPC.

If the character (or the player) happens to just be a big dooosh... and XP sponge, and goes out of his way to antagonize and annoy the party...

Or If the character in question is either the only good, or only Evil character. Though most likely the Good guys wouldn't kill the only evil guy (but the other evil, or neutral character might)...

If a player does kill another intentionally and no one else knows about it (assuming he had a really good RP reason), then taking control of the character away from the player lets everyone else know somethings up especially if he's playing a diff character too), and removes some cool fun times.?.

[Boci]

--Nope
--Nope

Yep yep?


--That's not intentional

I know, a mind controlled assassinate isn't intention. That was rather the point.


--Then he's not an ally, is he?

No, but he was either pretending or believed him to be one. Either way, assassinate should apply.


--It's not about black and white morality. It's about party cohesion. When you kill an ally you declare yourself as an enemy. That's all there is to it. Unless you'd continue to hang out with someone that intentionally murdered your friend.... which you wouldn't. It's that simple.

It is about black and white morality, because in a world of grey morality you would not make such sweeping claims of universal standards of justice and behavior. Plus, what if the assassin is an NPC, pretending to be the party's ally?


edit:
Incidentally, I once had a party where one player designed his entire character around befriending and later betraying the party. That character immediately became a recurring villain, and one that the party absolutely despised. It was an amazing campaign.

And I've played in wonderful games were party members have on occasion cheated, betrayed and killed each other. I've also played in wonderful games of a more traditional party cohesion. Your point?

[calebrus]

Some of the best roleplaying occurs when the party is faced with inner party conflict/drama.

Agreed.
But inter-party conflict and assassinating a party member are two very, very different things.

[Boci]

--Nope
--Nope

Yep yep?


--That's not intentional

I know, a mind controlled assassinate isn't intention. That was rather the point.


--Then he's not an ally, is he?

No, but he was either pretending or believed him to be one. Either way, assassinate should apply.


--It's not about black and white morality. It's about party cohesion. When you kill an ally you declare yourself as an enemy. That's all there is to it. Unless you'd continue to hang out with someone that intentionally murdered your friend.... which you wouldn't. It's that simple.

It is about black and white morality, because in a world of grey morality you would not make such sweeping claims of universal standards of justice and behavior. Plus, what if the assassin is an NPC, pretending to be the party's ally?


edit:
Incidentally, I once had a party where one player designed his entire character around befriending and later betraying the party. That character immediately became a recurring villain, and one that the party absolutely despised. It was an amazing campaign.

And I've played in wonderful games were party members have on occasion cheated, betrayed and killed each other. I've also played in wonderful games of a more traditional party cohesion. Your point?



Agreed.
But inter-party conflict and assassinating a party member are two very, very different things.

No they aren't. You're just choosing to assume the assassin is doing it for lols for some reason, whilst I am imagining it is the result of a lengthy RP process.

[MustacheFart]

Agreed.
But inter-party conflict and assassinating a party member are two very, very different things.

Ding. Ding. This post identifies your issue. I knew it was one of two things as stated in a previous post. You lack vision.

I'll give you an example that proves your assertion wrong.

I once played in a compaign where I was playing a mysterious character who was really part of a secret sect/cult. They often partook in assassination. In fact we had a promising young rogue in the party who indicated he wanted to become an assassin at some point. I thought he might make for a perfect addition to my secret cult. So to initiate him....I assassinated him. Unfortunately the party was able to catch wind of my actions but they didn't have concrete proof. They were definitely on my trail though.

Anyway, shortly later the rogue was resurrected and given the opportunity to join my cult. In order to deliver death he needed to experience it. He joined and some time later the party ran into us at a tavern.

They were planning to attack me until they saw the rogue player. They told us they thought I killed him. He just laughed and said, nah we went out for a couple drinks. He bluffed the blood in his room as a bad night with a Hooker.

Point is. I killed a party member. Party handled it. I play with adults so I don't need mommy to slap my hand and take my character sheet away.

[calebrus]

Point is. I killed a party member.

No, you didn't. Not as far as the party was concerned. And therein lies the difference.

[Boci]

No, you didn't. Not as far as the party was concerned. And therein lies the difference.

So at this point you're just plan nitpicking then?

[MustacheFart]

No, you didn't. Not as far as the party was concerned. And therein lies the difference.

Two things. You were a stickler of constraints earlier in this thread so don't hypocritically stop now.

1) The party did think I killed him initially and by YOUR RULES I never would've gotten to convince them otherwise because you would've taken my character sheet away. You would've made my character an npc the minute I killed the guy. Then all that followed wouldn't have happened.

2) I did kill him and the party ended up finding out later. Guess what? We roleplayed it out and I didn't end up an npc.

3) For good measure. You're obviously not getting it and your games must be boring.

[calebrus]

You didn't kill a party member. You initiated him into your order, which required death and resurrection.
That's not assassination. That's initiation.
Are you really going to tell me that you don't see the difference?

[MustacheFart]

You didn't kill a party member. You initiated him into your order, which required death and resurrection.
That's not assassination. That's initiation.
Are you really going to tell me that you don't see the difference?

Are you really going to tell me that you wouldn't have taken my character sheet and turned my character into an npc before you could find out it was an "initiation"? Right back at ya pal. You said in this thread multiple times that the minute a player kills another player you don't wait to find out the who, what, where, and why. You take over their character. Your words not mine.

Since you want to split words. Here's the webster definition of assassinate:

1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

I see nothing about "and not ressurecting them because that would mean it was no longer assassination." That must be in the unabridged version. :smallsigh:

And just for matter of fact, it was assassination. He had no idea why I was assassinating him. He just thought I killed his character. It wasn't until later that his character was brought back. Oh and by the way, this was all a surprise to the DM. It wasn't anything pre-worked out. You can have an open-minded DM who can roll with the punches rather than..well be you.

[calebrus]

I am so glad you're not my DM. You're the kind of DM who defaults to fiat and obsessive control.

You clearly do not follow such beliefs and resort to outright judgement, indicating you lack vision or respect for your players to handle anything themselves. This is sad and there are too many dms like you out there.

Though mine are reasons of reality and what makes sense. They differ from your's in that way.

You lack vision.

I play with adults so I don't need mommy to slap my hand and take my character sheet away.

3) For good measure. You're obviously not getting it and your games must be boring.

You can have an open-minded DM who can roll with the punches rather than..well be you.

Are you just about finished yet, or do you need to continue this?

[dancrilis]

1. Per RAW surprise is ONLY possible during the first round of combat.


That is open to interpretation.
During a wilderness chase a sudden drop can surprise a character.
Extrapolating this a sudden assassin would also be able to surprise a character.

Further any character that doesn't notice notice a threat at the start of an encounter is surprised - however encounter is not clearly defined (that I noted), as such a combatant could be considered to have been encountered when they reveal themselves as a threat (there are other reading going to absurdity at both ends).

As such DM fiat on assassinate would seem to hold sway (as I would say it should), with the DM adopting the - I believe the stated desired - attitude of saying yes if the players request seems reasonable.

[Myzz]

That is open to interpretation.
During a wilderness chase a sudden drop can surprise a character.
Extrapolating this a sudden assassin would also be able to surprise a character.

Further any character that doesn't notice notice a threat at the start of an encounter is surprised - however encounter is not clearly defined (that I noted), as such a combatant could be considered to have been encountered when they reveal themselves as a threat (there are other reading going to absurdity at both ends).

As such DM fiat on assassinate would seem to hold sway (as I would say it should), with the DM adopting the - I believe the stated desired - attitude of saying yes if the players request seems reasonable.

I'd say that per RAW there is no room for interpretation... Surprise is determined for the first round and the first round ONLY.

My point of starting this thread, was to point out that there should, IN FACT, be some interpretation... AND pointing out that Surprise should be granted during combat, in the case of someone's FIRST attack in combat even if it occurs several rounds into combat.

I have no problem with surprise, being awarded ON someone's first attack action of Combat. I do have a problem, forcing characters with bonuses on Surprise Attacks to HAVE to act FIRST and trigger combat, vice waiting for their opening during COmbat, when that target is now concerned with other things...

[dancrilis]

I'd say that per RAW there is no room for interpretation... Surprise is determined for the first round and the first round ONLY.

Surprise:
Surprise means you cannot act in the your first turn of combat, meaning you can still act within the round itself if you normally could - merely not on your turn.
However note that it mentions nothing about you not being surprised on the 17th round of the combat - it merely has no mechanical affect on you as you can now act.

As such the Assassin gets advantage against anyone who has not taken a turn in the combat yet - and always gets a critical against people that started the combat surprised - as they never lose the status during the combat, it was determined at the start for them.

Unless you find me anything is RAW that counters this by saying that surprise wears off?

You could say that being surprised at the start of the encounter means that you are only surprised for Round1 - but that seems to be RAI rather than RAW.

Further an assassin does not actually need to hide at all technically - someone is surprised if they cannot detect a threat, so assuming one a threat is hidden from the target they are surprised and even if the Assassin is completely unaware of the hidden threat also (and thereby is also surprised) they will get their assassinate benefit (even if the threat merely leaves without doing anything after observing and is never known about).

RAW is fairly loose on surprise really depending on how you want to read it.

[MustacheFart]

Are you just about finished yet, or do you need to continue this?

I don't know. Do you need to continue arguing over semantics on what constitutes "killing an ally" so as to somehow prove your selected course of judgement, that of taking away their character, as not hypocritical/unjust?

[calebrus]

I don't know. Do you need to continue arguing over semantics on what constitutes "killing an ally" so as to somehow prove your selected course of judgement, that of taking away their character, as not hypocritical/unjust?

No, I don't think that I have. So please, continue to insult me some more based on a difference in play style.
I look forward t it.

[MustacheFart]

No, I don't think that I have.

Oh well, in that case because you said so...


No really, I think you have but I don't have the desire to quote you 50 times to prove it. Keep deflecting by playing the victim.

[RedMage125]

On the note of how many times an Assassin can get auto-crit in an encounter...I think an important distinction is that "Surprised" is a status that applies to the Surprised person and negates their turn that round, but only lasts the one round.

Lets' say the party gets the jump on some monsters because they're clever. The Assassin is also at the top of initiative due to his high Dex and the Alert feat. Let's also say that we have an Assassin 3/Fighter 5 who dual-wields short swords.

Round 1: Whole party gets to act, monsters do not, Assassin gets advantage and auto-crit on any hit. Since he is a dual-wielder, he gets 2 attacks with an Action and 1 more as a Bonus Action. He can also use Action Surge and get another 2 attacks with his main hand. Only one of these can benefit from Sneak Attack, because they are all in the same turn, but they are ALL crits.
Round 2: Assassin still gets advantage on his attacks because he acts before monsters and they have not acted yet, and one of them is thus a Sneak Attack, but he does NOT get auto-crit again, because they no longer have the "Surprised" condition.

Seems pretty clear that since "Surprise" only lasts one round, the auto-crit feature was only meant to be used on that first round of combat. The "advantage against creatures that have not acted yet" was placed in the same ability, because players aren't going to always have surprise and the Assassin Rogue needed to have something that could be applied more widely.

Those enemies will NEVER be "Surprised" again after the first round of combat, and a situation like the one I presented is exactly why the auto-crit ability is powerful enough as it is. Even without Fighter levels, a dual-wielding Assassin (which can be done at range using 2 throwing daggers) can get multiple auto-crits in that first round, one of which will also be a Sneak Attack. To allow that again later in the same encounter would be more than a little OP.

[Sullivan]

The way we handle surprise is that a player or group of players roll for stealth or slight of hand depending on how there going about it(hidden blade or something). Then I as DM compare that roll to the NPC/Monsters passive perception or a perception roll I made behind the screen. if stealth >= perception, Surprise! if not, maybe next time roll for initiative. The books also say that not everyone in the party has to be surprised(you fooled the goblins, but not their captain). If one of my pc's wants to spend a turn hiding in shadows for advantage, thats fine unless we are in a well lit open field or something.

on a personal note, this is why I like the rouge class. It's a way to blend skill checks with combat which is something that not many classes get to do. I wouldn't worry so much on mechanical advantages and try and think more about the fun and creative ways to apply all those nice skill you've been storing up. Anyone can kill with a sword, but killing with a +10 to history takes talent.

[Knaight]

If he was an enemy, then how was he your ally?

Lets use one obvious example here. We have the party, A (the PCs). There's another group around, B, which A has been tasked to take out, or which is a personal rival of the one of the other PCs plus entourage, or whatever else. The assassin from party A leaves as part of a plan to defeat B, infiltrating their group. They inform the rest of their party that party B is in a weakened state, then when party A attacks party B, they stab someone from party B in the back instead of helping them out.

As far as party B is concerned, their ally just stabbed one of them in the back. By the rules, that actually wouldn't qualify as an assassination attempt if it was done in the middle of combat (say, after a few deliberate missed bowshots in party A's general direction). That's pretty bizarre.

[Xetheral]

Lets use one obvious example here. We have the party, A (the PCs). There's another group around, B, which A has been tasked to take out, or which is a personal rival of the one of the other PCs plus entourage, or whatever else. The assassin from party A leaves as part of a plan to defeat B, infiltrating their group. They inform the rest of their party that party B is in a weakened state, then when party A attacks party B, they stab someone from party B in the back instead of helping them out.

As far as party B is concerned, their ally just stabbed one of them in the back. By the rules, that actually wouldn't qualify as an assassination attempt if it was done in the middle of combat (say, after a few deliberate missed bowshots in party A's general direction). That's pretty bizarre.

That's a good description of why I tend to allow surprise to be gained mid-combat (although only once per attacker per combat barring some very strange circumstances), and also permit surprise to be gained with skills other than stealth, such as deception to handle the sort of social engineering you're describing.

[Myzz]

That's a good description of why I tend to allow surprise to be gained mid-combat (although only once per attacker per combat barring some very strange circumstances), and also permit surprise to be gained with skills other than stealth, such as deception to handle the sort of social engineering you're describing.


Yeah... that's the purpose of this thread really... What seems like such a hard and fast rule about Surprise seems... well quite arbitrary.

Assassinate could have simply read, "...when you take your first Attack action in a round of combat, if you are not detected as a threat your hits automatically score criticals..."

[Jacob.Tyr]

Hell, I give out surprise whenever the player is gaining advantage from the enemy not knowing where they are. If you're positioned such that you have heavy cover, and you make a good stealth check at disadvantage, you have a shot that your next attack is also going to benefit from assassinate. It encourages non-standard positioning, outside the box thinking, and use of skill checks during combat. I didn't really realize that this wasn't how RAW worked. I just went with the laymen definition of "surprise", and didn't bother to think it further than that.

[AbyssStalker]

It seems as though it was RAW that way so the most hardcore of muchkins will have trouble hammering balance to shreds, can it be abused if you allow an assassin to assassinate multiple times in combat? Of course it can be! Knowing your players (and style of DMing) is probably the most important part of deciding this.

For the most part there are going to be two opinions on this, people who look at DnD mechanically, and people who look at it in a role-playing perspective, if you or your players are mechanically minded than it is likely you will want to see this used only once in combat as written, and are also likely the kind that likes to optimize your players to the fullest extent and are more likely to abuse an exploitable mechanic if it were written that way.

The other perspective is the role-playing one, they are less likely to abuse the ability, and will likely enjoy the more logical interpretation of rules.

Just use your DMing skills and read what your group is likely to do with the ability as to whether to allow it or not, if you do than you should also handle it in a way that makes sense, doing it 2 or 3 times would likely be the maximum amount of times you could catch them off their guard like that (for most enemies, particularly idiotic enemies may be slower to figure it out), sooner or later they would realize that someone is picking them off and adjust accordingly.

Don't be afraid to experiment with your group on it.

[MrStabby]

Assasinate by itself multiple times per combat is bad enough but when it gets used to get extra value out of other resources such as paladin smites it gets a bit silly.

That said I would have no problem with applying Surprise criticals whenever the rogue did surprise an enemy. Stabbing them in the back mid combat is a surprise. Stabbing them in the back when you have been shifty and making excuses for not fighting your allies who are approaching from the front will probably require a bluff check to get the surprise. Playing dead may give surprise and can happen mid combat.

Running away and hiding will not give surprise again as long as the enemy knows you are out there. No one will be surprised that the rogue who ran off and hid is going to try and shoot them from the shadows. Now if you were pushed off a bridge into a ravine and the enemy believed you dead then I might conceivably allow another surprise; although the chances of climbing back before the end of the combat might be remote.

This does split out the two aspects of surprise - the bonus round of attacks and the criticals and only gives the criticals to unconventional surprise.

[OriginalTharios]

I went through the mountain of text in this thread as best I could, but with no treasure in that particular dungeon, I went back to town.
Before I move on to better adventures though, I'll drop a couple of coins into the local economy...

I'm not going to comment at all on the killing of allies of any variety, in any scenario.

As for "surprise," I have expanded it's in-game mechanical application to include all situations in which a PC or NPC is not entitled to, or would automatically fail, a Perception or Insight check. Likewise, any such target not capable of defending themselves for whatever reason.

A target charmed by you, is open to your own Assassinate ability (honestly, in a world where such powers exist, this is absolutely a valid use of assassins who would normally seduce or "cozy up to" their marks). Since Charm effects only operate relative to the person who initiated the effect, allies of that person do not count as allies to the charmed target, so they're still on guard.

A target currently under the Confusion spell, or any similar effect, is vulnerable to Assassinate from any source. They're literally not paying proper attention anything, at all.

A target that is both blinded and deafened, is vulnerable to Assassinate from any source. Likewise, invisible creatures may use it on any target affected by their invisibility. Creatures with Blindsense or Blindsight never meet this criteria. Even when "on-guard", a total lack of ability to precisely locate your assailant means you have no valid defense of any kind.

Obviously, any creature that is entirely immobile and inactive, is a valid target for Assassinate.

Even so, Assassinate doesn't seem to come up much in games. Most characters opt to deliver killing blows on helpless enemies as it is, and so Assassinate doesn't really change that. Inflicting conditions on enemies becomes more feasible with growing levels, but it also becomes more difficult as those enemies become more powerful themselves. So again, Assassinate ends up not being excessively used.

[Aett_Thorn]

Massive thread necro. 3 years old is a pretty good one.

[ad_hoc]

People focus on the auto-crit but the main part of the ability is the advantage on the first round.

D&D does not do the assassin genre well. Diverse parties and dungeon delving don't provide many opportunities to assassinate people. Advantage is given when attacking from hiding so the Assassin gets advantage if they win initiative to simulate that.

The auto-crit is added onto the ability because it would be unsatisfactory to attack from hiding, win initiative, and get nothing extra for it from the Assassinate ability as they already have advantage from being hidden.


As for "always being on guard". People just can't be. The Fight/Flight/Freeze response just cannot be maintained for extended periods of time. People who are triggered frequently or for a prolonged duration will have various adverse health effects as a result. This is part of the reason why PTSD is often a severe and debilitating disorder.

So, no, a character can't just say they are on guard and thus not be surprised. And if they are fighting they cannot be surprised because they are on guard. That's the whole purpose of the body's FFF response - to be ready to act in an instant.