Surprise or not?

[Dmdork]

I must be getting this whole surprise thing wrong. Example: A party of adventurers enters a room. The goblins hear them and are are trying to hide. Each goblin makes a dex stealth check. Now, all the adventurers have enough passive to see the all the goblins, except one adventurer (he's not paying attention I guess). One goblins dex check is high enough to fool just that adventurer. That adventurer sees all the other goblins except one. Is that adventurer still surprised? And if he is, that means that the adventurer doesn't get to act on the goblins he sees, until next round. Correct? If that is correct, I'm not sure I understand that logic.

[EDL]

I wouldn't treat it as a surprise. That adventurer is already expecting a battle because he sees other goblins.

[Coffee_Dragon]

As long as the person sees a single goblin, and knows that means combat is up, he is not surprised and he gets to act.

Depending on where he ends up in initiative, it seems like a fair call that he wouldn't act based on the presence of goblins he didn't see yet, but that's kinda generally true.

[Dmdork]

Ok got it. Whew. Thanks. I'm in the middle of trying to get my old school 3.5 players to dance to this new 5.0 thing. So far most are not thrilled. I just don't wanna have any major holes in 5.0 and I thought I found one. Thanks for clearing that up. This question was probably more for the RAW thread but I wasn't sure.

[Dalebert]

There are two things here to get straight. One is about surprise and the other is about group stealth checks. Typically when your whole group is trying to be stealthy, the entire group succeeds if at least half succed, e.g. 3 out of 5 members or 2 out of 4. Of course that can get complicated when there are multiple creatures with different passive perceptions.

So in that case, the goblins would succeed against that one person and he would be the only one surprised and thus he wouldn't get to act on the first round.

But outside of that, yeah, if you are aware of ANY potentially threatening creature, you are not surprised. Surprised means not aware there's a threat and being unable to act. If you become aware of any threat, you are able to act even if you don't know about all the threats. It's a separate issue whether some goblins would advantage on their first attack due to being hidden.

[Dmdork]

But outside of that, yeah, if you are aware of ANY potentially threatening creature, you are not surprised. Surprised means not aware there's a threat and being unable to act. If you become aware of any threat, you are able to act even if you don't know about all the threats. It's a separate issue whether some goblins would advantage on their first attack due to being hidden.

So, same scenario, if only that one goblin decided to hide (which would make it a singular check), and he beat all the adventurers passives, technically the adventurers would not be surprised (cuz of the other gobs) and therefore that one goblin wouldn't gain much benefit from being hidden, except for the fact that he doesn't get targeted, which is pretty good. Correct?

[EDL]

So, same scenario, if only that one goblin decided to hide (which would make it a singular check), and he beat all the adventurers passives, technically the adventurers would not be surprised (cuz of the other gobs) and therefore that one goblin wouldn't gain much benefit from being hidden, except for the fact that he doesn't get targeted, which is pretty good. Correct?
Yes. And he also gets advantage on his first attack vs that adventurers (revealing himself by doing that).

[JackPhoenix]

So, same scenario, if only that one goblin decided to hide (which would make it a singular check), and he beat all the adventurers passives, technically the adventurers would not be surprised (cuz of the other gobs) and therefore that one goblin wouldn't gain much benefit from being hidden, except for the fact that he doesn't get targeted, which is pretty good. Correct?

Incorrect. The unseen goblin also gets advantage on his first attack.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Incorrect. The unseen goblin also gets advantage on his first attack.

... if he can make it without revealing himself in the process.

[Dmdork]

... if he can make it without revealing himself in the process. is that a DMs call or is there a RAW?

[Coffee_Dragon]

is that a DMs call or is there a RAW?

I think there are a few intersecting rules and people making different calls from them. First, there is no facing by default, so everyone in effect has 360 vision and is assumed to keep track of everything going on. Second, you can't remain hidden if you're seen. So by the letter of those rules, if you have to step out or stand up from behind something to make a ranged attack, or move up to someone with nothing to conceal you, you'll be visible and seen by the time the attack is made. Ways to remain unseen while attacking may include firing from darkness or arrow slits or sneaking up through shadows or smoke. There are DMs that will allow "pop-up" attacks to be made as if you're still hidden, and of course it's also possible to make special calls regarding facing if it just makes sense.

Typical scenario:

DM: "You walk into a room and there's a single goblin trembling in the middle of the floor. Roll initiative." *roll roll* "Another goblin was hiding behind the door and cuts your hamstring."

Player 1: "But I have 360 vision. If he's moving out from behind the door I can see him."

DM: "You take 45 damage."

Player 1: "Wait, did you assume I stepped into the room? Of course I would never step into a room after seeing a goblin in it. Dungeons are dangerous."

Player 2: "What, are we in a dungeon? If you'd said that, I'd never have gone into it!"

Player 3: "I never left the inn!"

Players chanting: "Do-over! Do-over!"

[Dalebert]

is that a DMs call or is there a RAW?

Shorter answer--it's a DM's call. There is some guidance that says approaching a creature to attack generally reveals you which strongly implies that firing from a hidden position without changing location still allows advantage. I picture it as poking out just enough and firing quickly before an enemy has time to react in any defensive manner.

I could also see a DM ruling that on a case by case basis. For instance, you might be able to fire through a small hole in bushes without revealing yourself similarly to how you might through murder holes. Personally, I don't fiddle with it. If you're hidden I allow ranged attacks if you don't change location and I even typically will allow a melee attack if you move no more than 5 ft to attack. That seems rare because when someone's that close, you need fairly ideal conditions to be able to stay hidden from them. The idea is you're catching someone off-guard who didn't know you were there. But the RAW leaves a lot of this up to DM adjudication. This is not law by any means.

[Tanarii]

There are two things here to get straight. One is about surprise and the other is about group stealth checks. Typically when your whole group is trying to be stealthy, the entire group succeeds if at least half succed, e.g. 3 out of 5 members or 2 out of 4. Of course that can get complicated when there are multiple creatures with different passive perceptions.Group checks don't work for Stealth when it comes to surprise. Each stealthy creature makes its Dexterity (Stealth) check individually, and if any fail to beat a creatures Passive Perception then the 'perceiving' creature is not surprised.

A DM still might choose to use Group Stealth Checks outside of surprise for some reason, of course. As a DM, I haven't yet seen a a situation in which it's reasonable to treat it as a Group Stealth check, but that's just me.

Edit: Ah. I see I read your post too fast and the only part I'm really disagreeing with is your "Typically". You were clear that Surprise is different from a Group Stealth Check.
Edit2: Oops, no, my first impression was correct. You were incorrectly trying to use a Group Check to determine the results of surprise. That's not how Surprise works, ever. It always works the second way you were talking about: Since one Goblin was noticed, the character in question is not surprised, even if the others weren't noticed.

[DivisibleByZero]

Group checks don't work for Stealth when it comes to surprise.
<snip>
Edit2: Oops, no, my first impression was correct. You were incorrectly trying to use a Group Check to determine the results of surprise. That's not how Surprise works, ever. It always works the second way you were talking about: Since one Goblin was noticed, the character in question is not surprised, even if the others weren't noticed.

Citation needed.

I frequently use group checks for stealth, both for PCs and for monsters.
All I do is average out the rolls to get the DC for Perception.

Remember, every single aspect of stealth is basically left up to the DM, so your claim that "it always works this way, no matter what" is flat out wrong.
DM fiat. That's where the stealth rules live, and thus in some cases that's where the surprise rules live as well.

[Tanarii]

Citation needed.I don't have the PHB page, but the rule is also in the basic players doc on p69, right at the start of the Combat chapter:
"The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter"
http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf

The comparison is the Dexterity (Stealth) of anyone hiding against each passive perception. Not the group checks result of the group trying to hide against each passive perception. Of course, it makes perfect sense to do it this way, since group checks don't generate a result to compare to passive perception. You'd have to introduce a brand new rule to get one, such as averaging out the results.


Remember, every single aspect of stealth is basically left up to the DM, so your claim that "it always works this way, no matter what" is flat out wrong.
DM fiat. That's where the stealth rules live.That's not correct. When to make stealth checks is DM fiat. Even whether or not to make surprise checks is a DM judgement call, per "The DM determines who might be surprised". But how to determine surprise, if the DM determines they might be surprised, is crystal clear. It's says right there in black and white. (Brown & slightly off yellow? lol)


Edit: Group Stealth checks would work fine if it's against a static DC, as opposed to being an opposed roll (even if its an opposed roll vs passive). That's why I've yet to find a situation where a group stealth check might be appropriate. Because I haven't had one where I'd set a static DC to pass as opposed to it being opposed by another creature. But otherwise, you're trying to do something that mechanically doesn't even work very well, regardless of the rules telling you to do it a different way.

[DivisibleByZero]

W hen a number of individuals are trying to accom plish
som ething as a group, the DM might ask for a group
ability check. In such a situation, the characters w ho are
skilled at a particular task help cover those w ho aren't.
To make a group ability check, everyone in the group
m akes the ability check. If at least half the group
succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise,
the group fails.
Group checks don’t com e up very often, and they’re
m ost useful w hen all the characters succeed or
fail as a group. For example, when adventurers are
navigating a swamp, the DM might call for a group
W isdom (Survival) check to see if the characters can
avoid the quicksand, sinkholes, and other natural
hazards o f the environment. If at least half the group
succeeds, the successful characters are able to guide
their com panions out of danger. Otherwise, the group
stum bles into one o f these hazards.

Just because you can't personally find a way to use these rules for stealth/surprise doesn't mean that they are explicitly disallowed.

[Tanarii]

W hen a number of individuals are trying to accom plish
som ething as a group, the DM might ask for a group
ability check. In such a situation, the characters w ho are
skilled at a particular task help cover those w ho aren't.
To make a group ability check, everyone in the group
m akes the ability check. If at least half the group
succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise,
the group fails.
Group checks don’t com e up very often, and they’re
m ost useful w hen all the characters succeed or
fail as a group. For example, when adventurers are
navigating a swamp, the DM might call for a group
W isdom (Survival) check to see if the characters can
avoid the quicksand, sinkholes, and other natural
hazards o f the environment. If at least half the group
succeeds, the successful characters are able to guide
their com panions out of danger. Otherwise, the group
stum bles into one o f these hazards.

Just because you can't personally find a way to use these rules for stealth/surprise doesn't mean that they are explicitly disallowed.Stealth and surprise are two different things, so lets not conflate the two.

I completely agree, just because I haven't found a way group checks can be used effectively for stealth, doesn't mean they can't be used somehow.

However, the rules give a specific way to mechanically resolve surprise, once it's been determined that it needs to be resolved.

Furthermore group checks can't even work without modification for surprise, since they don't generate a single result, just an average of pass/fail. In other words, before we can even get to if it's within what the rules say to do, you have to address that Group Checks can't even be used as is. They just don't work mechanically, unless you introduce a new mechanic and call it a Group Check.

Also allowed vs disallowed has nothing to do with it. What I'm talking about is the rules as provided for mechanical resolution. That doesn't disallow doing it a different way. IMO the rules are always best viewed as a tool. Certainly any DM can do things differently if they like ... although they might need to introduce a new mechanic, like you have, to make it work at all.

Edit: BTW two other alternatives I can think of for Group Checks, instead of averaging the group's stealth checks and comparing to each ambushee's Passive Perception:
a) Average the passive perceptions of the group being ambushed to get a DC. Make a group check for the ambushers vs that DC.
b) use the highest passive perception of the group being ambushed (assuming they will notify the others). Make a group check for the ambushers vs that DC.

[DivisibleByZero]

They just don't work mechanically, unless you introduce a new mechanic and call it a Group Check.

You mean like the one in the PHB? The one that I copy/pasted and you just quoted?


b) use the highest passive perception of the group being ambushed (assuming they will notify the others). Make a group check for the ambushers vs that DC.

dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding!!!!!!!

Or alternately, do the group check, but record the results. Average them. That's the DC for the enemy perception check. Some will probably be surprised, others probably won't. This, I find, is the most reasonable, but by no means the only way.

[Tanarii]

You mean like the one in the PHB? The one that I copy/pasted and you just quoted?Which doesn't actually work with the rule provided for how to determine surprise. You have to change something to make it work.


dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding!!!!!!!Dir ectly contradicts the rule provided on how to determine surprise, which says to compare to each creature's passive perception.


Or alternately, do the group check, but record the results. Average them. That's the DC for the enemy perception check. Some will probably be surprised, others probably won't. This, I find, is the most reasonable, but by no means the only way.Sure. But that's not a group check. Group checks don't work that way. Per the rule you provided from the PHB.

Edit:
See, the thing here is you're taking the Devs saying that the stealth rules were, overall, left up to the DM to determine when they apply etc. And trying to apply it to the mechanics, which aren't that vague. Mechanically, Dexterity (Stealth) checks work just like any other check. They can be rolled, passive checks, or group checks. They can compare to a DM determined DC, a passive score of an opposing creature, or an active score of an opposing creature. But there are also specific ways to use them for specific situations.

For example, in a surprise situation, which is not the same thing as a creature hiding, they provide a method of resolution using stealth and perception scores. And it's one that doesn't work with group checks without modifying how those work or how the surprise rule works. This is the equivalent of a Grapple situation, in which the Strength (Athletics) check is used to resolve the situation. It's a specific situation, using a specific application of the general rules for mechanical resolution.

[DivisibleByZero]

For example, in a surprise situation, which is not the same thing as a creature hiding, they provide a method of resolution using stealth and perception scores. And it's one that doesn't work with group checks without modifying how those work or how the surprise rule works. This is the equivalent of a Grapple situation, in which the Strength (Athletics) check is used to resolve the situation. It's a specific situation, using a specific application of the general rules for mechanical resolution.

That's the same argument that you were using about the stealth rules themselves before you saw evidence to the contrary.
Is it not even plausible to you that this is woven from the same cloth?
Surprise is a subset of stealth most of the time, so with vague rules explicitly calling for DM fiat on stealth, it follows that sometimes you're going to do the same for surprise.

[Tanarii]

That's the same argument that you were using about the stealth rules themselves before you saw evidence to the contrary.Are you confusing me with someone else? I still hold that the Hiding rules (not stealth rules) have many specific situations in which they provide rules for how to use them. But in general, they are vague as to when you should apply them. But once you decide when they should apply, they generally have specific methods of resolution within the current framework. (Edit: I also think this is exactly what Mearls was saying in his video btw. He wasn't saying the DM should just make it all up and do what he wants. He said they left the rules vague on purpose, and then followed with examples of how detailed rules create weird edge cases in when they should apply. But the vagueness is mostly in when to apply them.)

For example, hiding is a stealth check vs passive perception, not a rolled perception check. Searching (the action) is an rolled check, not a passive one, against (I believe) a previously rolled Stealth check. Noticing a threat while adventuring likewise specifies passive perception checks.


Is it not even plausible to you that this is woven from the same cloth?You're right. It's woven from exactly the same cloth as the hiding rules. Like the hiding rules, they are vague as to when they apply on purpose, but how to resolve it is pretty damn is specific.


Surprise is a subset of stealth most of the time, so with vague rules explicitly calling for DM fiat on stealth, it follows that sometimes you're going to do the same for surprise.Surprise is resolved using a Dexterity (Stealth) check. DM fiat is explicitly called for on Hiding. You're conflating the two. And I've already pointed out that just like Hiding, DM fiat is actually explicitly called for in terms of when it applies. When the DM determines a creature might be surprised. Then it follows that by explicitly explaining how to resolve that situation. That's two explicits. You're just choosing to ignore the second one.

Edit: Corrected all reference to "Stealth" rules to Hiding rules, to be clear what I'm talking about.

[Breashios]

Tanarii's explanation is clear, appears to be correct and supported by the rules as written. Of course, any DM can choose to do whatever they feel is best, but that is a different thing. If the OP wants to know what non-specified options there are, we can do that, but lets not pretend anything is possible within RAW. I thought the OP implied this was largely a RAW question.

[Zalabim]

The only thing I'd add is that you very easily could compare each of a sneaking group's stealth checks against each of their opponents's passive perception as multiple group checks, one against each individual, to determine if each opponent notices the sneaking group. The result would be that anyone with a certain level of passive perception or higher would notice the whole enemy group instead of everyone with more than a minimum level of passive perception noticing the 'loudest' one of the enemy group. I'm not sure when that would be useful to do, but that is a non-fiated mechanic you could use.