Surprise vs Alert + High Dexterity

[BestPlayer]

Say you have a character who has the alert feat and high dexterity. Most of the time they win initiative with there huge bonus. The Alert feat also states that they cannot be surprised.

So what happens when something sneaks up and tries to surprise the party? The character isn't aware of the threat and neither is the party, but they can't be surprised. If you then roll initiative as usual, you often end up with the character with Alert going first, even before the attackers, but as he is unaware of the attack, what can he do? Can he warn the others that there is danger? Does he know their is danger even though he isn't aware of the exact threat? Should the enemies be put on the board? This is all very confusing. Does anyone have any insight on this or how do you handle it in your games?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Say you have a character who has the alert feat and high dexterity. Most of the time they win initiative with there huge bonus. The Alert feat also states that they cannot be surprised.

So what happens when something sneaks up and tries to surprise the party? The character isn't aware of the threat and neither is the party, but they can't be surprised. If you then roll initiative as usual, you often end up with the character with Alert going first, even before the attackers, but as he is unaware of the attack, what can he do? Can he warn the others that there is danger? Does he know their is danger even though he isn't aware of the exact threat? Should the enemies be put on the board? This is all very confusing. Does anyone have any insight on this or how do you handle it in your games?

The bolded part is the bad assumption. With the Alert feat, they ARE aware of the threat. That's what the Alert feat gives you. The rest of the party isn't aware, but the Alert character is. May just be a gut instinct thing, but he knows bad crap is coming (and very roughly how).

[BestPlayer]

Does that mean the character can dispense with perception checks and simply always be assumed to have perceived potential threats?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does that mean the character can dispense with perception checks and simply always be assumed to have perceived potential threats?

Perception checks might help you know exactly what the threat is (rather than knowing a threat exists and roughly where). Think of the "I got a bad feeling about this" line in Empire Strikes Back. They're not surprised when things go sideways. He may not have predicted the asteroid was a monster, but were able to react appropriately. That's what the Alert feat gives you (for everything). I tend to think of it as a "hairs on the back of the neck" thing more than anything. You see a shadow in the sky and have a hunch it's a beast swooping on you.

[Solunaris]

The way that my group runs it is like a sixth sense. You are aware that there is a threat, but if you haven't noticed the threat it counts as if the attacker is hidden from you. At this point our DM gives the player with the alert feat an active perception check to notice them instead of just going off of the passive.

If he manages to win initiative then the character can alert everyone else to the danger, removing the surprised condition even no one can pinpoint the enemy. That means the ambusher will still get advantage on the attacks (because he is still hidden) but no Assassin bonus or free turn where no one else can act.

[psychopomp23]

I usually compare it to having spidey-sense. A gut feeling or instinct that kicks in

[Findulidas]

Does that mean the character can dispense with perception checks and simply always be assumed to have perceived potential threats?

I assumed it was more related to having really high reflexes and quite frankly being paranoid. Therefore being able to react in a way that made nullified suprises or atleast expect them when others do not. Not so much that you can percieve monsters easily.

[Demonslayer666]

That's not how I would run it.

Knowing where the attacker is located before the attack is made is Perception vs. Stealth, which was already failed because surprise. Alert would allow you to dodge before the attack if you beat them, or at least use a reaction if you didn't. I would not allow it to give away the position, it only allows you to know there is a threat is coming.

If the player shouted a warning, I'd give the other players a bonus to their initiative, depending on the situation.

[mephnick]

If the character has Alert but has failed his perception, he gets the feeling something is about to go down, but doesn't know what or from where. Think of it like a split-second "...hmmm.." before **** hits the fan.

Like this:

Goblin sneaks up on party. Rolls 19 Stealth.
No one in party has passive perception equal to or over 19.
Goblin pops out of bush and draws an arrow at the same time the Ranger with Alert turns his head and thinks "..something's up.."
Roll initiative.
Rest of party is surprised and can only take reactions after their initiative passes.
BUT Badass Alert Ranger can act normally (and probably wins initiative) so he quickly turns, putting 2 arrows into the now ****ed goblin before he can loose his own.

I would not allow an Alert character to call out a warning to the party or else Alert becomes the best feat in the history of D&D. Surprise is supposed to be granted individually. The guard against Surprise technically only activates when initiative is called, at which point Surprise is determined and the Alert character has no time to warn the party.

[Puh Laden]

another scenario:

PC 1 has alert and passive Perception of 15
PC 2 does not have alert but has passive Perception 10.
PC 3 does not have alert but has passive Perception 20.
The party is walking through the wilderness at a normal pace when a goblin scout comes across thrm.
The goblin, hating humans and the like, plans to attack any he comes across.
The goblin is traveling stealthily so the goblin might surprise the members of the party.
The PCs are traveling at a normal pace so they have no chance of surprising the goblin.
The goblin and the party cross paths and the goblin initiates combat by preparing to shoot an arrow from behind a tree.
Before the goblin's turn can go through it must roll stealth vs passive Perception and initiative must be rolled.
It gets a 17 for its stealth roll so PC 2 is surprised but PCs 1 and 3 are not, it remains hidden from PCs 1 and 2 however.
All creatures roll initiative, the goblin rolled poorly and goes lasts.

The DM describes the scene: "PC 3, you see the glint of an arrow-head poking out behind a tree aimed right at you. PC 1, your keen hearing detects the sound of a goblin breathing but you don't know from where, though PC 3 is free to tell you what she knows on her turn. PC 2, you don't notice anything and are completely surprised."

Alternatively initiative can be rolled after the scene is described.

Edit: As for PCs warning other PCs to overcome surprise: the key phrase on PHB pg. 189 is "any [creature] that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter." This implies a creature cannot overcome the effects of surprise by learning about a threat after combat starts.

[GlenSmash!]

If the character has Alert but has failed his perception, he gets the feeling something is about to go down, but doesn't know what or from where. Think of it like a split-second "...hmmm.." before **** hits the fan.

Like this:

Goblin sneaks up on party. Rolls 19 Stealth.
No one in party has passive perception equal to or over 19.
Goblin pops out of bush and draws an arrow at the same time the Ranger with Alert turns his head and thinks "..something's up.."
Roll initiative.
Rest of party is surprised and can only take reactions after their initiative passes.
BUT Badass Alert Ranger can act normally (and probably wins initiative) so he quickly turns, putting 2 arrows into the now ****ed goblin before he can loose his own.

I would not allow an Alert character to call out a warning to the party or else Alert becomes the best feat in the history of D&D. Surprise is supposed to be granted individually. The guard against Surprise technically only activates when initiative is called, at which point Surprise is determined and the Alert character has no time to warn the party.

I would run it just like this. Well said.

[ThePolarBear]

The bolded part is the bad assumption. With the Alert feat, they ARE aware of the threat.

I do not agree. They are not aware of any threat unless they can also spot/hear it. The awareness part of the threat comes from perception. If that failed, then the party member does NOT know something is on and should take some sort of action that makes sense in the context of what was going on before: the character is not aware that "initiative has ben rolled", after all.

Alert simply makes someone not surprised when something happens - they can still act on the first turn AND can take reactions before their first turn in the first round, should they not win initiative. They are more likely to win initiative due to Alert itself however... and can, for example, make an active perception check by taking the search action, if such a thing is warranted (i.e. not resting in a place they consider safe, for example).

"i'm not surprised and i won initiative, but i have no idea what and where everybody is" is one of the few situation i can see where "i ready to attack" is a very valid options - if the party is moving in a dungeon and expecting to be attacked. It's what your character would be doing ANYWAY, but usually is handled by the initiative roll itself.
Regarding the movement, either the player could move the character or have the character stay in place and consider it as "i ended my movement by reaching this position". Heck, moving by itself could reveal the position of hiding creatures, allowing for a full attack action / casting a spell to be completely justified.

Surprise is not about having a bad feeling, is about how fast someone does react to stimuli and how perceptive that person is to said stimuli. An Alert character simply gets to act anyway: still can't act based on stimuli that aren't there for him/her.

Alert is already plenty strong, let's not give it boni that are not relevant, like circumventing surprise for the whole party or actually getting to act outside of initiative order.

[Hrugner]

Being surprised only makes you unable to take a move, action and reaction for the first round of combat. Alertness removes only those things granting no special awareness of the situation.

Here are the interpretations I considered.

The player takes their reaction if something comes up and nothing more, alertness is a great feet so this interpretation is probably fine, but it punishes high initiative.
A rule that doesn't punish people for high initiative would be to let the player act as soon as they become aware of the threat acting at the moment the attackers break stealth. This is what I'd do.
A more lenient option would be to give the player their turn allowing them to either act normally or delay till they see the oncoming threat, but this seems overly generous.
Finally you can give the alert character supernatural senses becoming aware of the attackers without perceiving them. This is in line with the other alertness ability, but seems like it goes way too far.

In practice, the only DM at our table who has had a player with alertness in the party seems to have dispensed entirely with surprise.

[BurgerBeast]

I think the key here is to re-envision the scene. Imagine a movie scene, where the ambushers are waiting to strike, for example. At this point, the Alert PC is still unaware that anything is up (assuming he failed his perception check).

But then, in that split second that marks the change from no-attack to attack, the camera quickly cuts to the alert player's face... he notices what's up, just as it is happening...

Can he react before the enemies? [Roll initiative]

In fact, it's probably useful to always build-in that momentary step in your mind as the DM, even when it is irrelevant, to keep it present in your mind as combats begin.

[Arial Black]

Being immune to surprise is not the same thing as a successful Perception check.

If the Alert guy fails the Perception check but goes first in initiative, then 'he gets a bad feeling about this' and can take the Dodge action, move behind cover, Ready an attack, cast bless, all sorts of useful things.

What he cannot do is act as if he has actually seen the enemy! He cannot magically know that there is a hidden enemy in that square, move around the corner to exactly where the enemy is hiding, because being 'immune to surprise' does not tell you what caused (or is about to cause) combat to begin.

[Tanarii]

Once the enemy has attacked in an ambush, triggering a surprise check, the DM can choose to interpret it one of two ways:
1) the enemy has revealed their presence, and unless there's a special reason to assume otherwise (attacking from pitch darkness into your lit area), also their location.
2) the enemy has revealed their presence, but not their location.

For Version 1, A surprise check doesn't have to be interpreted as also being a Hide check. It's a seperate check using the same mechanic, Dex (stealth) vs Passive Perception, but that doesn't mean it has to be the same thing. An enemy might reveal themselves by standing up from behind cover or being visible in certain kinds of foliage. But by rolling a higher initiative and not being able to be surprised, you get to react int that split second between them revealing themselves and taking resolving their Attack (or other action). (Whether or not they might be impossible to locate specifically, as in the enemy attacking from darkness into a lit area or being invisible, also depends how your DM rules pinpointing locations.)

I tend to rule it as version 1, but ask your DM.

If your DM goes with version 2, or Version 1 but the enemy hasn't revealed location due to circumstances, you still have a bunch of options to prepare for an enemy attack. Including a Search check to locate the enemy, Ready an action to Attack or Cast a Spell (targeting enemy), Dodge, Use an Object (Caltrops, Hunting Trap, Ballbearings), Cast a Spell (AoE) where you think the enemy is, Cast a Spell (buff or Wall), or do various other things that aren't directly dependent on targeting an enemy.

[JeffreyGator]

Both campaigns I run have human rangers with this combination. Both players are insistent that they are never surprised ever independent of perception or stealth etc.

I already eliminated weapons of warning from my game for this same problem.

Here is what I do when I remember and I'm not irritated at the player who rolled a 4 perception insisting he knows where the monster is that has a 25 stealth...

There is a surprise round, everyone at the table rolls initiative so the players know that something is happening.

It is ranger player's turn. (almost always first)

"You see nothing but your party around, what do you do?"

The ranger party gets an action (not surprised) but it is not likely an optimal action since the player has no idea what is happening. Active perception or a specifically worded reaction that may backfire.

The rest have normal surprise stuff.

It's almost as bad as the rogue with a passive perception (observant and expertise) of 25 or so. At least occasionally another player charge's ahead to trigger traps.

[RickAllison]

I think a useful way to decide this is to think about what happens if one of the PCs on a rooftop, well-hidden and an Assassin, fires at an important NPC, someone that would destroy your plans for the session and the next few if they were killed. The only indication that would cause initiative to start is the assassin, no other characters.

Whatever you would let that NPC do to give them a chance to stay alive, you should allow a PC to do in a similar situation.

[BurgerBeast]

It's definitely complicated. The real concern, as the OP points out, is that the DM is seemingly forced into the dilemma of penalizing one of the characters involved. The alert character should be allowed to use his initiative roll, but the hidden character should be allowed to remain hidden.

This gets even trickier if the very rate situation arises where all of the ambushers have the Skulker feat...

But I think Tanarii presents a good solution, and RickAllison suggests a reasonable framework for making in-the-moment calls.

Edit: JeffreyGator's suggestion, although at first I thought it was a little punitive, is perhaps the best one... however I would not simply say, "all you see is your party, what do you do?" (I don't mean to reduce it to that, either, because I think in Jeffrey's example the act of rolling initiative is enough of an indicator that something's up.) I might say "your alert Feat allows you to realize that an attack is coming from the bushes to the east (or the rooftop to the north, etc).

My initial concern is that the alert character would actually prefer to lose initiative, Rather than win it, because there's not much to do on his first turn, and if he readies an action he burns a bonus action...

But there is actually a fair bit he can do. For example he can hide/take cover; he can shove a vulnerable party member to the ground; he can use his action to "search" the area for attackers; if he is a caster he can AOE the general area to try to hit a few and/or flush them out; he could rush the area, if possible, hoping to discover enemies; he could attack the unseen enemies by guessing their location. Doesn't seem so bad in the end.

What's tricky is answering the question: how did he know? (Insofar as you care about the answer - you might just accept the answer: because he has the feat and those are the rules.)

A strict reading of the rules (this was contended over a very long thread, so don't just take my word for it - read the rules yourself) indicates that you can be heard, but still hidden. This would be my usual explanation, but I suppose you could consider it to be an uncanny danger sense as well.

[Malifice]

I usually compare it to having spidey-sense. A gut feeling or instinct that kicks in

Surely in every encounter you ever have, the dungeon Master tell you what happens and then call for initiative.

With a Group of bandits hiding it would be something as simple as:

'As you walk down the Forest Trail suddenly a hail of arrows lands around you; Roll initiative. Everyone is surprised on the first turn aside from the fighter because he has the alert feat.'

It's the dungeon Masters job to give the players information.

[BurgerBeast]

Surely in every encounter you ever have, the dungeon Master tell you what happens and then call for initiative.

With a Group of bandits hiding it would be something as simple as:

'As you walk down the Forest Trail suddenly a hail of arrows lands around you; Roll initiative. Everyone is surprised on the first turn aside from the fighter because he has the alert feat.'

It's the dungeon Masters job to give the players information.

Edit is bold

But if the alert fighter wins the initiative roll, then how did the arrows get fired first? And if you rule (and I agree that it makes sense even though I would not personally rule this way) that the fighter can't possibly act before the arrows are fired, then how do you narrate what's happening? And does he see any of the attackers (causing them to lose advantage/sneak attack)? And, if you rule he wins initiative but can't act until after the bandits, then has effectively readied an action, or are you just adjusting the initiative order, and if so (1) is it just for this round or for all rounds? And (2) is it fair?

[Vaz]

The individual becomes aware before the arrows are fired.

[BurgerBeast]

The individual becomes aware before the arrows are fired.

Agreed. However, this still does not settle how to handle it, as I tried to explain above.

[Malifice]

But if the alert fighter wins the initiative roll, then how did the arrows get fired first?

Because the DM gives the players enough information to know why they are making a Dexterity ability check.

Example:

Hidden Assassin (A) in a dimly lit warehouse stacked with boxes. A is armed with crossbow. A is 60' away from 2 PCs: Bob (B), and Charlie (C) who have just entered the warehouse.

Bob has the Alert feat. Both PCs have passive perception scores of 15. The DM has rolled a 20 for A's Stealth check (meaning he is hidden from B and C when the encounter starts).

The DM decides that A will fire at C with his crossbow, initiating the combat sequence. He now moves to:

Resolution:

The DM pauses and thinks about it for a second. Then he announces: 'As the two of you enter the dimly lit warehouse, you hear the distinctive click of a crossbow being drawn back echo through the warehouse. Roll initiative.'

Initiative: The DM rolls 10 for A. B rolls a 15. C rolls a 5.

Round one starts:

B goes first with initiative of 15. He has the Alert feat so he is not surprised, but his passive perception is only 15, so he does not know where the Assassin is. He declares to the DM he will frantically scan the warehouse to locate where the sound came from. (He takes the Search action). He rolls a 19 on his Perception check and fails to locate the Assasin. He is a 5th level Monk, so spends a point of Ki to use his bonus action to take the Dodge action, and moves 30' to cover (behind one of the crates).

A goes next with his initative of 10. His crossbow shot is now resolved. Knowing that the crossbow attack reveals the Assassin (hit or miss) once resolved, the DM announces: 'From a spot in the shadows 60' away to the NW a dark figure emerges from around a crate, and the twang of a crossbow being fired echoes in the warehouse'. The DM now makes an attack roll for A. He rolls an 18 - a Hit vs C's AC of 15.

C's player announces his Wizard will use the Shield spell as a reaction to boost his AC to 20, but the DM calmly tells him he cannot as he is suprised on round one, and cannot take reactions until he has his first turn on this round (which he has yet to do).

The Assasin can now use his assasinate ability turning the attack into a critical hit. Luckily for C, the DM is having an off night with the dice. A deals 25 points of piercing damage, and 35 points of poison damage (C's Wizard fails his save). C's Wizard has 35 hit points, so he is reduced to 0 HP but seeing as there is not more than 35 points of damage remaining, he is not instantly killed.

After resolving the attack, the Assassin ducks back behind the crate. He doesnt have the ability to Hide as a bonus action (being a MM Assasin, and not a PC one), so he remains behind total cover (but the PCs can both hear him back there, his heavy breathing giving him away).

Its now C's turn. He is on 0 HP, and incapacitated (and KO, and prone). At the start of his turn he attempts a Death saving throw... and rolls a natural 20! He gains 1 HP and is no longer KO or incapaciated. Unfortunately he is still surprised so he cant take any actions or reactions, nor can he move. His turn then ends, and he is no longer surprised.

Round 2 begins...

[Vaz]

Agreed. However, this still does not settle how to handle it, as I tried to explain above.

"DM, I have the alert feat, so I'm not surprised".

That's the DM's fault for jumping the gun and ignoring the players passive abilities.

[BurgerBeast]

Because the DM gives the players enough information to know why they are making a Dexterity ability check.

Example:

(snip)

This works for me, and is essentially how I would do it. But it is hard to come up with a narrative reason for the alert character to notice the assassin without hearing or seeing the assassin, and this is fine with me, but will not satisfy the crowd that thinks detected -> not hidden (If there is a sound, then the assassin is heard and therefore not hidden from the alert PC, which is a bit of a screw job).

Likewise, I can see the monk's player complaining that, had he lost initiative, he'd get a chance to attack. Again, I don't care but I can see players complaining about it.


"DM, I have the alert feat, so I'm not surprised".

That's the DM's fault for jumping the gun and ignoring the players passive abilities.

I'm not sure that you're understanding my point. The problem is: once it's clear that the PC is not surprised, how does one make sense of the initiative order and how does one determine who is or isn't hidden from the alert character? Malifice's answer is the one I'd use but I still think it is not reconcilable with the narrative.

[Lombra]

I second the high reflexes idea, if you are alert you are not gonna be surprised when something pops out. You can play it as a paranoid character too.

[Malifice]

This works for me, and is essentially how I would do it. But it is hard to come up with a narrative reason for the alert character to notice the assassin without hearing or seeing the assassin,

He is hearing or seeing the assassin. Or more correctly he knows he is in combat. The DM called for initiative remember. He is 'Alert'. Something tipped him off to combat starting (without also revealing the Assassins location). You (the DM) just provide the input as to why initiative is being called for.

Assume PCs are getting ambushed by hidden bandits on a forest trail:

'As you walk down the trail, a hail of arrows fills the air, fired from the bushes from all around you! Roll initiative.'

From there combat flows smoothly; the PCs have enough information on why the DM called for initiative, and what to do when their turn comes up (presuming they are not surprised, in which case they do nothing).

I played in an AL campaign once, where the DM attacked us with a hidden creature attacking us from the darkness. He just called for initiative with no explanation why. It was super weird.

All he needed to say was: 'As you walk down the darkened room, a creature of shadow springs forward suddenly, roaring in anger. You're all surprised on round one; roll initiative.'

[djreynolds]

That is the tough thing about DMing, giving out only what the party needs... nothing more.

If your player wants to know the exact location of an ambusher, he may have to use movement and then his action to investigate.

[Vaz]

This works for me, and is essentially how I would do it. But it is hard to come up with a narrative reason for the alert character to notice the assassin without hearing or seeing the assassin, and this is fine with me, but will not satisfy the crowd that thinks detected -> not hidden (If there is a sound, then the assassin is heard and therefore not hidden from the alert PC, which is a bit of a screw job).

Likewise, I can see the monk's player complaining that, had he lost initiative, he'd get a chance to attack. Again, I don't care but I can see players complaining about it.



[quote]I'm not sure that you're understanding my point. The problem is: once it's clear that the PC is not surprised, how does one make sense of the initiative order and how does one determine who is or isn't hidden from the alert character? Malifice's answer is the one I'd use but I still think it is not reconcilable with the narrative.

Eh?

Walking down the road, the Character-with-Alert becomes aware of movement as something unleashes a barrage of arrows at the party. Everyone roll initiative, but all of you without the Alert feat are considered surprised during the first round of combat.

A common houserule I run in situations is that I have everyone roll initiative and natural 20's allow them to no longer be Surprised. Some of the players have suggested that rolling a Nat 1 should mean that they are considered surprised, but I think it's bad enough that the individual is acting last to further penalise them.

Look at the rules for combat; 1; Determine Surprise, 2; Establish positions, 3; Roll Initiative, 4; Take Turns. There is no surprised round. There is only combat, and an inability to move/act during the first round of combat.

[DivisibleByZero]

Like this:

Goblin sneaks up on party. Rolls 19 Stealth.
No one in party has passive perception equal to or over 19.
Goblin pops out of bush and draws an arrow at the same time the Ranger with Alert turns his head and thinks "..something's up.."
Roll initiative.
Rest of party is surprised and can only take reactions after their initiative passes.
BUT Badass Alert Ranger can act normally (and probably wins initiative) so he quickly turns, putting 2 arrows into the now ****ed goblin before he can loose his own.

I would not allow an Alert character to call out a warning to the party or else Alert becomes the best feat in the history of D&D. Surprise is supposed to be granted individually. The guard against Surprise technically only activates when initiative is called, at which point Surprise is determined and the Alert character has no time to warn the party.

This is exactly how it works.
There is no more surprise round. Surprise is effectively a condition in 5e, and with this feat you effectively become immune to this <effective> condition.

[Arial Black]

You don't get the information that is gated behind a successful Perception check if you failed that check, but there are still things you do know:-

* Alert means you are never surprised (as a game mechanic), and the consequence of that is that the player knows that initiative is being rolled and surprise determined, therefore combat is starting; and the character knows that his danger sense/hair on his neck/bad feeling about this is warning him that combat is starting and he has learned to trust those instincts

* knowing that combat is starting does not mean that you know what is starting it or where the danger is coming from, but you do know where you are and have just been, can see the terrain around you, and may be aware of the kind of enemy that is extant. For example, if the party is travelling down a really long tunnel with no side tunnels when Alert pings, then even though you don't know for a fact that the danger comes from in front of you, it's a pretty educated guess. You might go first and try a 'reconnaissance by fireball' ahead in the tunnel. You may be wrong, but it's a good bet.

You can combine the things that you already know with the new knowledge that combat is starting, to get an educated guess at what the danger is and where it comes from. It's not really 'no information' at all.

[BurgerBeast]

He is hearing or seeing the assassin. Or more correctly he knows he is in combat.

And this is what I'm driving at. I can't think of a narrative example that would explain why the character knows he is in combat but all of his opponents are hidden. If he hears or sees the assassin, then (according to most people, incorrectly in my opinion) he is not hidden.

The hail of arrows can't work because then the ambushers acted before him. Hearing the click of the crossbow means (according to some) that the cross bowman is no longer hidden (because he is heard).



Assume PCs are getting ambushed by hidden bandits on a forest trail:


'As you walk down the trail, a hail of arrows fills the air, fired from the bushes from all around you! Roll initiative.'

From there combat flows smoothly;

I agree that it flows smoothly - that's not the problem. The problem is, how did those arrows get fired (a) before the alert character acted and (b) without revealing the locations of the attackers?

Regarding the creature that jumps out: this plays out perfectly. But what if it's not a creature, but an assassin, and "jumping out" or otherwise being revealed takes away his assassinate and/or sneak attack abilities (or just advantage for being unseen, for anyone else) by RAW?

Likewise, I can see the monk's player complaining that, had he lost initiative, he'd get a chance to attack. Again, I don't care but I can see players complaining about it.

@Vaz: (sorry, on my phone and messed up the quote)

You said: "Eh?

Walking down the road, the Character-with-Alert becomes aware of movement as something unleashes a barrage of arrows at the party. Everyone roll initiative, but all of you without the Alert feat are considered surprised during the first round of combat.[/QUOTE]

But if the alert character wins initiative, then how were those arrows already fired? And if they are not fired yet, and the enemies are hidden, what did the alert character notice?

(Also, I know there is no surprise round. If I say it by accident you can just read it as the first round of combat. To me there's not much difference, and I'm aware of those differences in any case.)

[Puh Laden]

And this is what I'm driving at. I can't think of a narrative example that would explain why the character knows he is in combat but all of his opponents are hidden. If he hears or sees the assassin, then (according to most people, incorrectly in my opinion) he is not hidden.

The hail of arrows can't work because then the ambushers acted before him. Hearing the click of the crossbow means (according to some) that the cross bowman is no longer hidden (because he is heard).



Assume PCs are getting ambushed by hidden bandits on a forest trail:



I agree that it flows smoothly - that's not the problem. The problem is, how did those arrows get fired (a) before the alert character acted and (b) without revealing the locations of the attackers?

Regarding the creature that jumps out: this plays out perfectly. But what if it's not a creature, but an assassin, and "jumping out" or otherwise being revealed takes away his assassinate and/or sneak attack abilities (or just advantage for being unseen, for anyone else) by RAW?

Likewise, I can see the monk's player complaining that, had he lost initiative, he'd get a chance to attack. Again, I don't care but I can see players complaining about it.

@Vaz: (sorry, on my phone and messed up the quote)

You said: "Eh?

Walking down the road, the Character-with-Alert becomes aware of movement as something unleashes a barrage of arrows at the party. Everyone roll initiative, but all of you without the Alert feat are considered surprised during the first round of combat.

But if the alert character wins initiative, then how were those arrows already fired? And if they are not fired yet, and the enemies are hidden, what did the alert character notice?

(Also, I know there is no surprise round. If I say it by accident you can just read it as the first round of combat. To me there's not much difference, and I'm aware of those differences in any case.)[/QUOTE]

The hail of arrows are a fluff indicator of combat starting, not an actual attack. Hearing someone doesn't automatically tell you where an invisible person is, rather it can be used as justification to explain the game mechanical aspect that an invisible person is not automatically hidden, just as I believe an invisible creature standing in an area of silence is not automatically hidden from a wolf with a good sense of smell.

[DivisibleByZero]

But if the alert character wins initiative, then how were those arrows already fired? And if they are not fired yet, and the enemies are hidden, what did the alert character notice?

He noticed them popping out and taking aim, or a sound, or whatever. It's an abstraction. He is not surprised and gets to act on his initiative.

[BurgerBeast]

The hail of arrows are a fluff indicator of combat starting, not an actual attack. Hearing someone doesn't automatically tell you where an invisible person is, rahter it can be used as justification to explain the game mechanical aspect that an invisible person is not automatically hidden, just as I believe an invisible creature standing in an area of silence is not automatically hidden from a wolf with a good sense of smell.

Okay, so this gets to my point, I suppose. I prefer mechanics and narrative to be connected in a logical way. People can argue all day long over whether they need to match well, or how well, but the point remains that the rules are designed to match their narrative description.

If you're cool with just ignoring it, that's fine. But I'm not. It doesn't make any sense to me that a "hail of arrows" are launched out of nowhere, by nobody, and they go unnoticed by everyone except those who are hyper-alert.


He noticed them popping out and taking aim, or a sound, or whatever. It's an abstraction. He is not surprised and gets to act on his initiative.

I understand that. The problem is it cannot be "popping out" because then you are overriding their hide roll arbitrarily (i.e. if someone is hiding successfully, he is not popping out). The same goes for making a sound. So I am asking, what could that "whatever" actually be? It appears that there is no way to reconcile it with the rules, short of a supernatural spidey-sense. And even then it presents problems when the alert character would almost always prefer to act immediately after, or as an interrupt to, the first enemy (instead of before, when he can't do as much).

Perhaps the best thing to do is to treat the alert character's initiative, whenever it beats his hidden enemies' initiatives, as an interrupt of the first enemy's turn. You can hide from the alert character, but you can never get the jump on him unless you beat his initiative; likewise, he can't just supernaturally detect hidden creatures, because this adds unintended functionality to the feat.

[DivisibleByZero]

It appears that there is no way to reconcile it with the rules, short of a supernatural spidey-sense. And even then it presents problems when the alert character would almost prefer to act immediately after, or as an interrupt to, the first enemy (instead of before, when he can't do as much).

As I said, it's an abstraction.
You're trying to quantify and find specific rules for something that's an abstraction.
The problem isn't with the rules, it's with your own need to quantify it so clearly.
And nothing precludes the PC from doing what you propose, whether it be taking the Ready action or taking a reaction or whatever.

[BurgerBeast]

As I said, it's an abstraction.
You're trying to quantify and find specific rules for something that's an abstraction.
The problem isn't with the rules, it's with your own need to quantify it so clearly.
And nothing precludes the PC from doing what you propose, whether it be taking the Ready action or taking a reaction or whatever.

I disagree. You can say I'm being overly demanding of the rules, but I can say you're being overly dismissive of the problem.

The rules are meant to support the narrative, not interfere with it. If you are willing to offer an explanation that cannot explain the ruling, then it's a failed explanation. If you're just going to dismiss the problem as "an abstraction" or as "my inability to accept it" then you're really not considering the problem at all.

I understand that the game is abstracted. I accept, for example, that characters take discrete turns as a necessity, which makes no narrative sense (the orc runs 60 feet and hits me in the head with an axe before I can move 5 feet? - total buls@#t, but I accept it as an abstraction in the spirit of fairness). But within that framework, the design intent is to allow players to choose abilities that will function as they ought to (for example, if you take the "mobile" feat, it works within this framework to provide added mobility). If the given situation creates a dilemma wherein the DM is forced to rob one character or another of their ability, then that's a problem.

However you choose to resolve this, there are a few things that should happen:

1. the hiding characters should be allowed to gain the full benefit of hiding
2. the alert character should get the full benefit of the alert feat
3. a character who wins initiative should receive the benefit of winning initiative (and not be forced into taking a suboptimal action)

So, I could fully accept your answer if you did away with the combat system to begin with, and played a more abstracted form of combat. But once you accept the game's combat structure: initiative, rounds, action economy, etc... it seems disingenuous to then say, well, in the case of this one situation, we'll ignore the rules or play by different rules.

[DivisibleByZero]

I disagree. You can say I'm being overly demanding of the rules, but I can say you're being overly dismissive of the problem.

The rules are meant to support the narrative, not interfere with it. If you are willing to offer an explanation that cannot explain the ruling, then it's a failed explanation. If you're just going to dismiss the problem as "an abstraction" or as "my inability to accept it" then you're really not considering the problem at all.

You're creating a problem where none exists.
The description for the feat answers your question. "Always on the lookout for danger, you gain the following benefits:"
You're always on the lookout for danger. There's your explanation.
If you need more than that, then it isn't me being dismissive of the problem, it's you seeing a problem that doesn't exist because the explanation has already been given to you but you want more.

[Lombra]

I can't see the problem of interpretation. If one has the alert feat it means that his reflexes will always allow him to perform during the first round of combat, wether the enemies have higher or lower initiative.

If an alert cleric is in a party that has been ambushed and nobody felt the enemies coming, the cleric is going to be able to cast spells in the first round of combat or to interact with the enemy (or the party, like freeing someone surprised by a net) before the other members get a chance at reacting to the ambush. Initiative is a totally different and a very abstract thing, the cleric may have the reflexes to act immediatly after the goblin that dropped from the tree but that doesn't mean that the goblin is completely screwed, the cleric may have a lower initiative than the goblin so the cleric is ready to move only after the moves of the goblin, and is able to respond to them in the same turn, hence the steadyness of his reflexes.

The alert doesn't expect to be ambushed and isn't aware of nothing more than the other characters are before initiative is rolled, he is simply ready even in unpredictable circumstances, what's so hard about it?

I don't get why you would even mix initiative and surprise since they are totally not correlated and have nothing to do with each others.

[DivisibleByZero]

I can't see the problem of interpretation. If one has the alert feat it means that his reflexes will always allow him to perform during the first round of combat, wether the enemies have higher or lower initiative.

If an alert cleric is in a party that has been ambushed and nobody felt the enemies coming, the cleric is going to be able to cast spells in the first round of combat or to interact with the enemy (or the party, like freeing someone surprised by a net) before the other members get a chance at reacting to the ambush. Initiative is a totally different and a very abstract thing, the cleric may have the reflexes to act immediatly after the goblin that dropped from the tree but that doesn't mean that the goblin is completely screwed, the cleric may have a lower initiative than the goblin so the cleric is ready to move only after the moves of the goblin, and is able to respond to them in the same turn, hence the steadyness of his reflexes.

The alert doesn't expect to be ambushed and isn't aware of nothing more than the other characters are before initiative is rolled, he is simply ready even in unpredictable circumstances, what's so hard about it?

I don't get why you would even mix initiative and surprise since they are totally not correlated and have nothing to do with each others.

Their problem stems from the fact that they can't mentally reconcile the fact that the cleric, who would have otherwise been surprised and didn't know the enemy was there prior, could potentially act before the ambusher(s) has sprung the attack by means of having higher initiative.
That initiative is an abstraction is what is causing them problems.

[Dalebert]

The Alert feat just means you always get to go on the first round of combat regardless though others may be surprised and miss their turn. You might even get to go before the ambushers thanks to the init boost. (Icing: Hidden enemies won't gain advantage on you.)

Seems obvious to me that you know something or it wouldn't make any sense that you get to act, so that can simply be a sense of disturbance regarding some obscure danger. There are lots of useful things you can then do even if you don't see enemies yet like ready an attack or cast a defensive spell.

What I would not let someone do is warn others and remove their surprised condition. That's beyond the power of the feat. It's all happening too fast. Sure, you can shout a warning and folks will start trying to prepare for danger, but since they're surprised, their reactions are just too slow to allow action in the first round of combat.

[Lombra]

However you choose to resolve this, there are a few things that should happen:

1. the hiding characters should be allowed to gain the full benefit of hiding
2. the alert character should get the full benefit of the alert feat
3. a character who wins initiative should receive the benefit of winning initiative (and not be forced into taking a suboptimal action)


1) an alert target doesn't interfere with what you get for being hidden except for the surprise, which is the whole point if the feat and "interferes" with hidden creatures because without interactions and "rock,scissors,paper" mechanics there wouldn't be a game (or one not as intreasting) to play.

2) the alert character gets the full benefit. Huge bonus to initiative and immunity to the surprised condition (which are totally unrelated to each other)

3)A character who wins initiative gets the whole benefits of winning initiative, which is, going first in the rounds of combat. If the character is surprised he doesn't loose initiative, he is simply limited in the first round of combat (again, because interactions are needed on both sides).

[strangebloke]

You're all underselling alert.

The text reads: 'Cannot be surprised'

Ever.

birthday party? as expected.

fifty bucks in his back pocket. Makes sense.

Hidden tabasco sauce in his ice cubes? Should've expected it, really.

[Tanarii]

However you choose to resolve this, there are a few things that should happen:

1. the hiding characters should be allowed to gain the full benefit of hiding
2. the alert character should get the full benefit of the alert feat
3. a character who wins initiative should receive the benefit of winning initiative (and not be forced into taking a suboptimal action)
Its not a Hide check. It's a Surprise check.

[Dalebert]

Its not a Hide check. It's a Surprise check.

It specifically says if both parties are aware of each other, neither is surprised. So gaining involves the other party being unaware of you. That's typically going to involve a hide check of some kind vs. passive perceptions.

[BurgerBeast]

You're creating a problem where none exists.
The description for the feat answers your question. "Always on the lookout for danger, you gain the following benefits:"
You're always on the lookout for danger. There's your explanation.
If you need more than that, then it isn't me being dismissive of the problem, it's you seeing a problem that doesn't exist because the explanation has already been given to you but you want more.

I'm not creating the problem. It exists. There is only a very narrow range of rulings that do justice to both the hiding characters and the alert character, and the solutions you have put forward fail to properly do it. If we had the time to walk through an example, I'm sure you'd see it.


I can't see the problem of interpretation. If one has the alert feat it means that his reflexes will always allow him to perform during the first round of combat, wether the enemies have higher or lower initiative.

...

The alert doesn't expect to be ambushed and isn't aware of nothing more than the other characters are before initiative is rolled, he is simply ready even in unpredictable circumstances, what's so hard about it?

I don't get why you would even mix initiative and surprise since they are totally not correlated and have nothing to do with each others.

You can't see the problem because you haven't looked at it. You're looking at the general case, which presents no problems, and which we all agree upon.

The problem arises specifically when an alert character wins initiative against hiding enemies. Run it through, and you'll find that either the hiding character or the alert character gets a screw job.


Their problem stems from the fact that they can't mentally reconcile the fact that the cleric, who would have otherwise been surprised and didn't know the enemy was there prior, could potentially act before the ambusher(s) has sprung the attack by means of having higher initiative.
That initiative is an abstraction is what is causing them problems.

No, I'll fix that:

My problem stems from the fact that I can't mentally reconcile the fact that the cleric, who would have otherwise been surprised and doesn't know the enemy is there right now, would potentially act before the ambusher(s) has sprung the attack by means of having higher initiative are noticed at all.

If the alert character just jumps into action by casting bless and hiding, completely out of the blue, without a shred of evidence that anyone is there, then why isn't he doing this all the time, and just burning spell slots every few minutes? He is doing it without any reason.


That initiative is an abstraction is what is causing them problems.

False. I wish you'd stop asserting my position for me.


The Alert feat just means you always get to go on the first round of combat regardless though others may be surprised and miss their turn. You might even get to go before the ambushers thanks to the init boost.

And this makes no narrative sense. The alert player has no idea that the enemies are there. Combat hasn't started, and he has no way of anticipating that it will. There is nothing he can do with his turn unless he has information that you can't fairly give him.


(Icing: Hidden enemies won't gain advantage on you.)

No. This is a screw job on the hiding characters. The alert character cannot see them. They get advantage as long as they are unseen.


Seems obvious to me that you know something or it wouldn't make any sense that you get to act, so that can simply be a sense of disturbance regarding some obscure danger. There are lots of useful things you can then do even if you don't see enemies yet like ready an attack or cast a defensive spell.

This is a good answer. Maybe the alert character notices that "it's too quiet..." or "what is that squirrel afraid of?" So, it's nothing to do with the hiding characters, but some indirect cue that triggers their danger sense. Thank you.

Edit: Seriously, thank you. I learned something.

It may seem trivial, and I'm willing to accept criticism for (stupidly) not seeing it, but none of the answers thus far dealt with this problem sufficiently. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious, but there you have it. Thanks again.


What I would not let someone do is warn others and remove their surprised condition. That's beyond the power of the feat. It's all happening too fast. Sure, you can shout a warning and folks will start trying to prepare for danger, but since they're surprised, their reactions are just too slow to allow action in the first round of combat.

Agreed.

[Lombra]

You can't see the problem because you haven't looked at it. You're looking at the general case, which presents no problems, and which we all agree upon.

The problem arises specifically when an alert character wins initiative against hiding enemies. Run it through, and you'll find that either the hiding character or the alert character gets a screw job.


What's the problem in promptly reacting to something that is ambushing you but is not as quick as you?

Edit: everyone notices the ambushers at the same time, the alert character is swifter and can immediatly challenge the threat, that's it. If you were looking for just narrative then there's endless ways to describe it, and the simple one is that the alert is always ready to face a threat. It sounds inhuman and impossibe? It's a feat for adventurers, no normal person could do that, they can because they are special, like it or not.

[BurgerBeast]

What's the problem in promptly reacting to something that is ambushing you but is not as quick as you?

Nothing. I rest my case.

The problem is: how can you promptly react to something that you don't know is happening, because it literally is not happening yet?

[Lombra]

Nothing. I rest my case.

The problem is: how can you promptly react to something that you don't know is happening, because it literally is not happening yet?

You react when it happens. What are you talking about? The goblin pops out of the bush, you see it and react to it, if the goblin fires an arrow at you from the bush while you are not aware of his presence the attack resolves normally and then you roll initiative with the surprise rules, if the alert guy wins initiative he can immediatly retaliate on the poor goblin.

[tieren]

If the alert character just jumps into action by casting bless and hiding, completely out of the blue, without a shred of evidence that anyone is there, then why isn't he doing this all the time, and just burning spell slots every few minutes? He is doing it without any reason.


And this makes no narrative sense. The alert player has no idea that the enemies are there. Combat hasn't started, and he has no way of anticipating that it will. There is nothing he can do with his turn unless he has information that you can't fairly give him.


This is a good answer. Maybe the alert character notices that "it's too quiet..." or "what is that squirrel afraid of?" So, it's nothing to do with the hiding characters, but some indirect cue that triggers their danger sense. Thank you.



I was also going to suggest a narrative trigger not directly related to the hiding character, birds flying out of the bushes, crickets stopped chirping,etc...

I do take issue with the idea above there is absolutely no clue or evidence something is about to go down.

if the assassin was just going to stay hidden and not attack, initiative wouldn't have been rolled yet, it would still be hiding and passive perception checks. The ambusher did something to initiate combat and start the ambush and the alert character detected it, and if he had higher initiative was able to use whatever he detected to take action (hide himself, take cover, ready an action, etc...

I also thought the warehouse scenario earlier in the thread was well written, and the point that the alert character would want lower initiative misplaced. If the scenario were continued the very next action would be the alert characters attack at the top of the next round. He got to do his high initiative stuff and still attack the assassin after the assassin appeared and took his first turn.

[BurgerBeast]

You react when it happens. What are you talking about? The goblin pops out of the bush, you see it and react to it, if the goblin fires an arrow at you from the bush while you are not aware of his presence the attack resolves normally and then you roll initiative with the surprise rules, if the alert guy wins initiative he can immediatly retaliate on the poor goblin.

The goblin does not pop out of the bush until his turn. It's your turn because you won initiative. The goblin is hiding.

Letting the goblin fire an arrow before initiative is problematic. It screws over the character with the alert feat. He should have been able to roll off against the goblin. It's functionally the same as surprising the alert character. Also, does "resolving the attack normally" involve advantage for being unseen? In the case of the attacker being an assassin, does "resolving the attack normally" mean he gets his assassination class feature (because you've given him a free surprise attack without allowing the alert character to roll initiative against him)?

See? Problems.

[Lombra]

The goblin does not pop out of the bush until his turn. It's your turn because you won initiative. The goblin is hiding.

Letting the goblin fire an arrow before initiative is problematic. It screws over the character with the alert feat. He should have been able to roll off against the goblin. It's functionally the same as surprising the alert character. Also, does "resolving the attack normally" involve advantage for being unseen? In the case of the attacker being an assassin, does "resolving the attack normally" mean he gets his assassination class feature (because you've given him a free surprise attack without allowing the alert character to roll initiative against him)?

See? Problems.

Ok now I see the problem. You don't know when to roll initiative. Why would you make someone roll for initiative if there's nothing to initiate?

The target can't be surprised so no assassination extra, the loose arrow is the trigger of the fight, not the goblin who is gonna let it loose.

[Puh Laden]

Okay, so this gets to my point, I suppose. I prefer mechanics and narrative to be connected in a logical way. People can argue all day long over whether they need to match well, or how well, but the point remains that the rules are designed to match their narrative description.

If you're cool with just ignoring it, that's fine. But I'm not. It doesn't make any sense to me that a "hail of arrows" are launched out of nowhere, by nobody, and they go unnoticed by everyone except those who are hyper-alert.

The hail of arrows would be noticed by everyone, but only those who aren't surprised could react to to them. Or again it could be a sound from an as of yet undetermined location, like the click of a crossbow from an earlier example - combat isn't turn-based narratively but abstractly.

To disclose where I'm coming from, I'm the kind of DM who if the party starts a fight that is of a trivial CR, I'll (with their okay) roll one or two attacks and then say the party won to save everyone time.

[BurgerBeast]

Ok now I see the problem. You don't know when to roll initiative. Why would you make someone roll for initiative if there's nothing to initiate?

This is precisely the point, which appear to me as if you don't know when to roll initiative. I say this because you are the one suggesting that I roll initiative when there is nothing to initiate.


The target can't be surprised so no assassination extra, the loose arrow is the trigger of the fight, not the goblin who is gonna let it loose.

The loose arrow was loosed as part of an attack. The attack is a part of the combat. If you are rolling attacks, then combat has started. You don't attack and then roll initiative.


The hail of arrows would be noticed by everyone, but only those who aren't surprised could react to to them. Or again it could be a sound from an as of yet undetermined location, like the click of a crossbow from an earlier example - combat isn't turn-based narratively but abstractly.

But why is there a hail of arrows? Were they fired by the hidden enemies? If so, they had to attack to do so. And in order to attack, they'd have to roll initiative against the alert character, because they cannot, RAW, get a shot away unless they beat the alert character at initiative.


To disclose where I'm coming from, I'm the kind of DM who if the party starts a fight that is of a trivial CR, I'll (with their okay) roll one or two attacks and then say the party won to save everyone time.

Fair enough. I'm cool with this sort of thing. What I try to be cognizant of, as a DM, is the potential for my handwaving of rules to become unfair. for example, in the 3.5 days, handwaving the drawing and stowing of weapons was a screw job for the player who took the quick draw feat. In this very particular case (alert + high initiative + hidden enemies), there is a potential problem.

[Vaz]

You roll initiative when something is going to act. Which is a logical fallacy that you don't know when things are going to act.

The rules are clear and explicit, in the same way that Wizards can break the laws of physics because the rules say they can.

A character who is alert is one who is always being aware of their surroundings, putting a mechanical benefit to always walking around looking for a potential threat.

[Lombra]

Who said that attacks can only happen during combat rounds?

[BurgerBeast]

Who said that attacks can only happen during combat rounds?

Note: Edits are bolded

No one. But we're talking about a specific example, in which I suggest it should be done this way (and although I'm AFB I'd assume the rules more or less support this).

Just think about the problems that arise if it is not so. If the hidden enemies can attack before combat even begins, then how many goblins enemies? How many times? What does this mean in terms of surprise rules? If they are assassins, then this potentially exposes a single target to six assassinations (assuming three enemies) before he even gets to act. At this point, you're just making it up as you go along, which is less consistent, less predictable, and therefore less empowering... and in the end, less fun.

The game is designed to move into "combat mode" in order to deal with combat. This is to keep things fair.

[Tanarii]

It specifically says if both parties are aware of each other, neither is surprised. So gaining involves the other party being unaware of you. That's typically going to involve a hide check of some kind vs. passive perceptions.But the fact remains that it's not a Hide check. So there is no possible argument that can be made that the enemy must be hidden from surprised characters at the beginning of initiative order.

I'm not saying a DM must rule that they are no longer hidden when they initiate combat. Just that it's not required to think that they must be hidden. Because it's not a Hide check.

The 'jump out hiding to attack and the enemy who can't be surprised beats you in initiative and shoots you first' scenario is entirely valid interpretation of surprise check success, followed by losing the initiative to a creature that cannot be surprised. Edit: Not required interpretation. Just a valid one.

[mephnick]

Who said that attacks can only happen during combat rounds?

I'm almost certain it's intended that any attempted attack is supposed to be resolved in initiative.

[JeffreyGator]

No. This is a screw job on the hiding characters. The alert character cannot see them. They get advantage as long as they are unseen.


This is a precise benefit of alert. Attackers don't get advantage because you can't see them. (Darkness, hiding, invisibility, blinded etc. doesn't give them advantage against Alert)

[Malifice]

Nothing. I rest my case.

The problem is: how can you promptly react to something that you don't know is happening, because it literally is not happening yet?

It is happening. The creature is leaning around the corner ready to shoot, and you notice him just in time.

You hear the snap of a twig, a crossbow twang in the air, the chanting of a spell, or smell the strong stench of werewolf or ogre, or notice something move out of the corner of your eye, or get a bad feeling.

Its the use of turn based/ cyclical abstraction thats thowing you here. Youre starting from the (flawed) position that this turn based cyclical abstraction represents an objective game truth. It doesnt.

Any more than getting 'hit' by a sword and losing 'hit points' represents your PC gets physically struck by a sword.

[Malifice]

Who said that attacks can only happen during combat rounds?

Go check the combat section. It tells you how to resolve combat (including situations where one side is unaware of the other through surprise). Attacking someone is combat.

It goes initiative first, determine surprise, then resolve actions in turn order.

[BurgerBeast]

This is a precise benefit of alert. Attackers don't get advantage because you can't see them. (Darkness, hiding, invisibility, blinded etc. doesn't give them advantage against Alert)

You're right. However the alert character should not see or otherwise locate the hidden enemy.


It is happening. The creature is leaning around the corner ready to shoot, and you notice him just in time.

This contradicts the Stealth and Perception results.


You hear the snap of a twig, a crossbow twang in the air, the chanting of a spell, or smell the strong stench of werewolf or ogre, or notice something move out of the corner of your eye, or get a bad feeling.

Each of these examples is a sufficient reason to begin combat (i.e. call for initiative). However, many of these reasons violate the successful Stealth check. The twig does not snap, you don't hear chanting, and you don't smell the stench - these only make sense when the perception check succeeds. The twang of the crossbow can only happen when the crossbow is fired. You can't hear it before it happens.


Its the use of turn based/ cyclical abstraction thats thowing you here. Youre starting from the (flawed) position that this turn based cyclical abstraction represents an objective game truth. It doesnt.

And I would say it's throwing you, here. I don't need to have any commitment to objective game truth to note that the initiative order does mean something in the game world. You don't get to say, for example, that the actions in a round occurred in reverse order in the narrative. There are reasons for the initiative order and they do map onto the narrative, despite being imperfect. And just because they are not perfect does not give you leeway to interpret them however you want.


Any more than getting 'hit' by a sword and losing 'hit points' represents your PC gets physically struck by a sword.

This analogy misses the mark. Nonetheless, it can provide a framework for my point. We can argue over a particular set of plausible / acceptable interpretations of what hit point damage represents. Regardless, we can say that it does not represent magical healing.

When a character takes hit point damage and dies on the turn immediately before his, we don't let that character take his turn "because the initiative order is simply an abstraction and the game-world events may have occurred in the opposite order." That's because we agree that the initiative order actually does mean something.

[DivisibleByZero]

If the abstraction bothers you so much, as it appears to, just house it out and make the Alert feat useless in your games.

[Tanarii]

This contradicts the Stealth and Perception results.No. It doesn't. Because it's a surprise check, not a Hide check.

[BurgerBeast]

No. It doesn't. Because it's a surprise check, not a Hide check.

You've said this a couple of times, and I don't understand why you're saying it.

I don't know what a surprise check is, either.

[BurgerBeast]

If the abstraction bothers you so much, as it appears to, just house it out and make the Alert feat useless in your games.

You've actually answered you own question, here. I'm not sure you realize it yet, though.

[DivisibleByZero]

It is happening. The creature is leaning around the corner ready to shoot, and you notice him just in time.
This contradicts the Stealth and Perception results.
No. It doesn't. Because it's a surprise check, not a Hide check.
You've said this a couple of times, and I don't understand why you're saying it.

I don't know what a surprise check is, either.

Practically every feat in the book breaks the general rules with a specific rule.
In this particular case, the general rule is that the hidden creature gets advantage on his attack and anyone who didn't notice him are surprised. The feat offers a specific rule which supersedes the general rule, and instead of the attacker gaining advantage and the defender being surprised, the defender suffers neither of those effects as he was ready for it and noticed it in time and can act normally.

Explain it however you want to.
I really don't understand why this is so hard for you.

[Vaz]

You've actually answered you own question, here. I'm not sure you realize it yet, though.

if it takes an Action to attack, why does Great Weapon Master or Pole Arm Master give you Bonus Action attacks? Dammit they're breaking my logical plateau, so must stop them from using this!

[DivisibleByZero]

You've actually answered you own question, here. I'm not sure you realize it yet, though.

I didn't answer my own question because I don't have any questions.
I understand the abstraction of initiative, and I understand that a specific rule granted by a feat supersedes a general rule about hiding and surprise.

[Arial Black]

The alert player has no idea that the enemies are there. Combat hasn't started, and he has no way of anticipating that it will. There is nothing he can do with his turn unless he has information that you can't fairly give him.

The surprise mechanic only exists in the first round of combat. Surprise (as a game mechanic) does not exist before combat rounds start. Surprise has no relevance in the second or later rounds because the surprise mechanic only affects what creatures can/cannot do during the first turn of combat.

What this results in is the fact that:-

* creatures that succeed in noticing a threat also know that combat is starting and players know that combat is starting because combat rounds are starting

* creatures that fail to notice a threat do not know combat is starting before their first turn in round 1 (unless they have some special ability to mitigate that)

* creatures that fail to notice a threat (failed Perception check) but who are immune to surprise DO know combat is starting, but not why. The didn't notice the threatening creature

How? You can fluff it how you want, within certain rules-imposed limits.


1. the hiding characters should be allowed to gain the full benefit of hiding
2. the alert character should get the full benefit of the alert feat

Examples include: there is a disturbance in The Force, I've got a bad feeling about this, my Spider-Sense is tingling, the hairs on the back of my neck are standing up, etc.

Is it a supernatural ability? In a D&D world maybe, but not certainly. I remember an issue of Avengers when they are on a S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier when some force rocks it with a result similar to an earthquake. Everyone falls over, except Captain America. Why him? He famously has no super-powers at all. His explanation? He's always ready for anything! This is well modeled in 5E by the Alert feat.


3. a character who wins initiative should receive the benefit of winning initiative (and not be forced into taking a suboptimal action)

No, this has never been true, and I'm not just talking about this feat. The plan may be for the wizards to fireball the enemy and then the melee types charge in, but if the fighters charge in first then they may get friendly-fireballed. In this case, the fighters would benefit from a lower initiative score. It is simply not the case that 'higher is always better' when it comes to initiative, and the Alert feat doesn't change that.

Wise creatures use going first to their advantage, even if no enemy is yet is sight. Being able to do something is never worse than not being able to do something!

[Tanarii]

You've said this a couple of times, and I don't understand why you're saying it.

I don't know what a surprise check is, either.You determine surprise at the beginning of combat by making a Dexterity (Stealth) check vs Passive Perception of each creature. This may use the same mechanic as the Hide action, but it isn't explicitly a Hide action.

Therefore there is no particular reason to assume an ambushing creature is Hiding at the beginning of combat, or unseen. I mean, a DM could rule that way if they wanted to. But that's not something that is required.

Since this is the case, there's no mechanical problem with "creature leans out to attack, other creature attacks it first". Because there's no requirement that the failed surprise check at the beginning of combat means that the attacker is hidden. Just that the enemy is surprised. When you remove the surprise, the attacker still does not have to be hidden.

[Arial Black]

You determine surprise at the beginning of combat by making a Dexterity (Stealth) check vs Passive Perception of each creature. This may use the same mechanic as the Hide action, but it isn't explicitly a Hide action.

Therefore there is no particular reason to assume an ambushing creature is Hiding at the beginning of combat, or unseen. I mean, a DM could rule that way if they wanted to. But that's not something that is required.

Since this is the case, there's no mechanical problem with "creature leans out to attack, other creature attacks it first". Because there's no requirement that the failed surprise check at the beginning of combat means that the attacker is hidden. Just that the enemy is surprised. When you remove the surprise, the attacker still does not have to be hidden.

No. You are not resolving the questions about which creatures are surprised by using a 'surprise check'; there is no such thing.

You are resolving the surprise question (in this particular case) by using opposing checks of Perception/Stealth. Therefore, you are either making a Perception check or a Stealth check in this scenario.

Note the the ONLY actual 'rules' about determining surprise are that:-

* The DM determines who might be surprised

* Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter

Now, it suggests that one way for the DM to determine this is opposed Perception/Stealth, and this is indeed the most common and likely way when adventuring, where any creature you even see is expected to be hostile. In other cases, less common for murderhobos, the DM might use opposed Deception/Insight, or whatever he feels best represents what is actually happening.

However, the DM can simply say, "these guys are surprised, those guys are not" without any dice being rolled, and he is following RAW exactly: The DM determines who might be surprised. He's not using 'rule zero' here; this is the actual rule!

[Tanarii]

No. You are not resolving the questions about which creatures are surprised by using a 'surprise check'; there is no such thing.

You are resolving the surprise question (in this particular case) by using opposing checks of Perception/Stealth. Therefore, you are either making a Perception check or a Stealth check in this scenario.Agreed. I was using short hand. That's why I was more explicit: Just because you are using Dexterity (stealth) vs Passive perception to determine who is surprised doesn't mean it's a check to Hide. It's uses the same mechanics as a check to hide, but it's used to determine who is surprised, not (necessarily) if the attackers are hidden at the start of combat.

As such, a DM that rules the creatures 'stood up to attack' and the Alert character that won initiative but failed their passive perception vs the attacker can see them to attack first is choosing to interpret the mapping of an abstract mechanical resolution a certain way, and not breaking some kind of rule.

[Vaz]

No. You are not resolving the questions about which creatures are surprised by using a 'surprise check'; there is no such thing.

You are resolving the surprise question (in this particular case) by using opposing checks of Perception/Stealth. Therefore, you are either making a Perception check or a Stealth check in this scenario.

Note the the ONLY actual 'rules' about determining surprise are that:-

* The DM determines who might be surprised

* Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter

Now, it suggests that one way for the DM to determine this is opposed Perception/Stealth, and this is indeed the most common and likely way when adventuring, where any creature you even see is expected to be hostile. In other cases, less common for murderhobos, the DM might use opposed Deception/Insight, or whatever he feels best represents what is actually happening.

However, the DM can simply say, "these guys are surprised, those guys are not" without any dice being rolled, and he is following RAW exactly: The DM determines who might be surprised. He's not using 'rule zero' here; this is the actual rule!
If he invalidates the Ioun Stone, Hand+Eye of Vecna, Weapons of Warning, Alert feat and Barbarians Raging during their first turn, then yes, he is rule zeroing, or significantly taking away rules.

[Zalabim]

It's come up a few times so I wanted to reiterate that when you dodge, attacks have disadvantage against you only if you can see the attacker. You always get the advantage on Dexterity saves though.

[Arial Black]

If he invalidates the Ioun Stone, Hand+Eye of Vecna, Weapons of Warning, Alert feat and Barbarians Raging during their first turn, then yes, he is rule zeroing, or significantly taking away rules.

Oh, I would agree.

First, the DM determines who is surprised. Then the things that make you immune to surprise may override what the DM determined. Basically, the DM is saying that you ARE surprised....unless you have some way of making sure that you are not.

If the DM were to ignore these things and say that you are surprised anyway, then not only is he using rule zero he is also being a ****.

[Arial Black]

Agreed. I was using short hand. That's why I was more explicit: Just because you are using Dexterity (stealth) vs Passive perception to determine who is surprised doesn't mean it's a check to Hide. It's uses the same mechanics as a check to hide, but it's used to determine who is surprised, not (necessarily) if the attackers are hidden at the start of combat.

As such, a DM that rules the creatures 'stood up to attack' and the Alert character that won initiative but failed their passive perception vs the attacker can see them to attack first is choosing to interpret the mapping of an abstract mechanical resolution a certain way, and not breaking some kind of rule.

For me, if the enemy are hidden from the party when combat starts then I'd probably have the party roll opposed Perception/Stealth to see if they notice the threat.

But if the enemy were not hidden, there would be no opposed Perception/Stealth check at all! The party are simply not surprised by unhidden foes; they are not surprised, no roll needed.

[Tanarii]

But if the enemy were not hidden, there would be no opposed Perception/Stealth check at all!Why not? That's the given mechanical means for the DM to determine if the party is surprised, if he needs mechanical resolution as opposed to DM fiat. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the enemy being hidden or not hidden.

edit: To be clear, the enemy might have been attempting to be stealthy and ambush the PCs. But that doesn't have anything to do with being hidden or not hidden at the commencement of combat. The commencement of combat is contingent upon the enemy deciding to launch offense. They might reveal themselves by intending to start combat, regardless of if they actually get to resolve their actions first. The surprise resolution method of stealth vs perception does not require that they remain hidden until they take their first action, because it's not explicitly a check to Hide.

[BestPlayer]

I knew I wasn't crazy in thinking that this was a confusing situation. Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful analysis.

[Tanarii]

I knew I wasn't crazy in thinking that this was a confusing situation. Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful analysis.
It basically boils down to the DM ruling on two things:
1) Does the 'Alert' character know he's in danger? (ie combat has started.)
2) If so, does the 'Alert' character know the location of the enemy? (Either roughly or pinpoint.)

I'm assuming most DMs would rule Yes to #1, which would be the 'spidey-sense' interpretation if you then said No to #2.

Clearly #2 is contentious. It could be ruled either way.

[coolAlias]

Why not? That's the given mechanical means for the DM to determine if the party is surprised, if he needs mechanical resolution as opposed to DM fiat. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the enemy being hidden or not hidden.

edit: To be clear, the enemy might have been attempting to be stealthy and ambush the PCs. But that doesn't have anything to do with being hidden or not hidden at the commencement of combat. The commencement of combat is contingent upon the enemy deciding to launch offense. They might reveal themselves by intending to start combat, regardless of if they actually get to resolve their actions first. The surprise resolution method of stealth vs perception does not require that they remain hidden until they take their first action, because it's not explicitly a check to Hide.
Per the rules in the PHB, if neither side is attempting to be stealthy, then everyone is aware of everyone else and no one is surprised.

If one group was either not being stealthy or otherwise reveal themselves prior to engaging in combat, then the other group would be aware of them, i.e. not surprised.

That's what I understand the RAW to be.

EDIT: To clarify what I mean, if one group is not noticed (i.e. hidden) and ambushes another group, everyone rolls initiative; any in the surprised group that have a high initiative will be able to react to the incoming attacks, but until those attacks happen, they don't know where the attackers are because the attackers haven't revealed themselves yet. If they had, they wouldn't have been hidden and the group wouldn't have been surprised.

[Tanarii]

That's what I understand the RAW to be.And as I've said repeatedly, it's not required to assume the Surprise determination via Stealth vs Perception at the beginning of combat means that the enemy starts hidden or location unknown at the beginning of combat. It is not (necessarily) a Hiding check.

Edit: Even if as a DM you DO decide that's what it represents, it still does not automatically follow that the enemy remains hidden / location unknown until their first action.

[coolAlias]

And as I've said repeatedly, it's not required to assume the Surprise determination via Stealth vs Perception at the beginning of combat means that the enemy starts hidden or location unknown at the beginning of combat. It is not (necessarily) a Hiding check.
It's a stealth check. If the opposition's perception check doesn't beat your stealth check, you are hidden from them.

Could you give an example of what you mean? How would you describe the scene to the players in which they were surprised but their opponents were not hidden, and in which you had used stealth vs. perception to determine surprise?

[Tanarii]

It's a stealth check. If the opposition's perception check doesn't beat your stealth check, you are hidden from them.That's one way to interpret it. The other is:
It's a stealth check. If the opposition's perception check doesn't beat your stealth check, you surprise them.

Edit: in fact, this is the more accurate way to interpret it, although it's not actually called 'a stealth check'. But it determines surprise, not (necessarily) 'hidden'.

Edit2:

Could you give an example of what you mean? How would you describe the scene to the players in which they were surprised but their opponents were not hidden, and in which you had used stealth vs. perception to determine surprise?Easy. Enemy attempts to ambush the PCs from an ambushing position. On declaring their intention to attack, they are now no longer hidden. But the DM calls for a 'surprise check' to determine if they start the combat with the PCs surprised. Stealth vs perception is used to determine surprise.
Done.

[coolAlias]

That's one way to interpret it. The other is:
It's a stealth check. If the opposition's perception check doesn't beat your stealth check, you surprise them.

Edit: in fact, this is the more accurate way to interpret it, although it's not actually called 'a stealth check'. But it determines surprise, not (necessarily) 'hidden'.
Don't have my PHB handy, but I don't think it gives any mechanical way to determine surprise - iirc, it simply says to the effect of "if one side doesn't notice the other, they are surprised," which is commonly interpreted to mean stealth vs. perception (provided one or both of the groups were, in fact, trying to be stealthy), which in turn is commonly interpreted as determining whether or not one is hidden.

But I do see where you're coming from, though you didn't give me an example, I can imagine a group, clearly hearing someone coming from a side corridor, standing quietly in wait until that person turns the corner. BAM! Surprise, but the group is no longer hidden.

Now, if I was a rogue, I might be a little sad that I'm no longer hidden (where's a nice random barrel when you need it?) and don't get my nice things, but don't see anything wrong with the DM ruling that way in the above scenario.

EDIT:


Edit2:
Easy. Enemy attempts to ambush the PCs from an ambushing position. On declaring their intention to attack, they are now no longer hidden. But the DM calls for a 'surprise check' to determine if they start the combat with the PCs surprised. Stealth vs perception is used to determine surprise.
Done.
Hm, I disagree here. If they were hidden, then there should be no reason to make an additional check to determine surprise. If you are using that check to determine if they were, indeed, hidden, then provided the PCs couldn't have possibly noticed them prior to the attack, I could roll with that. Otherwise, I'd ask why I wasn't able to notice them before they attacked.

[Tanarii]

Don't have my PHB handy, but I don't think it gives any mechanical way to determine surprise - iirc, it simply says to the effect of "if one side doesn't notice the other, they are surprised," which is commonly interpreted to mean stealth vs. perception (provided one or both of the groups were, in fact, trying to be stealthy), which in turn is commonly interpreted as determining whether or not one is hidden.There is a mechanical method of determining surprise specified, although some people argue that the wording allows for DM fiat. (I'm not going to get into that, I used to argue it wasn't but 5e allows so much DM fiat I don't consider it an important any more.)

PHB wording:
"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."

Actually I'm glad you made me post that, because now I can see it actually says something I thought it didn't. It was "the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with ...". So my first point doesn't hold as much water as I thought it did. /sigh

That said, I still think if a DM wants to interpret that the hiding ends when initiative is rolled, there's still leeway to interpret this not as a 'continue hiding' check, but rather as a 'are you surprised by someone that was hiding until the beginning of combat'.

Edit:

Hm, I disagree here. If they were hidden, then there should be no reason to make an additional check to determine surprise. If you are using that check to determine if they were, indeed, hidden, then provided the PCs couldn't have possibly noticed them prior to the attack, I could roll with that. Otherwise, I'd ask why I wasn't able to notice them before they attacked.If they were hiding or whatever isn't really relevant until you need to determine surprise. You were hiding. Great. Now you're starting combat. Check for surprise. Although I grant that saying it's ALSO a check to see if you continue hiding has far more merit than I thought.

Edit2: Also, if you mean it's a check to see if you were as successfully hiding as you thought you were before combat begin, that's also a valid way to look at it. But I still don't think that absolutely requires interpreting it as hiding continues at the beginning of combat until your first turn. Again with caveat that I think that position is less strong than I originally thought.

[coolAlias]

Thanks for looking that up!

In my own games I've seen groups (or individuals within a group) gain surprise using deceit, for example, and I can imagine other scenarios such as the one I posted earlier where a group may not necessarily need to remain hidden, once combat starts, to still have the advantage of surprise.

So to the OP, given all of that, I suppose it depends on whether the opposition is, in fact, hiding at the start of the encounter, in which case I would argue that the Alert character is not able to attack them right away without guessing their location unless one of the attackers did something to reveal their position prior to the Alert character acting, or you/your DM rules that they are for whatever reason no longer hidden.

[Finger6842]

And why would the DM not just give the mob a bonus to initiative based on the high stealth roll? Alert player may or may not win initiative, not alert players are surprised. Alert player CAN lose initiative.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're right. However the alert character should not see or otherwise locate the hidden enemy.

Making an attack reveals your location if you were hidden. (PHB 195)

An Alert character can't be surprised, although their friends could be.

Alert effectively negates this: "If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends."
So that the character acts normally on the first round. Now, an attacker still might get the drop on them in terms of Initiative count, but that's the best they can hope for, and even that is unlikely thanks to the +5 bonus to initiative.

Alert is a giant "Screw you!" to the entire Rogue class, and the Death Strike ability of the Assassin (Assassinate can still function, assuming the Rogue gets a higher initiative).


Each of these examples is a sufficient reason to begin combat (i.e. call for initiative). However, many of these reasons violate the successful Stealth check. The twig does not snap, you don't hear chanting, and you don't smell the stench - these only make sense when the perception check succeeds. The twang of the crossbow can only happen when the crossbow is fired. You can't hear it before it happens.

As you said, the Alert character hears the twang of the crossbow, or the swish or the weapon or whatever and is able to ready their defenses in time to counteract it (throwing their shield up to intercept the bolt, or dodging to one side, or whatever it is they normally do). They even get their reaction, so for example a Fighter with Alert and the Protection fighting style could throw their shield up to protect the hapless Wizard they're next to.


And I would say it's throwing you, here. I don't need to have any commitment to objective game truth to note that the initiative order does mean something in the game world. You don't get to say, for example, that the actions in a round occurred in reverse order in the narrative. There are reasons for the initiative order and they do map onto the narrative, despite being imperfect. And just because they are not perfect does not give you leeway to interpret them however you want.

What it means is only who is faster on the draw with their reactions. Alert gives a higher level of situational awareness at all times such that even the sudden reveal of an enemy doesn't surprise them. Think of it as always being ready for a fight. Or in a horror (or comedy) movie instead of screaming with surprise, they punch the villain in the face immediately.

[mephnick]

Making an attack reveals your location if you were hidden. (PHB 195)

Not until you hit or miss with the attack. Prompting initiative by starting an attack isn't enough to reveal you so you would still be hidden when the Alert character is aware of an attacker.

[Malifice]

People are over thinking this.

As a DM if you are going to ask for an initiative check from the players you first give them enough information to let them know why combat has started.

An ogre lurches at you from the darkness. Roll initiative.

You hear the sound of movement and a dull growl from the shadows to the east. Roll initiative.

The low chanting of spellcasting can be heard from the forest around you. Roll initiative.

Suddenly, black orc arrows rain down all around you coming from the darkness above. Roll initiative.

The statue lurches to life, its claws grasping for your flesh, surprising you. Roll initiative.

You notice the faint shimmering of an invisible creature out the corner of your eye before it quickly disappears. Claws scrape on your armor and you are knocked backwards by the blow. Roll initiative.

And so on and so on.

[BurgerBeast]

@Malifice:

Once again, I would reply that you are either underthinking it, to you're thinking backward from the end. If you feel so inclined, humour me for a minute and think about it from this angle: starting point.

Imagine you are playing the assassin in the woods. You rolled a stealth check to hide and got a 22. You are patiently waiting for Albert, Bert, and Colbert to approach so you can kill them.

Their (A, B, and C's) perception checks are 16, 14, and 6, so the DM rules that you are successfully hidden. He thus decides that at the start of combat, the party will be surprised.

Okay, so at the correct moment, you are going to loose your first arrow. The DM decides that this will initiate combat and therefore everyone should roll initiative. Albert: 21, You: 17, Bert 14, Colbert 9. Albert has the Alert feat.

"You start to loose arrows from your hiding place. Everyone rolls initiative." So now, after having said this, it turns out Albert has beat you on initiative. Since Albert is aware that arrows are being loosed from your general direction, he moves his miniature toward the bushes, and it turns out he moves his miniature right into your square, so the DM rules that he discovers you, and attacks.

Does this seem fair? Because it does not seem fair to me.

You have been hiding and you haven't done anything to give-up your position. The DM has just royally screwed you, in my opinion. And it's not just because you got attacked. It's because the entire handling of the situation makes no sense.

Albert cannot conceivably have any idea that anything is up until you do something. You cannot blow your cover or loose an arrow, and it would be unfair for the DM to just force this onto the situation when it makes no sense.


People are over thinking this.

As a DM if you are going to ask for an initiative check from the players you first give them enough information to let them know why combat has started.

But it is not fair to give information about a character who is successfully hidden. They have the right to remain hidden because they succeeded at the task.


An ogre lurches at you from the darkness. Roll initiative.

Different example. This ogre is visible. This is a situation in which neither side is surprised. Easy.


You hear the sound of movement and a dull growl from the shadows to the east. Roll initiative.

Different example. The thing making the noise is detected. Neither side is surprised. Easy.


The low chanting of spellcasting can be heard from the forest around you. Roll initiative.

Different example. The spellcaster is detected. relatively easy.


Suddenly, black orc arrows rain down all around you coming from the darkness above. Roll initiative.

Not quite the same problem, and in my opinion a mistake by the DM. The player who wins initiative could fairly ask: "how are they acting before me? I won initiative."


The statue lurches to life, its claws grasping for your flesh, surprising you. Roll initiative.

Different situation. The gargoyle is visible. Surprise is announced by the DM. Since the gargoyle is visible, there is no problem here if the alert character wins initiative. Easy.


You notice the faint shimmering of an invisible creature out the corner of your eye before it quickly disappears. Claws scrape on your armor and you are knocked backwards by the blow. Roll initiative.

Different situation. This enemy's general presence is detected, so there is no problem here if the alert character wins initiative. Easy..


And so on and so on.

No. Every one of these examples is different that the problematic case.

[BurgerBeast]

I didn't answer my own question because I don't have any questions.
I understand the abstraction of initiative, and I understand that a specific rule granted by a feat supersedes a general rule about hiding and surprise.

There is an implied question (I'm being generous - it's actually an explicit statement that you are making about my position that is factually incorrect) built into your hypothetical: "If the abstraction bothers you so much..."

The abstraction does not bother me at all, which is why you are wrong in your speculation, which ought to be obvious, because you've supplied the logic. If the abstraction did bother me, I would follow your advice. But I'm not following your advice. Therefore, the abstraction doesn't bother me. Therefore, your hypothetical is irrelevant, and you have no idea what you're talking about in this case. But you should, because as I said, you've supplied the logic.

That's my point. You have no idea what my contention is, or at least nothing you have said up to this point indicates that you do. Yet you continue to incorrectly identify/represent my argument, and respond to the incorrect representation. None of your responses have had any bearing on my point.

[coredump]

I understand your position, and I can see why you think others are missing your point. Let me see if I can address it more directly:


@Malifice:

Once again, I would reply that you are either underthinking it, to you're thinking backward from the end. If you feel so inclined, humour me for a minute and think about it from this angle: starting point.

Imagine you are playing the assassin in the woods. You rolled a stealth check to hide and got a 22. You are patiently waiting for Albert, Bert, and Colbert to approach so you can kill them.

Their (A, B, and C's) perception checks are 16, 14, and 6, so the DM rules that you are successfully hidden. He thus decides that at the start of combat, the party will be surprised.

Okay, so at the correct moment, you are going to loose your first arrow. The DM decides that this will initiate combat and therefore everyone should roll initiative. Albert: 21, You: 17, Bert 14, Colbert 9. Albert has the Alert feat.

"You start to loose arrows from your hiding place. Everyone rolls initiative." So now, after having said this, it turns out Albert has beat you on initiative.

______________________

Since Albert is aware that arrows are being loosed from your general direction, he moves his miniature toward the bushes, and it turns out he moves his miniature right into your square, so the DM rules that he discovers you, and attacks..

The Feat means you are not surprised, it does *not* give you any further mechanical advantages. It does not automatically allow you to know where the enemy is, or what they are doing, etc. The part of your quote below the line is DM fiat beyond what the feat allows.

Instead it would be:

1) Albert, it dawns on you that there are no animal noises whatsoever, you realize you are about to be ambushed
or
2) Albert, you notice fresh footprints in the mud on the side of the road, you don't know where they lead, but you realize it must mean trouble
or
3) Albert, since you were a kid, you have had a knack for knowing when trouble was about to start, you are getting that tingle again...an ambush must be near
or
4) Albert, you barely hear the sound of a bow creaking, you can't tell where its coming from, but you suddenly feel like a target
or
5) Albert, you get a sense of Deja Vu, and you suddenly recall a dream you had about this exact location.....and walking into an ambush
or
etc
etc

There are a ton of ways that Albert can be Alerted to an impending attack (See what I did there) without it giving away the attackers location, or attack method, or even creature type.

[BurgerBeast]

I understand your position, and I can see why you think others are missing your point. Let me see if I can address it more directly:



The Feat means you are not surprised, it does *not* give you any further mechanical advantages. It does not automatically allow you to know where the enemy is, or what they are doing, etc. The part of your quote below the line is DM fiat beyond what the feat allows.

Instead it would be:

1) Albert, it dawns on you that there are no animal noises whatsoever, you realize you are about to be ambushed
or
2) Albert, you notice fresh footprints in the mud on the side of the road, you don't know where they lead, but you realize it must mean trouble
or
3) Albert, since you were a kid, you have had a knack for knowing when trouble was about to start, you are getting that tingle again...an ambush must be near
or
4) Albert, you barely hear the sound of a bow creaking, you can't tell where its coming from, but you suddenly feel like a target
or
5) Albert, you get a sense of Deja Vu, and you suddenly recall a dream you had about this exact location.....and walking into an ambush
or
etc
etc

There are a ton of ways that Albert can be Alerted to an impending attack (See what I did there) without it giving away the attackers location, or attack method, or even creature type.

Thank you. Am I correct to say that you agree with me, and from your and my perspective, this is resolved?

And also that, from this perspective, there are a few who are posting who are claiming the problem does not exist when it actually does?

(I'm asking for my sanity.)

[DivisibleByZero]

That's my point. You have no idea what my contention is, or at least nothing you have said up to this point indicates that you do. Yet you continue to incorrectly identify/represent my argument, and respond to the incorrect representation. None of your responses have had any bearing on my point.
I understand perfectly what your contention is.
I fail to see the same problem that you do.
I understand that you think there's a problem, and I understand what you think that problem is. I just disagree with it being a problem in the first place.


I understand your position, and I can see why you think others are missing your point. Let me see if I can address it more directly:

The Feat means you are not surprised, it does *not* give you any further mechanical advantages. It does not automatically allow you to know where the enemy is, or what they are doing, etc. The part of your quote below the line is DM fiat beyond what the feat allows.

Instead it would be:

1) Albert, it dawns on you that there are no animal noises whatsoever, you realize you are about to be ambushed
or
2) Albert, you notice fresh footprints in the mud on the side of the road, you don't know where they lead, but you realize it must mean trouble
or
3) Albert, since you were a kid, you have had a knack for knowing when trouble was about to start, you are getting that tingle again...an ambush must be near
or
4) Albert, you barely hear the sound of a bow creaking, you can't tell where its coming from, but you suddenly feel like a target
or
5) Albert, you get a sense of Deja Vu, and you suddenly recall a dream you had about this exact location.....and walking into an ambush
or
etc
etc

There are a ton of ways that Albert can be Alerted to an impending attack (See what I did there) without it giving away the attackers location, or attack method, or even creature type.
That explained it perfectly.


Thank you. Am I correct to say that you agree with me, and from your and my perspective, this is resolved?

And also that, from this perspective, there are a few who are posting who are claiming the problem does not exist when it actually does?

(I'm asking for my sanity.)
No, our understanding what you're saying doesn't mean that we all agree with you. He might, but I do not.
In the example above, Albert would Ready an action, and that beats the heck out of losing his action.

[BurgerBeast]

I understand perfectly what your contention is.

No, you do not.


I fail to see the same problem that you do.

That's because you don't understand the problem.


I understand that you think there's a problem, and I understand what you think that problem is. I just disagree with it being a problem in the first place.

You are not equipped to disagree with a problem if you can't identify it.


That explained it perfectly.

That is the solution to the problem. I said as much a long time ago. The current "problem" is that some others still think that some other solutions are acceptable when they are not.


No, our understanding what you're saying doesn't mean that we all agree with you. He might, but I do not.

The difference is that he understands the problem and you do not. End of story.


In the example above, Albert would Ready an action, and that beats the heck out of losing his action.

And this is a problem, because:

1. How can Albert ready an action, if combat hasn't started yet?

2. You can answer this in two ways:
a. He can't, because combat hasn't started. (Which works.)
b. He can, because combat actually has started. And then the question is "how?" The best answers are those listed, such as "the forest suddenly goes quiet." (This is a bad answer , because, there is not an impending combat [I]every time the trees go quiet. This is problematic, because, for example, if Albert is a cleric, and every time the trees go quiet, he casts bless and takes cover, he's going to be wasting a lot of spells and he's going to exhibit a lot of neurotic (as opposed to alert) behaviour. There is no tenable way to sustain this level of disbelief.

[DivisibleByZero]

1. How can Albert ready an action, if combat hasn't started yet?

Because combat HAS started!

Combat Step By Step
1. Determine surprise. The DM determines whether anyone involved in the combat encounter is surprised.
2. Establish positions. The DM decides where all the characters and monsters are located. Given the adventurers’ marching order or their stated positions in the room or other location, the DM figures out where the adversaries are— how far away and in what direction.
3. Roll initiative. Everyone involved in the combat encounter rolls initiative, determining the order of combatants’ turns.
4. Take turns. Each participant in the battle takes a turn in initiative order.
5. Begin the next round. When everyone involved in the combat has had a turn, the round ends. Repeat step 4 until the fighting stops.

Step one of Combat is to determine surprise. That's the first step.
As soon as you decide to do #1, combat has begun. In that moment, in that instant, as soon as you make the decision to even check for surprise, combat has begun.
By the time it gets to rolling for initiative, it has been decided that Albert is not surprised (thanks to his feat), and wherever he falls in the initiative order, he gets to act. If he still hasn't seen an enemy and still doesn't know where the attacks will come from, he still knows that an attack is imminent (thanks again to his feat) [edit: NAY, not imminent, but rather already in progress]. So he readies an action.

[Demonslayer666]

Because combat HAS started!
...snip...
If he still hasn't seen an enemy and still doesn't know where the attacks will come from, he still knows that an attack is imminent (thanks again to his feat) [edit: NAY, not imminent, but rather already in progress]. So he readies an action.

And here this whole time I thought you were arguing that the alert guy knows where the ambusher is located because they beat them on initiative..."He noticed them popping out and taking aim, or a sound, or whatever. It's an abstraction. He is not surprised and gets to act on his initiative."

Now you seem to be agreeing that beating the hidden ambusher on initiative does not reveal their location...

[DivisibleByZero]

And here this whole time I thought you were arguing that the alert guy knows where the ambusher is located because they beat them on initiative..."He noticed them popping out and taking aim, or a sound, or whatever. It's an abstraction. He is not surprised and gets to act on his initiative."

Now you seem to be agreeing that beating the hidden ambusher on initiative does not reveal their location...

That's the DM's call whether he knows where the attacker is or not. But regardless of which way the DM goes with the decision, it amounts to the same thing. There is no problem that needs to be rectified.

[BurgerBeast]

Because combat HAS started!

Combat Step By Step (snip)

You are talking about the mechanics of combat. I don;t particularly care over whether 1 or 3 is the official start of combat by the rules, because what if the person who wins initiative decides to parley and everyone else falls in line and the encounter becomes a social interaction? Call that combat if you want. I don't.

I'm not talking about the game term COMBAT. (Which once again proves my point that you have no idea what I am actually saying.) I'm talking about the narrative. How does the alert character know that anyone is in danger, at all?


If he still hasn't seen an enemy and still doesn't know where the attacks will come from, he still knows that an attack is imminent (thanks again to his feat) [edit: NAY, not imminent, but rather already in progress]. So he readies an action.

Where does it say, in the Alert Feat, that you have this ability? I don't see it.

As has been said repeatedly, this doesn't usually come up, because, for example, in a typical surprise situation the enemy makes his presence known, but nobody reacts quickly enough to take an action in the first round. This works fairly elegantly, because the alert character is provided the opportunity to act first, but it's not guaranteed.

However, in situations where the enemy does not make himself known... problems arise. There is no conceivable reason that an alert character can react.

Now, you can say that you don't have a problem with the alert character having to take the ready action instead of having a full action. That's fine. But that's not an acknowledgment of the problem, though. That's more or less you saying "tough titty - them's the rules."

[DivisibleByZero]

(Which once again proves my point that you have no idea what I am actually saying.)

And once again, I do understand what you're saying.
What you're saying is that you can't handle the abstraction of the initiative system with regards to Alert's Spidey-sense.
Argue semantics all you want to, that's what it boils down to.

[BurgerBeast]

And once again, I do understand what you're saying.
What you're saying is that you can't handle the abstraction of the initiative system with regards to Alert's Spidey-sense.
Argue semantics all you want to, that's what it boils down to.

It's funny that you say that, because:

1. I can handle the abstraction, and unlike you I can actually explain it. If you wish to lay this accusation, then explain: what exactly, in your view, about the "abstraction," am I unable to "handle?" (Whatever that means.)
2. I think I'm the one who introduced the term "spidey-sense" to the present discussion. I may be wrong about that, but I've certainly employed it, and said repeatedly that it's the best in-game explanation of what's occurring, but still falls short.
3. This is not a semantic disagreement. There is a real, factual, identifiable point of contention.

The point is this: it makes no sense to call for initiative until something has happened to indicate the start of combat. If the initial attack is what is being noticed, then it has to happen before it can be noticed.

@Tanarii:

I've having trouble with your insistence that there is a surprise check in this specific context. The whole reason the assassins hid was to ambush their enemies. The hide has been resolved. If, now, at the moment of initiation, there is also a "surprise check," then what you're effectively doing is forcing the ambushers to succeed on two consecutive skill challenges in order to ambush their enemies. This doesn't seem right, to me. If you succeed at hiding, then you surprise your enemies. You don't have to succeed twice.

[DivisibleByZero]

It's funny that you say that, because:

1. I can handle the abstraction
<snip>
3. This is not a semantic disagreement. There is a real, factual, identifiable point of contention.
No you can't, and no it isn't.
The following quote proves that you can't.


The point is this: it makes no sense to call for initiative until something has happened to indicate the start of combat. If the initial attack is what is being noticed, then it has to happen before it can be noticed.
It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense or not. That's exactly why you just can't handle the abstraction.
The fact that it's abstract is the problem that you have with it. If it were more defined, and less abstract, then you'd be fine with it.

ab·strac·tion
abˈstrakSH(ə)n
noun
1. the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.

Initiative is an abstraction. You think it makes no sense because it doesn't deal with an event, but you want it to.
That's exactly why it's an abstraction.
You can't wrap your mind around that abstraction and you think it makes no sense.

One more time for you:

The point is this: it makes no sense to call for initiative until something has happened to indicate the start of combat. If the initial attack is what is being noticed, then it has to happen before it can be noticed.
You want it linked to "something that has happened"
You want it linked to an event.
That's why you can't handle the abstraction.
The only event it's linked to is the DM calling for an initiative roll.

You cannot simultaneously claim that you (a) can handle the abstraction, and (b) want it linked to "something that has happened."
The two are mutually exclusive.
If you want it tied to something that has happened, then by definition you can't handle the abstraction.
So as I said, that's what this boils down to.

[Lombra]

I still don't get if the problem is just with the narrative or the mechanics... as I see Alert, you simply react to what happens because you are... well... alert.
If you ask how could you react to something that didn't happen my answer is that you don't, because if nothing has happened no combat turns are being taken so nobody is surprised. What I am seeng is difficulty in defining when to start combat, which is up to the DM, as a general rule, based on the intention of the parties involved in the combat, the first attack or offense is the trigger to the fight, which means that as I rule it, it happens outside of (mechanically speaking) combat.

If the party is getting ambushed and they are surprised, and one has alert, the start of combat (in my opinion) should be once the enemies attack, either from hidden spots or if they jump out of nowhere on the party, because it doesn't make sense to me to ask for an initiative roll before anybody ever noticed something: "ok you are all walking in the middle of the forest. Roll for initiative." Assuming successful stealth checks on the side of the ambushers which imply no hear or visual hints of them.

Let's say that the trigger are arrows flying towords the party: initiative is rolled, the alert guy won't be shot with advantage, and will be able to take a turn to reposition, help someone or simply take the dodge action: nobody gets "screwed", the alert takes all the benefits of his feat and hidden attackers keep the benefits of being hidden, and gain "turn advantage" over the other party members. Does this mean that the ambushers can fire two volleys consecutively? Yes, it's part of their tactical advantage.

I feel like I'm missing something but that's how it makes sense to me.

Edit: any player could actually refluff it in any consistent way, like for examples tiny visions of immediate future(thinking about Shulk from Xenoblade) as an instinctive reflex to danger (would work wonderfully with a diviner-themed character)

[Vogonjeltz]

Not until you hit or miss with the attack. Prompting initiative by starting an attack isn't enough to reveal you so you would still be hidden when the Alert character is aware of an attacker.

Right, and as being hidden no longer grants advantage and is unsurprisable, we can safely read that as the Alert character basically seeing the enemy immediately.

They have their head on a swivel, so to speak. They might not have seen the attacker, but their ability to respond to the danger is perfect.

[Vaz]

Burger Beast, can you just clarify what your point is? I even agree with DivisibleByZero. That is like hell freezing over or something.

For all of us who don't understand perhaps you should clarify with what is factually wrong with a character spending a resource on giving them the ability to act while Surprised as its explicit ability.

[BurgerBeast]

It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense or not. That's exactly why you just can't handle the abstraction.

This has nothing to do with the abstraction. The reason it doesn't make sense has nothing to do with abstractions. The reasons are pretty concrete. You roll initiative to initiate combat (regardless of which step it is). If there is no combat, there is no need to roll initiative. That's not abstract.


The fact that it's abstract is the problem that you have with it. If it were more defined, and less abstract, then you'd be fine with it.

This is incorrect.


Initiative is an abstraction. You think it makes no sense because it doesn't deal with an event, but you want it to.

Except initiative does make sense. This is not about initiative, and it's not about the alert feat. This is about the specific interaction between hiding, surprise, initiative, and the alert feat under particular circumstances.


You can't wrap your mind around that abstraction and you think it makes no sense.

Yes, I can. But it's irrelevant. We're talking about some fairly simple mechanics. I'm cool with abstractions. I'm just not cool with abstractions that contradict the abstractions upon which the rules are built. I've said this before. If you want to take the view that hit points represent meat, then that's fine, but don't then try to tell me that starvation represents hit point damage. That's a violation. If you want hit points to represent a more complicated abstraction that encompasses exhaustion, energy, fighting spirit, and physical health, that's cool with me, too. But then be consistent.


One more time for you:

You want it linked to "something that has happened"
You want it linked to an event.
That's why you can't handle the abstraction.
The only event it's linked to is the DM calling for an initiative roll.

First of all, this barely makes any sense. By "it" do you mean initiative itself? Initiative is not a thing. It's a mechanism to determine the order of turns. But those turns represent actions.

The initiative roll is nothing. It is a mechanic that has no meaning in the narrative except to determine who goes first. But that becomes realized when characters act on their turns. What are you playing at?


You cannot simultaneously claim that you (a) can handle the abstraction, and (b) want it linked to "something that has happened."

I never did. This is an entirely invented argument that you constructed. It's not mine.


The two are mutually exclusive.
If you want it tied to something that has happened, then by definition you can't handle the abstraction.
So as I said, that's what this boils down to.

Initiative is not tied directly (in this way) to things that happen. I never said it was. So, sorry. You've invented a position that I do not hold. Congratulations on taking down that straw man. When you feel like actually addressing my argument, let me know.


I still don't get if the problem is just with the narrative or the mechanics... as I see Alert, you simply react to what happens because you are... well... alert.
If you ask how could you react to something that didn't happen my answer is that you don't, because if nothing has happened no combat turns are being taken so nobody is surprised. What I am seeng is difficulty in defining when to start combat, which is up to the DM, as a general rule, based on the intention of the parties involved in the combat, the first attack or offense is the trigger to the fight, which means that as I rule it, it happens outside of (mechanically speaking) combat.

If the party is getting ambushed and they are surprised, and one has alert, the start of combat (in my opinion) should be once the enemies attack, either from hidden spots or if they jump out of nowhere on the party, because it doesn't make sense to me to ask for an initiative roll before anybody ever noticed something: "ok you are all walking in the middle of the forest. Roll for initiative." Assuming successful stealth checks on the side of the ambushers which imply no hear or visual hints of them.

Let's say that the trigger are arrows flying towords the party: initiative is rolled, the alert guy won't be shot with advantage, and will be able to take a turn to reposition, help someone or simply take the dodge action: nobody gets "screwed", the alert takes all the benefits of his feat and hidden attackers keep the benefits of being hidden, and gain "turn advantage" over the other party members. Does this mean that the ambushers can fire two volleys consecutively? Yes, it's part of their tactical advantage.

I feel like I'm missing something but that's how it makes sense to me.

Edit: any player could actually refluff it in any consistent way, like for examples tiny visions of immediate future(thinking about Shulk from Xenoblade) as an instinctive reflex to danger (would work wonderfully with a diviner-themed character)

Yes, you're obviously aware of what I'm trying to point out, and this seems like a sensible solution until... you give two attacks in a row to the attackers... so the solution doesn't work. So, it is still problematic. I'm in the same boat.

I think the best solution is to: for the first round only, the alert character's initiative as immediately after the first enemy to act. On subsequent rounds, follow the proper intiative order. It's a houserule, but I think it's necessary.

Perhaps even better would be to use the indirect tip-off (i.e. "the forest goes eerily quiet... you think something is wrong and you're about to be attacked") and then give the player the option to either act now or to delay his action and still receive a full turn if he does so (A+BA+M) (but only on this, the first round). Again, a house rule.


Right, and as being hidden no longer grants advantage and is unsurprisable, we can safely read that as the Alert character basically seeing the enemy immediately.

No. The alert feat does not grant this ability.


They have their head on a swivel, so to speak. They might not have seen the attacker, but their ability to respond to the danger is perfect.

Having your head on a swivel does not let you see things that you can't see.


Burger Beast, can you just clarify what your point is? I even agree with DivisibleByZero. That is like hell freezing over or something.

For all of us who don't understand perhaps you should clarify with what is factually wrong with a character spending a resource on giving them the ability to act while Surprised as its explicit ability.

The problem is that you say things that are so layered with errors that it's a significant effort to cut through them. For starters, Alert does not let you act while surprised. It prevents you from being surprised. Second, I do not have a problem with giving players this ability. Third, I don't see a problem with letting players spend resources to get it. Fourth, this isn't a factual matter. It's a matter of preference.

All you've really done is say a bunch of things that aren't true, and that I don't agree with, and then asked me to explain them. Sorry. I can't do that, and I have no idea why you're asking me to do it.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not your argument?
I literally quoted you saying it.

[Vaz]

Rules say you can, i say you can, you say you can, then why are we having this thread?

[Tanarii]

Personally I don't have any problem with the interpretation that the check to determine surprise determines surprise, and any hidden creatures initiating an attack are immediately revealed by their intention to initiate combat. If someone Mae their surprise check and beats their inititave, OR is immune to surprise and beats their initiative, they can attack in the split second between the revealing of the attack and the actual attack. Because they're just that good.

Otoh I also don't have a problem if a DM wants to interpret a successful check for surprise as also meaning the attackers remain hidden to those enemies that are surprised until they actually attack. There is still plenty of things a character immune to surprise can do in that case.

Either works, and either is a reasonable interpretation of the mechanical results.

[DivisibleByZero]

I never did. This is an entirely invented argument that you constructed. It's not mine.

It is yours. That is exactly what you said.


It's funny that you say that, because:

1. I can handle the abstraction, and unlike you I can actually explain it. If you wish to lay this accusation, then explain: what exactly, in your view, about the "abstraction," am I unable to "handle?" (Whatever that means.)
2. I think I'm the one who introduced the term "spidey-sense" to the present discussion. I may be wrong about that, but I've certainly employed it, and said repeatedly that it's the best in-game explanation of what's occurring, but still falls short.
3. This is not a semantic disagreement. There is a real, factual, identifiable point of contention.

The point is this: it makes no sense to call for initiative until something has happened to indicate the start of combat. If the initial attack is what is being noticed, then it has to happen before it can be noticed.

Note the bold portions.
Those two portions cannot exist in the same space. They simply cannot.
They contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive.

The fact that you stated both either means that you can't handle the abstraction of initiative with regards to the Alert feat, or that you don't know what the word abstraction means. And since I gave you the definition earlier, the former must be the truth.

[BurgerBeast]

Not your argument?
I literally quoted you saying it.

You are failing to understand what I am saying. Quoting doesn't help if you misinterpret the quote.


Rules say you can, i say you can, you say you can, then why are we having this thread?

I know why I am here. I do not know why you are.


Personally I don't have any problem with the interpretation that the check to determine surprise determines surprise, and any hidden creatures initiating an attack are immediately revealed by their intention to initiate combat. If someone Mae their surprise check and beats their inititave, OR is immune to surprise and beats their initiative, they can attack in the split second between the revealing of the attack and the actual attack. Because they're just that good.

Otoh I also don't have a problem if a DM wants to interpret a successful check for surprise as also meaning the attackers remain hidden to those enemies that are surprised until they actually attack. There is still plenty of things a character immune to surprise can do in that case.

Either works, and either is a reasonable interpretation of the mechanical results.

There is no requirement to roll for surprise. The DM can simply rule that hidden creatures surprise their enemies.


It is yours. That is exactly what you said.

This game is getting old. If you want to know what I think, just ask. Stop telling me what I think and/or say. Your success rate is about 0%.


Note the bold portions.
Those two portions cannot exist in the same space. They simply cannot.
They contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive.

They can exist in the same space. They do exist in the same space. I have no idea why you think they can not. It seems self-evident to me, because it happens every time I play.

Initiative is an abstraction. Initiative rolls are called for when combat begins.


The fact that you stated both either means that you can't handle the abstraction of initiative with regards to the Alert feat, or that you don't know what the word abstraction means. And since I gave you the definition earlier, the former must be the truth.

I don't think I know what you mean by abstraction. I thought you were saying that initiative is an abstraction (because it is, and it's the one we've been talking about, and it's the thing that you claim I can't "handle" - whatever that means). Evidently, this is not what you are saying. What are you saying? What abstraction are you talking about?

I think you're just hiding behind the word to give the illusion of sophistication. There's nothing complicated about this.

Edit: for clarity: I never tied initiative to an event, ever. You seem to think I did. I did not.

[DivisibleByZero]

Read the bold portion again.
That's you literally asking to tie initiative to an event because you can't make sense of it otherwise.

[Malifice]

Malifice:

Imagine you are playing the assassin in the woods. You rolled a stealth check to hide and got a 22. You are patiently waiting for Albert, Bert, and Colbert to approach so you can kill them.

Their (A, B, and C's) perception checks are 16, 14, and 6, so the DM rules that you are successfully hidden. He thus decides that at the start of combat, the party will be surprised.

Okay, so at the correct moment, you are going to loose your first arrow. The DM decides that this will initiate combat and therefore everyone should roll initiative. Albert: 21, You: 17, Bert 14, Colbert 9. Albert has the Alert feat.

"You start to loose arrows from your hiding place. Everyone rolls initiative." So now, after having said this, it turns out Albert has beat you on initiative. Since Albert is aware that arrows are being loosed from your general direction, he moves his miniature toward the bushes, and it turns out he moves his miniature right into your square, so the DM rules that he discovers you, and attacks.

Does this seem fair? Because it does not seem fair to me.

Of course its fair. The Assasins player has declared a hostile action (which clearly initiates the combat sequence). Opposed Dexterity ability checks have been made. Combat has begun. Just because the Assasin player fails to beat his opponents opposed ability check, and the resolution of that action doesnt go in his favor, doesnt mean it isnt fair, nor does it mean he can 'take back' the action that triggered the Dexterity check in the first place.

Its no different from a Fighter who declares he'll grapple an Ogre. The DM rolls first and gets a 30 on the Strength (Athletics check). The fighter player cant 'take his declared action back' or complain that it isnt fair.


You have been hiding and you haven't done anything to give-up your position. The DM has just royally screwed you, in my opinion. And it's not just because you got attacked. It's because the entire handling of the situation makes no sense.

The DM hasnt 'screwed you' at all. The DM is applying the rules in a fair and balanced manner.

The rules are surprised creatures cannot act on turn one of the combat, after which they cease being surprised. Assasins who manage to surprise a target (attack from hiding AND beat that opponent in initiative via an opposed Dex check) get to auto-crit the target.

This assasin has failed to do that. His attack on a non surprised target is not an auto-crit (although it is a sneak attack and made with advantage because the assasin is hidden).

Those are the rules. The DM is applying them in a fair and balanced manner.


Albert cannot conceivably have any idea that anything is up until you do something. You cannot blow your cover or loose an arrow, and it would be unfair for the DM to just force this onto the situation when it makes no sense.

You did do something. You pulled back the string of your bow and launched an arrow at someone. You did something that triggered an opposed Dexterity ability check.

You get to resolve the arow you fired once your initiative result comes up.

The player cant sook about this. He declared he would fire the arrow at the target. That is what he is doing. The rules for resolving that attack are clear in the PHB.

It goes like this (A is a 5th level Wood elf Rogue Assasin):

A: 'Ok I'll sneak up on the three guards near the door to the hut, sticking to the bushes as I do so. I want to close withing 30' stealthily if thats possible'
DM: (noting the bushes are light natural obscurement, and the PC is a Wood Elf) 'Yep thats fine. Make a Stealth check.'
A: (rolls) 'I got a 22.'
DM: (compares to the guards passive perception of 13). 'Cool mate, you creep along the bushes, quiet as a mouse. You close to within 30' of the guards' (DM rolls some dice behind the screen for show, and ignores the result). 'They dont seem to have noticed you. What do you want to do?'
A: 'I'll shoot the nearest guard with my Crossbow.' (Note that the player is stating a hostile action that kicks off the combat sequence)
DM: (pauses and thinks a bit). 'OK... the twang of your crossbow echoes through the forest and catches the guards by surpirse! Roll me an initiative check.'
A: (rolls, knowing that the rules require him to beat the guards initiative score in order to auto-crit) 'Damn; its a 5'
DM: (notes the PCs roll of 5, and then he secretly rolls for the guards initiative, and scores a 10. The guards take the first turn of the combat, but do nothing and cant move as they are surprised. Then their turn ends) 'Assassin, in the blink of an eye, as your crossbow bolt screams towards the first guard, he starts to turn towards where you are. Its now your turn, lets resolve the attack you declared against him. You're hidden so you can make it with advantage.'
A: (rolls two d20, takes the highest) Its a 21. Do I hit?
DM: Yep, roll your damage. Its not an auto-crit as the guard beat you on initiative and was not surprised when the bolt struck.
A: (rolls 1d8+3d6+4) 20 points of piercing damage.
DM: (notes the guard has 10hp) 'As the guard turns his head towards you, his slight movement spells his certain doom. The bolt lodges between his eyes and he crumples to the ground instantly. You're now no longer hidden. What do you want to do with the rest of your turn?'
A: 'I will move 30' back using the bushes as concealment to mask my position. I have cunning action so I can Hide as a bonus action'
DM: 'Yep, and the light obscurement you have from the bushes lets you hide due to your racial trait. Make me another Stealth check.'
A: (rolls). 'These dice suck. Its a 12.'
DM: (compares the result to the passive perception of 13 for the guards). 'Despite your best efforts, you see the guards watching you. One turns to his friend and points in your direction! Your turn ends, and its now round 2. Its now the guards turn...'


But it is not fair to give information about a character who is successfully hidden. They have the right to remain hidden because they succeeded at the task.

The Assasin does remain hidden. But they also did something that triggered a Dexterity check from the guards to initiative combat. In the above example the DM narrated this as the twang of the crossbow being fired. Note that in the example above even if the guards had the Alert feat and beat the Assasin on the initiative check, they still dont know where he is unless and until they take the Search action to find him (and roll better than a 22 on their Perception check which was the result of A's Stealth check).

They know something is happening. They made dexterity check in response to a stimuli. In this case that stimuli was narrated by the DM as the sound of the crossbow firing.


Different example. This ogre is visible. This is a situation in which neither side is surprised. Easy.


The Ogre was hidden when combat started. This is simply the DM narrating the Ogre attacking from hiding, and giving the PCs enough information to know WHY they are rolling initiative.


Different example. The thing making the noise is detected. Neither side is surprised. Easy.
Different example.

The spellcaster is detected. relatively easy.

Not quite the same problem, and in my opinion a mistake by the DM. The player who wins initiative could fairly ask: "how are they acting before me? I won initiative."

Different situation. The gargoyle is visible. Surprise is announced by the DM. Since the gargoyle is visible, there is no problem here if the alert character wins initiative. Easy.

Different situation. This enemy's general presence is detected, so there is no problem here if the alert character wins initiative. Easy..

No, they ARE surprised. In EVERY exaple I povided. The noise/ motion/ sounds etc is the DM narrating the PC getting caught by surprise.

Example 1:

(The PCs are walkiing down a forest path. All have passive perceptions of 15. None have applicable reactions. A bunch of 5 Orcs are hidden off to the side of the forest trail, who have rolled a 17 for Stealth).

DM: 'As you walk down the forest path, a hail of black orc arrows rains down on you from all around. You are all surpised. Roll initiative'
PCs: (All roll initiative, all are surprised and thus cant do anything on turn one even if they win.).
DM: Resolves the arrow attacks of the Orcs.

Example 2:

(The PCs are walkiing down a forest path. All have passive perceptions of 15. None have applicable reactions. One of the PCs - PC A - has the Alert feat. A bunch of 5 Orcs are hidden off to the side of the forest trail, who have rolled a 17 for Stealth).

DM: 'As you walk down the forest path, a hail of black orc arrows rains down on you from all around. You are all surpised, aside from you PC A. Roll initiative'
PCs: (All roll initiative, PC A rolls a 10.).
DM: (Rolls initiative for the Orcs, scores a 5. The DM notes that PC A goes first, and pauses a second to narrate the action): 'PC A - With blinding speed you move like the Flash as the deadly arrows fill the air. You can't see where they came from. You have a spit second to act. What do you want to do?'
PC A: 'Ill take the (Search action to find the Orcs, Dodge action and move into cover, cast a spell etc)

Get it yet? Its a question of narration. The rules are the rules. The rules are clear. It is up to the DM to narrate the action of what those rules represent. The problem here is you (as the DM) are failing in narrating the action to your players.

[BurgerBeast]

Read the bold portion again.
That's you literally asking to tie initiative to an event because you can't make sense of it otherwise.

I'm telling you that initiative is not tied to an event. The initiation of combat is tied to an event. In order for combat to happen, initiative must be rolled. How you cannot differentiate this is beyond me.

In most cases, the event that initiates the combat is visible to all characters. In the event that a character cannot possibly notice that a sword is drawn or an arrow is fired, he is automatically (at my table) surprised. Anyone who has the alert feat, however, cannot be surprised, by the rules. So this introduces a problem. The alert character is going to win initiative (when it does get rolled) against the very character who initiated the combat, and who the alert character could not possibly have seen. This present a narrative problem. Any attempt to use the rewind or pause button to change the combat rules is effectively a house-rule. Insisting that I don't understand the "abstraction" is bogus. We're talking clearly about this, and the problem is there. No attempt to wave your hands a la Deepak Chopra and invoke the term "abstraction" as though it has magical argument-ending properties is going to work, here.


Of course its fair. The Assasins player has declared a hostile action (which clearly initiates the combat sequence). Opposed Dexterity ability checks have been made. Combat has begun. Just because the Assasin player fails to beat his opponents opposed ability check, and the resolution of that action doesnt go in his favor, doesnt mean it isnt fair, nor does it mean he can 'take back' the action that triggered the Dexterity check in the first place.

The part that is unfair is not that the assassin loses initiative, and therefore loses the ability to use his assassinate ability. What is unfair is that, by your ruling, losing initiative causes him to switch from hidden to detected when, in the fiction (and indeed by the mechanics of the game), the assassin has not done anything to reveal himself yet. (You don't get to say he has attacked if he hasn't. In this case he clearly has not. RAW his attack doesn't get paused and interrupted.)


Its no different from a Fighter who declares he'll grapple an Ogre. The DM rolls first and gets a 30 on the Strength (Athletics check). The fighter player cant 'take his declared action back' or complain that it isnt fair.

The DM hasnt 'screwed you' at all. The DM is applying the rules in a fair and balanced manner.

It's totally different. It would be like telling the fighter that because he lost the grapple, he now is poisoned even though he previously succeeded on a saving throw against poison. You're using a current check to negate a previous check.

In the case of the assassin, you're using his "loss" of initiative to retroactively force him to lose his Stealth vs. Perception check.

In my view this is not fair and balanced. In my view this is a screw job. I understand that you don't view in this way, but the end result the same regardless of how you view it. The assassin lost initiative, so now he retroactively loses the hide contest.


You did do something. You pulled back the string of your bow and launched an arrow at someone. You did something that triggered an opposed Dexterity ability check.

Sidenote: Well, this points to a fundamental difference in how we think about initiative, which may be what DBZ was driving at, but I don't think it is because it would appear that you're doing what he accused me of. I do not think that it is possible for the assassin's attack to be the trigger for the initiation of combat, because if it is, then it must be the thing that starts combat, and then it can't be possible for someone to beat him at initiative because then they would have to act before the trigger. So the trigger has to come earlier, just in case. This goes back to you saying that there must be something to narrate. You seem to think that the necessity to narrate the start requires you to identify something to "anchor" initiative to. I think that initiative can be a tool to help the DM establish how the narration proceeds.

Within the abstraction of the game mechanics, the launching of the arrow corresponds to the attack roll of the archer. The mechanics of the game break the attack of the assassin and the attack of the alert target into discrete events. Initiative is used to determine which to resolve first. What you are proposing ignores this and places the timing of part of the assassin's turn before the combat begins. This is not consistent with the mechanics of the game, and proposes serious problems for the narrative, particularly if, for example, the assassin loses his initiative to six other characters. I understand that you choose to "fluff" your game in this way, and that's your prerogative, but it's not how I do it.


You get to resolve the arow you fired once your initiative result comes up.

There is no justification in the rules for this. What's more, it's not within the rules to commit the assassin to the arrow shot before his turn, when he is free to do something different than fire his bow once his turn arrives. It's bad DMing, plain and simple.


The player cant sook about this. He declared he would fire the arrow at the target. That is what he is doing. The rules for resolving that attack are clear in the PHB.

It goes like this: (snip)

Okay, well this explains a lot. In my opinion you do not follow RAW (which might explain our past disagreements).


The Assasin does remain hidden. But they also did something that triggered a Dexterity check from the guards to initiative combat. In the above example the DM narrated this as the twang of the crossbow being fired. Note that in the example above even if the guards had the Alert feat and beat the Assasin on the initiative check, they still dont know where he is unless and until they take the Search action to find him (and roll better than a 22 on their Perception check which was the result of A's Stealth check).

Except that when the assassin's turn arrives, RAW he is free to drop his bow, draw a shortsword and attack; or to cast a spell, or to use the disengage action... so how do you reconcile that twanging sound, now? It goes against RAW to force a player to commit to an action before his turn arrives.


The Ogre was hidden when combat started. This is simply the DM narrating the Ogre attacking from hiding, and giving the PCs enough information to know WHY they are rolling initiative.

Well, we map the mechanics onto the narrative differently. If I narrated that the ogre ran out of the bushes, that would not correspond to a surprise attack.

I would first determine if the characters were surprised or not. If they were surprised, I would decide where the ogre is located (hidden). Then, typically, I would tell the characters that they are surprised, and to roll initiative. Because they would not be typically able to act on round one, this would play out just fine. The ogre crashes out during the surprise round and attacks, and then we proceed in initiative order. If there is an alert character who loses initiative, no problem. Play it out. If the alert character wins initiative, then your method works just fine... in this case.

But the reasoning and the distinction are important: the ogre loses nothing if you narrate that he is seen. He was always going to run out of the woods and attack, so he was never going to receive advantage (nor any other benefit) for being unseen.

A hidden archer is decidedly different. A hidden archer was going to receive advantage to his attacks for being unseen, and potentially receive other benefits (such as sneak attack) because of it. So when you rule that he is seen, you rob him of this.


Get it yet? Its a question of narration. The rules are the rules. The rules are clear. It is up to the DM to narrate the action of what those rules represent. The problem here is you (as the DM) are failing in narrating the action to your players.

What I understand from this is simply that you map the mechanics to the narrative in a different way than I do. I see no reason to view your method as better than mine. I see at least one reason to view it as worse. As I said, I'll put more thought into it. Maybe I'll change my mind and do things your way.

@Tanarii: I see the part of the text you're referring now where it calls for a check to see if anyone is surprised. I still see it as redundant. I would roll that check only if I hadn't already done so.

[Malifice]

What is unfair is that, by your ruling, losing initiative causes him to switch from hidden to detected when, in the fiction (and indeed by the mechanics of the game), the assassin has not done anything to reveal himself yet. (You don't get to say he has attacked if he hasn't. In this case he clearly has not. RAW his attack doesn't get paused and interrupted.)

Of course he's detected. He just announced he is shooting an arrow into the face of someone.

Turns and rounds and combat are abstractions. You're dealing with them as if they are objective measurements of time and action.


It's totally different. It would be like telling the fighter that because he lost the grapple, he now is poisoned even though he previously succeeded on a saving throw against poison. You're using a current check to negate a previous check.

There is no 'prior' check. The initiative check is only triggered because an attack is being made. Its part of the resolution of that attack.

Stop sequencing them, and consider them all part of a whole.


In the case of the assassin, you're using his "loss" of initiative to retroactively force him to lose his Stealth vs. Perception check.

No - I am using the arrow he lobbed from his crossbow to reveal his presence. His presence wouldnt be revealed if he hadnt have done something to reveal himself.


I do not think that it is possible for the assassin's attack to be the trigger for the initiation of combat, because if it is, then it must be the thing that starts combat, and then it can't be possible for someone to beat him at initiative because then they would have to act before the trigger.

No, this just highlights that you have a blindspot in both your narrative ability and a strange desire to resolve actions sequentially.


Within the abstraction of the game mechanics, the launching of the arrow corresponds to the attack roll of the archer.

Says who?

Thats like saying I cant start combat with a narrative of 'The monsters lurch towards you from the romm' or 'the creature draws a sword and charges at you' because drawing a sword and movement alos have their own actions.

I mean you're just being pedantic now, and its to the detriment of the game.


Initiative is used to determine which to resolve first.

Initiative is used to determine reactions in combat. If there is nothing to react to, then there is no initiative.

An example would be an invisible and hidden assassin, standing in a zone of silence, shooting an arrow which is itself invisible and silenced.

But that's an outlier. The game assumes that when a hostile act occurs, there is enough advance warning to trigger a Dexterity check to determine reaction speed to that hostile declaration.

Its no different to a PC negotiating 30' away from Orcs, when he suddenly declares he 'draws his sword, charges the Orcs and stabs one in the face'.

The DM calls for initiative (before any drawing of swords, charging or face stabbling). If he were narrating to the Orcs, he would say 'The human suddenly snarls at you, and reaches for his sword, lurching forward to attack!'

Get it yet? The problem isnt with the rules. Its with you and your silly 'sequencing' in game somehow translating into game world action timing.



Okay, well this explains a lot. In my opinion you do not follow RAW (which might explain our past disagreements).

Look closer. Im following RAW to the letter. You're trying to and stumbling over your own 'sequencing' problems.

RAW: Declare hostile action = Roll initiative (a Dexterity ability check to test reaction speed). Then you determine surprise. Surprised creatures cant take actions or move on turn one or the first round.

Its up to the DM to determine why creatures are making a dexterity check (initiative). What is the stimulus they react to. He provides them with the narration and the information so they know why they are entering the combat sequence.

Remember - its all an abstraction.

You can narrrate it however you damn well want.

[Vaz]

I know why I am here. I do not know why you are.
Then explain what your problem is with the rule that you say works, I say works, and has no issues following the mechanics of the game?


Say you have a character who has the alert feat and high dexterity. Most of the time they win initiative with there huge bonus. The Alert feat also states that they cannot be surprised.

So what happens when something sneaks up and tries to surprise the party? The character isn't aware of the threat and neither is the party, but they can't be surprised. If you then roll initiative as usual, you often end up with the character with Alert going first, even before the attackers, but as he is unaware of the attack, what can he do? Can he warn the others that there is danger? Does he know their is danger even though he isn't aware of the exact threat? Should the enemies be put on the board? This is all very confusing. Does anyone have any insight on this or how do you handle it in your games?

This is the OP. How does the creature that specifically, by virtue of various magic items or class abilities, or feats, that is functionally immune to being surprised, handle surprise? Well, they, erm, flat out ignore it. Which you've just admitted that it's a fact that this is what happens;


It prevents you from being surprised. Second, I do not have a problem with giving players this ability. Third, I don't see a problem with letting players spend resources to get it. Fourth, this isn't a factual matter. It's a matter of preference.

It isn't a factual matter that the fact of the matter is that it cannot be surprised by your own agreement. And then you come back with "I know why I'm here, do you?". Honestly I'm just kind of baffled and having fun watching your train wreck of an argument get completely nullified by your admittance that is how it works.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm telling you that initiative is not tied to an event. The initiation of combat is tied to an event. In order for combat to happen, initiative must be rolled. How you cannot differentiate this is beyond me.

Back to the semantics again. Dude, those are the same things. When combat is initiated initiative is rolled.
Both of those things are tied to a declaration by the player, not by an event in the game world.
That's the abstraction.
And that's what you can't reconcile where Alert is concerned.

Let's try this another way, shall we?

ab·strac·tion
abˈstrakSH(ə)n
noun
1. the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.

Remember how we both agree that initiative is an abstraction? And how you claim to understand that abstraction?

in·i·ti·ate
verb
iˈniSHēˌāt
1. cause (a process or action) to begin.

in·i·ti·a·tion
iˌniSHēˈāSH(ə)n
2. the action of beginning something.

in·i·ti·a·tive
iˈniSH(ē)ədiv
noun
2. the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do.

INITIATe
INITIATion
INITIATive

These three words are all basically just different forms of the same idea. One is the process of beginning, one is the action of beginning, and one is the power to begin first. The first and second are quite literally just different forms of the same, while the third adds a sequential factor to the same.

You roll for INITIATive when combat is INITIATed.
Rolling for INITIATive is the mechanical representation of the INITIATion of combat.
To put it another way: Rolling for [the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do] is the mechanical representation of [the action of beginning] combat.

You keep saying that you understand the abstraction of the system, but the fact that you feel that you need to separate those two ideas to have one linked to an event proves that you do not, because you can't separate them, because one is nothing more than the IDEA of the mechanical and sequential representation of a player making a declaration, not of a player actually taking an action. The actual action comes later, when his turn comes around. Combat it initiated by a *player* *declaring* something, not by a *character* *doing* something. If one is an abstraction (and you agree that one of them is), then they both are. One cannot be an abstraction while the other is tied to an event. That's impossible.
You say that you understand it. You truly believe that you understand it. But it has been proven beyond any doubt that you do not *really* understand it.
So I say again, with regards to the Alert feat, you just can't wrap your mind around the abstraction of the initiative system. Not even if you keep saying that you can. It has been proven by this back and forth that you cannot.
The problem that you see doesn't exist. It isn't a problem with the mechanics. It's a problem with you not being able to handle the abstraction in this particular scenario.


I do not think that it is possible for the assassin's attack to be the trigger for the initiation of combat,
The assassin's attack is not the trigger for combat. The assassin's player declaring the attack is what triggers combat.
It's not: "I do this," [and it happens] (and combat begins).
It is: "I am going to do this" (and combat begins immediately upon that declaration, before it actually happens).
As soon as the Assassin says "I am going to [insert hostile action here]" combat has been triggered, and that combat is triggered before the action has actually occurred.
From that declaration, you then follow the steps for combat, starting with determining surprise. In the initiative order, once you get to the character that triggered combat by declaring hostile action, then you resolve that action.

See the difference yet?
The action is not the trigger. The declaration is the trigger. That's the abstraction.

[Arial Black]

In order to understand how Immunity to Surprise affects combat, you first have to understand how 5E does combat, and what all these mechanics represent.

First, the player who manages to shout "I attack!" first (when they ALL shout it). The player being first to shout does not affect the in-game reality of which PC attacks first. The initiative rolls are part of the way combat is organised in 5E. RAW, combat takes place in Combat Rounds. RAW, there can never be 'out of combat' combat! By definition, combat is combat and, RAW, combat takes place in Combat Rounds in initiative order.

The upshot is that there can be no 'pre-combat' attacks (we're talking about trying to defeat an enemy, not shoot arrows into a target as part of a competition to see who is the best archer in the land). It would mess up the whole system if they were allowed, especially as they would artificially negate Immunity to Surprise!

Does the surprise/initiative/Combat Round process let you go back in time?

Er...actually, yes, yes it does.

If an attack is what begins the combat, then that declared attack starts happening. It isn't resolved until the attacker's turn (if he can still resolve it), but since the attack he said he was doing is what triggers combat then, yes, the player has already chosen this as his Action and must go through with it if he can, just like anyone else must because they cannot change their mind about which action to take half-way through. If this bothers you, remember that the actions are all happening at the same time; they don't really wait for each other to finish their 'turn' before starting their own.

Let's say that the instigator intends to draw his blade, move toward the enemy and then stab him. Those things are not instantaneous. It takes a short but real amount of time to do all of those things, draw, move, stab. Meanwhile, the victim is not calmly waiting for the attacker to finish before reacting. He may correctly interpret the attacker's body language and realise what he is about, and he may react fast enough to get his retaliation in first! This is how the classic fast draw gunfight works.

In 5E, any hostile act has the potential to be noticed, given a way to do so. The way 5E combat 'goes back in time' is that as soon as the attack is announced then we establish if any other combatants manage to react before that attack takes place! The fact that 5E plays with time like this may be news to you; you might not have thought of it that way before now. But it really does wind the clock back from the intended original attack to moments prior to that attack to find out if anyone noticed the events leading up to that attack (body language, leaping out from cover, the bow being bent back), and it may be that other things get resolved before the 'triggering' attack.

But surely, if I'm the first guy to attack then I've got a better chance of actually attacking first, right?

Yes. This is what the surprise rules represent. First, if you are the one initiating combat then you are automatically not surprised. Secondly, you may surprise your enemy, and if you do then you get to do something before they do (the attack you just damn well announced!) because even if they have faster reactions than you they cannot act on their first turn or react until after it.

With good planning and preparation (hiding in ambush, silence spell) you can be almost certain to actually resolve your attack before the enemy is able to act/react. It takes an almost super-human effort to mess with this.

Like....being Immune to Surprise.

If you cannot be surprised AND roll a higher initiative than the 'original' attacker, then this is very out of the ordinary. But we are playing extra-ordinary characters, PCs who are able to do amazing things like this three times before breakfast.

When the Alert guy goes before the 'original' attack, this is the game working as intended to model our amazing heroes. The fact that the threat posed by the imminent 'original' attack may be noticed in time to interrupt it is part of the game system already, even without Immunity to Surprise. The Immunity just makes the extraordinary commonplace for our amazing heroes.

[Tanarii]

There is no requirement to roll for surprise. The DM can simply rule that hidden creatures surprise their enemies.First of all, I don't know any DM that would allow players to do that to their NPCs, although I'm sure a few DMs will chime in to claim that they'd be okay with it. Nor will anyone be able to persuade me that ANY players exist that wouldn't cry foul if that was done to their PCs.

Second of all, that's really immaterial to my point. A DM can just as easily interpret that combat begins with the attackers intent to attack, which means revealing themselves when initiative is rolled. In other words, start of combat on the first round occurs when the attackers reveal themselves, prior to resolution of their first action. And surprise is the benefit of being hidden before combat begin, as well as what keeps the defenders from counter-attacking first. If it's removed or someone is unable to be surprised, they can attack in the split second between attacker revealing and attacker attacking. That's a wholly reasonable interpretation.

Not only is it reasonable, it's also a by-product of:
A) combat having a specific starting point & initiative being the determiner of who has the fastest reactions
B) Ready actions not being able to be a thing before combat begins

In other words, if a defender suspects danger in combat, a defender can ready an action to attack between an attacker revealing themselves and attacker attacking. That option doesn't exist before combat. An Alert character, or a high level Barbarian that expends a Rage, effectively gains the ability to Ready action to do that when combat begins against surprised characters. They are just that good.

(Edit: Alternately, a DM can decide to rule as you do, that being hidden (from a check or not) continues into the first round of combat, even though the creature has initiated hostile action and begun combat. A DM that does that chooses to produces some weirdness, like how can any creature act before the hidden creatures actually attack, ie how can combat even begin before the first one attacks.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

This is no different than a mexican standoff between two groups, and a players saying "I attack". They don't get to automatically attack first in this case. The creature that wins initiative does. They see the player starting combat, and they just have faster reflexes.

It's worth remembering that D&D combat isn't a world simulator. It's an abstract resolution method that's slowly become more simulationist. That doesn't mean it's an actual simulation of every second of in-game time or action.

[coolAlias]

There is no requirement to roll for surprise. The DM can simply rule that hidden creatures surprise their enemies.
PHB wording (as quoted by Tanarii earlier):
"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."

By "no requirement to roll" do you mean you would use the PCs Passive Perception vs. the opponents' Passive Stealth? Would you assign some arbitrary DC? Or would you simply decide that the enemies are hidden and the PCs have no chance of noticing them?

For myself, if the enemies had time to set up the ambush, I'd use Passive Stealth; if they hid on the spot, I'd roll. In both cases, I'd use the PCs' Passive Perception scores. If the PCs have reason to believe there may be an imminent ambush and specifically declare that they are scanning the area (prior to being ambushed, obviously), then I will also have them roll a Wis (Perception) check to see if they notice anything.

[BurgerBeast]

Back to the semantics again.

Our disagreement is not purely semantic. We are disagreeing over something that can be described clearly. It is true that we may be employing a few words differently, but there's more to it.


Dude, those are the same things. When combat is initiated initiative is rolled.
Both of those things are tied to a declaration by the player, not by an event in the game world.
That's the abstraction.
And that's what you can't reconcile where Alert is concerned.

I can reconcile it. I just think you're wrong.

Initiative is not tied to player declaration in the way you claim, here. The DM decides whether initiative is necessary within the context. This can be shown to be true in a variety of ways, most notably that the DM can choose to handle the player's declaration in a different way, and that in other cases initiative is often called for for different reasons than player declaration.


You roll for INITIATive when combat is INITIATed.
Rolling for INITIATive is the mechanical representation of the INITIATion of combat.
To put it another way: Rolling for [the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do] is the mechanical representation of [the action of beginning] combat.

I disagree with you, here, for a variety of reasons. I'll try to stick to the most relevant. Rolling for initiative can be the mechanical representation of mechanical combat. But it does not trigger anything, nor is it tied to anything specifically, in the game world (i.e. in the narrative), in my view. This is why I say it is an abstraction: it is not connected to any concrete thing or event in the real world. It is a way of determining the order in which such things will happen.


You keep saying that you understand the abstraction of the system, but the fact that you feel that you need to separate those two ideas to have one linked to an event proves that you do not, because you can't separate them, because one is nothing more than the IDEA of the mechanical and sequential representation of a player making a declaration, not of a player actually taking an action.

This is precisely why they are separate. We are obviously using abstraction in different ways at least some of the time. Of course the action and the initiative roll are separate things. I would have thought this was self-evident.


The actual action comes later, when his turn comes around. Combat it initiated by a *player* *declaring* something, not by a *character* *doing* something.

Well this is probably the source of our disagreement. I think you're wrong about this. I think combat is initiated by the characters in the narrative. I think it's self-evident. The characters are fighting, not the players.


If one is an abstraction (and you agree that one of them is), then they both are. One cannot be an abstraction while the other is tied to an event. That's impossible.

I'm not sure why you'd say this. Again, we must be using the word differently. An abstraction does not need to be tied to an event, but it can be. An obvious example is hit points. They are an abstraction of something. You might say they are an abstraction of meat or of health, which is fine as long as the rest of the game's rules and abstractions treat in in this way. On the other hand, you might treat hit points as an abstraction of more than just meat, but also fighting spirit, stamina, and life force (or whatever). Also fine, but necessarily behaves differently in the context of the various other rules and abstractions.


You say that you understand it. You truly believe that you understand it. But it has been proven beyond any doubt that you do not *really* understand it.

It really hasn't. I'm trying to figure out why you bother to say this at all. If you want to know what I think, you can ask. It makes little sense to repeatedly tell me what I think.


The assassin's attack is not the trigger for combat. The assassin's player declaring the attack is what triggers combat.

This is false. I would have thought it was self evidently so.


See the difference yet?
The action is not the trigger. The declaration is the trigger. That's the abstraction.

This is a very bizarre thing to say. What you are describing is a concrete mechanic. There's nothing abstract about it. If the initiative rolls are not representing anything in the narrative, then they are not an abstraction of anything. They're a concrete phenomena that has no equivalent (neither concrete nor abstract) in the narrative.


In order to understand how Immunity to Surprise affects combat, you first have to understand how 5E does combat, and what all these mechanics represent... (snip)

Well, we disagree on a number of points.

(1) I do not think that player actions determine whether or not initiative is rolled. Initiative is rolled when the DM tells you to roll it. The DM's interpretation of the narrative determines when this is.

(2) In the narrative, "combat" has a different meaning than in the rules of game. Initiative is rolled to start mechanical combat, not narrative combat. It is true that these often coincide, by virtue of good design, but it is not necessarily so, and understanding the differences in these concepts (narrative combat and mechanical combat) informs our ability to understand this.


If an attack is what begins the combat, then that declared attack starts happening. It isn't resolved until the attacker's turn (if he can still resolve it), but since the attack he said he was doing is what triggers combat then, yes, the player has already chosen this as his Action and must go through with it if he can, just like anyone else must because they cannot change their mind about which action to take half-way through. If this bothers you, remember that the actions are all happening at the same time; they don't really wait for each other to finish their 'turn' before starting their own.

You are stepping outside the boundaries of the game, even as you understand it, to make this claim. If this were true, then creatures who die in the current round should be able to finish their turns before dying.


In 5E, any hostile act has the potential to be noticed, given a way to do so. The way 5E combat 'goes back in time' is that as soon as the attack is announced then we establish if any other combatants manage to react before that attack takes place!

It's really not. The entire point of initiative is to avoid this problem. This way of thinking works in all circumstances except the specific example being discussed. It does not work for hiding assassins. Confronted with this evidence, some people are willing to abandon the paradigm, and others simply contort the very rules of the game to try to justify an obviously mistaken paradigm.


The fact that 5E plays with time like this may be news to you; you might not have thought of it that way before now. But it really does wind the clock back from the intended original attack to moments prior to that attack to find out if anyone noticed the events leading up to that attack (body language, leaping out from cover, the bow being bent back), and it may be that other things get resolved before the 'triggering' attack.

No, it does not. This whole statement feels like your first attempt to rationalize this. You appear to have convinced yourself, too.


If you cannot be surprised AND roll a higher initiative than the 'original' attacker, then this is very out of the ordinary. But we are playing extra-ordinary characters, PCs who are able to do amazing things like this three times before breakfast.

When the Alert guy goes before the 'original' attack, this is the game working as intended to model our amazing heroes. The fact that the threat posed by the imminent 'original' attack may be noticed in time to interrupt it is part of the game system already, even without Immunity to Surprise. The Immunity just makes the extraordinary commonplace for our amazing heroes.

The game is working as intended as long as you follow RAW, yes. But your narrative explanation does not match the mechanics. There are better ways to map the narrative onto the mechanics. they're not perfect, but they're better.



First of all, I don't know any DM that would allow players to do that to their NPCs, although I'm sure a few DMs will chime in to claim that they'd be okay with it. Nor will anyone be able to persuade me that ANY players exist that wouldn't cry foul if that was done to their PCs.

Something is getting lost in translation here. I'm doing exactly what the DMG suggests, but not in the same order precisely because the roll has already happened. You cannot be hidden unless the roll has already been resolved.


Second of all, that's really immaterial to my point. A DM can just as easily interpret that combat begins with the attackers intent to attack, which means revealing themselves when initiative is rolled.

In other words, start of combat on the first round occurs when the attackers reveal themselves, prior to resolution of their first action. And surprise is the benefit of being hidden before combat begin, as well as what keeps the defenders from counter-attacking first. If it's removed or someone is unable to be surprised, they can attack in the split second between attacker revealing and attacker attacking. That's a wholly reasonable interpretation.


No, it does not mean this. You can roll initiative the moment before the attack, and then use the rules (properly) to determine who acts first. But even if you tried to rule your way, you'd be making a mistake, because:


If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. (emphasis added)

Attacking does not reveal your location. Hitting or missing reveals your location. So until you hit or miss, the alert character cannot see you.


In other words, if a defender suspects danger in combat, a defender can ready an action to attack between an attacker revealing themselves and attacker attacking. That option doesn't exist before combat. An Alert character, or a high level Barbarian that expends a Rage, effectively gains the ability to Ready action to do that when combat begins against surprised characters. They are just that good.

This is on point.


This is no different than a mexican standoff between two groups, and a players saying "I attack". They don't get to automatically attack first in this case. The creature that wins initiative does. They see the player starting combat, and they just have faster reflexes.

It's worth remembering that D&D combat isn't a world simulator. It's an abstract resolution method that's slowly become more simulationist. That doesn't mean it's an actual simulation of every second of in-game time or action.

It's totally different from a Mexican standoff because in one case the alert character has the ability to detect his enemy; in the other he does not.


PHB wording (as quoted by Tanarii earlier):
"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."

By "no requirement to roll" do you mean you would use the PCs Passive Perception vs. the opponents' Passive Stealth? Would you assign some arbitrary DC? Or would you simply decide that the enemies are hidden and the PCs have no chance of noticing them?

What I mean is that, if you have already used a Stealth vs Perception check to initially determine whether the assassin is hidden (i.e. assassin wins = hidden, assassin loses = not hidden), then when combat starts this is already resolved. There's in no need to roll it again. The assassin does not to succeed on a second Stealth vs Perception check just because he wants to attack. If this determine has not been made, then roll. If it has, use the roll.


For myself, if the enemies had time to set up the ambush, I'd use Passive Stealth; if they hid on the spot, I'd roll. In both cases, I'd use the PCs' Passive Perception scores. If the PCs have reason to believe there may be an imminent ambush and specifically declare that they are scanning the area (prior to being ambushed, obviously), then I will also have them roll a Wis (Perception) check to see if they notice anything.

I'm cool with the DM determining whether the assassin is hidden to not hidden via a variety of methods. I'm just saying he only needs to do it once.

[coolAlias]

What I mean is that, if you have already used a Stealth vs Perception check to initially determine whether the assassin is hidden (i.e. assassin wins = hidden, assassin loses = not hidden), then when combat starts this is already resolved. There's in no need to roll it again. The assassin does not to succeed on a second Stealth vs Perception check just because he wants to attack. If this determine has not been made, then roll. If it has, use the roll.

I'm cool with the DM determining whether the assassin is hidden to not hidden via a variety of methods. I'm just saying he only needs to do it once.
I agree with that - it wasn't entirely clear to me from your earlier comment that this is what you meant.

As for the Alert character being able to get the jump on a hidden assassin, I can see two sides to this.

On the one hand, if I was the attacker , I would be pissed if I was suddenly no longer hidden after declaring an attack just because someone beat my initiative - I don't think this is the right call in most circumstances.

On the other hand, if the attacker is jumping out of the trees to make a melee attack, I could see ruling that they no longer count as hidden, but if I was DM, I would probably at least still allow them advantage as if they were hidden against any creatures that haven't yet gone in the turn.

My reasoning is that as soon as initiative is rolled, everyone basically starts acting at the same time, so the hidden ranged attacker begins lining up their shot, possibly rustling the leaves just enough for the Alert character to notice something awry in the bushes, who can then decide to investigate, begin taking evasive action, find cover, shoot blindly and hope to get lucky, or whatever.

Can that result in PCs wasting resources on non-combat encounters? Sure, but only if you're rolling initiative for at least some non-combat encounters (a subject for perhaps a different discussion). And I'm fine with PCs wasting some resources. Adventuring is stressful. You never know if that rustling in the bushes is going to be an angry T-Rex or a timid forest gnome with information about the evil curse transforming the creatures of the woods into monsters.

[Tanarii]

Something is getting lost in translation here. I'm doing exactly what the DMG suggests, but not in the same order precisely because the roll has already happened. You cannot be hidden unless the roll has already been resolved.Actually, you're wrong. There is a 'surprise check'. However, you're right insofar as the DM may always determine any check to be an automatic success or not. I just think no player would accept no chance to make their 'surprise check'.


No, it does not mean this. You can roll initiative the moment before the attack, and then use the rules (properly) to determine who acts first. But even if you tried to rule your way, you'd be making a mistake, because:Your 'because' is immaterial. It presupposes that you remain hidden at the beginning of combat once initiative is rolled. This is the entire basis of your reasoning. But it is not a required interpretation.


What I mean is that, if you have already used a Stealth vs Perception check to initially determine whether the assassin is hidden (i.e. assassin wins = hidden, assassin loses = not hidden), then when combat starts this is already resolved. There's in no need to roll it again. The assassin does not to succeed on a second Stealth vs Perception check just because he wants to attack. If this determine has not been made, then roll. If it has, use the roll.There is no rule for this. You're pulling it out of the whole cloth. Surprise is determined by a check at the beginning of combat EVEN IF YOU WERE ALREADY HIDDEN. It is not automatically resolved based on the existence of prior checks to hide. A DM might, if they desired, override the 'surprise check' as an automatic success or failure, but it's not automatically invalidated because of any prior Hide checks.

In fact, generally speaking it's not necessary to make a Hide check prior check to the surprise check at the beginning of combat. The point at which it matters, mechanically, is when the ambushing attackers initiate their attack. That's when initiative is rolled, s 'surprise check' is made, and (depending on DM interpretation) either they are revealed immediately or they are revealed when they attack.

Edit: What you're arguing sounds amazingly like the people that argue that you can somehow Ready an Action before combat. That is ignoring the entire point of an initiative roll, or in this case, the surprise check.

[Vogonjeltz]

Right, and as being hidden no longer grants advantage and is unsurprisable, we can safely read that as the Alert character basically seeing the enemy immediately.

No. The alert feat does not grant this ability.

"You can't be surprised while you are conscious."
"Other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being hidden from you." (PHB 165)

What does your PHB say if you think the Alert feat does not grant those abilities?


Having your head on a swivel does not let you see things that you can't see.

No, you misunderstand. You don't see the enemy as you enter the room. The enemy moves to attack you, and you pick up on the movement so you're aware of the attack incoming, despite not having seen the enemy. Get it? Alert means you can't be caught off guard, that is all.


Rules say you can, i say you can, you say you can, then why are we having this thread?

The OP, BestPlayer, effectively asked how the party can be surprised even if the individual Alert character can't.

The answer is that the character simply has better reactions, it doesn't mean they saw the threat in time to warn anyone else, just to react to it.


There is no requirement to roll for surprise. The DM can simply rule that hidden creatures surprise their enemies.

There's no roll period, it's a basic comparison against a pre-done roll (by the party and/or enemies) with scores, which are static numbers + modifiers:

"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." (PHB 189)

[DivisibleByZero]

There is no rule for this. You're pulling it out of the whole cloth. Surprise is determined by a check at the beginning of combat EVEN IF YOU WERE ALREADY HIDDEN. It is not automatically resolved based on the existence of prior checks to hide. A DM might, if they desired, override the 'surprise check' as an automatic success or failure, but it's not automatically invalidated because of any prior Hide checks.

In fact, generally speaking it's not necessary to make a Hide check prior check to the surprise check at the beginning of combat. The point at which it matters, mechanically, is when the ambushing attackers initiate their attack. That's when initiative is rolled, s 'surprise check' is made, and (depending on DM interpretation) either they are revealed immediately or they are revealed when they attack.

Edit: What you're arguing sounds amazingly like the people that argue that you can somehow Ready an Action before combat. That is ignoring the entire point of an initiative roll, or in this case, the surprise check.

Sorry T, but for once in this thread BB is finally right about something.
If you're already hidden, you use that check until something changes.

The difference between Stealth and Ready (one of them anyway) is that stealth can be used outside of combat. And if you're already hidden when combat begins, then you gain the benefits of such.

[BurgerBeast]

I agree with that - it wasn't entirely clear to me from your earlier comment that this is what you meant.

As for the Alert character being able to get the jump on a hidden assassin, I can see two sides to this.

On the one hand, if I was the attacker , I would be pissed if I was suddenly no longer hidden after declaring an attack just because someone beat my initiative - I don't think this is the right call in most circumstances.

Precisely. Specifically, it is not the right call in the circumstance we are discussing (assassin hidden in trees, potentially anywhere from ten to 600 feet away).


On the other hand, if the attacker is jumping out of the trees to make a melee attack, I could see ruling that they no longer count as hidden, but if I was DM, I would probably at least still allow them advantage as if they were hidden against any creatures that haven't yet gone in the turn.

I can accept this. But at the end of the day this is not a situation that is contended. I don't think there is significant disagreement on how to apply RAW here, and both "fluff paradigms" work without any major wrinkles.


My reasoning is that as soon as initiative is rolled, everyone basically starts acting at the same time, so the hidden ranged attacker begins lining up their shot, possibly rustling the leaves just enough for the Alert character to notice something awry in the bushes, who can then decide to investigate, begin taking evasive action, find cover, shoot blindly and hope to get lucky, or whatever.

The problem with this fluff interpretation is that it robs the ranged attacker of his successful hide. The benefit of being hidden is that people can't see or hear you. In the end it will make no mechanical difference because the alert character does not grant advantage to the attacker, but it is still, in my view, a worse way to "fluff" the situation because it explicitly narrates the situation in a way that, RAW, implies the ranged attacker is not hidden.


Can that result in PCs wasting resources on non-combat encounters? Sure, but only if you're rolling initiative for at least some non-combat encounters (a subject for perhaps a different discussion). And I'm fine with PCs wasting some resources. Adventuring is stressful. You never know if that rustling in the bushes is going to be an angry T-Rex or a timid forest gnome with information about the evil curse transforming the creatures of the woods into monsters.

Again, in principle I agree with this. But, it really isn't reconcilable with the intention of the alert feat. You're so alert that you are skittish and tend to overreact? - that doesn't sit right with me.


Actually, you're wrong. There is a 'surprise check'. However, you're right insofar as the DM may always determine any check to be an automatic success or not. I just think no player would accept no chance to make their 'surprise check'.

I'm not sure what to say to this. I respect you. But take a look at what the surprise check is... it's simply a perception check to determine who sees who. It's meant to aid the DM in case it's not obvious. But when the hidden assassin hid, he did so against the enemy party's Perception. If he did not, then certainly you resolve it now. But if you already did - well, it's done.


Your 'because' is immaterial. It presupposes that you remain hidden at the beginning of combat once initiative is rolled. This is the entire basis of your reasoning. But it is not a required interpretation.

Are you serious? Does it seem reasonable to you that all hidden characters become noticed because of the initiative rolls?


There is no rule for this. You're pulling it out of the whole cloth. Surprise is determined by a check at the beginning of combat EVEN IF YOU WERE ALREADY HIDDEN. It is not automatically resolved based on the existence of prior checks to hide. A DM might, if they desired, override the 'surprise check' as an automatic success or failure, but it's not automatically invalidated because of any prior Hide checks.

This is false: In the second paragraph under Surprise:


The DM determines who might be surprised. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. (emphasis added)

Once the DM determines who might be surprised, he can resolve it. I think the PHB text is written on the presumption (and a reasonable one) that the DM has not yet rolled a Stealth vs Perception check (maybe he hasn't rolled anything, or maybe he's only rolled the hidden enemy's Stealth check but not the party's Perception Checks) . In the event that he already has, I would say that this answers the question of whether they "might" see him. If they may not, the DM doesn't roll.

** it's also worth pointing out that is says "the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side." This does not imply that they roll those checks now. They may be pre-rolled. The DM merely compares them now.


In fact, generally speaking it's not necessary to make a Hide check prior check to the surprise check at the beginning of combat. The point at which it matters, mechanically, is when the ambushing attackers initiate their attack. That's when initiative is rolled, s 'surprise check' is made, and (depending on DM interpretation) either they are revealed immediately or they are revealed when they attack.

Bingo! This is the point. It's redundant to do both. We appear to be in agreement.


Edit: What you're arguing sounds amazingly like the people that argue that you can somehow Ready an Action before combat. That is ignoring the entire point of an initiative roll, or in this case, the surprise check.

Well, I think you're supplying an unintended context. Example: Suppose I planned the adventure ahead of time and I pre-rolled the stealth check of the assassin. He rolled a 17. I decide (either before or during the adventure) to use the PCs passive Perception, and the highest is 14. In this case, the question of whether the assassin is hidden is resolved (the answer to whether the PCs might be surprised is). I would think it redundant to roll the Stealth vs Perception at the start of the action. Likewise, if a PC dashed into a room and decided to hide among some barrels, I might (mistakenly during the course of play, but it happens) call for a Stealth check. When the pursuing monster enters the room, I can have the monster roll or use its passive Perception, but it would seem redundant to have the PC re-roll his hide.


"You can't be surprised while you are conscious."
"Other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being hidden from you." (PHB 165)

What does your PHB say if you think the Alert feat does not grant those abilities?

Let's try this again:



Right, and as being hidden no longer grants advantage and is unsurprisable, we can safely read that as the Alert character basically seeing the enemy immediately. (Emphasis added)
No. The alert feat does not grant this ability (the ability to see the enemy immediately).

That's what I meant.


No, you misunderstand. You don't see the enemy as you enter the room. The enemy moves to attack you, and you pick up on the movement so you're aware of the attack incoming, despite not having seen the enemy. Get it? Alert means you can't be caught off guard, that is all.

No, you misunderstand. If you pick up on the movement so you're aware of the attack incoming, despite not having seen the enemy, then the enemy is not hidden any more (according to the RAW). By virtue of winning initiative, you now have a reasonable chance of locating and attacking this enemy. But if the enemy is, RAW, hidden at the start of combat, and has not taken its turn yet, then you have just introduced this possibility without any RAW justification. That is a screw job.

If, instead, you simply said "you sense that an immediate attack is about to happen, and (to the rest of the party) the rest of you are completely caught off guard by what starts to unfold before you... roll initiative!" Then, in this situation, winning initiative grants the alert character his right to act first in the turn order without screwing the enemy out of his hidden status.


The OP, BestPlayer, effectively asked how the party can be surprised even if the individual Alert character can't.

No, this is not what he asked, at all. This is an egregious oversimplification, and given the triviality of the answer it is more or less an insult to the OP. After all, nobody needs to have the alert feat for there to be a situation in which some people are surprised and some are not.


There's no roll period, it's a basic comparison against a pre-done roll (by the party and/or enemies) with scores, which are static numbers + modifiers:

"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." (PHB 189) (emphasis added)

This coming from the same person who pedantically accused me of not understanding the difference between a check and a score, because scores do not use rolls but checks do? Defeated by your own pedantry.

[coolAlias]

The problem with this fluff interpretation is that it robs the ranged attacker of his successful hide. The benefit of being hidden is that people can't see or hear you. In the end it will make no mechanical difference because the alert character does not grant advantage to the attacker, but it is still, in my view, a worse way to "fluff" the situation because it explicitly narrates the situation in a way that, RAW, implies the ranged attacker is not hidden.
Perhaps I didn't write it clearly enough; what I meant by that fluff was merely that the Alert character would catch some minute detail just as the attacker initiates, but without revealing their exact position.

So in the cases of leaves rustling, the Alert character would have a general idea in the vein of "over there in that large stand of bushes somewhere," not an exact position; the hidden attacker would still be hidden from them.

If even that is too much of a stretch for you, that's fine, but you'll just have to accept then that the Alert character is extra-ordinarily aware to an almost supernatural level and will have a chance to react, arguably knowing for a fact that combat is about to begin, and depending on initiative, be able to take some kind of action without yet having any idea where his assailant(s) might be.

There's nothing wrong with this approach, either, and frankly without going back through the whole thread I have no idea any more what you would consider an ideal outcome of these rules and this specific scenario. :(

[BurgerBeast]

Perhaps I didn't write it clearly enough; what I meant by that fluff was merely that the Alert character would catch some minute detail just as the attacker initiates, but without revealing their exact position.

So in the cases of leaves rustling, the Alert character would have a general idea in the vein of "over there in that large stand of bushes somewhere," not an exact position; the hidden attacker would still be hidden from them.

If even that is too much of a stretch for you, that's fine, but you'll just have to accept then that the Alert character is extra-ordinarily aware to an almost supernatural level and will have a chance to react, arguably knowing for a fact that combat is about to begin, and depending on initiative, be able to take some kind of action without yet having any idea where his assailant(s) might be.

There's nothing wrong with this approach, either, and frankly without going back through the whole thread I have no idea any more what you would consider an ideal outcome of these rules and this specific scenario. :(

Apologies. I did misread.

I think we have reached the best outcome we're going to get. I think we reached it a long time ago. It's the view you've summarized in your last few posts.

Now I'm just replying to what I think are not good ways of handling it, and trying to explain why they are not.

In the particular case of DBZ, I'm just reasserting that the issue is a real issue. And, I suppose secondarily, that players rolling initiative does not correspond to anything in the game world.

I've been surprised to hear some people's explanations about how they use and integrate initiative, surprise, and the narrative.

[Tanarii]

Okay, given two people I love to argue with but respect both disagree with me, and do so pretty effectively, I'll have to concede the 'DM determines' is pretty effective counterpoint, especially given that the DM is supposed to have pretty heavy adjudication in 5e. Darn it. :smallamused:

I've pointed out before, it's easy to read that and the following sentence as 'and here's how you determine surprise'. But given I think it's best practice to make only one check, it doesn't really matter if you make the check well before initiative or at the point that initiative is rolled. As long as you're making one check at some point, as opposed to a bunch, it works.

But I still think it's valid for a DM to decide that combat beginning is due to initiated hostile action, but not resolution of that action. Just as a player declaring they attack doesn't automatically mean they get the first attack, but rather they do something that kicks off an initiative roll to see who resolves actions first, declaring you've initiatiated an attack might immediately reveal you when you're ambushing. Someone who fails a necessary check, but isn't surprised because of a feature, would be free to target the attackers if they win initiative in that case.

I don't think it's required, but I think it's a valid way to rule the abstraction.

[DivisibleByZero]

But I still think it's valid for a DM to decide that combat beginning is due to initiated hostile action, but not resolution of that action. Just as a player declaring they attack doesn't automatically mean they get the first attack, but rather they do something that kicks off an initiative roll to see who resolves actions first, declaring you've initiatiated an attack might immediately reveal you when you're ambushing. Someone who fails a necessary check, but isn't surprised because of a feature, would be free to target the attackers if they win initiative in that case.

This is the correct resolution method, yes. Might being the key word in that sentence.

[BurgerBeast]

This is the correct resolution method, yes. Might being the key word in that sentence.

No, it is not the "correct" resolution method, because it designed in a way that it knowing provides the possibility of violating RAW.


But I still think it's valid for a DM to decide that combat beginning is due to initiated hostile action, but not resolution of that action. Just as a player declaring they attack doesn't automatically mean they get the first attack, but rather they do something that kicks off an initiative roll to see who resolves actions first, declaring you've initiatiated an attack might immediately reveal you when you're ambushing. Someone who fails a necessary check, but isn't surprised because of a feature, would be free to target the attackers if they win initiative in that case.

Edit: the remainder of the post is aimed at DMZ. The quote from Tanarii was to provide context, not to re-direct my response at him. (Although obviously it includes some rebuttals which can be aimed at Tanarii)

RAW, initiating an attack does not reveal your position. Hitting or missing reveals your position.


If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses. (emphasis added)

If you rule that initiating the attack might reveal your location, then you are not following RAW. End of story.

If you wish to maintain the notion that initiating the attack is the trigger for the beginning of combat (which is your own invention, and is not asserted in the rules), then you should modify it in such a way that the beginning of combat happens in a way that follows RAW. I want to point out that when you insist that your invented rationalization of "how combat works" is correct, you are wrong. This is not a terrible mistake, and will almost never be an obvious mistake, but it is nonetheless a mistake, and this particular circumstance makes that very evident. Your rationalization leads to a violation of RAW in at least one circumstance. You are faced with two choices: continue to play your way, accepting that you are not following the RAW, or re-think your rationalization of the typical way initiative works so that you do follow the RAW. You (DBZ) are stubbornly clinging to a rationalization that is plainly wrong.

If you look at my rationalization, which can still be tied to a narrative-world event - but doesn't have to be, and certainly can't be tied to the attack initiation in the way you (and others) suggest, the game runs according to RAW. The only downside to my rationalization is that the alert character will receive his turn before there is a direct trigger within the narrative context, but this is not a RAW problem, and nobody on this thread has had much problem with it (indeed, I am the one who has had the most problem with it, and it is my preferred method). This perhaps not-even-so-bizarre hiccup of narrative reconciliation is insignificant when compared to an alternative method which knowingly and admittedly violates RAW.


I don't think it's required, but I think it's a valid way to rule the abstraction.

See the above for why it is not. The trouble is that, even though it is an invalid way to rule, it will go unnoticed throughout most of the gaming experience. But this doesn't change the truth of the matter. In this particular situation, this way of ruling plainly violates RAW.

Edit: another way to illustrate this problem of using the "initiation of the attack" as a trigger for initiative is this: if you allow the attacker to take any in-game action, then you have moved away from simply rolling initiative, to the attacker taking his turn. Any mechanical consequences that arise as a result of the attacker beginning his turn (for example, changing his status from hidden to detected), is an indicator that in fact, the attacker's turn has started. If his turn starts, then you have to let it finish.

This is why I say it's not a huge problem to give a narrative reason for the DM to ask for an initiative roll, but if you then extend that narrative reason so that you have not only established initiative, but the attacker has started his turn, then that is a mistake. Now you are in the territory of inventing your own RAW by interrupting an already started turn for no justified reason.

[Arial Black]

BurgerBeast, I'm not sure where your problem lies.

First, I should point out that we agree that Alert gives no direct clue about the location of hidden enemies. This means that an Alert PC who fails their Perception check to 'notice a threat' (and therefore would be surprised if it weren't for the Alert feat) and rolls higher initiative than any of the ambushers gets their turn before the ambushers reveal themselves.

So, given that, what's the problem?

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast, I'm not sure where your problem lies.

First, I should point out that we agree that Alert gives no direct clue about the location of hidden enemies. This means that an Alert PC who fails their Perception check to 'notice a threat' (and therefore would be surprised if it weren't for the Alert feat) and rolls higher initiative than any of the ambushers gets their turn before the ambushers reveal themselves.

So, given that, what's the problem?

I think the alert feat should do more in this situation. The ability to act first without knowing where a single enemy is is often undesirable, so it seems that he is not getting properly rewarded for choosing the feat and winning initiative. The player has spent resources to be good in a situation like this, and in this case those decisions have the opposite effect to the intended effect.

I do not deny that this is RAW. I do not deny that he can do something on his turn. But it doesn't seem right to have the feat choice, and the high initiative roll, work against you. You have two very good reasons to get the most out of round 1, but in reality you arguably get the least.

[coolAlias]

You have two very good reasons to get the most out of round 1, but in reality you arguably get the least.
The counterpoint to that is that you get to act at all, when normally you'd be surprised. Also, hidden enemies don't get advantage to attack you.

Winning initiative means you also go before all the enemies on the round when you would normally have been able to first act, along with your surprised comrades.

Even if that first round when you ignore surprise is less advantageous than a normal round, I'd say that's still working as intended - you walked into an ambush and they got the jump on your party, but you turn that huge advantage into not so much of one, at least for you.

Think of it this way: rather than saying you won initiative, say you lost it but you get a free action before anyone reveals themselves. Now who has the advantage?

[Arial Black]

I think the alert feat should do more in this situation. The ability to act first without knowing where a single enemy is is often undesirable, so it seems that he is not getting properly rewarded for choosing the feat and winning initiative. The player has spent resources to be good in a situation like this, and in this case those decisions have the opposite effect to the intended effect.

I do not deny that this is RAW. I do not deny that he can do something on his turn. But it doesn't seem right to have the feat choice, and the high initiative roll, work against you. You have two very good reasons to get the most out of round 1, but in reality you arguably get the least.

In 5E, going first is never guaranteed to be better than going later! It is unreasonable to expect that this fact changes just because you are immune to surprise.

If our plan is that the wizard fireballs the enemy and then the martials charge in to melee, it would be better for the martials to have lower initiative than the wizard. Going faster has never automatically been more 'optimal' than going slower.

The narrative matches the mechanics: you've "got a bad feeling about this" that you trust, but don't know why because you failed to perceive the enemy (failed Perception check to notice the threat). Everything makes sense and is working as intended.

If the Alert guy feels screwed, then he is screwed because he failed to perceive the enemy, not because he's going first.

'Immunity to Surprise' =/= 'Always succeeds in Perception checks made to determine surprise'.

[BurgerBeast]

@coolAlias & @ArialBlack

Points taken. I may just be irrationally opposed to the idea without a significant basis. "It feels like a screw job" isn't much of an argument.

Edit: The thing I forgot to include in my concerns about my way, is the thing I referred to earlier: It seems quite bizarre (from a narrative context) that the alert character would choose to respond to this indirect signal that an attack is eminent without this same behaviour causing the alert to be a skittish over-reactor to all such signals, even when they are false.

So, the alert character looks like a genius when he notices that "things are eerily quiet... we're about to be attacked!" And springs into action. But what about (in the narrative context) all those times that "things go eerily quiet" in the story, and the alert character springs into action, only to discover that there is no attack at all.

He is neurotic and paranoid. Not so much alert and perceptive.

This could be solved if I could come up with narrative triggers that make more sense, but I am at a loss, creatively, to think of any.

[MeeposFire]

In 5E, going first is never guaranteed to be better than going later! It is unreasonable to expect that this fact changes just because you are immune to surprise.

If our plan is that the wizard fireballs the enemy and then the martials charge in to melee, it would be better for the martials to have lower initiative than the wizard. Going faster has never automatically been more 'optimal' than going slower.

The narrative matches the mechanics: you've "got a bad feeling about this" that you trust, but don't know why because you failed to perceive the enemy (failed Perception check to notice the threat). Everything makes sense and is working as intended.

If the Alert guy feels screwed, then he is screwed because he failed to perceive the enemy, not because he's going first.

'Immunity to Surprise' =/= 'Always succeeds in Perception checks made to determine surprise'.

I agree with you here. Wanting to go first really depends more on class and situation than a blanket statement of everyone wants to go first (which as you stated is not always true). As an example I find that many wizards want to go first because if they can get off a nasty spell early they may catch the enemy with no allies around and prevent a lot of enemy turns or as the most obvious a player playing an assassin rogue should always want to go as early as possible to make sure they can get assassinate as often as possible (it is rare enough already no reason to lose out on using because you rolled initiative poorly). Other classes may not need to go first so much. Also situation such as your fireball example.

[Tanarii]

BurgerBeast, the problem is, your position means that if, for whatever reason, the person initiating combat fails to win the initiatiave, the system is broken. Ignoring for a second the question of hiding this is always a problem with every single beginning of combat under your interpretation of what the start of combat and initiative means. The only time it isn't is if the creature that initiated combat wins initiative.

Edit: to me, that's the point at which you're treating it like a simulation instead of an abstraction. You're having to change the mechanics to fit your idea of what's going on in-game, instead of adapting the in-game description to the resolution.

(Note that in the case of hiding or surprise, ie the main point of this thread, in I'd consider both viewpoints being argued to be cases of adapting the in-game description. This isn't about that.)

[BurgerBeast]

BurgerBeast, the problem is, your position means that if, for whatever reason, the person initiating combat fails to win the initiatiave, the system is broken. Ignoring for a second the question of hiding this is always a problem with every single beginning of combat under your interpretation of what the start of combat and initiative means. The only time it isn't is if the creature that initiated combat wins initiative.

I don't think so. The DM is free to choose the moment in the narrative at which the initiative dice get rolled. And, the surprise check covers this, I think.

For example, if a PC is in conversation with the archduke, and the DM says: "The archduke goes for his sword!" This has not committed the archduke to an action, not nor has it actually started his turn. We can roll surprise. If the archduke surprises the PC, then he always effectively wins initiative, even when he rolls lower, by virtue of the fact that the PC cannot act in round 1. On the other hand, if the archduke fails to surprise the PC, then it becomes a fair contest (via initiative).

But these are different than when the archduke is hidden and he strikes. In this case, surprise is automatic (only because he fairly won a Stealth vs Perception contest earlier, so not technically automatic, but I think you take my meaning). As a result, the archduke will always act first unless the PC has the alert feat. This also works well, because an alert character gets a fair chance (initiative contest) to act first.

Am I getting this right?

[Tanarii]

What's the difference? I mean, the archduke does for his sword, the archduke steps out from behind cover to attack. In both cases the start of combat is the same, the only difference is the archduke has surprised those that can be surprise in the latter.

[BurgerBeast]

What's the difference? I mean, the archduke does for his sword, the archduke steps out from behind cover to attack. In both cases the start of combat is the same, the only difference is the archduke has surprised those that can be surprise in the latter.

The difference happens when the archduke does not step out from cover. Mechanically, the PCs that are not alert are automatically surprised, and if the alert character wins initiative, he cannot see the archduke.

There is no difference if the archduke steps out from cover, provided that the DM decided to choose to place the initiative roll after the archduke steps out. Mechanically, the archduke has stepped out from cover, giving up his hidden location. At the start of combat, the archduke is not hidden. The DM calls for initiative. The PCs that are not alert should be allowed a contested roll to see if they are surprised, and if the alert character wins initiative, he can see the archduke.

But, and maybe this drives close to the point that you and Vogonjeltz DBZ were trying to make, the DM could decide to call for initiative before the archduke steps out. Mechanically, the archduke has not stepped out from cover yet, so he is still hidden at the start of combat. The DM calls for initiative. The PCs that are not alert should be automatically surprised. If the alert character wins initiative, he cannot see the archduke.

So, as far as I know, the last two paragraphs are both RAW. Am I wrong about this? [Edit: they both ultimately proceed according to RAW, so they both appear to be the intended RAW. However, as is noted by the lengthy discussion in this thread, the third paragraph appears to be superior to the second, because it is consistent with the handgun handling of the first paragraph whereas the second paragraph is not.]

As a DM, if a hiding character told me he wanted to step out and ambush his enemies, and he had already succeeded on his Stealth vs Perception contest, I would run the game according to the third paragraph. The second paragraph's method seems like a screw job. What was the point of successfully hiding, if you're going to have to just roll for it again anyway?

[Tanarii]

I could see where the PC would ask this from his perspective: What's the point of taking Alert or Raging to get out of Surprise if you're just going to make it pointless?

I definitely see your perspective on it. As I said in my very first post, there are plenty of things such a 'spidey-sense is tingling' interpretation of the can't-be-surprised features still allows such a character to do. I can just see this perspective too, since it fits. How else did the 'surprising' character initiate combat, if they didn't declare an intention to begin combat? Combat begins at the point at which someone has decided to initiate combat and something is happening to make initiative be rolled, with the fasted reflexes resolving their action first. Remember, the abstraction of combat & rounds and turns within it is that they are in theory supposed to be simultaneous, despite the 'do everything on your initiative count' resolution.

[coolAlias]

Remember, the abstraction of combat & rounds and turns within it is that they are in theory supposed to be simultaneous, despite the 'do everything on your initiative count' resolution.
In other words, you could say that the Alert character (and only that character) is able to not only notice the hidden attacker as they begin their attack, but possibly to react to it before they complete it.

As far as all other characters are concerned, the hidden attacker continues to follow RAW and remain hidden until their attack resolves, but the Alert character breaks that rule (specific > general).

I'd be fine with that both as DM and player, and I'd also be fine with the attacker continuing to follow RAW and remain hidden (or step out and no longer be hidden at all from anyone if the situation calls for it), with the Alert character being able to act but not yet sure what to do.

When I next DM for a character with Alert, I'll probably use whichever one fits any given situation, rather than choosing one as the only possible ruling. I reserve the right to change my mind after seeing how it pans out in a couple of situations. ;)

[BurgerBeast]

Combat begins at the point at which someone has decided to initiate combat and something is happening to make initiative be rolled, with the fasted reflexes resolving their action first.

This, I think, is the misconception. It is important to distinguish between what starts combat in the narrative and what starts mechanical combat.

In terms of mechanical combat: combat starts with the initiative roll. But, when you say "someone has decided to initiate it" I think you're making a mistake. The DM decides if you roll initiative. Players cannot (directly) initiate combat, not can characters. I realize this sounds weird, but it's true. As a player, you can try indirectly to initiate combat. But there is no guarantee that it will work. Only the DM can initiate mechanical combat.

In terms of narrative combat: Narrative can occur without mechanical combat ever occurring. Likewise, mechanical combat can be started (usually by mistake) and narrative combat may never actually occur.

Example 1 (narrative not mechanical):

Player: "I punch the bartender in the face." (expecting combat, grabs his d20.)
DM: "You punch the bartender in the face, he stumbles back, wipes his mouth where your punch connected, and asked 'What the heck did you do that for?'"
Player: ...

Example 2 (narrative not mechanical):

Player: "I sneak up behind the sentry and attack." (expecting combat, grabs his d20)
DM: "Okay, make a stealth check."
Player: "I rolled a 19."
DM: "You quietly slip up behind the sentry and slit his throat. He slides lifeless to the ground."
Player: ...

Example 3 (mechanical not narrative):

DM: "A group of snarling orcs emerge form the forest, brandishing their blades. Roll initiative!" (expecting combat)
Players: (report their initiative)
Player A: (having won initiative) "I step forward, speaking to the orcs in orcish. 'Stay your weapons, friends. Your enemies, the Black Claw Clan, are just over those hills, licking their wounds in retreat after we thwarted them and drove them off. Go quickly and you will overtake them on the plain before they reach the safety of the hills."
Player A makes his Persuasion check/contest, and the orcs leave to pursue their enemies, meaning that no combat actually occurs in the narrative.


Remember, the abstraction of combat & rounds and turns within it is that they are in theory supposed to be simultaneous, despite the 'do everything on your initiative count' resolution.

I understand this sentiment, but feel the need to nit-pick the word "simultaneous." Certainly there is temporal overlap in the actions, but there is no need to commit to their being strictly simultaneous. Some things happen before others, and some after, but certainly they do not play out in a rigid structure. Within this framework, I think it's reasonable (even intended) that higher initiative counts happen generally earlier than lower. As I pointed out earlier, this is why we don't let creatures who die act on their remaining turn if it falls in the same round (which used to happen in old school D&D if I remember correctly).

[Coffee_Dragon]

Combat begins at the point at which someone has decided to initiate combat and something is happening to make initiative be rolled, with the fasted reflexes resolving their action first.

The problem for me is the corner case when a flavour event logically and nominally opens combat, yet mechanically some other stuff can be resolved and take effect before it. At that point I feel that the specifics of transition from non-combat to combat can and should be rule zeroed to make sense.

I already favour a house rule for delaying where you can lower your initiative count after rolling initiative (and only then), so I can imagine an extension to that rule where a non-surprised, non-aware character gets to automatically drop theirs to the point where they will be aware (and if someone's concerned Alert just isn't good enough a feat, they can make the drop for the first turn only, effectively giving the Alert character a double turn against the ambusher).


Remember, the abstraction of combat & rounds and turns within it is that they are in theory supposed to be simultaneous, despite the 'do everything on your initiative count' resolution.

Narrative representation of mechanical effects should be flexible, but also needs to be consistent, and I kind of draw the line at reversing or nesting the narrative chronology of mechanical effects, like some suggested.

[bid]

But these are different than when the archduke is hidden and he strikes. In this case, surprise is automatic (only because he fairly won a Stealth vs Perception contest earlier, so not technically automatic, but I think you take my meaning). As a result, the archduke will always act first unless the PC has the alert feat. This also works well, because an alert character gets a fair chance (initiative contest) to act first.
This *could* be wrong. Alert might make you auto-succeed your Stealth vs Perception contest.

Or alert allows you to take your initial turn as an interrupt of the attacker's turn.

Or accept that "initiative" and "turns" are abstractions that do not exist in fantasy life, and that your problem is merely an artifact of the simulation.

[DivisibleByZero]

Or accept that "initiative" and "turns" are abstractions that do not exist in fantasy life, and that your problem is merely an artifact of the simulation.

DingDingDingDingDingDingDingDing!

[BurgerBeast]

This *could* be wrong. Alert might make you auto-succeed your Stealth vs Perception contest.

Or alert allows you to take your initial turn as an interrupt of the attacker's turn.

Or accept that "initiative" and "turns" are abstractions that do not exist in fantasy life, and that your problem is merely an artifact of the simulation.
DingDingDingDingDingDingDingDing!

First: there is no RAW justification for your suggestions about how Alert *could* work.

Second: The idea that my problem is merely an artifact of the simulation, if it is, in fact, true, does not make it cease to be a problem. Problems caused by the abstraction are still problems. By understanding and explaining the problem, we can judge whether it is legitimate, and decide how best to solve it.

Unfortunately, the likes of DBZ seem to think they can simply say "it's an artifact of the simulation" and wave their hands and ta-da! It's not a problem anymore. Nonsense. (Not to mention DBZ has been arguing, up until now, that initiative is tied to the fantasy narrative.)

Beyond this, I still contend that it is not merely a problem of the abstraction. Even within the narrative, ignoring the abstraction entirely, it's difficult to explain how a character can, without detecting his attacker, fail to be surprised. Think about it. An assassin hides in the woods, bow drawn like a sniper, staying still... waiting... waiting... and now, just as the time is right, he attacks! -- But, whatever it is that tipped off the alert character, it cannot be the attack itself, nor the noise nor the sight of the enemy. So he had to detect something, and that something had to provide him with enough certainty to spring into combat... so it has to be something quite subtle and indirect... a strong enough feeling that the alert character does not spend his days acting neurotic and paranoid, but a weak enough feeling that it does not give away the presence of the attacker. This problem is a problem within the narrative, regardless of the abstraction.

[bid]

First: there is no RAW justification for your suggestions about how Alert *could* work.

Second: The idea that my problem is merely an artifact of the simulation, if it is, in fact, true, does not make it cease to be a problem. Problems caused by the abstraction are still problems. By understanding and explaining the problem, we can judge whether it is legitimate, and decide how best to solve it.

Beyond this, I still contend that it is not merely a problem of the abstraction. Even within the narrative, ignoring the abstraction entirely, it's difficult to explain how a character can, without detecting his attacker, fail to be surprised.
I find it surprising you are looking for RAW justifications of fluff. RAW will never tell you which character is ambidextrous or left-handed, you cannot look there for a justification or refutation.

If it is a problem and you wish to remove the artifact, you have to fluff the way you match mechanics with fantasy simulation.

All that matters is that alert can act before the first enemy action. We can invent whatever fluff we want as long as it follows that simple fact.

As it stands, the "Always on the lookout for danger" fluff is a good fit with automatically succeeding the check at the last second. It also works with "specific beats generic", making it an elegant resolution of the artifact.


Unless you can point out some unwanted mechanical impact, you will have to accept the fluff for alert *could* work as I suggested above. Maybe you can find some other fluff that also obeys RAW while being more elegant in your eyes. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[BurgerBeast]

I find it surprising you are looking for RAW justifications of fluff. RAW will never tell you which character is ambidextrous or left-handed, you cannot look there for a justification or refutation.

What are you talking about? I am not looking for RAW justification for fluff.


If it is a problem and you wish to remove the artifact, you have to fluff the way you match mechanics with fantasy simulation.

All that matters is that alert can act before the first enemy action. We can invent whatever fluff we want as long as it follows that simple fact.

No kidding. The problem is that nobody can come up with a fluff explanation that does. Have you been reading the thread, at all?


As it stands, the "Always on the lookout for danger" fluff is a good fit with automatically succeeding the check at the last second. It also works with "specific beats generic", making it an elegant resolution of the artifact.

It's not an elegant resolution. It raises another problem. Always on the lookout for danger sounds great until you ask yourself what constitutes danger. In the case of the assassin in the woods, whatever it is that "constitutes danger" cannot conclusively indicate to the alert character that he is under attack. So, if he reacts to it, then he is reacting pre-emptively. If he reacts pre-emptively to danger alerts that are not conclusive indicators of threats, then he will react to false threats, and what you end up with is not an alert character but a neurotic, paranoid character.


Unless you can point out some unwanted mechanical impact, you will have to accept the fluff for alert *could* work as I suggested above. Maybe you can find some other fluff that also obeys RAW while being more elegant in your eyes. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The two solutions you suggested *could* work are not fluff. They are changes to the game rules. They are solutions that have already been discussed (in the latter case I even proposed it myself) but that both present new problems.

What I am trying to do is determine if there is a way to "fluff" the problematic scenario in a way that makes sense. So, going back to what you initially said, I am not looking for a RAW justification for fluff - I am looking for a fluff justification for RAW, preferably one that doesn't bring new problems.

[Malifice]

DM: "A group of snarling orcs emerge form the forest, brandishing their blades. Roll initiative!" (expecting combat)
Players: (report their initiative)

Using the logic you have been using all thread, the orcs can't emerge from the forest because moving is an action that must be done in combat.

I otherwise agree with you here though. The narrating of orcs emerging from the forest is no different from you narrating them drawing swords, making noise or moving to attack a PC from hiding.

Do you understand yet? There is no problem with the rules, the problem is with your narration of them.

[Malifice]

Or accept that "initiative" and "turns" are abstractions that do not exist in fantasy life, and that your problem is merely an artifact of the simulation.

Post of the thread.

This, this a million times this.

[Corran]

@Malifice:

Once again, I would reply that you are either underthinking it, to you're thinking backward from the end. If you feel so inclined, humour me for a minute and think about it from this angle: starting point.

Imagine you are playing the assassin in the woods. You rolled a stealth check to hide and got a 22. You are patiently waiting for Albert, Bert, and Colbert to approach so you can kill them.

Their (A, B, and C's) perception checks are 16, 14, and 6, so the DM rules that you are successfully hidden. He thus decides that at the start of combat, the party will be surprised.

Okay, so at the correct moment, you are going to loose your first arrow. The DM decides that this will initiate combat and therefore everyone should roll initiative. Albert: 21, You: 17, Bert 14, Colbert 9. Albert has the Alert feat.

"You start to loose arrows from your hiding place. Everyone rolls initiative." So now, after having said this, it turns out Albert has beat you on initiative. Since Albert is aware that arrows are being loosed from your general direction, he moves his miniature toward the bushes, and it turns out he moves his miniature right into your square, so the DM rules that he discovers you, and attacks.

Does this seem fair? Because it does not seem fair to me.

You have been hiding and you haven't done anything to give-up your position. The DM has just royally screwed you, in my opinion. And it's not just because you got attacked. It's because the entire handling of the situation makes no sense.

Albert cannot conceivably have any idea that anything is up until you do something. You cannot blow your cover or loose an arrow, and it would be unfair for the DM to just force this onto the situation when it makes no sense.



But it is not fair to give information about a character who is successfully hidden. They have the right to remain hidden because they succeeded at the task.

Ok, I haven't read most of this thread, and I may be repeating things already discussed, so apologies for that, but I just wanted to answer this with how I rationalize it.

The assassin has to sacrifice a tiny bit of his cover (stealthiness) to attempt the shot. And while that does not grant players an extra perception check, player A (with the alert feat) notices that, and if he wins initiative he gets to go first too. I think of it like a scene from an action movie (maybe I have seen too many westerns). The bad guy jumps behind the protagonist to take a shot at him, but the (alert) protagonist turns around at the last second and shoots the bad guy first instead. Edit: Maybe it was that he saw the assassin's shadow/reflection, maybe he heard a noise, etc etc, we have to provide the excuse if we want an extra touch of ''realism''.

Now, (long) distance can create some logical problems in how such a scenario would play out, but I dont think alert is at fault here (I can expand on this if you want, but maybe it was already discussed so I'll stop here).

I go back to reading the rest of the thread (interesting discussion so far).

Edit: To clarify about initiative, I dont think it's logical to say that initiative gets rolled the moment the assassin's arrow is loosed, but rather, the moment the assassin gets ready to take the shot (at least that makes sense to me).

[mephnick]

Now, (long) distance can create some logical problems in how such a scenario would play out, but I dont think alert is at fault here (I can expand on this if you want, but maybe it was already discussed so I'll stop here).

Long distance gets a bit janky, but it's fine if you just accept the "spidey-sense" version of Alert.

"You feel eyes on you and the hairs standing up on your neck signal that you may be in immediate danger." or something.

[BurgerBeast]

@Malifice: Are we going to get on this merry-go-round again?


Using the logic you have been using all thread, the orcs can't emerge from the forest because moving is an action that must be done in combat.

No, that is not the same logic I've been using all thread. You, and DBZ, and a few others, still haven't come to understand that there is a difference in the situations, and it that it is relevant, yet. Of course, you can act like I am someone who has no idea that creatures can move when the game is not in combat mode, but it's pretty disingenuous.

The DM decides when initiative gets rolled. It can happen before or after the orcs emerge from the woods, but if it is before, it makes for some strange situations if at least one of the PCs is not surprised and beats the orcs at initiative. By strange situations, I mean situations that don't make much sense in terms of the narrative.

This narration (orcs emerging from the forest) is fine when the DM chooses to begin "combat mode" after the orcs have left the forest, and can be seen. But if the orcs are trying to not be seen, and the DM narrates that they leave the forest, and are therefore seen, then this is a screw job, from the orcs' point of view. It's even more of a screw job if any of the orcs preferred to remain hidden in the forest.


I otherwise agree with you here though. The narrating of orcs emerging from the forest is no different from you narrating them drawing swords, making noise or moving to attack a PC from hiding.

Great. You're right. But then we come to the situation where they are not moving to attack from hiding. Instead, they are waiting patiently, bows drawn and taking aim. This situation is different. If you decide to narrate the initiation of this hidden attack before you call for initiative, then you're creating a problem. In this particular case, you should call for initiative before the attack, because the initiative rolls will inform how the action plays out. If you do this, considering all of the possibilities of the initiative outcomes, you will see that in at least some of the cases, the fact that you already narrated the attack will result in a screw job.


Do you understand yet? There is no problem with the rules, the problem is with your narration of them.

I have never said that there is a problem with the rules. I have said that there is no narrative way to explain why the rules are the way they are. That's different. Think about it.

If the orcs are hidden and they decide to spring a ranged surprise attack, the DM is making an error if he narrates the attack before he calls for initiative. Most of the time, circumstances will play out in a way that the DM doesn't pay for this mistake. But, when there is an alert person in the group of targets, and he wins initiative, this mistake will have an effect on the game.


Long distance gets a bit janky, but it's fine if you just accept the "spidey-sense" version of Alert.

"You feel eyes on you and the hairs standing up on your neck signal that you may be in immediate danger." or something.

Absolutely the best solution that we've found. But still causes some cognitive dissonance because it leads to the "alert = paranoid and neurotic" problem.

Edit:


The assassin has to sacrifice a tiny bit of his cover (stealthiness) to attempt the shot. And while that does not grant players an extra perception check, player A (with the alert feat) notices that, and if he wins initiative he gets to go first too. I think of it like a scene from an action movie (maybe I have seen too many westerns). The bad guy jumps behind the protagonist to take a shot at him, but the (alert) protagonist turns around at the last second and shoots the bad guy first instead. Edit: Maybe it was that he saw the assassin's shadow/reflection, maybe he heard a noise, etc etc, we have to provide the excuse if we want an extra touch of ''realism''.

So, this is what I've been calling the screw job. RAW, the assassin can't give up a tiny bit of cover, because RAW he is unseen and unheard. So if you narrate the action in such a way that he's a little bit seen or a little bit heard, then he's not hidden. RAW, attacking does not reveal a hidden character - hitting or missing reveals him.

I think the narration you describe from the western movies can happen, but it corresponds to different circumstances. In order for that to happen, the assassin loses the stealth vs perception contest, and Player A wins initiative. Another way to think of it is that Player A will be more likely to find himself in this situation is he is Observant, rather than Alert.


Edit: To clarify about initiative, I dont think it's logical to say that initiative gets rolled the moment the assassin's arrow is loosed, but rather, the moment the assassin gets ready to take the shot (at least that makes sense to me).

Agreed. Again, it usually won't matter, but when it does... things get wonky.

[Zalabim]

I think the alert feat should do more in this situation. The ability to act first without knowing where a single enemy is is often undesirable, so it seems that he is not getting properly rewarded for choosing the feat and winning initiative. The player has spent resources to be good in a situation like this, and in this case those decisions have the opposite effect to the intended effect.


In 5E, going first is never guaranteed to be better than going later! It is unreasonable to expect that this fact changes just because you are immune to surprise.

If our plan is that the wizard fireballs the enemy and then the martials charge in to melee, it would be better for the martials to have lower initiative than the wizard. Going faster has never automatically been more 'optimal' than going slower.

Both of these reference a common player complaint. But if you wanted to go after the ambushers, or after the wizard, and instead rolled higher initiative than the party you wanted to be going after in initiative, I have good news. You do take a turn after the other party! Initiative is cyclical. It goes in a circle. You just also got the opportunity to take a turn before them. The extra turn before the one you're waiting for isn't a bad thing. It might not be a good thing either, but you haven't lost anything for rolling high initiative.

[Corran]

RAW, the assassin can't give up a tiny bit of cover, because RAW he is unseen and unheard. So if you narrate the action in such a way that he's a little bit seen or a little bit heard, then he's not hidden. RAW, attacking does not reveal a hidden character - hitting or missing reveals him.

I think alert (specifically its second clause: ''you cannot be surprised while you are conscious'') overrides the rules you mention*(1). I think of it as a case of specific vs general. Granted, there is not a mechanical explanation in there, but to not be surprised means to spot the threat*(2). So I guess they squeezed the underlying mechanics (ie something like: the alert character rolls a perception check against any hidden character at the before they attack, and he automatically succeeds in it; this is silly phrazing, I admit, but you get my point), into a one-sentense clause (plain english).

*(1) (2): I think this is not the only RAW way to go about it, but it's what makes the most sense to me. For example, a DM ruling that the alert PC who wins initiative, sees the assassin's arrow but not the assassin (just yet), so he can take his turn not knowing yet where the assassin is, is still ruling within RAW (though this interpretation is surely a bit weird). Point is, alert would probably profit from a sidebar explaining the underlying mechanics of it (and probably from some limitations, to make it more realistic), but I think this is not in the spirit of 5e. So they used a sentense to leave it open-ended enough for each DM to rule in 2 (or more) different ways, according to what makes sense to them and also probably according to how much they value ''realism''.

[Tanarii]

Edit:



So, this is what I've been calling the screw job. RAW, the assassin can't give up a tiny bit of cover, because RAW he is unseen and unheard. So if you narrate the action in such a way that he's a little bit seen or a little bit heard, then he's not hidden. RAW, attacking does not reveal a hidden character - hitting or missing reveals him.

I think the narration you describe from the western movies can happen, but it corresponds to different circumstances. In order for that to happen, the assassin loses the stealth vs perception contest, and Player A wins initiative. Another way to think of it is that Player A will be more likely to find himself in this situation is he is Observant, rather than Alert.



Agreed. Again, it usually won't matter, but when it does... things get wonky.this is no more a screw job than alert characters not getting a benefit from their feat.

And despite your assertion that raw means you aren't revealed until you hit or miss, that's not globally true. That is merely one condition that reveals a hidden character. So do making noise. So can (at the DMs discretion) initiating combat.

For that matter, a DM is free to rule that a character already in combat can be attacked by a ready action before their attack, because they had to stand up from behind cover to make the attack at all. As has been discussed in many many threads about pop-up hiding. If you're attacking out of the darkness or invisibly, you may not reveal your position trying to take the attack or initiate combat.

But from behind cover or from in foliage? No problem making it work both narratively and within the mechanical RAW. Narratively, you reveal yourself to initiate combat. Mechanically, you reveal yourself when you declare you're initiating combat and the DM calls for a initiative, if he so decides to interpret the RAW that way.

[Arial Black]

The difference happens when the archduke does not step out from cover.

What it's helpful to realise is exactly what Alert does, narratively, in order to make sense of the mechanics.

The normal situation, re: determining surprise and moving into initiative based combat rounds, is that the DM determines (usually via an opposed check of some kind, typically Perception/Stealth) if the creatures in question PERCEIVE the threat. If they do, they are not surprised. If they do NOT notice the threat, then they ARE surprised.

The key thing about Alert and any other mechanic that makes you Immune to Surprise is that you are NOT surprised, even though you did NOT perceive the threat!

Of course, even though you are immune to surprise you are still entitled to the same Perception check (or whatever) that everyone else is, but right now we are focussing on the situation when the Alert guy FAILED to perceive the threat AND rolled higher initiative.

The upshot of this is that the Archduke can shoot from hiding without stepping out from hiding before the attack is resolved, the Alert guy failed to perceive the check, but is not surprised anyway!

This means that the reason they are not surprised CANNOT be 'because they noticed the threat'!

It MUST be for a reason that has nothing to do with perceiving the threat. What can that be? Whatever you want!

You can fluff it in many ways: Spider-Sense, 'bad feeling', your god loves you, whatever. The only thing it CANNOT be is 'you perceived the threat'.

So the fact that when you crept through the Archduke's palace and never noticed the hidden Archduke or his attempt to Sneak Attack you from cover with a hand crossbow, and you were not surprised, your 'reason' for acting first, in full knowledge that it's about to get violent but without direct information as to how or why (although you are free to make an educated guess), doesn't need to have a 'reason' which includes perceiving the Archduke. The 'reason' is your aforementioned fluff re: your god loves you/bad feeling/danger sense.

[Malifice]

When everyone in the world is arguing against you and you still think you're right.

[BurgerBeast]

Both of these reference a common player complaint. But if you wanted to go after the ambushers, or after the wizard, and instead rolled higher initiative than the party you wanted to be going after in initiative, I have good news. You do take a turn after the other party! Initiative is cyclical. It goes in a circle. You just also got the opportunity to take a turn before them. The extra turn before the one you're waiting for isn't a bad thing. It might not be a good thing either, but you haven't lost anything for rolling high initiative.

Yes, you are 100% right about this. I've changed my mind on this one.

The only issue that some along with this particular situation we're discussing is the greater emphasis on how little you can do. "You can't see nor hear a single enemy... what do you want to do?" I want to reiterate that I do not think it is unfair, and as has been discussed, there have been plenty of examples mentioned of productive things the character can do.


I think alert (specifically its second clause: ''you cannot be surprised while you are conscious'') overrides the rules you mention*(1). I think of it as a case of specific vs general. Granted, there is not a mechanical explanation in there, but to not be surprised means to spot the threat*(2). So I guess they squeezed the underlying mechanics (ie something like: the alert character rolls a perception check against any hidden character at the before they attack, and he automatically succeeds in it; this is silly phrazing, I admit, but you get my point), into a one-sentense clause (plain english).

*(1) (2): I think this is not the only RAW way to go about it, but it's what makes the most sense to me. For example, a DM ruling that the alert PC who wins initiative, sees the assassin's arrow but not the assassin (just yet), so he can take his turn not knowing yet where the assassin is, is still ruling within RAW (though this interpretation is surely a bit weird). Point is, alert would probably profit from a sidebar explaining the underlying mechanics of it (and probably from some limitations, to make it more realistic), but I think this is not in the spirit of 5e. So they used a sentense to leave it open-ended enough for each DM to rule in 2 (or more) different ways, according to what makes sense to them and also probably according to how much they value ''realism''.

So, I think the problem comes up in (2), when you say "to not be surprised means to spot the threat." I think this is a common mistake that people can't get past. In my opinion, you're conflating the roles of the hiding rules and the surprise rules. As evidence, I would point out that one of the benefits of the Alert feat is that is negates the advantage that attackers receive for being unseen. This would imply that whatever explanation is used for explaining the "alertness," it does not require seeing your enemy.

I'm not trying to be a d@#k, here. I understand that all of us are trying to find a way that makes the most sense (and probably isn't perfect) to resolve this. This isn't a bad effort and I think any DM would be fine to come up with this as a resolution in the moment... but it doesn;t stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion.


this is no more a screw job than alert characters not getting a benefit from their feat.

Agreed. We're trying to find a way to keep it fir for everyone. A strict reading of the alert feat tells us that in order to honour the alert feat, the alert character should get a turn in the initiative order in the first round, and anyone who attacks him while unseen should not get advantage. There is no requirement that he be able to see/hear his attackers. Considering this against the fact that the assassin is successfully hidden, the assassin must not be heard or seen by the alert character.

RAW, this is clear, and relatively easy to follow. The only real challenge is finding a way, within the narrative, to "tip off" the alert character that he is in combat, without revealing the hidden assassin. That's the challenge.

The best answers we've has were indirect visual/auditory cues, or supernatural (or near supernatural) senses. But these bring in the additional narrative problem of how does an alert character filter out the real threats from the false positives? In other words why is he not constantly springing into action against the false positives?


And despite your assertion that raw means you aren't revealed until you hit or miss, that's not globally true. That is merely one condition that reveals a hidden character. So do making noise. So can (at the DMs discretion) initiating combat.

I agree with this, in general. But the point is that this character has succeeded in hiding, which means he is not making noise. If the character decided to do something that made significant noise, yes, he may become noticed. However, there is a specific rule governing attacks (hit/miss=detected) which was thoughtfully crafted to make notion of an unseen attacker possible. If the act of attacking from hiding reveals the attacker, then all attackers are always seen. If there is merely a chance, so sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't, this nerfs hiding and significantly nerfs rogues (I think).

I suppose that, a DM could decide that the act of attacking presents a chance that you are detected, but this brings us back to the surprise determination question. If you are hidden, your enemies do not see or hear you, and now if you wish to attack, you have to succeed again? This doesn't seem right, to me.


For that matter, a DM is free to rule that a character already in combat can be attacked by a ready action before their attack, because they had to stand up from behind cover to make the attack at all. As has been discussed in many many threads about pop-up hiding. If you're attacking out of the darkness or invisibly, you may not reveal your position trying to take the attack or initiate combat.

This is a very special circumstance, in which the attacking character is not actually locating the character (which is impossible), but aiming at a particular area (square) because he is expecting the unseen character to be seen there. I see no problem with this. Note that in this situation, if the hidden character successfully sneaked five squares away and "popped up and shot," I would not let the readied attack interrupt him, nor would I let the attacker see the attack. (However, I don;t think this is the only way to rule, as you say, and this is a very particular situation in which the character must pop up in order to shoot.) In many situations, the hidden character does not need to pop up to shoot. I have been envisioning the assassin in the woods to be this type of situation. He can stay still and loose an arrow.


But from behind cover or from in foliage? No problem making it work both narratively and within the mechanical RAW. Narratively, you reveal yourself to initiate combat. Mechanically, you reveal yourself when you declare you're initiating combat and the DM calls for a initiative, if he so decides to interpret the RAW that way.

I think he'd be wrong to interpret RAW that way. I don't think that RAW, initiating combat reveals you.

In fact, this would be an unnecessary rule. You could create the same effect by simply saying, the attacker tried to surprise you, but he didn't. Nobody is surprised. And then play as normal.

[Vaz]

How bored are you in life to still keep this going?

[ThePolarBear]

[...]to "tip off" the alert character that he is in combat, without revealing the hidden assassin. That's the challenge. [...]

It is also completely unneeded. It is not the character controlling itself, it's the player. Calling for initiative is already enough to alert (haha) the player. Your description can also include other particulars, as long as it is clear that are informations to the player, not the character. The character will act accordingly to what the player thinks it's a good idea according to the situation, possibly without metagaming.

[BurgerBeast]

It is also completely unneeded. It is not the character controlling itself, it's the player. Calling for initiative is already enough to alert (haha) the player. Your description can also include other particulars, as long as it is clear that are informations to the player, not the character. The character will act accordingly to what the player thinks it's a good idea according to the situation, possibly without metagaming.

Agreed. This is where a few people have been baffled by what my actual point is. Ignoring the narrative, and playing RAW is simple, clean, and easy. It only becomes bothersome if you care about the narrative making sense, which I do. I like the mechanics, as far as possible, to be consistent and sensible, because it empowers players to make informed decisions.

The player might say something like: "How do I even know there's a threat?" And the DM might simply reply (because the PC has the alert feat): "You're sure of it."

If you're cool with it, you're good to go. There is no problem. Everything works.

[bid]

The two solutions you suggested *could* work are not fluff. They are changes to the game rules.
Show me the money. Where's the mechanical impact?

Convince me there's something worth discussing.

[Tanarii]

Agreed. We're trying to find a way to keep it fir for everyone. A strict reading of the alert feat tells us that in order to honour the alert feat, the alert character should get a turn in the initiative order in the first round, and anyone who attacks him while unseen should not get advantage. There is no requirement that he be able to see/hear his attackers. Considering this against the fact that the assassin is successfully hidden, the assassin must not be heard or seen by the alert character.I do have to agree with this to a degree. After all as I've said, the Alert character still has actions they can take even if they don't pinpoint, or even have a general idea of, the threats location. So I concede it's not a precise analogy when reversed.



This is a very special circumstance, in which the attacking character is not actually locating the character (which is impossible), but aiming at a particular area (square) because he is expecting the unseen character to be seen there. I see no problem with this. Note that in this situation, if the hidden character successfully sneaked five squares away and "popped up and shot," I would not let the readied attack interrupt him, nor would I let the attacker see the attack. (However, I don;t think this is the only way to rule, as you say, and this is a very particular situation in which the character must pop up in order to shoot.) In many situations, the hidden character does not need to pop up to shoot. I have been envisioning the assassin in the woods to be this type of situation. He can stay still and loose an arrow.You misunderstand my point about pop-up hiding. In some circumstances, such as when you are hiding behind complete cover or in heavy foliage or thick obscuring (heavy fog), it may be required to reveal yourself to make the attack at all. Because you can't see your target to make your attack. This has been extensively discussed in regards to pop-up hiding.

Obviously this wouldn't apply when attacking from invisibility or from darkness at a lit target.

Of course, a DM can just make an adjudication call based on circumstances, as I said in my very first post.

[Corran]

So, I think the problem comes up in (2), when you say "to not be surprised means to spot the threat." I think this is a common mistake that people can't get past. In my opinion, you're conflating the roles of the hiding rules and the surprise rules.
Well, to not be surprised, you have to notice a threat (whether it's the enemy, or just an arrow fired, or sth). Otherwise, we go back to spidey-sense which I agree that it breaks my immersion somewhat, and I admit that it would create a narrative problem for me (though some other tables might be just fine with that, narrative wise, because the PCs are anime heroes with super senses, or whatever). I agree that I am throwing the hide rules out of the window by doing that (well, in the case that the alert character notices the enemy specifically; noticing the arrow and not the enemy who fired it, creates all sorts of problems regarding in-game speed, if the alert character wins initiative - it can create a time paradox too). And I didnt make a big deal out of it (neither did I think it was unfair), until I started thinking of some cases under which it would undoubtly be unfair and it would indeed create a narrative problem (regarding spotting the enemy).

My point is, that to make sense of it (and this is just my opinion), I have to say that the alert character spots the enemy (despite hidden status and hide rules). Otherwise, it's either in-game speed redicuousness, or even time paradox (or spidey sense with doesnt cut it for me). And unless I start taking into account more details (like invisibility, or the skulker feat, etc etc), then this works fine for me. But under certain circumstances (invisible attacker, or assassin with the skulker feat, or heck, invisible attacker wihin a silence spell if I want to take an extreme case), I agree that it would both create a narrative problem and be unfair (either to the assassin, or to the alert PC, depending on how I resolve it).


As evidence, I would point out that one of the benefits of the Alert feat is that is negates the advantage that attackers receive for being unseen. This would imply that whatever explanation is used for explaining the "alertness," it does not require seeing your enemy.
I will debate this, by saying that the third benefit of alert (unseen enemies do not get advantage), is not rendered useless if we rule the second benefit to cancel stealth for the assassin that surprises us. That is, because the third benefit can find application beyond the surprise round (such as when fighting an invisible opponent, etc). But this is just me arguing over details, not sth important.

[BurgerBeast]

It is also completely unneeded. It is not the character controlling itself, it's the player. Calling for initiative is already enough to alert (haha) the player. Your description can also include other particulars, as long as it is clear that are informations to the player, not the character. The character will act accordingly to what the player thinks it's a good idea according to the situation, possibly without metagaming.

I was a little dismissive of this, at first, but on reconsideration, I think you make a damned good point here. Absent a narrative reason, the mechanical impact of the player receiving an in-combat turn, without having any context, is a very strong indicator that "s@#t just got real." The mechanical event of the player receiving his turn is the filter that separates out false positives from real threats, and the player can trust that it is reliable, and translate this into his character's mind however he wishes.

Thanks. This is a pretty solid answer, now that I think about it. Maybe this is what some of the others (DBZ, Malifice) were driving at.

Edit: however, it comes with the caveat that not just any-old fluff will do, because as we have seen, many "fluff" interpretations to not make narrative sense. And this is what was causing at least part of the problem. Some fluff explanations were being offered which, for lack of a better expression, didn't hold any water.


Show me the money. Where's the mechanical impact?

Convince me there's something worth discussing.

Well, we're talking about this:




This *could* be wrong. Alert might make you auto-succeed your Stealth vs Perception contest.

Or alert allows you to take your initial turn as an interrupt of the attacker's turn.
The two solutions you suggested *could* work are not fluff. They are changes to the game rules. They are solutions that have already been discussed (in the latter case I even proposed it myself) but that both present new problems.

So, I am saying that, RAW, alert does not make you auto-succeed on your stealth vs perception check, and, RAW, alert does not let you interrupt another attacker's turn.

The problem is that I am saying these are not rules. If you are asserting that they are, then you would need to provide evidence. What I am saying is: look through all of the rules, and you will not find these rules.


You misunderstand my point about pop-up hiding. In some circumstances, such as when you are hiding behind complete cover or in heavy foliage or thick obscuring (heavy fog), it may be required to reveal yourself to make the attack at all. Because you can't see your target to make your attack. This has been extensively discussed in regards to pop-up hiding.

I suppose this is where "the abstraction" actually does come into play. (I suspect if we delved deeper into this, we'd come to agreement. My suspicion is that the pop-up-hiding thread was pretty complex, and I may have even participated to some extent, but I don't remember it very well.) For me, the general case of pop-ip hiding would be that the fact that you had previously succeeded at hiding would mean that you could pop-up without being seen. Obviously the DM would have some leeway here because of narrative circumstance, but in general a "pop-up" doesn't need to be some rapid jack-in-the-box style "ta-da!" (although it could be), it just needs to be a slow, deliberate, movement - just enough to take aim.

Apologies for misunderstanding, and additional apologies if I am still misunderstanding.


Well, to not be surprised, you have to notice a threat (whether it's the enemy, or just an arrow fired, or sth). Otherwise, we go back to spidey-sense which I agree that it breaks my immersion somewhat, and I admit that it would create a narrative problem for me (though some other tables might be just fine with that, narrative wise, because the PCs are anime heroes with super senses, or whatever). I agree that I am throwing the hide rules out of the window by doing that (well, in the case that the alert character notices the enemy specifically; noticing the arrow and not the enemy who fired it, creates all sorts of problems regarding in-game speed, if the alert character wins initiative - it can create a time paradox too). And I didnt make a big deal out of it (neither did I think it was unfair), until I started thinking of some cases under which it would undoubtly be unfair and it would indeed create a narrative problem (regarding spotting the enemy).

My point is, that to make sense of it (and this is just my opinion), I have to say that the alert character spots the enemy (despite hidden status and hide rules). Otherwise, it's either in-game speed redicuousness, or even time paradox (or spidey sense with doesnt cut it for me). And unless I start taking into account more details (like invisibility, or the skulker feat, etc etc), then this works fine for me. But under certain circumstances (invisible attacker, or assassin with the skulker feat, or heck, invisible attacker wihin a silence spell if I want to take an extreme case), I agree that it would both create a narrative problem and be unfair (either to the assassin, or to the alert PC, depending on how I resolve it).

Well said. So, are you with me, here, in that we both wish there was a tidy narrative way to provide certainty to the character without exposing the hidden assassin? Because I think we actually might discover one. I'll start putting some thought into this. In the mean time, I am starting to think that ThePolarBear's answer, above, might actually be the best available answer in the mean time. It also has the additional benefit of providing narrative freedom to the individual player to fluff the feat in personal ways (albeit with limitations).


I will debate this, by saying that the third benefit of alert (unseen enemies do not get advantage), is not rendered useless if we rule the second benefit to cancel stealth for the assassin that surprises us. That is, because the third benefit can find application beyond the surprise round (such as when fighting an invisible opponent, etc). But this is just me arguing over details, not sth important.

This is a good point. I would say that it is important, and I think you're right. My argument is destroyed, here. Well done (and thanks).

[Vaz]

So, I am saying that, RAW, alert does not make you auto-succeed on your stealth vs perception check, and, RAW, alert does not let you interrupt another attacker's turn.
But the attacker hasn't taken their turn yet. RAW.

[Tanarii]

I suppose this is where "the abstraction" actually does come into play. (I suspect if we delved deeper into this, we'd come to agreement. My suspicion is that the pop-up-hiding thread was pretty complex, and I may have even participated to some extent, but I don't remember it very well.) For me, the general case of pop-ip hiding would be that the fact that you had previously succeeded at hiding would mean that you could pop-up without being seen. Obviously the DM would have some leeway here because of narrative circumstance, but in general a "pop-up" doesn't need to be some rapid jack-in-the-box style "ta-da!" (although it could be), it just needs to be a slow, deliberate, movement - just enough to take aim.

Apologies for misunderstanding, and additional apologies if I am still misunderstanding.You are. The issue has nothing to do with speed, despite the implications of the name (which I agree are problematic). The issue is you cannot shoot something you cannot see. You need to come out from behind complete cover or out of the heavy obscuring concealment to be able to see your target to attack them.

Whether or not this reveals the hiding creature before they can attack is the question. And it is a question. It's a debate. It's not automatically 'yes they are'. But it's an extensive debate that has never really been resolved.

[DivisibleByZero]

But it's an extensive debate that has never really been resolved.

It has been resolved, by Crawford himself, in one of the Dragon Talk podcasts.
There's a thread around here somewhere entitled something along the lines of "Pop-up Attacks Confirmed" or some such.
The Jack-In-The-Box play style is perfectly acceptable via RAW and RAI and official rulings. That ruling annoys some, but that's the ruling.

edit:
Found it.
It wasn't a Dragon Talk, it was apparently a Twitter thread.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/

[Arial Black]

Agreed. This is where a few people have been baffled by what my actual point is. Ignoring the narrative, and playing RAW is simple, clean, and easy. It only becomes bothersome if you care about the narrative making sense, which I do. I like the mechanics, as far as possible, to be consistent and sensible, because it empowers players to make informed decisions.

The player might say something like: "How do I even know there's a threat?" And the DM might simply reply (because the PC has the alert feat): "You're sure of it."

If you're cool with it, you're good to go. There is no problem. Everything works.

I'd find it very strange if a player who deliberately chose the Alert feat to wonder why his PC not surprised!

And once again, when he asks "How do I even know there's a threat?", point out that he does not 'know' that there is a 'threat' (unless his Perception check succeeded); what he 'knows' is that 'combat is starting'. It's up to him to use that knowledge wisely!

[Arial Black]

Well, to not be surprised, you have to notice a threat

That is not true.

In 5E combat, there is no such thing as a 'surprise check'.

Let me say that again, just to drum it home: in 5E, there is no such thing as a 'surprise check'!

What there is is 'The DM determines who is be surprised'.

He can just say, "Those guys are surprised, these guys are not" and this is perfectly fine and RAW.

However, he may (and frequently does) ask for opposed ability checks to determine whether or not those creatures who might be surprised actually are or are not surprised.

He may choose any pair of opposing ability checks that make sense. Usually, for murderhobos adventurers, then since any creature they see while exploring is assumed to be hostile then simply noticing the presence of a creature is the same as noticing a threat, so Perception/Stealth are the skills he chooses.

For normal people, and sometimes even for our heroes, it is not the case that everyone you see is assumed to be hostile and needs murdering bringing to justice. Imagine trying to go shopping with that attitude! So, in more generally peaceful surroundings, merely noticing the presence of a creature (via Perception/Stealth) is not the same as noticing a threat. But if things in the shoe shop do take a turn for the worse (what do you mean, "they make me look fat"?) then someone who's non-hostile presence you've been completely aware of suddenly pulls a knife and attacks. In this case, Perception/Stealth are not appropriate because their presence, without being a threat, was already known. What was not known is the threat that he is now! Noticing that is better modelled by Insight (body language-he seems to be getting really angry and is he going for a knife?) versus Deception (trying to hide his violent intent until it's too late to react).

But the point of all this is that, whatever check the DM chooses, it is not a 'surprise check'; it is a Perception check or an Insight check or whatever.

Whatever check it is does not directly determine surprise! The check determines if you 'noticed the threat' BECAUSE you saw/heard/smelt a creature or saw/intuited suspect behaviour (as a result of a successful check).

The check itself does not directly determine surprise. The check determines what exactly you noticed that made you realise that there is a threat.

So if the DM used Perception, then a successful check does not directly mean you are not surprised. A successful check means that you perceived something, and that something made you realise that there is a threat. It also means that if you failed the check it means that you failed to gain the information that a successful check would have given you, and the lack of that information means that you failed to notice any threat.

The assertion that 'to not be surprised you have to notice a threat' is not true. What is true is that 'noticing a threat' does mean that you are not surprised, but there are also other ways to not be surprised!

Like....the Alert feat. Weapons of Warning. Any other thing that makes you immune to surprise means that you are not surprised, even though you did not 'notice a threat'.

None of these things work by making you auto-succeed in your attempt to notice the threat. They work by making you 'not surprised' whether you noticed the threat or not!


My point is, that to make sense of it (and this is just my opinion), I have to say that the alert character spots the enemy (despite hidden status and hide rules).

Going contrary to the RAW like this is not necessary in order to make sense of Alert.

[bid]

The problem is that I am saying these are not rules. If you are asserting that they are, then you would need to provide evidence. What I am saying is: look through all of the rules, and you will not find these rules.
The problem is that I am saying these are fluff. Are you under the belief that fluff is some sort of rule?

Show me the money. Where's the mechanical impact?

Convince me there's something worth discussing.

[Corran]

@Arial Black:
I am not arguing what is true or not per RAW. I am saying what should hold in order for that scenario to make sense. Lets discuss for example the senario you mentioned, about the assassin who aims to surprise the alert PC, using deception (ie his presence is known to the PC, but the PC does not know the assassin is hostile). To see if RAW is weird or not, let me take a very specific scenario. The assassin suceeds against the alert PC in every deception check he was required to roll. Lets even say that reaching for his weapon even required of the assassin to roll a sleight of hand check (or a stealth check, whatever) to avoid spoiling his surprise (although technically it is not necessary, as per RAW this is object interaction that the assassin can take during the surprise round -ie the 1st round of combat), and lets assume that once again, the assassin wins this contest (or suceeds against passive perception, or whatever). By all means, as far as RAW are concerned, the assassin is ablle to surprise any non-alert target. Then alert kicks in. Lets say the alert PC rolls a higher initiative than the assassin. Per RAW, he can act normally during his first turn. That presents us with two options. We can either rule that since the alert character does not realize that the assassin is a threat, he is not permitted to take actions related to combat (such as attack tthe assassin, or take the dodge action, or whatever; unless we say that the alert PC heard some voices in his head warning him of the danger, or whatever else of that sort), but I honestly dont think that alert was meant to be restricted in that way. The other option, is to rule that the moment the assassin will reach for his weapon or the moment the assassin will try to make a move on against our character (initiative is rolled), then alert kicks in in a way to override all previous rolled checks that gave the assassin his surprise round. It is like an uncalled (and not covered by RAW) check is resolved at that exact moment, which without rolling, resolves in favour of the alert PC. The alert PC notices at that point (trumping all of the assassin's previous successfull checks) that the assassin tries to make a move against him, and now on his turn during the surprise round (aka 1st round), he can take whatever action he wants. And now alert plays how I think it was intended, to give an unrestricted turn during the surprise round.

Of course, this interpretation of how alert plays our narratively (which by the way is what seems the most logical to me), falls on its back if we start talking about more complicated situations. Situations under which, it would be impossible (or at least really really weird) for the alert character to notice the assassin. Imo, the clasue that says ''as long as you are unconscious, you can never be surprised'', will always fail to hold narratively in edge case situatons, because lets face it, if we wanted for it to be more realistic, there ought to be some restrictons in there, as I am sure we can all think of some edge cases where it would be impossible for the alert character to spot a threat. Edit: And without spotting the threat, then we are facing a situation that IMO does not hold narratively (but that is just my opinion, and it's a metter of taste and of how much realism you intend for your camapgin/character).


@Burgerbeast:
Yes, I agree (but I really cannot imagine how we can keep the assassin hidden, keep alert as it is, and have it all make sense; I am curious to see with what you will come up. Btw, I know you said that initiative is not part of the problem -or I think it was you who said it-, but for some reason I keep thinking that making changes in the initiative system would probably be part of the solution.).

I read the PolarBear's suggestion about refluffling, and I was surprised to realize that I've seen it happen and I've even thought about it, but not in the context that it was a narrative problem caused by alert. I guess I always had trouble with this feat, and I just didn't know about it till ''now''.

Let me give you some examples

1) The first time I ever saw alert in play, was in my very first campaign in 5e. It was another player that selected it for their PC (a moon druid). Now, when we each described our characters in the first session, and gave a little of their backstory, the player playing the alert moon druid PC, detailed a background that essentially came down to this: he owed money to the mafia, and he had a bounty on his head. Cause of this, he never stayed in one place for too long, and he tried to always be on the move (hence, adventuring). He also even went into saying that his character was a litte too paranoid/anxious about getting caught, that's why he was always on edge, and every now and then he would look behind his back to see if he was being followed.
Now, I cannot say for sure if it was the backstory that made alert such a great pick, or if alert influenced the backstory (or even a bit of both). But thinking of it right now, I think that backstory and alert were not accidentally connected, and perhaps the player went into such details because the feat might be (even subconsciously) bothering him. But that's a wild assumption on my part.

2) In another camapaign (3 PCS), we were trying to be a ninja squad (everyone dex based, all with stealth proficiency, always trying to surprise enemies). The bad thing is that the DM also liked this idea for his monsters, and we would always end up being ninja'd, instead of doing it to others. When we reached 4th level, we all took alert. Everyone of us! Granted, we were playing with very loose rules (I dont even think the DM was rolling stealth for his monsters), and we did it as a ''gotcha'' against the DM. The DM would keep having enemies trying to ambush us, but we would all spot them before they could ambush us (but as I said, that was a very loose on the rules camapigns, and we were all ''ninjas''). So we would play it out with humor. ''Hey, you who are hiding in the bush, come out already, we know you are there'', and stuff like that.

3) Now, this is quite recent. I am making a character to join a campaign (in a week or so), and I will probably pick alert. I will be playing a diviner, with a familiar in the form of a canary, that I carry in a cage. Since divination magic, and since I wanted to give the canary familiar some sort of magic abilities, I refluffed alert as that the canary always starts to sing when there is an imminent danger (to justify my PC acting during the surprise round). Of course, this still leaves some narrative problems unresolved, but I think I will justify them, cause divination magic or whatever. Anyway, my point is, I was very happy thinking that I had found a very cool way to refluff an ability (ie the second benefit of the alert feat), but what I was failing to deduct at that time (and I do now, after reading this thread), is how alert bothered me and I even didn't know about it. Huh....

[Xetheral]

Initiative is a system designed to help turn the chaos of real-life combat into something resolvable with (relatively) simple mechanics. As such, by definition, initiative is an abstraction of the in-game reality. I think everyone here agrees on this point. What seems to have gone unacknowledged, however, is that agreeing that initiative is an abstraction doesn't necessarily mean that posters also agree as to the level of abstraction.

By my reading of the thread, DBZ and Malifice appear to favor interpreting initiative as entailing a very high degree of abstraction, where turn sequence in the initiative order does not correspond to the causal sequence of actions in the game world. BurgerBeast, by contrast, appears to favor a lesser degree of abstraction, where turn sequence in the initiative order does correspond to the causal sequence of actions in the game. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, and, I would argue, no reason to insist that one approach is fundamentally superior to the other.

From my standpoint, DBZ is correct to the extent that the problem the OP describes doesn't exist under DBZ's preferred level of abstraction. Under that approach, actions occurring later in the initiative order can cause actions occurring earlier in the initiative order. This means that the Alert character can use their top-of-the-round action to respond to the upcoming action, even though it was the (declaration of) the upcoming action that triggered rolling initiative in the first place. However, I don't agree with the rest of DBZ's argument against BurgerBeast: from my perspective, it's not that BurgerBeast fails to understand what "abstraction" means, it's instead that BurgerBeast is using a different (equally-valid) abstraction in the first place.

Personally, just like BurgerBeast, I prefer to interpret the initiative system such that turn-order maintains game-world causality, even though such an interpretation faces the problem discussed in this thread. I think such a lesser degree of abstraction between the game world and the mechanics is a boon both to my sense of immersion and to tactical decision-making, but it's purely a personal preference.

To avoid the problem discussed in this thread (and the related problem where only one PC wants to start combat during a social scene yet ends up last in the initiative order), I use a house-rule: if (and only if) combat is initiated unilaterally (meaning that were it not for the unilateral action, no characters would take hostile actions for at least 10-20 seconds of game time) then the character initiating combat automatically goes first in the initiative order. Balance-wise, my house-rule is a large buff to Assassin Rogues, but I'm totally fine with that. It is (arguably) also a buff to the Alert feat, since it avoids the problem discussed in this thread of potentially going before an unknown threat and having to take the Ready action, forfeiting one's bonus action and (informed) movement. The house-rule doesn't come up all that often--usually multiple characters want to begin combat more-or-less simultaneously, in which case I just use initiative normally.

[Tanarii]

It has been resolved, by Crawford himself, in one of the Dragon Talk podcasts.

Afaik, he isn't resolving the question of whether or not you come out from hiding to make an attack against something you can't see. If you do so is relevant to if something can make a Ready action attack against you or not before you attack. Or (in the context of this thread) if something beating you inititiave can be considered to be doing effectively the same thing.

If you think I'm implying you wouldn't get advantage on your attack, that's not my claim.

That's a different question from 'can you hide again?'

[DivisibleByZero]

Afaik, he isn't resolving the question of whether or not you come out from hiding to make an attack against something you can't see.

Do you mean something that you can't see while hidden? Or something that you can't see at all?

If the former, then yes, it's implicit. Because generally speaking, you can only hide under/behind full cover. And under/behind full cover, you can't see anything that you're hiding from.... because.... full cover. That you can attack from full cover (and the fact that he confirms the pop-up method) proves that the former is incorrect.

If the latter, then disadvantage.

So no matter which you were referring to, the answer is Yes, you can attack. And "coming out" to attack is different than "popping out" to attack. If you don't have to actually move out into the open, it's irrelevant which you meant.

[Malifice]

My point is, that to make sense of it (and this is just my opinion), I have to say that the alert character spots the enemy (despite hidden status and hide rules).

You dont have to do this at all.

Its possible to notice that you're in combat with a creature without spotting the enemy creature. You can narrate it so the PC is aware of the presence of the creature, but unaware of where it is (so it is still hidden) or even what it is.

'The creak of a crossbow being pulled back echoes from somewhere around you in the darkness. Roll initiative'

'Black fletched arrows rain down on the party from the forest and bushes from unknown locations all around you. Roll initiative.'

'You catch a shimmer of something invisible moving in the corner of your eye, before losing track of whatever it was. A dull growl comes from somewhere nearby. Roll initiative'

And so forth.

The Alert PC (who also wins initiative) still cant target anything (the monsters in the example above are all hidden). He can take the Dodge action, cast a spell, move, take the Search action (to locate the monsters), ready an action etc etc etc however.

It all boils down to a question of how you (the DM) narrate the action.

[Corran]

@ Malifice: So we are ''breaking'' the hide rules narratively to indicate that combat has started, but in-game we keep the hide rules intact so that we wont deviate from RAW. It's not a bad idea.

[Malifice]

@ Malifice: So we are ''breaking'' the hide rules narratively to indicate that combat has started, but in-game we keep the hide rules intact so that we wont deviate from RAW. It's not a bad idea.

Exactly. It's just up to the Dungeon Master to narrate to the players exactly why they are making a dexterity (initiative) check. What exactly is it that they are reacting to. Generally with enough information to also indicate to the players that they are now 'in combat'.

In all of the examples I posted above (even one featuring an invisible creature obtaining surprise) I was able to provide enough information to the players to indicate to them what was going on, and why I was requiring a dexterity (Initiative) check.

In each of the three examples the creature initiating combat was hidden and remained hidden.

[Tanarii]

That you can attack from full cover (and the fact that he confirms the pop-up method) proves that the former is incorrect. IMO if he makes the claim at any point that you can attack from behind full cover then I missed it, and it'd be questionable at that point if he has stopped interpreting RAW and has moved into Skip Williams like advice. It happens one way or the other, either before or simultaneously with attack. The question is if happens before the attack, or it's a simultaneous thing (essentially as the attack), not if it happens at all. Since the only other solution would be to shoot through the cover.


And "coming out" to attack is different than "popping out" to attack. If you don't have to actually move out into the open, it's irrelevant which you meant.I fail to see any meaningful difference. If you've come out or popped out, you're no longer fully behind cover.

Edit: uh, I just read this again, and I think I've been doing some major moving of the goalposts in this thread. /sigh.
If you reveal yourself first then attack, that would imply two things:
1) you probably wouldn't get advantage.
2) they probably wouldn't have specified you reveal yourself when you hit or miss.

I guess my real point is this: do you think a Ready action can attack a hidden-attacking character before they get their attack off? If so, then it probably should also make sense that inititiave represents effectively the same thing in the first round of combat for a character with Alert.

If not then it probably wouldn't make sense.

[Malifice]

IMO if he makes the claim at any point that you can attack from behind full cover then I missed it, and it'd be questionable at that point if he has stopped interpreting RAW and has moved into Skip Williams like advice. It happens one way or the other, either before or simultaneously with attack. The question is if happens before the attack, or it's a simultaneous thing (essentially as the attack), not if it happens at all. Since the only other solution would be to shoot through the cover.

I fail to see any meaningful difference. If you've come out or popped out, you're no longer fully behind cover.

How about we drop the semantic arguments and just go by the intent of the rules?

I am fairly confident that the errata recently released says when it comes to hiding it only matters if they can't see you 'clearly enough' (or words to that effect). Or in other words I could be hiding on top of a building and peering over the roof watching people on the street with my sniper rifle, and be hidden. Equally I can be hiding behind a waste bin, watching you through a crack, and as you walk past, leap out and attack you as you walk past, and be 'hidden' at the point I make the attack.

That people still have difficulty with this super wierds me out.

[Corran]

Malifice, about what you said to me earlier, how would you describe it? Would you have the auditory/visual effect be something that only the alert character perceives, or that something that everyone perceives and the alert character is the only quick enough to take a turn? Or do you think it would be something to be decided on a case-by-case basis?

[BurgerBeast]

The problem is that I am saying these are fluff. Are you under the belief that fluff is some sort of rule?

Show me the money. Where's the mechanical impact?

Convince me there's something worth discussing.

I'm not entirely sure how to answer this question without sounding a little rude, so forgive me because it's not my intent. Your suggestions are:

(1) Alert might make you auto-succeed your Stealth vs Perception contest.

Alert does not make you auto-succeed on your Stealth vs Perception checks. If if did, there would be a rule which says: Alert makes you auto-succeed on Stealth vs Perception contests. There is no such rule. The rule is that you must win the contest. If you wish to change this rule, then you are proposing a rule change (not a fluff change).

Success on Stealth vs Perception contests is determined by the rules, not the fluff.

Or (2) alert allows you to take your initial turn as an interrupt of the attacker's turn.

Alert does not allow you to take your initial turn as an interrupt to the attacker's turn. If it did, there would be a rule that says so. Turns proceed, uninterrupted, in initiative order, unless someone has an ability or takes an action which interrupts. Such an ability has rules attached to it, that describe how it works.

This is a question of rules. Not fluff.

If you are still going to tell me that I need to "show you the money," then I apologize in advance because I'm at a loss. These are rather clearly rules we are talking about.


@ Malifice: So we are ''breaking'' the hide rules narratively to indicate that combat has started, but in-game we keep the hide rules intact so that we wont deviate from RAW. It's not a bad idea.

This idea still does not sit right with me. The person who succeeded on the hide check is hidden. The player has "earned" the right to be unheard by succeeding on his check. It feels like a real d@#k move, in my opinion, to narrate the story as if this has no relevance in the story and the DM can just overturn it.

It's hard to think of an analogy, but suppose someone created a silver-tongued diplomat, and they nailed their check to persuade the king. Then the DM narrates as though the diplomat sounded like a bumbling idiot, but don't worry! Mechanically, the king is still persuaded. The end result is the same, after all.

No, it's really not the same. The silver-tongued diplomat has "earned" (in a sense) his well-crafted and exceptional speech. Similarly, the assassins have earned their well-executed ambush. I think it's a screw job to say, "yeah, I know you succeeded in your stealth, but actually one of you idiotically creaked your crossbow and blew the whole ambush, but don't worry, I'll still let you have the mechanical benefits of the surprise. Because this way, I can rationalize the alert feat in a way that makes sense to me."

So... my inability to rationalize some other character's feat is being used as license to rob you of your success. You might reply: "But I'm not robbing him of his success! He will still get the mechanical benefits of hiding!" But I still call that B.S.

Players do care about the narrative. They care about what is fair. You would be a real prick of a DM if someone rolled a critical hit and you narrated it as a clumsy mishap, and then told the character he shouldn't care, because it's a still a crit and the monster is still dead.

[Malifice]

Malifice, about what you said to me earlier, how would you describe it? Would you have the auditory/visual effect be something that only the alert character perceives, or that something that everyone perceives and the alert character is the only quick enough to take a turn? Or do you think it would be something to be decided on a case-by-case basis?

Presume a group of characters are attacked by a bunch of orc archers who are hidden in the forest around them. The orcs obtain surprise.

The DM simply announces that a hail of black orc arrows start falling amongst the PCs from areas unknown around them. He then asks them all to roll initiative.

You just declare to the players what is triggering the initiative check.

In the above example even if a character with the alert feat rolled a higher initiative then the orcs, the orcs are still hidden. He gets to take his action (most likely the Dodge or Search action), and then the orcs go next (the other characters are surprised) resolving their attacks with their bows.

It's really not hard.

[Malifice]

This idea still does not sit right with me. The person who succeeded on the hide check is hidden.

And he is (and remains) hidden.


The player has "earned" the right to be unheard by succeeding on his check. It feels like a real d@#k move, in my opinion, to narrate the story as if this has no relevance in the story and the DM can just overturn it.

You're not overturning anything; you are resolving the results of the players action. He has launched an arrow at an enemy revealing himself. Whether he does that from hiding or otherwise the game rules are that the enemy creatures get a dexterity check to react in time.

Give me an example that isn't a complete outlier and I will tell you how to resolve it according to the rules.

[BurgerBeast]

It's really not hard.

The contention has never been that it's hard.

It's wrong.

It doesn't make sense.

[Malifice]

The contention has never been that it's hard.

It's wrong.

It doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. To everyone else in this thread but you.

Give me an example and I'll show you how to narrate it.

Heck. I narrated an example featuring an invisible critter above.

[Corran]

This idea still does not sit right with me. The person who succeeded on the hide check is hidden. The player has "earned" the right to be unheard by succeeding on his check. It feels like a real d@#k move, in my opinion, to narrate the story as if this has no relevance in the story and the DM can just overturn it.

It's hard to think of an analogy, but suppose someone created a silver-tongued diplomat, and they nailed their check to persuade the king. Then the DM narrates as though the diplomat sounded like a bumbling idiot, but don't worry! Mechanically, the king is still persuaded. The end result is the same, after all.

No, it's really not the same. The silver-tongued diplomat has "earned" (in a sense) his well-crafted and exceptional speech. Similarly, the assassins have earned their well-executed ambush. I think it's a screw job to say, "yeah, I know you succeeded in your stealth, but actually one of you idiotically creaked your crossbow and blew the whole ambush, but don't worry, I'll still let you have the mechanical benefits of the surprise. Because this way, I can rationalize the alert feat in a way that makes sense to me."

So... my inability to rationalize some other character's feat is being used as license to rob you of your success. You might reply: "But I'm not robbing him of his success! He will still get the mechanical benefits of hiding!" But I still call that B.S.

Players do care about the narrative. They care about what is fair. You would be a real prick of a DM if someone rolled a critical hit and you narrated it as a clumsy mishap, and then told the character he shouldn't care, because it's a still a crit and the monster is still dead.
Ok, a question first. Would you agree that the problem comes up when the alert character wins initiative? Because if the alert character goes after the assassin, then I think it's easy to translate alert into quick ''reflexes'', right?
(Hmm, the initiative bonus of alert really does not help here, both that it creates for the problematic situation, and also since the alert PC will probably want to go after the assassin in most cases, if we are sticking with RAW.)

I dont mind that much if the narration has the assassin make a bit of noise (despite the successful stealth attempt) in order for the alert character to take notice and know that a threat is around (and mechanically the assassin keeps his stealth benefit). It's not that the assassin's effort translates to bad, just bad enough for the alert character to take some notice. What I do mind though, is repetition. If this is going to be the case for every assassin, or for every time the same assassin (who always somehow manages to survive and comes back and) tries to surprise the alert PC, then it starts to look really silly. Meaning, that if it happens once, it doesn't break my immersion that much (the NPC assassin certainly wont complain, the players get to enjoy the benefit). But if it keeps happening every single time, then yeah, problem (both for me, as I will have to figure out how to narrate it in a different way every time, and eventually the players will start to notice too).

It also strikes me really weird how it is not tied at all to perception. You could have an alert near-deaf and half-blind character, that always manages to take notice of a nearby threat, while at the same time no one of the rest of the party does.

I agree that there are problems, but if we are not talking about any kind of rework of the rules or houseruling, I think Malifice's suggestion is the best we have (that and refluffing). I think I identify the problem same as you, perhaps not to the same extent (as I woundn't mind it if it doesn't happen a lot/often). Very interested to hear more suggestions on how to tackle this.

[BurgerBeast]

It does make sense. To everyone else in this thread but you.

Give me an example and I'll show you how to narrate it.

Heck. I narrated an example featuring an invisible critter above.

No, it does not make sense. Perhaps there's a problem of semantics, here. Let me try to clarify. The method of resolution makes sense, by which I mean I understand it. Your logic makes sense, by which I mean I understand why you are suggesting this solution and how it "solves" the problem. So, in both of those senses, what you are saying makes sense.

What I mean to say is that the solution does not make sense within the established narrative and mechanical (taken in combination) contexts of the game. It is inconsistent.

Every narrative example you have given thus far fails in this same way. I am totally willing to accept your proposed solution as a necessary compromise. What I can't accept is representing it as though there is no problem at all. "It's not a big deal and we can make it work well enough by X" is not the same as "The rules are perfectly fine and you are imagining a problem where there is none."

Corran explains it more forcefully when he points out that (and I will take liberties to exaggerate it even further) every time a level 20 assassin rolls 32 on his Stealth check, he will f@#k up his attempt in such a way that the level 1 paladin he's trying to shoot from a distance of 500 feet will always see or hear something that he (the assassin) did. Keeping in mind that I am not complaining that the assassin will lose the benefits of surprise (alert ensures this will always happen) but that the assassin will be detected on the basis of his own actions when we know (based on the result of 32) that this is not what happened.

I suppose you could summarize my problem as: Alert should work because it provides awesomeness to the character who is alert. The reason that Alert is awesome should not be because it takes narrative license and re-writes other characters' successes so that they become failures. (By "should" I don't mean according to my subjective my preference; I mean based on how the feat is described.)

Even your invisible example fails. If the invisible character succeeds on his Stealth check to hide, then he does not get noticed. Not even momentarily. So, even though your narration might work very well in a situation where some PCs win the Perception contest and some do not; or in a situation (with DMs who use degrees of failure) where the Stealth check fails by a narrow margin... this method does not make sense as a description of the particular situation we are talking about.

TL;DR: Alert should work because it provides awesomeness to the character who is alert. The reason that Alert is awesome should not be because it takes narrative license and re-writes other characters' successes so that they become failures.

[DivisibleByZero]

TL;DR: Alert should work because it provides awesomeness to the character who is alert. The reason that Alert is awesome should not be because it takes narrative license and re-writes other characters' successes so that they become failures.

What?!?!?
One specific rule granted by a feat superseding a general rule doesn't make anyone a failure.

Resistance exists. Werewolves have it as a general feature. Are you going to complain about your werewolves being failures when they encounter someone with a magical weapon which bypasses their feature?
That's basically the same argument.
One thing is general. One is a specific thing which bypasses the general thing.
Neither of those things are failures. Both of those things are working as intended.

[bid]

This is a question of rules. Not fluff.
There you go looking for a rule rather than understanding the resulting mechanic. How is the behavior any different if we make it explicit?

Where's the mechanical impact?

[Malifice]

If the invisible character succeeds on his Stealth check to hide, then he does not get noticed.

Source? I don't see anything in being hidden that strict object permanence from nearby observers or means they are unaware of your general presence. Sometimes being hidden reflects the fact that they are unaware you are even around. Sometimes when hidden they know you are around but don't know exactly where you are.

A character or creature can be hidden but you still are aware that they are around. You could be aware of the presence of a hidden creature but simply not know where it is.

In every example you have cited we know that the creature is making an attack. We also know that attacking reveals your position regardless of whether it is a hit or a miss. The hidden creature has declared some kind of attack or spell the triggers the combat sequence. The combat sequence is started by a dexterity check by combatants to determine their reaction speed. Ergo the game assumes that the hidden creature has done something that will reveal their presence (ie make an attack) but not necessarily reveal their location.

The attack is declared. In the instant of the attack itself initiative is declared to see if opposing forces can react in time to the attack. Presuming the creature making the attack was hidden it is impossible for them to do so regardless of the initiative result as the hidden creature goes first. Unless of course one of them has some kind of special ability like the alert feat, which indicates a preternatural awareness and ability to react in time even to a hidden foe when you are surprised.

Initiative and the turn based structure of the combat sequence is a conceit of the game. It's much akin to 'hit points'. We know that a creature that is 'hit' on an attack roll and suffers damage, may not in fact actually be struck by the blow. He might dodge it at the last second, or it may glanced off his shield or armour luckily (and his hit points get reduced).

You are sequencing mechanics when really they are designed to happen more or less simultaneously, and all as part of the resolution of the same action.

With the correct narration by the Dungeon Master this is never an issue. The problem here arises because of how you are viewing sequencing; if you stop doing that and instead simply narrate the action better, you won't have any problems.

[tieren]

Hes looking for a way to surprise a character that has an ability that says he can't be surprised.

The assassin can do all he wants, hide in darkness take extra super precautions against making sounds, even casting silence from a scroll or something, but he will never get to surprise a PC with alert, its what alert does.

That may seem really frustrating and counter intuitive, I get it. But it doesn't really pose a game problem.

The benefit of setting an ambush is (primarily) getting surprise. You can't ambush an alert PC get over it. Ambusher still gets the benefit against everyone else.

[Arial Black]

@Arial Black:
I am not arguing what is true or not per RAW. I am saying what should hold in order for that scenario to make sense. Lets discuss for example the senario you mentioned, about the assassin who aims to surprise the alert PC, using deception (ie his presence is known to the PC, but the PC does not know the assassin is hostile). To see if RAW is weird or not, let me take a very specific scenario. The assassin suceeds against the alert PC in every deception check he was required to roll. Lets even say that reaching for his weapon even required of the assassin to roll a sleight of hand check (or a stealth check, whatever) to avoid spoiling his surprise (although technically it is not necessary, as per RAW this is object interaction that the assassin can take during the surprise round -ie the 1st round of combat), and lets assume that once again, the assassin wins this contest (or suceeds against passive perception, or whatever). By all means, as far as RAW are concerned, the assassin is ablle to surprise any non-alert target. Then alert kicks in. Lets say the alert PC rolls a higher initiative than the assassin. Per RAW, he can act normally during his first turn. That presents us with two options. We can either rule that since the alert character does not realize that the assassin is a threat, he is not permitted to take actions related to combat (such as attack tthe assassin, or take the dodge action, or whatever; unless we say that the alert PC heard some voices in his head warning him of the danger, or whatever else of that sort), but I honestly dont think that alert was meant to be restricted in that way.

He can take combat-related actions, since he knows combat is starting.

But he cannot have the information that would be gained from a successful Perception check if he failed that check!

Just imagine yourself in that situation. You simply do not know any of this stuff about the super-skilled assassin; all your checks to notice his imminent badness failed. But there are things you do know! You know who's in the room that you can see, you already have various degrees of trust/mistrust for each person, and your Spider-Sense just alerted you to imminent combat. What do you do? Stand there like an idiot with your thumb up your arse, just like all the poor saps who don't have Alert? Or, y'know, do something?

It's up to you to come up with the best idea about how to react. Do you Dodge? Move to cover (from which direction)? You might want to Ready an action to grapple a creature that draws a weapon. You might want to cast a spell.

Just like any other time in the game, you make decisions for your PC based on what the PC knows. Alert doesn't, and doesn't need, to change this.

Alert does what it says on the tin. It doesn't allow you to treat failed Perception checks as if they had succeeded.


The other option, is to rule that the moment the assassin will reach for his weapon or the moment the assassin will try to make a move on against our character (initiative is rolled), then alert kicks in in a way to override all previous rolled checks that gave the assassin his surprise round. It is like an uncalled (and not covered by RAW) check is resolved at that exact moment, which without rolling, resolves in favour of the alert PC. The alert PC notices at that point (trumping all of the assassin's previous successfull checks) that the assassin tries to make a move against him, and now on his turn during the surprise round (aka 1st round), he can take whatever action he wants. And now alert plays how I think it was intended, to give an unrestricted turn during the surprise round.

And this is what BurgerBeast has rightly been complaining about. A simple lack of imagination about making sense of Alert leading to the knee-jerk reaction of riding a coach and horses through the very basis of the game mechanics, where successful checks gain something that failed checks do not. Handwaving failed checks into successful checks, with no rules support, unnecessarily, instead of letting the rules steer the narrative in the way that the rules are intended to do, through failed or passed ability checks.

[Coffee_Dragon]

He can take combat-related actions, since he knows combat is starting.

I dispute that he (the character) knows "combat is starting". Tactical time and initiative are abstractions that do not exist in the game world.

[BurgerBeast]

What?!?!?
One specific rule granted by a feat superseding a general rule doesn't make anyone a failure.

Resistance exists. Werewolves have it as a general feature. Are you going to complain about your werewolves being failures when they encounter someone with a magical weapon which bypasses their feature?
That's basically the same argument.
One thing is general. One is a specific thing which bypasses the general thing.
Neither of those things are failures. Both of those things are working as intended.

It's not the same argument at all. I agree with you on these examples.

Magical weapons override werewolf immunities. Simple.

Alert overrides surprise. Simple.

We're in total agreement. But that's not the problem.

The problem is: Alert does not let you automatically win Perception versus Stealth checks.

There's not necessarily a relevant analogy to this, except maybe: Magical weapons let you win Perception vs Stealth checks against werewolves. I think we can both agree that this is an invention.


There you go looking for a rule rather than understanding the resulting mechanic. How is the behavior any different if we make it explicit?

Where's the mechanical impact?

I have a suspicion that you think you've said something profound, here. As far as I call, you have not. Frankly, I'm a little tired of this game you're trying to play. If you want to say something about this, go ahead.


Source? I don't see anything in being hidden that strict object permanence from nearby observers or means they are unaware of your general presence. Sometimes being hidden reflects the fact that they are unaware you are even around. Sometimes when hidden they know you are around but don't know exactly where you are.

A character or creature can be hidden but you still are aware that they are around. You could be aware of the presence of a hidden creature but simply not know where it is.

I agree that someone can be hidden and you can know they are around. The problem is that this possibility is not what is being represented. We are talking about a case of an assassin who has successfully hidden. He is not seen or heard by the character who failed that contest.


In every example you have cited we know that the creature is making an attack. We also know that attacking reveals your position regardless of whether it is a hit or a miss. The hidden creature has declared some kind of attack or spell the triggers the combat sequence. The combat sequence is started by a dexterity check by combatants to determine their reaction speed. Ergo the game assumes that the hidden creature has done something that will reveal their presence (ie make an attack) but not necessarily reveal their location.

The attack is declared. In the instant of the attack itself initiative is declared to see if opposing forces can react in time to the attack. Presuming the creature making the attack was hidden it is impossible for them to do so regardless of the initiative result as the hidden creature goes first. Unless of course one of them has some kind of special ability like the alert feat, which indicates a preternatural awareness and ability to react in time even to a hidden foe when you are surprised.

Okay, so this points to a difference in how we see things. I do not think that the moment of the attack must correspond to the moment that initiative occurs in-game. The DM determines when the initiative happens in the narrative. He can choose this moment intelligently so as to make determinations about how things unfold. In my view, when someone declares the intent to attack, we use the dice to inform the narrative. First, we use the dice to determine if anyone is surprised, and then we roll to determine an initiative order. That provides a basis from which to create the narrative.


You are sequencing mechanics when really they are designed to happen more or less simultaneously, and all as part of the resolution of the same action.

It is true that a single round is comprised of individual turns that happen at roughly the same time. But it is also true that turns happen in order. There is order built into the mechanics. We can disagree over how exact or rigid that order is, but the order is integral to the mechanic. As I have pointed out before, the most obvious example of this happens when a character is reduced to zero hit points before his turn arrives. We do not let him take his turn and then die. That's because his death happened before his turn... not at the same time as his turn. And this is not a special case... it happens with movement and spell placement, it happens with concentration effects, etc.


With the correct narration by the Dungeon Master this is never an issue. The problem here arises because of how you are viewing sequencing; if you stop doing that and instead simply narrate the action better, you won't have any problems.

Yes, but what I am arguing is your view of sequencing is the problematic one. By my view, the mechanics work first. Then we create the narrative to explain it. By your view, you narrate, and then apply mechanics, which leads to rules conflicts. You then hand-wave those rules conflicts using narrative patch-jobs that are contrived and violate the rules.


Hes looking for a way to surprise a character that has an ability that says he can't be surprised.

The assassin can do all he wants, hide in darkness take extra super precautions against making sounds, even casting silence from a scroll or something, but he will never get to surprise a PC with alert, its what alert does.

That may seem really frustrating and counter intuitive, I get it. But it doesn't really pose a game problem.

The benefit of setting an ambush is (primarily) getting surprise. You can't ambush an alert PC get over it. Ambusher still gets the benefit against everyone else.

Well, this is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Congratulations on taking out that straw man. You must be proud.

[bid]

I have a suspicion that you think you've said something profound, here. As far as I call, you have not. Frankly, I'm a little tired of this game you're trying to play. If you want to say something about this, go ahead.
Alert works AS IF you succeeded your perception check at the last second. The actual mechanical result is the same AS IF it was spelled out in RAW. That is fluff to explain away your confusion.

Yet you keep on trying to find RAW bits to resolve everything as if you prefered the Napoleon Code over the Common Law. This ain't 3.5, not everything has to be spelled out.

[DivisibleByZero]

The problem is: Alert does not let you automatically win Perception versus Stealth checks.

At no point did I ever claim that it does.
Alert offers a specific rule which supersedes the general rules about surprise and advantage for unseen attackers.
That's all.

[Corran]

And this is what BurgerBeast has rightly been complaining about. A simple lack of imagination about making sense of Alert leading to the knee-jerk reaction of riding a coach and horses through the very basis of the game mechanics, where successful checks gain something that failed checks do not. Handwaving failed checks into successful checks, with no rules support, unnecessarily, instead of letting the rules steer the narrative in the way that the rules are intended to do, through failed or passed ability checks.
I agree. It hadn't occured to me at the moment I was typing this, that you can leave the rules intact in-game, while trying (with that being the main point of this debate) to ''break'' or at least loosen them enough narrative-wise, in an effort to have the scenario make sense. Didnt think of it at the time I was writing this reply (and thus why I was arguing that the fact that ''you have to spot a threat'' has mechanical impact, which is simply falsem and I think this is not debated by anyone). Took me some time to figure this out (post 184).
(Edit: Surprise via stealth)


He can take combat-related actions, since he knows combat is starting.

But he cannot have the information that would be gained from a successful Perception check if he failed that check!

Just imagine yourself in that situation. You simply do not know any of this stuff about the super-skilled assassin; all your checks to notice his imminent badness failed. But there are things you do know! You know who's in the room that you can see, you already have various degrees of trust/mistrust for each person, and your Spider-Sense just alerted you to imminent combat. What do you do? Stand there like an idiot with your thumb up your arse, just like all the poor saps who don't have Alert? Or, y'know, do something?

It's up to you to come up with the best idea about how to react. Do you Dodge? Move to cover (from which direction)? You might want to Ready an action to grapple a creature that draws a weapon. You might want to cast a spell.

Just like any other time in the game, you make decisions for your PC based on what the PC knows. Alert doesn't, and doesn't need, to change this.

Alert does what it says on the tin. It doesn't allow you to treat failed Perception checks as if they had succeeded.
But how are you taking an action before you even know that the assassin will make a move against you (since he has succeeded on every check thus far) without ignoring the rules? I understand that a lot of people say that the order of initiative does not have to determine the order in which the event plays out. But if you just kill the assassin with your first blow, without him playing his turn, and thus without knowing that he was going to attack you, then you are presented with a situation that does not make any sense, unless your character knew he would be attacked. But how would he knew? Every check the assassin made succeeded. This is a case where alert has to go against the rules, if we are to make some sense out of it.
(Edit: Surprise via deception)

[Malifice]

I dispute that he (the character) knows "combat is starting". Tactical time and initiative are abstractions that do not exist in the game world.

A Dexterity check is an abstraction, but it represents in game action. It represents the PCs speed at reacting to something. Combat starts with a Dexterity (initiative) check. This is to test the reaction speed (to a stimuli) from all combatants.

Every combat should start with the DM giving the players information as to WHY they are required to make the Dexterity check (like with virtually every single check the DM calls for).

For example; a group of PCs are ambushed by an Invisible Stalker. The Stalker is hidden when the DM determines combat starts:

'The shimmer of something moves in the periphery of your vision, but you can see nothing. Leaves swirl around and you can feel the presence of something nearby. A low growl can be heard echoing all around. You're all surprised. Roll initiative'

The DM has given the players enough information to know WHY they are required to make a Dexterity (initiative) check, and to know that combat has started. They know something hostile is nearby, but not what, or where. The Dexterity check sequences their actions to this stimuli AND it also determines if any of them can react in time to what the creature is doing.

Barring one of the PCs being immune to surprise, the Stalker will go first (possibly getting 2 turns in a row if it rolls well enough on initiative) seeing as the PCs are surprised and cant take actions or move on round one. Should one of the PCs be immune to surprise (and defeat the Stalkers initiative check), he still cant attack the Stalker (it's hidden) so he's pretty limited (the Search action, the Dodge action, move into cover and hope the Stalker isnt near or in that cover, cast a spell, draw a sword and take the Ready action etc).

The DM is the one responsible for the lions share of narration, and providing enough information to the players so they can interact with the world around them.

Simply determining an invisible creature is nearby and will attack the PCs, and calling for an initiative check with no information provided to the players as to WHY is bad DMing.

[Malifice]

By my view, the mechanics work first.

And that's whats causing you this confusion. If you stop doing this, you'll be fine.

Declaring an attack (or hostile action), rolling initiative, and resolving the attack are all parts of the resolution of the same declared action ('I'll shoot the guard with my bow'). Put square brackets around these three separate actions if you must. You're looking at them in isolation as mechanical absolutes, when the reality is they are fuzzy abstractions that blend into each other, and NOT mechanical absolutes that exist in some kind of state of isolation from each other.

I run AL games, and I've never had an issue with this, despite PCs with the Alert feat from time to time, and more than my fair share of assassin PCs (although I do tire of explaining to Players how surprise works in that if a monster is aware of ANY threat at the start of combat they are not surprised; but thats a separate issue).

[BurgerBeast]

Alert works AS IF you succeeded your perception check at the last second. The actual mechanical result is the same AS IF it was spelled out in RAW. That is fluff to explain away your confusion.

1. That's not fluff. (If you think that constitutes fluff then perhaps we need to start here.)
2. It's false.
3. The rules of 5e are actually incredibly good at what they do, and in the case of the alert feat, I am confident that the designers wrote it as intended.

So, apologies, but you're the one who is making a mistake, here. You are offering an interpretation of the rules that is entirely yours. It's unnecessary, and in this case it happens to be false.


Yet you keep on trying to find RAW bits to resolve everything as if you prefered the Napoleon Code over the Common Law. This ain't 3.5, not everything has to be spelled out.

You're misunderstanding my position. I am not looking for new RAW. I am pointing out that some others are applying the current RAW incorrectly. Evidently, you are one of them.


At no point did I ever claim that it does.
Alert offers a specific rule which supersedes the general rules about surprise and advantage for unseen attackers.
That's all.

Let's not play this game.

This is a response written by you, responding to me, responding to you, responding to me when I was not even talking to you. I was responding Malifice, who was giving examples that do exactly what I said. They treat the feat Alert as though it allows the character to auto-succeed on Perception vs Stealth checks.

If you are going to incessantly do this, without fact-checking, particularly in the context of your lengthy string of failing to understand my position, then you're wasting my time, which happens to be why I stopped responding to you in the first place. The issue is a real one. If you want to claim it is not, then start by explaining the issue, so that I can believe you understand it. Thus far, all you have done is fail to adequately explain it, yet you feel you have license to criticize that which you evidently do not understand. Conveniently, Corran has done the legwork for you, in the previous post.


But how are you taking an action before you even know that the assassin will make a move against you (since he has succeeded on every check thus far) without ignoring the rules? I understand that a lot of people say that the order of initiative does not have to determine the order in which the event plays out. But if you just kill the assassin with your first blow, without him playing his turn, and thus without knowing that he was going to attack you, then you are presented with a situation that does not make any sense, unless your character knew he would be attacked. But how would he knew? Every check the assassin made succeeded. This is a case where alert has to go against the rules, if we are to make some sense out of it.

Ideally, we will find a narrative solution that matches the RAW in this particular case. I'm still hopeful. The best we've seen is:

1. An indirect cue. Examples:
(a) A group of birds launch into the air some distance away, because they detected the assassin.
(b) something internal in the character's brain, such as "Everything is too quiet..." or just the recognition that "this is a perfect ambush site... it's... DING DING DING!"

2. Flavour-of-the-day. Enforce the mechanics. On the alert character's turn, simply tell him "Something's up. You know it." And then reassure the player as he raises concerns. Example:

DM: "You're certain you're being attacked, right now."
Player: "What do you mean? How do I know?"
DM: "You are absolutely certain. In terms of the metagame, it's because you have the alert feat and you won initiative... so however your character knows it, he knows it for certain..."

I personally hope we can do better, but I'm not entirely sure that it's possible.

[Malifice]

But how are you taking an action before you even know that the assassin will make a move against you (since he has succeeded on every check thus far) without ignoring the rules? I understand that a lot of people say that the order of initiative does not have to determine the order in which the event plays out. But if you just kill the assassin with your first blow, without him playing his turn, and thus without knowing that he was going to attack you, then you are presented with a situation that does not make any sense, unless your character knew he would be attacked. But how would he knew? Every check the assassin made succeeded. This is a case where alert has to go against the rules, if we are to make some sense out of it.

You're forgetting that the actions of a combat round are simultaneous. Youre not killing him before he attacks you; you're killing him during (or even possibly just after, with his deadly arrow missing).

Presume an Orc (initiative 5) and a Wood Elf Wizard (initiative 15) are adjacent to each other. The Wizard goes first and moves away 40' (now 40' away) provoking an attack of opportunity (a miss) and then casts mage armor. Then his turn ends. The Orc on its turn moves 30', uses its Orc aggressive trait to move another 10' and swings with its sword, hitting the Wizard (who uses shield as a reaction).

To us (at the table) it looks like the Orc is standing there stationary while the Wizard moves away. Then the Orc then follows up.

To an observer of the actual combat, the Orc and Wizard are moving at the same time, the Wizard chanting as he runs to raise a spell of protection around himself, and the Orc rapidly gaining ground, and swinging its axe at the Wizard as it moves, who just manages to turn in time and cast a spell deflecting an attack that would have otherwise hit him.

At no stage are they 40' apart in the game world.

Once you get on board with that being the truth (turn based combat is an abstraction of in game events) you'll be fine.

[DivisibleByZero]

Let's not play this game.

This is a response written by you, responding to me, responding to you, responding to me when I was not even talking to you. I was responding Malifice, who was giving examples that do exactly what I said. They treat the feat Alert as though it allows the character to auto-succeed on Perception vs Stealth checks.

If you are going to incessantly do this, without fact-checking, particularly in the context of your lengthy string of failing to understand my position, then you're wasting my time, which happens to be why I stopped responding to you in the first place. The issue is a real one. If you want to claim it is not, then start by explaining the issue, so that I can believe you understand it. Thus far, all you have done is fail to adequately explain it, yet you feel you have license to criticize that which you evidently do not understand. Conveniently, Corran has done the legwork for you, in the previous post.

Are you kidding me right now?
Dude, everyone here gets it except you, and everyone has explained it to you in their own way. You're the one that still can't grasp it, no matter how hard or in how many ways we try to explain it to you.
You can't handle the abstraction. You just can't.
But you continue to insist that you do get it, and that there is a problem that literally no one else sees.
The problem isn't with the mechanics. The problem is with your failure to see the forest because you're too focused on each individual tree getting to be the special snowflake that you believe it to be.
And then you come at me with garbage like that post?

[BurgerBeast]

And that's whats causing you this confusion. If you stop doing this, you'll be fine.

I'm not confused.


Declaring an attack (or hostile action), rolling initiative, and resolving the attack are all parts of the resolution of the same declared action ('I'll shoot the guard with my bow').

No, they are not. This is your mistake. You are wrong about this, in more than one place. If you care, we can get into this, and I will show you.


Put square brackets around these three separate actions if you must. You're looking at them in isolation as mechanical absolutes, when the reality is they are fuzzy abstractions that blend into each other, and NOT mechanical absolutes that exist in some kind of state of isolation from each other.

They are intended to be treated in isolation as mechanical absolutes (excluding the first action, which is not mechanical at all). That's why they were designed as independent mechanics. So, those square brackets you're referring to are there. I did not put them there - I'm simply pointing at them.

Once you are able to do this (treat them in isolation as mechanical absolutes), you can then treat them in combination as mechanical absolutes. This is not only how they are intended to be used, but it works amazingly well. The authors of 5e, despite the constant criticism, did a remarkable job.


I run AL games, and I've never had an issue with this, despite PCs with the Alert feat from time to time, and more than my fair share of assassin PCs...

We know why you have never had an issue with this. You've told us. You invent a narrative first, and then use the invented narrative to justify breaking the rules. The fact that you've done it in AL, regardless of how many times, doesn't give you added credibility.


...(although I do tire of explaining to Players how surprise works in that if a monster is aware of ANY threat at the start of combat they are not surprised; but thats a separate issue).

Well, you're hanging yourself, here. Because evidently you haven't thoroughly explained this to yourself, either.

You have offered us countless narrative explanations for why the alert PC might be made aware of the assassins... each of these explanations contains a threat... which meets the standard of being any threat... at the start of combat... which means that you are narrating a situation in which, RAW, none of the PCs can be surprised.

This illustrates that you are not consistently mapping the narrative to the RAW. I would not go so far as to say that this may be why you have to keep explaining it to the players, but it very well may be.

[coolAlias]

You have offered us countless narrative explanations for why the alert PC might be made aware of the assassins... each of these explanations contains a threat... which meets the standard of being any threat... at the start of combat... which means that you are narrating a situation in which, RAW, none of the PCs can be surprised.

This illustrates that you are not consistently mapping the narrative to the RAW. I would not go so far as to say that this may be why you have to keep explaining it to the players, but it very well may be.
Clarification of bolded sentence: any PC which notices any threat is not surprised, but any PC which does not notice a threat is surprised. One PC noticing a threat does not mean that all the other PCs become immune to surprise. Same goes for monsters.

Carry on.

[Malifice]

I'm not confused.

Yes, you are. You just dont see it.


No, they are not. This is your mistake. You are wrong about this, in more than one place. If you care, we can get into this, and I will show you.

**** me. Why have I been bothering?

You're not here to listen, just to obstinately harp on believing you're right despite all evidence to the contrary and dozens of people trying to help you understand why the RAW is what it is.


They are intended to be treated in isolation as mechanical absolutes (excluding the first action, which is not mechanical at all).

No they are not. Like how the [attack roll] and the [damage roll] represent the same action The game [I]mechanically separates the two, buth in the game world they are not seperate things. Consider other games like Rolemaster where the hit roll also determines damage so it lacks this mechanical distinction.

You shooting someone is one action that is broken down into several mechanical steps. But they all represent the resolution of the one action (you shooting someone in the face, and their ability to react to to it in time, or be surprised by that attack).


Once you are able to do this (treat them in isolation as mechanical absolutes),

Why would I want to do that? Its a ridiculous position to take (breaking the game down into discreet mechanical absolutes independent of each other). Its absurd. Take 'combat' which is a string of interconnected ability checks and attack rolls that all tie into each other. They are not mechanical absolutes, but simply part of the whole of the resolution of a fight.

When your PC declares a hostile act (hidden or not) the game has a method for resolution. Your target (and nearby potential combatants) and yourself make opposed Dexterity checks to determine if they can react in time to that hostile act. If you're hidden when you make the attack, then you're making it before they can act barring them having the ability to 'not be surprised' (which to the best of my knowledge is an ability no monster has).

The DM narrates the action. He narrates what it is that triggered (or why he called for) the Dexterity check. As he does (or should be doing) with pretty much every other check he calls for.

The fact that we are 10 pages into this thread and you seem to be the only person who has an issue with this rule and cant see it for what it is is super weird.

Ill ask you again. Please provide me with one (non outlier) of a situation where narration doesnt save the day?

[BurgerBeast]

Clarification of bolded sentence: any PC which notices any threat is not surprised, but any PC which does not notice a threat is surprised. One PC noticing a threat does not mean that all the other PCs become immune to surprise. Same goes for monsters.

Carry on.

You have missed my point. I said:


You have offered us countless narrative explanations for why the alert PC might be made aware of the assassins... each of these explanations contains a threat... which meets the standard of being any threat... at the start of combat... which means that you are narrating a situation in which, RAW, none of the PCs can be surprised.

The narrative explanations that Malifice has offered (you can go back and read them) are all narrated in a way that they match the situation in which no one is surprised. The mechanical situation is one in which everyone must be surprised, except for the alert character. So, we are looking for a narrative situation that can explain why everyone is surprised except the alert character. Further, it should also account for the fact that the alert character failed his Perception vs Stealth contest.

Malifice has offered some explanations, but they do not meet this standard. Instead, he is offering narrative explanations which can only match the mechanical conditions in which no one is surprised.

At the very least, they describe situations in which the alert character won the Perception versus Stealth contest, which he (the alert character) explicitly did not.

[Malifice]

The narrative explanations that Malifice has offered (you can go back and read them) are all narrated in a way that they match the situation in which no one is surprised.

Bull****.

I'm describing what it is that catches the PCs by surprise. Read again:

Arrows rain down all around you from the forest above. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

A shimmer of an invisible creature, and a growl comes from somewhere around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

The click of a crossbow being pulled back echoes from the darkness around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

A creature lunges at you in the fog. You're surprised, roll initiative.

THESE ARE SIMPLY THE DM NARRATING THE SHIFT FROM NARRATIVE TO COMBAT SEQUENCE. In each case, the DM is narrating the action to show that the PCs are surprised by a hidden creature.

How on earth are you not seeing this. Why are you arguing this still. Its insane.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, you are. You just dont see it.

**** me. Why have I been bothering?

You're not here to listen, just to obstinately harp on believing you're right despite all evidence to the contrary and dozens of people trying to help you understand why the RAW is what it is.

I would ask you to go back and re-read the posts. You started in with comments such as "you're confused" and "you're wrong." It's no surprise to anyone reading this thread that we each think the other is confused. If you can't take it, don't dish it. I suggest you stick to the points and avoid the ad hominem.


No they are not. Like how the [attack roll] and the [damage roll] represent the same action The game [I]mechanically separates the two, buth in the game world they are not seperate things. Consider other games like Rolemaster where the hit roll also determines damage so it lacks this mechanical distinction.

You are conflating a lot of things in these sort of explanations. Rather than get into a bunch of nit-picking, I'll lay it out for you as I see it:

The attack roll represents the attempt to hit an enemy. This maps onto the attack action, and it also maps onto whether it is a hit or a miss.

The damage roll is a different thing. It represents the extent of the damage. These two concepts are connected, but they are distinct. It is useful to distinguish them for a variety of reasons, but one example is this:

How does one reconcile the event of a critical hit that delivers less damage than a standard hit? It's a bizarre situation, but it happens pretty frequently. If you jump the gun and narrate every critical hit as a "mighty blow that devastates your enemy," and then it turns out it does 4 damage, you have a hard time explaining how an attack roll that was equal to the opponent's AC delivered 8 damage... unless you actually wait until you have the mechanical information and then use it to inform the narrative.

I am saying that if you use the mechanics of the game to paint a complete picture of what is happening before you narrate it, you will narrate more accurately and improve the player experience. This will improve your game. The more the mechanics and the narrative jive, the more empowered the players become in making sense of the narrative intuitively.


You shooting someone is one action that is broken down into several mechanical steps. But they all represent the resolution of the one action (you shooting someone in the face, and their ability to react to to it in time, or be surprised by that attack).

Same thing. Why isn't it one roll? Answer: because the rolls represent different things.

But, here, you've completely avoided the real problem with your initial claim: that initiative is a part of the action. It is not. Initiative is not a part of any action. Initiative is a tool used to determine the order of actions. It's totally exclusive of the action itself.


Why would I want to do that? Its a ridiculous position to take (breaking the game down into discreet mechanical absolutes independent of each other). Its absurd. Take 'combat' which is a string of interconnected ability checks and attack rolls that all tie into each other. They are not mechanical absolutes, but simply part of the whole of the resolution of a fight.

I'm not sure that you understand your own argument. If you don't want to break it down into discreet elements, then why do you do it? You could resolve the entire combat in one roll. But you don't. You break the combat into rounds. You break each round into turns. You break each turn into moves, actions, and bonus actions. You break each attack into the attack roll and damage roll. So you do it. I can't comment on whether you want to do it, but you do it. You "break the game down into discreet mechanical absolutes independent of each other."


When your PC declares a hostile act (hidden or not) the game has a method for resolution. Your target (and nearby potential combatants) and yourself make opposed Dexterity checks to determine if they can react in time to that hostile act. If you're hidden when you make the attack, then you're making it before they can act barring them having the ability to 'not be surprised' (which to the best of my knowledge is an ability no monster has).

The bold part is your invention. You're within your rights to rule this way, but it is not the RAW prescription. Regardless of whether a monster has the ability, some PCs do, so the situation can arise either in PVP or in the case where a monster is doing the ambushing. So the problem, albeit rare, still exists.


The DM narrates the action. He narrates what it is that triggered (or why he called for) the Dexterity check. As he does (or should be doing) with pretty much every other check he calls for.

Again, you're stating this as if it is fact. I am showing you a specific case where this way of thinking fails. You choose to ignore it or try to discredit me. You'd be better served by addressing the point.


The fact that we are 10 pages into this thread and you seem to be the only person who has an issue with this rule and cant see it for what it is is super weird.

This is the same tactic you always fall back on. You, DBZ, and Vaz either do not understand, or choose to ignore, my points. But ArialBlack and Corran clearly understand it. The reason the thread is as long as it is is because you and DBZ keep repeating the same argument without even trying to respond to the actual point (and Vaz... well he's just resorted to cheap attempts at ad hominem that mostly fail even to be humorous). So I keep pointing back to it, and refuting your failed attempts. You don't like it, you get frustrated, and you resort to attempts to marginalize, or other forms of ad hominem.


Ill ask you aeither gain. Please provide me with one (non outlier) of a situation where narration doesnt save the day?

You can use narration to break the rules whenever you want. That doesn't shed any light here. We're trying to use narration without breaking the rules.

[bid]

1. That's not fluff. (If you think that constitutes fluff then perhaps we need to start here.)
2. It's false.
3. The rules of 5e are actually incredibly good at what they do, and in the case of the alert feat, I am confident that the designers wrote it as intended.

So, apologies, but you're the one who is making a mistake, here. You are offering an interpretation of the rules that is entirely yours. It's unnecessary, and in this case it happens to be false.
Outlandish claims require outstanding facts. I see none.

When it seems everyone is driving the wrong way on the highway, maybe you're the one out of whack. Revise your interpretation.

[BurgerBeast]

Bull****.

You need to focus on the points being made. You're not helping your case with this nonsense.


I'm describing what it is that catches the PCs by surprise. Read again:

Arrows rain down all around you from the forest above. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

I'm sorry, but adding the sentence "you're all surprised" does not suffice. If arrows rain down all around the PCs, then the PCs see those arrows. If you then begin the combat by progressing through the turn order, then the turn order is starting after the arrows rain down, so the PCs are aware of the situation and therefore not surprised when their turns arrive.


A shimmer of an invisible creature, and a growl comes from somewhere around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

Same problem. They all hear the growl and (at least some of them) see the shimmer. Then their turn arrives. They are not surprised.


The click of a crossbow being pulled back echoes from the darkness around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

Same problem. Crossbow heard. Turn arrives. Aware of threat. Not surprised.


A creature lunges at you in the fog. You're surprised, roll initiative.

This problem, although slightly different, presents the same problem. It makes infinitely more sense to not tell the PCs that the monster lunges out of the fog before you know if the alert character beats it in the initiative order. If the alert character beats the creature, and then luckily moves into the fog and attacks and hits the creature, and as a result the creature never leaves the fog because doing so would risk an opportunity attack, well... then your narrative is totally inaccurate. Had you simply waited, you could have called for initiative, explained to the alert character what was going on, and then narrated to the group: "You're moving through the fog, and suddenly Torvald springs into the fog and you hear the slash of his sword. There's a creature in the fog!"


THESE ARE SIMPLY THE DM NARRATING THE SHIFT FROM NARRATIVE TO COMBAT SEQUENCE. In each case, the DM is narrating the action to show that the PCs are surprised by a hidden creature.

They are not simply the DM narrating the shift. They are the DM narrating events before they happen, when he would be better advised to determine what happens before he narrates it.


How on earth are you not seeing this. Why are you arguing this still. Its insane.

More of the same. The feeling is reciprocated. Let's stop wasting time on the petty insults.

[BurgerBeast]

Outlandish claims require outstanding facts. I see none.

Which claim is outlandish?


When it seems everyone is driving the wrong way on the highway, maybe you're the one out of whack. Revise your interpretation.

No, actually, when everyone is driving the wrong way on the highway, they are driving the wrong way.

Edit: When it seems everyone is driving the wrong way on the highway, it is highly likely that you're mistaken - that's true. But it is possible that they are, in fact, driving the wrong way. You cannot know the truth without further information. In this example, as in the thread, majority consensus is not enough. We have to look at the facts of the matter.

Can we grow up, now? Or do you want to spend three pages saying "revise you interpretation." "No, you revise you're interpretation." "No, you." No, you."?

[BurgerBeast]

You're forgetting that the actions of a combat round are simultaneous. Youre not killing him before he attacks you; you're killing him during (or even possibly just after, with his deadly arrow missing).

Presume an Orc (initiative 5) and a Wood Elf Wizard (initiative 15) are adjacent to each other. The Wizard goes first and moves away 40' (now 40' away) provoking an attack of opportunity (a miss) and then casts mage armor. Then his turn ends. The Orc on its turn moves 30', uses its Orc aggressive trait to move another 10' and swings with its sword, hitting the Wizard (who uses shield as a reaction).

To us (at the table) it looks like the Orc is standing there stationary while the Wizard moves away. Then the Orc then follows up.

To an observer of the actual combat, the Orc and Wizard are moving at the same time, the Wizard chanting as he runs to raise a spell of protection around himself, and the Orc rapidly gaining ground, and swinging its axe at the Wizard as it moves, who just manages to turn in time and cast a spell deflecting an attack that would have otherwise hit him.

At no stage are they 40' apart in the game world.

Once you get on board with that being the truth (turn based combat is an abstraction of in game events) you'll be fine.

I am on board with this. It's not rocket science.

(But why didn't the wizard cast Mage armour before he moved?)

But my point remains: even though there is a high degree of abstraction to combat that allows narrative flexibility, there is still a sequence to combat. It's not as rigid as the mechanical breakdown of each turn, but it's there.

For example, as you have described it, the Mage armour Spell was certainly cast after the orc's first attack and before the orc's second attack. That is a fact both mechanically and narratively.

So I am telling you that I am able to understand the abstraction, and I am demonstrating that. However, I am also able to understand the limitations that the mechanics impose on the narrative, whereas you, DBZ, and Vaz are not.

You are simply ignoring and/or dodging this immensely evident point and resorting to ad hominem.

There is an order to the turns in D&D, and this has narrative relevance. I can (and do) acknowledge that combat does not actually proceed according to the mechanical turns while still acknowledging that the mechanical rules dictate the order in which particular events occur in the narrative.

I charge you, DBZ, Vaz, and anyone else who takes your position, with failing to acknowledge that the initiative order is relevant to the narrative. You can't simply narrate as you wish. The initiative order places some restrictions on the range of possible narratives. This is so self-evidently true that I'm surprised you'd bother to contend it.

[Malifice]

You need to focus on the points being made. You're not helping your case with this nonsense.



I'm sorry, but adding the sentence "you're all surprised" does not suffice. If arrows rain down all around the PCs, then the PCs see those arrows. If you then begin the combat by progressing through the turn order, then the turn order is starting after the arrows rain down, so the PCs are aware of the situation and therefore not surprised when their turns arrive.



Same problem. They all hear the growl and (at least some of them) see the shimmer. Then their turn arrives. They are not surprised.



Same problem. Crossbow heard. Turn arrives. Aware of threat. Not surprised.



This problem, although slightly different, presents the same problem. It makes infinitely more sense to not tell the PCs that the monster lunges out of the fog before you know if the alert character beats it in the initiative order. If the alert character beats the creature, and then luckily moves into the fog and attacks and hits the creature, and as a result the creature never leaves the fog because doing so would risk an opportunity attack, well... then your narrative is totally inaccurate. Had you simply waited, you could have called for initiative, explained to the alert character what was going on, and then narrated to the group: "You're moving through the fog, and suddenly Torvald springs into the fog and you hear the slash of his sword. There's a creature in the fog!"



They are not simply the DM narrating the shift. They are the DM narrating events before they happen, when he would be better advised to determine what happens before he narrates it.



More of the same. The feeling is reciprocated. Let's stop wasting time on the petty insults.

You're wrong. Stubbornly so. In fact I think we've gone full circle and you know you're wrong but now just being stubborn for the sake of it. I'm wasting my time with you. You are not listening to any other points of view.

I'm glad I'm not playing in a game with you. Enjoy your pointless circular argument mate.

Ciao.

[Vaz]

I am on board with this. It's not rocket science.

(But why didn't the wizard cast Mage armour before he moved?)

But my point remains: even though there is a high degree of abstraction to combat that allows narrative flexibility, there is still a sequence to combat. It's not as rigid as the mechanical breakdown of each turn, but it's there.

For example, as you have described it, the Mage armour Spell was certainly cast after the orc's first attack and before the orc's second attack. That is a fact both mechanically and narratively.

So I am telling you that I am able to understand the abstraction, and I am demonstrating that. However, I am also able to understand the limitations that the mechanics impose on the narrative, whereas you, DBZ, and Vaz are not.

You are simply ignoring and/or dodging this immensely evident point and resorting to ad hominem.

There is an order to the turns in D&D, and this has narrative relevance. I can (and do) acknowledge that combat does not actually proceed according to the mechanical turns while still acknowledging that the mechanical rules dictate the order in which particular events occur in the narrative.

I charge you, DBZ, Vaz, and anyone else who takes your position, with failing to acknowledge that the initiative order is relevant to the narrative. You can't simply narrate as you wish. The initiative order places some restrictions on the range of possible narratives. This is so self-evidently true that I'm surprised you'd bother to contend it.

I charge you with being a self absorbed child unwilling to accept what is written in plain English.

Order of combat starts with rolling Initiative. Surprised individuals don't get to move or act during their first turn. Alert makes an individual not surprised.

Prove me wrong.

[DivisibleByZero]

When it seems everyone is driving the wrong way on the highway, maybe you're the one out of whack. Revise your interpretation.

No, actually, when everyone is driving the wrong way on the highway, they are driving the wrong way.

This interaction right here exemplifies what the entirety of the past ten [edit] eight pages amounts to.
A perfectly clear, concise, and correct point made in an attempt to help explain something, which is completely ignored and argued with fervor.
I mean, the entire point of that comment was to just maybe get you to look at it from the other side for a moment, and the response was NO! YOU'RE ALL WRONG! EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!
Well done bid!

[BurgerBeast]

I charge you with being a self absorbed child unwilling to accept what is written in plain English.

This is productive. As we're about to see, you're guilty of your own charge:


Order of combat starts with rolling Initiative. Surprised individuals don't get to move or act during their first turn. Alert makes an individual not surprised.

Prove me wrong.

Why would I "prove you wrong" when you haven't said anything (here) that is wrong? I have never said that any of this is wrong. This is more evidence that you don't understand what I have been saying.

If I may offer a suggestion, I suspect it comes down to what is meant by "order of combat starts with rolling initiative." Granted, checking for initiative happens before any turns happen, however this does not dictate when the initiative roll happens in the narrative (which I believe is a hidden assumption underlying some of these arguments).

A further assumption, unrelated to your particular point here but showing up elsewhere, is that a player's declaration is somehow mechanically (or narratively) binding. Just because a player declares "I attack the orc," this does not cause nor guarantee that the surprise checks and initiative rolls must immediately follow, nor does it even guarantee that the player's character will attack the orc. The DM takes the character's communicated intent, in combination with many other factors, to make determinations in the most sensible way. This can mean different things in different situations.


This interaction right here exemplifies what the entirety of the past ten [edit] eight pages amounts to.
A perfectly clear, concise, and correct point made in an attempt to help explain something, which is completely ignored and argued with fervor.
I mean, the entire point of that comment was to just maybe get you to look at it from the other side for a moment, and the response was NO! YOU'RE ALL WRONG! EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!
Well done bid!

Apologies to bid. Yes, in this case I overlooked the part about "seems like." Indeed I was wrong in my response.

However, the implication that I somehow lack the capacity to consider that I might be the one who is wrong is pretty obviously false to anyone who reads this thread.

The unfortunate fact, which I'm sure DBZ and Vaz are ready to dog-pile on top of, is that the example, by virtue of including the words "seems like" doesn't help us. The question of whether you (in the thread's debate), and whether the drivers (in the analogy), are in fact wrong, remains unanswered.

There is a difference between, on the one hand, refusing to look at it from the other side's point of view, and on the other hand, looking at it from the other point of view but still disagreeing.

I know exactly what bid was trying to do, but the particular way in which he failed to do it just happened to be a perfectly apt metaphor for why all three of you are failing to understand me. That one little detail: specifying from the outset that the other drivers are driving the wrong way, is the important detail on which his argument fails, and fails so spectacularly that it proves my point. Yet all three of you approach these discussions by starting with your interpretation, instead of the literal words. As a result, when the literal words do not match your interpretation, you change the literal words instead of changing your interpretation. This driving example is the perfect case in point.

It also explains why you both you and Malifice have resorted to insults and cheerleading. This is not about "us versus them" in my mind. It's about the points of disagreement.


You're wrong. Stubbornly so. In fact I think we've gone full circle and you know you're wrong but now just being stubborn for the sake of it. I'm wasting my time with you. You are not listening to any other points of view.

I'm glad I'm not playing in a game with you. Enjoy your pointless circular argument mate.

Ciao.

You've represented yourself well here. You must be proud.

[DivisibleByZero]

There is a difference between, on the one hand, refusing to look at it from the other side's point of view, and on the other hand, looking at it from the other point of view but still disagreeing.

I know exactly what bid was trying to do, but the particular way in which he failed to do it just happened to be a perfectly apt metaphor for why all three of you are failing to understand me. That one little detail: specifying from the outset that the other drivers are driving the wrong way, is the important detail on which his argument fails, and fails so spectacularly that it proves my point. .

Italics emphasis mine.
WHEN IT SEEMS is how that sentence by him started.
He did not specify that they were all going the wrong way. He specified that you were under the impression that this were true.
You simply failed to see the difference or the point.
You were under the impression that they were all going the wrong way, and so they were all wrong. Except for the fact that they weren't going the wrong way, you were, which is why they SEEMED to ALL be going the wrong way.

To paraphrase: He says: If it appears that everyone else is going the wrong way, maybe you're the one going the wrong way. And your reply is: NO! THEY'RE ALL WRONG! EVEN YOU JUST SAID THEY WERE! Except that isn't what he said at all. Not only do you miss the points we're trying to make, but you miss the point of the explanations themselves.
That's exactly why it was such an appropriate interaction, which does indeed exemplify pretty much this entire thread.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, you're right. I amended the most recent post and I will go back and amend the others (unfortunately not right away as I must go to work). Apologies to bid.

Edit: however you're entirely wrong to imply that since I am wrong here, therefore I am wrong about the thread. I think you know that. It's bad form to try to win an argument in such a way. I dare say you're better than that.

Also, you've made a meal out of it where there is none to be had. Bid was not trying to make a point about the argument. He was trying to say that I do not look at things from both perspectives, which worked out beautifully for him in this case, but happens to not correspond to the truth.

We can continue to play the character assassination game, or we can talk about the relevant points. The point of this thread remains a real point that is going ignored by some.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yes, you're right. I amended the most recent post and I will go back and amend the others. Apologies to bid.

Edit: however you're entirely wrong to imply that since I am wrong here, therefore I am wrong about the thread. I think you know that. It's bad form to try to win an argument in such a way. I dare say you're better than that.

You're not wrong in the thread because you're wrong here. I didn't imply that at all.
You're wrong in the thread because you continue to feel the need to see the parts as individual section that need to be split apart. You're wrong in the thread because you can't see that all the parts are not separate, but rather combine to form one single entity. You're wrong because you can't wrap your mind around the abstraction of the initiative system with regards to the Alert feat.

[smcmike]

Hmm, I was excited to see a nice long argument thread, but I just can't get all that worked up about this one. It's a good question, and however you resolve it is probably fine.

[tieren]

Well, this is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Congratulations on taking out that straw man. You must be proud.

I believe you are being dishonest with yourself if you believe this.

From what I have gathered from what you have written here. You want an assassin to be able to succeed on his hiding checks and get the benefit of being able to attack first, from hiding, without revealing his location before the attack, even if his target has the alert feat and rolls higher initiative.

You can only go first against someone with higher initiative if they are surprised, and they can't be surprised if they have the alert feat.

Therefore, IMO, you appear upset that you can't find a way to surprise a character with alert.

That has taken the form of trying to make sense of the narrative, 'how could the alert PC know something has happened if it hasn't happened yet', but that is the issue.

Personally I think you are right that an alert PC would trigger off non-combat scenarios sometimes. If I were to roleplay a character with alert I would probably make him a bit paranoid and occasionally jump at shadows or take the dodge action when the DM says the forest is unusually quiet, etc...

[BurgerBeast]

I believe you are being dishonest with yourself if you believe this.

From what I have gathered from what you have written here. You want an assassin to be able to succeed on his hiding checks and get the benefit of being able to attack first, from hiding, without revealing his location before the attack, even if his target has the alert feat and rolls higher initiative.

I do not want the assassin to be able to attack first. I want the alert character to ask act first, as the rules dictate.


You can only go first against someone with higher initiative if they are surprised, and they can't be surprised if they have the alert feat.

Precisely.


Therefore, IMO, you appear upset that you can't find a way to surprise a character with alert.

I do not want anyone to be able to surprise an alert character. I want it to be impossible to surprise an alert character. Indeed, what I want, if it were that, would be irrelevant, because RAW an alert character cannot be surprised. I want to play by the RAW.


That has taken the form of trying to make sense of the narrative, 'how could the alert PC know something has happened if it hasn't happened yet', but that is the issue.

Yes. I hope this is clearer now. I am 100% convinced that the alert character, when he wins initiative, must be allowed to act first, and also that whether he wins initiative or not, he is impossible to surprise. I am also 100% convinced that the assassin is hidden (edit: in the main example), because ehe he succeeded on his Stealth vs Perception contest against the alert character.


Personally I think you are right that an alert PC would trigger off non-combat scenarios sometimes. If I were to roleplay a character with alert I would probably make him a bit paranoid and occasionally jump at shadows or take the dodge action when the DM says the forest is unusually quiet, etc...

I obviously understand this, since I myself raised it, but I don't think that playing an alert character should necessitate (and I don't think RAW binds it to) a paranoid character. This is why a narrative explanation would be ideal, if there is one to be had.


You're not wrong in the thread because you're wrong here. I didn't imply that at all.
You're wrong in the thread because you continue to feel the need to see the parts as individual section that need to be split apart. You're wrong in the thread because you can't see that all the parts are not separate, but rather combine to form one single entity. You're wrong because you can't wrap your mind around the abstraction of the initiative system with regards to the Alert feat.

What is this one single entity?

Edit: and you did write this:


That's exactly why it was such an appropriate interaction, which does indeed exemplify pretty much this entire thread.

Which appears to imply it.

[Arial Black]

I dispute that he (the character) knows "combat is starting". Tactical time and initiative are abstractions that do not exist in the game world.

True, but these mechanics represent something that is happening in the game world: combat is about to begin.

In the game mechanics, the whole 'check for surprise/roll for initiative/take turns in combat rounds' is what happens when the narrative changes from 'not combat' into 'combat'. It is how the rules cope with adjudicating the complexity of combat. Although these things are game mechanics, they actually represent something happening in the game world: the start of combat.

The surprise rules affect what can happen in the first round of combat. They do not affect anything before combat starts, nor do they affect anything after round one finishes. Therefore, the surprise rules only occur when combat begins. Which means that if you know that the surprise rules are being used, you know that combat is about to begin!

In the game, when you stab someone in the face, you make attack and (possibly) damage rolls. The creatures in the game have absolutely no conception of the game mechanics of attack and damage rolls, but they DO understand the in world reality of getting stabbed in the face!

Similarly, they are not aware of the game mechanics that represent combat starting, but they ARE aware of combat starting! When they are aware depends on what their abilities tell them. Usually, opposed skill checks are what informs them in game mechanics, which represent determining if the creatures in game notice a threat. However, if you have an ability (such as Alert) which makes you immune to surprise, then the creatures in game know that combat is about to start even though they did not notice a threat.

How? How do they know?

You can fluff it in any way that you want that corresponds to the game mechanics. It can be a subconscious warning, so that you don't know why you know, but you trust your instincts. It might be a supernatural danger sense, years of experience moving this reaction from your conscious to your subconscious mind, it might be your god loves you. But whatever fluff you choose it must match what the rules actually give you. The Alert feat does not give you auto-success on Perception checks to determine surprise!

[Arial Black]

Alert works AS IF you succeeded your perception check at the last second.

No it does not.

If I want to travel from New York to Los Angeles, I could go by car, or I could take a plane. Either method would get me to LA, but the car journey would allow me to visit various monuments on the way, do things denied to the air passenger.

Of course, you might not have access to air travel.

But, despite each method being a valid way to get to LA, travelling by plane does not get you to LA 'AS IF' you went by car, in terms of the extra benefits the car journey gives you re: visiting monuments. You cannot take the plane and get the benefits of visiting the monuments, because the air journey does not include the monuments.

Just like some people don't have access to air travel, some PCs don't have access to abilities that make them immune to surprise. They still have access to Perception checks though.

You can be 'not surprised' in two ways:-

* succeed in your Perception check

* be immune to surprise

But, just because each method results in you being 'not surprised', this does not mean that 'immunity to surprise' has ALL the benefits of succeeding on a Perception check! It does not give you the information that a successful check would have given. The ONLY benefit they have in common is that you end up 'not surprised'. Just like each method of travel gets you to LA, but the plane journey means you miss out on visiting the monuments, being 'not surprised' because of Alert does not give you the benefits of perceiving the enemy, if your Perception check failed.

[DivisibleByZero]

What is this one single entity?

Malifice has already explained this to you, in a very concise manner.



By my view, the mechanics work first.And that's whats causing you this confusion. If you stop doing this, you'll be fine.

Declaring an attack (or hostile action), rolling initiative, and resolving the attack are all parts of the resolution of the same declared action ('I'll shoot the guard with my bow'). Put square brackets around these three separate actions if you must. You're looking at them in isolation as mechanical absolutes, when the reality is they are fuzzy abstractions that blend into each other, and NOT mechanical absolutes that exist in some kind of state of isolation from each other.

Mechanically, these are different things, but those things represent one thing, and that one thing has been broken down into multiple things so that we can resolve the action within the confines of the game.

"I attack"
That phrase being uttered begins combat.
Combat then commences following the rules: Determine surprise, Establish position, Roll initiative, Take turns, Begin the next round, Repeat rounds as necessary.

You argue that the turns happen in order, and while that's true from a mechanical aspect, it is ONLY true because there needs to be a mechanical order for combat to occur in a tabletop setting. The reality is that everything is happening at once.
You fail to understand that the Alert character is not reacting to any particular stimuli in the game world. If he were, he would potentially be able to be surprised. But he cannot be surprised.
That's yet another abstraction (ie: not tied to any event).

You need the combat round to be broken down into cause and effect, into segments that flow chronologically, but combat isn't like that.... except in the mechanics, and even then only so that it can be played out at the table.
Combat is a Jackson Pollock or a Kandinsky, but in order for it to actually work at the table it required some help akin to a paint-by-numbers.
You only see the paint-by-numbers, and you refuse to acknowledge that those numbers only exist so that we can create order from chaos.
It doesn't make sense to you because the sequencing doesn't work in your mind. And the sequencing doesn't work in your mind because you're putting more emphasis on the paint-by-numbers directions than you are to the Pollock/Kandinsky that necessitated those numbers. The genius isn't in the directions, it's in the art the the directions create. Pollock and Kandinsky didn't have directions. Those directions only exist to help you recreate the chaos that they created.

Combat doesn't have sequencing and order. The rules for combat only exist so you can recreate the chaos of combat at the table. When you put too much emphasis on the directions of how to create chaos, you're going to end up where you currently are, which is confused. You need to worry less about the sequencing and more about the overall narrative.

[Arial Black]

But how are you taking an action before you even know that the assassin will make a move against you (since he has succeeded on every check thus far) without ignoring the rules?

You don't know about the assassin!

You DO know that combat is about to begin, because you have an ability that ALERTS you to danger WITHOUT consciously noticing a threat.

[Arial Black]

I'm describing what it is that catches the PCs by surprise. Read again:

Arrows rain down all around you from the forest above. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

A shimmer of an invisible creature, and a growl comes from somewhere around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

The click of a crossbow being pulled back echoes from the darkness around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

A creature lunges at you in the fog. You're surprised, roll initiative.

The point BurgerBeast is making is that despite the PCs failing their Perception checks to notice a threat, you actually describe what the threat is and THEN ask the players to act on that knowledge; knowledge that the checks determined that they do not have!


THESE ARE SIMPLY THE DM NARRATING THE SHIFT FROM NARRATIVE TO COMBAT SEQUENCE. In each case, the DM is narrating the action to show that the PCs are surprised by a hidden creature.

Then you're doing it wrong!

Compare:-

DM: There is a cave in front of you. *Perception checks rolled and failed* What do you do?

Player: I draw my (normal) greatsword and go into the cave.

...to...

DM: There is a cave in front of you. *Perception checks rolled and FAILED* In the cave there is a werewolf. What do you do?

Player: I rummage through my pack and get out my silver dagger.

You should not be giving the information that should be gated behind a successful check if those checks FAIL. It's really as simple as that. The negative effect is that the players can actually act on information they should not have, whether that information is werewolf (get the silver weapons!), arrows (Cast protection from missiles!), invisible creatures (cast faerie fire!), or whatever.

[tieren]

Yes. I hope this is clearer now. I am 100% convinced that the alert character, when he wins initiative, must be allowed to act first, and also that whether he wins initiative or not, he is impossible to surprise. I am also 100% convinced that the assassin is hidden (edit: in the main example), because ehe he succeeded on his Stealth vs Perception contest against the alert character.



My apologies, perhaps I am confused then.

Are you only arguing then that the alert PC going before the assassin reveals his location by attacking does not know the location of the assassin?

If that's it I think we all agree on that.

And on the roleplay thing I agree it is not required, and there are lots of ways of playing it. in many campaigns a literal supernatural spider-sense would be completely appropriate. That's the great thing about fluff, you can shape it however you like.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm describing what it is that catches the PCs by surprise. Read again:

Arrows rain down all around you from the forest above. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

A shimmer of an invisible creature, and a growl comes from somewhere around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

The click of a crossbow being pulled back echoes from the darkness around you. You're all surprised, roll initiative.

A creature lunges at you in the fog. You're surprised, roll initiative.
The point BurgerBeast is making is that despite the PCs failing their Perception checks to notice a threat, you actually describe what the threat is and THEN ask the players to act on that knowledge; knowledge that the checks determined that they do not have!


THESE ARE SIMPLY THE DM NARRATING THE SHIFT FROM NARRATIVE TO COMBAT SEQUENCE. In each case, the DM is narrating the action to show that the PCs are surprised by a hidden creature.
Then you're doing it wrong!

Compare:-

DM: There is a cave in front of you. *Perception checks rolled and failed* What do you do?

Player: I draw my (normal) greatsword and go into the cave.

...to...

DM: There is a cave in front of you. *Perception checks rolled and FAILED* In the cave there is a werewolf. What do you do?

Player: I rummage through my pack and get out my silver dagger.

You should not be giving the information that should be gated behind a successful check if those checks FAIL. It's really as simple as that. The negative effect is that the players can actually act on information they should not have, whether that information is werewolf (get the silver weapons!), arrows (Cast protection from missiles!), invisible creatures (cast faerie fire!), or whatever.

He's not doing it wrong.
That's a perfectly valid way to do it.
What has he given away? Arrows are falling. Big deal. Find the archer. A creature you can't see growls. Big deal, find the creature. A crossbow is being cranked. Big deal, find the crossbowman.
In every example, the player knows that combat has begun, and has no idea where the potential attackers are.

[youtellatale]

You don't know about the assassin!

You DO know that combat is about to begin, because you have an ability that ALERTS you to danger WITHOUT consciously noticing a threat.

This is how our table rules it and it was unanimous at our table (yours may vary). You have instincts - that's what we determined the ALERT feat is. You don't inherently know where someone is but you know that something is happening, so you aren't surprised. So the hidden enemy is still hidden, you just are not surprised.

[Arial Black]

In every example, the player knows that combat has begun, and has no idea where the potential attackers are.

But the player does know some things that he should not, and can use that information to make decisions.

The whole point of success/fail mechanics is that you DO NOT GAIN the benefits of success if you FAIL the check!

[DivisibleByZero]

But the player does know some things that he should not, and can use that information to make decisions.

The whole point of success/fail mechanics is that you DO NOT GAIN the benefits of success if you FAIL the check!

And the information that he has is basically useless, so I fail to see the problem.

[BurgerBeast]

And the information that he has is basically useless, so I fail to see the problem.

It is basically, even generally, even almost always, useless. Except when it is useful.

When the alert character is able to use the information to gain a benefit that negates the archer's success, it is a problem.

For example: If the alert character knows that arrows are the threat (i.e. there are archers on the forest, and not a magic-user or a troll), he knows that he could potentially run into the woods and find the archer. And if he does, and he attacks the archer, then the archer has just had the entire benefit of his SUCCESS negated.

So how did this happen? Why has the archer been robbed of his successful contest? Is it because the rules are such that this is how it works? No.

Is it because the DM (mistakenly) narrated away the archer's hide check? Yes. The DM narrated the acton in such a way that he explicitly treated the archer's success as a FAILURE.

In this one, very specific, very corner-case, it is clear that the DM's mistake is causing a mistaken adjudication that has a real effect on the game.

[DivisibleByZero]

It is basically, even generally, even almost always, useless. Except when it is useful.

When the alert character is able to use the information to gain a benefit that negates the archer's success, it is a problem.

For example: 1)If the alert character knows that arrows are the threat (i.e. 1a)there are archers on the forest, 1b)and not a magic-user or a troll), 1c)he knows that he could potentially run into the woods and find the archer. And if he does, and he attacks the archer, 1d)then the archer has just had the entire benefit of his SUCCESS negated.

So how did this happen? 2)Why has the archer been robbed of his successful contest? 3)Is it because the rules are such that this is how it works? No.

4)Is it because the DM (mistakenly) narrated away the archer's hide check? Yes. 5)The DM narrated the acton in such a way that he explicitly treated the archer's success as a FAILURE.

In this one, very specific, very corner-case, it is clear that the DM's mistake is causing a mistaken adjudication that has a real effect on the game.

1) Yes, the Alert character knows there is a threat.

1a) By this particular description, sure, he knows there's an Archer.... somewhere....

1b) No, he does not know there are no wizards or trolls, he simply knows that there is at least one archer.

1c) Does he suddenly know which way to run? How does he know that? When he gets there, is he doing a search? Is he searching the right area? This is not a passive roll, and he does not receive a bonus to it. He presumably still has to use the same perception roll that he originally used, which means the archer remains hidden from him for the time being. He knows there's an archer out there. He still doesn't see him.

1d) Even if that does happen, the entire benefit of his SUCCESS is not negated. He still retains every single ounce of benefit that he would have had with any other description. Other characters are surprised, the Alert character is not. The Alert character still doesn't see him until after the archer's turn comes and the arrow is fired. What has he lost? What has been negated?

2) As I just explained, he has not been robbed of anything.

3) Not applicable, as explaining why something that didn't happen happened is nonsensical.

4) The DM narrated away nothing.

5) Again, no failure was described.

He knows that there is at least one archer out there. That's the limit of his information. That's basically useless.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, I could nit-pick all of that but I'm not going to.

Let me ask you this: In your opinion, is it conceivable, at all, that there exists at least one possible situation in which knowing that arrows are raining down could confer more benefit to the alert character than simply the general knowledge that an immediate threat is present?

If the answer is "no," then fair enough. That's precisely where we disagree. I think it is conceivable.

For me, I can imagine that the DM has laid down a battle-mat, and the alert character, having the knowledge that someone is in the forest, and having a mind to move toward the wizard to ready an action to attack whatever emerges form the woods... but being presented with the information that arrows are landing around him, decides to drop prone. The result is that the assassin now has disadvantage to hit the alert PC. The PC has gained a tangible benefit from information that he should not have received. (Yes, the alert PC may have decided to drop prone anyway, but he would have no idea if this was advantageous, because there might also be an ogre in the woods who is about to emerge and attack him with advantage.)

Alternatively, this same player may decide to enter the woods, and moving his miniature into the woods, may move his miniature into the act square that the enemy is in, so the DM rules that he now sees the archer... and can attack him. Again, this PC would never have done this had he no reason to suspect that an archer was in the woods - which allowed him to decide that the archer does not plan to emerge at all, which allowed him to decide to go search the woods instead of protecting his wizard friend.

These are, to my mind, possible scenarios. If you deny that, then that's your right. And it's my right to I think you're wrong.

[DivisibleByZero]

If that's the case, then you just tell your DM that you think describing a spidey sense tingling is more appropriate than describing literally any other thing.
You keep going on and on about a problem with the mechanics, but this isn't a problem with the mechanics, this is a problem of narration for you.
So narrate it differently. Narrate it however the heck you want.
"Problem" friggin solved, because there was never a problem to begin with.

[BurgerBeast]

If that's the case, then you just tell your DM that you think describing a spidey sense tingling is more appropriate than describing literally any other thing.

Exactly.


You keep going on and on about a problem with the mechanics, but this isn't a problem with the mechanics, this is a problem of narration for you.
So narrate it differently. Narrate it however the heck you want.
"Problem" friggin solved, because there was never a problem to begin with.

It's not a problem of mechanics, and I've never claimed it was. It is a problem if and only if you narrate it in a way that doesn't jive with the mechanics.

The narrative problem only occurs if you narrate the event in a way that doesn't work. As I have said repeatedly, this problem was more-or-less solved a long time ago. There are good narrative solutions that work.

The current issue is that Malifice (and I think you) are insisting that Malifice's solution works when combined with the mechanics of the situation. He (and I think you) are insisting that his particular narrative approach works. It does not.

The spider-sense approach, while not ideal, does work. This is not a new opinion. I have said this ad nauseum throughout the thread.

The only argument, at this point, so far as I can tell, is that I, Arial Black, and Corran are saying that we do not accept Malifice's solution because it doesn't work. It appears that you and Malifice are of the opinion that his solution does work.

[DivisibleByZero]

His solution is one of many upon many that work just fine, yes.

[BurgerBeast]

His solution is one of many upon many that work just fine, yes.

And that is more or less the entire disagreement.

I have said that I don't think you fully understand why I think Malifice's solution doesn't work (you usually meet this challenge by telling me what I think, inevitably incorrectly). I still think you do not understand my reasons. It would be one thing if you were saying (edit: and more importantly if I was agreeing with you that) you understood my point but still disagree; however, up to now, there has been no indication that you understand my point at all, and as a result you have no room to agree or disagree with me.

I think I understand your general point of view, although the most recent descriptions of it make it a little unclear, and for the most part I find it to be more of a dismissal/denial than your properly addressing of the problem.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's what I meant.

Well, no, strictly speaking the Alert feat makes the character situationally aware enough that any attack directed at them by a hidden creature can be defended against. Think of it as them seeing the projectile or swing at the last possible moment to where they can bring up their sword to parry, their shield to block, or simply duck out of the way.

It's not the hidden character that matters, it's the awareness that there's something dangerous about to happen right now...DUCK!

How's that salve your conscience on the process?


No, you misunderstand. If you pick up on the movement so you're aware of the attack incoming, despite not having seen the enemy, then the enemy is not hidden any more (according to the RAW). By virtue of winning initiative, you now have a reasonable chance of locating and attacking this enemy. But if the enemy is, RAW, hidden at the start of combat, and has not taken its turn yet, then you have just introduced this possibility without any RAW justification. That is a screw job.

If, instead, you simply said "you sense that an immediate attack is about to happen, and (to the rest of the party) the rest of you are completely caught off guard by what starts to unfold before you... roll initiative!" Then, in this situation, winning initiative grants the alert character his right to act first in the turn order without screwing the enemy out of his hidden status.

The enemy has elected to attack, so, yes, this is technically right, you do become aware of the exact position of the enemy. Here's the thing, the Alert character might win initiative, but they won't actually see any enemy if they win initiative, because those enemies are still hidden.

The character has time to act, but lacking a target this is, at best, going to result in drawing a weapon, casting a spell, taking the dodge action or readying an action.

That seems all pretty on point for a character whose special feat is that they're keyed up and ready to go all the time.



The OP, BestPlayer, effectively asked how the party can be surprised even if the individual Alert character can't.No, this is not what he asked, at all. This is an egregious oversimplification, and given the triviality of the answer it is more or less an insult to the OP. After all, nobody needs to have the alert feat for there to be a situation in which some people are surprised and some are not.


Say you have a character who has the alert feat and high dexterity. Most of the time they win initiative with there huge bonus. The Alert feat also states that they cannot be surprised.

So what happens when something sneaks up and tries to surprise the party? The character isn't aware of the threat and neither is the party, but they can't be surprised. If you then roll initiative as usual, you often end up with the character with Alert going first, even before the attackers, but as he is unaware of the attack, what can he do? Can he warn the others that there is danger? Does he know their is danger even though he isn't aware of the exact threat? Should the enemies be put on the board? This is all very confusing. Does anyone have any insight on this or how do you handle it in your games?

Nah BurgerBeast, that's exactly what he asked. Your assertion is wrong.


This coming from the same person who pedantically accused me of not understanding the difference between a check and a score, because scores do not use rolls but checks do? Defeated by your own pedantry.

That check happened well in advance. As far as the comparison for Wisdom (Perception) goes, there's no Wisdom (Perception) roll.

You don't get debate points for being petty.


I think the alert feat should do more in this situation. The ability to act first without knowing where a single enemy is is often undesirable, so it seems that he is not getting properly rewarded for choosing the feat and winning initiative. The player has spent resources to be good in a situation like this, and in this case those decisions have the opposite effect to the intended effect.

A surprised character doesn't get to act at all on their first turn. A character who isn't surprised (courtesy of Alert) can take actions, even if they can't see an enemy to take actions against. Although, if they're a Rogue level 14 they can maybe do just that (Blindsense).


But, and maybe this drives close to the point that you and Vogonjeltz DBZ were trying to make, the DM could decide to call for initiative before the archduke steps out. Mechanically, the archduke has not stepped out from cover yet, so he is still hidden at the start of combat. The DM calls for initiative. The PCs that are not alert should be automatically surprised. If the alert character wins initiative, he cannot see the archduke.

That is exactly when the DM calls for initiative, when one side becomes aware of the other. If neither the Duke nor the characters notice each other...they would just carry on, being none the wiser.

The other PCs are automatically surprised if they didn't see the Duke in hiding. This is all happening in the same 6 seconds bear in mind, with each character acting in a slightly staggered order.


That is not true.

In 5E combat, there is no such thing as a 'surprise check'.

Let me say that again, just to drum it home: in 5E, there is no such thing as a 'surprise check'!

What there is is 'The DM determines who is be surprised'.

It's a question of who is flat-footed at the start of combat. The Alert character is always on their feet, never unready for a fight. The non-Alert characters have their guard down when there's no known threat.


Hes looking for a way to surprise a character that has an ability that says he can't be surprised.

The assassin can do all he wants, hide in darkness take extra super precautions against making sounds, even casting silence from a scroll or something, but he will never get to surprise a PC with alert, its what alert does.

That may seem really frustrating and counter intuitive, I get it. But it doesn't really pose a game problem.

The benefit of setting an ambush is (primarily) getting surprise. You can't ambush an alert PC get over it. Ambusher still gets the benefit against everyone else.

Yes, typical exploit fishing behavior.

[Arial Black]

And the information that he has is basically useless, so I fail to see the problem.

If the information you have is 'basically useless', this does not cause information to magically and spontaneously appear in your mind to give you useful clues about what to do!