Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
The rules say the DM determines when combat starts and initiative is rolled. Why would you decide combat has started while one side is unaware the other side is taking hostile action?
The relevant text from the 2024 DMG is:
I am going to agree with Squirreloid that this text supports his position that the DM determines when combat starts and when Initiative is rolled is correct. Now, because the DM makes this determination, different DMs can have their own positions, and so choosing to roll initiative the second someone takes an action which could start combat is also valid, even if it means the surprised party could roll above the attacker despite disadvantage.
Even though either method is valid by the rules, I also agree with Squirreloid that a good Initiative roll should not negate a failure to perceive the threat, and that surprised people acting in reaction to an event which has not happened does not make sense. That could result in things such as an unaware person who was the target of a hidden assassin using their action and movement to get to total cover before the assassin can take the shot which triggered initiative. Thus the assassin would not take the shot, so there would be nothing to trigger the initiative roll in the first place.
EDIT: And if the assassin in this case is a PC going for an NPC, imagine how the player would feel if after carefully planning their attack and being undetected, the DM told the player that their target "suddenly got an instinctive feeling" and arbitrarily dashed out of sight before the attack roll even happens due to a poor initiative roll.
What you are describing here is not actually the surprise mechanic for the game. That is a named feature of the Invisible condition which could have been called anything but just happens to be named "surprise". You are not required to actually surprise an enemy in order to take advantage of this feature.
Because everyone rolls Initiative when combat start and If a combatant is surprised by combat starting, that combatant has Disadvantage on their Initiative roll.
5.5E purposefully did away with free turn during Surprise where only one side can act as explained in Converting to SRD v5.2.1.
In any situation where a character’s actions initiate combat, you can give the acting character Advantage on their Initiative roll as stated in the DMG.
Granting free action before Initiative is rolled and everyone take turns is not supported by the rules but was even counterindicated by Devs.
DM can of course rule otherwise but it makes Surprise more powerful than intended.
I don't believe the suggestion was for one entire side to act before the other side. Nor is the intention to completely throw out the 5.5e surprise rules. Those work fine in most instances.
The sticking point is about a case where an ambusher is completely undetected by an opposing side. There is a mathematical possibility that even with advantage an ambusher could roll below someone on the opposing side who has disadvantage. I gave an example of an scenario above where allowing the ambushee to act first could prevent the ambusher from taking the action which initiated combat and prompted the initiative roll.
And that's not a problem.
If your players can separate player and character knowledge, then you can trust them to act appropriately. (I will state that using the meta-knowledge that they're in combat to ready an action that they will take if attacked to represent how their character will reflexively act if caught by surprise is an entirely reasonable thing to do.)
If they can't, then:
And the combat rules are still outside the narrative.
The two scenarios are fundamentally different.
If the dominate person is all that's being done, then no, you don't need to be in combat time. If it's part of a larger assault, then yes, you do.
With the fireball, unless you have your players positioned on a combat map at all times (in which case you're living half in the combat rules anyway), you need to break out the combat rules for positioning reasons. It's also an ideal example of why they changed the initiative rules, because a high-rolling caster will get to fireball the party twice before they can scatter.
You've argued this in a previous go-around, and it remains bizarre. You, the DM, are absolutely allowed to know what spell is being cast and decide whether or not it's going to blow up unto combat, and invoke the combat rules if you need to. You can do this even if nothing is going to happen until what turns out to be the last action of the first round, because the caster rolled 1.
If you're in a situation where any spellcasting will cause †he situation to blow up, then there's a good chance that you should already be in combat time, because it's likely one where things are tense, and people are maneuvering for advantage should things go south. Nothing's wrong with running the tense negotiations with the dockside gang in combat time, even if it may end with no attack rolls being made. It lets the players know that this could get real at any time, and also means you don't have to adjudicate positioning after the fact of combat has been established.
Yes, if you're fighting a creature, you're in combat with it. But "the combat rules have been brought into play" is not the same thing. Combat, the game mechanic != combat, the colloquial English meaning.
One can (and likely should) invoke the combat rules for any situation where sequencing of actions and movement is important, even if there is no enemy on the field. In 5.5, one also invokes it when bringing the surprise rules into play. Whether casting charm person is appropriate for that is situational, and it still doesn't imply you're fighting the target yet. "Combat rules mean everybody knows they're in a fight, and with who" is a you thing; it is not inherent in the rules.
Having been on both sides of an ambush (training & combat), it is possible for the "ambushee/victim" to act 1st in spite of the planning of the "ambusher/assassin". Probably a bit more common then the mathematical probability that dice provide.
Some reasons:
Experience disparity between the two sides. The lowest experienced humanoid can give away that ambush site. It only takes one individual to blow it.
Local terrain knowledge by the "ambushee/victim" who knows locations (could be historical occurrences) on the trail to pay closer attention when they approach likely sites.
The ambushers make a noise/light/reflection/etc. that gives the "ambushee/victim" a split second warning.
The "ambushee/victim" is paranoid and always expects an ambush.
The ambushers due to X are tired and nod off for that critical second or two (X can be tired from planning/moving into position/waiting so long for target to move past/etc.)
If it is an assassination attempt, depending on location/where; the assassin just blew it when taking/step forward.
There was a flaw in the plan and/or someone knew the plan and betrayed the party.
An animal crossed paths and that in itself created a warning. Remember any (silent) movement itself can betray an ambusher. (swatting at bugs/needing to roll over/having to relive bladder/etc.)
Emphasis on the bold. Everyone rolls initiative when combat starts, not before combat starts. But nothing requires or compels you to start combat before the first spell or attack roll. If one side is entirely unaware that combat is about to start, they're entirely unaware. Combat doesn't start until they're aware of the enemy, which would be after the first attack or offensive spell -- then you roll initiative. The first round of combat only starts after that event. There is no sense in which they are 'in combat' before they're aware there are enemy combatants.
And if the subtle fireball exploding in their face surprised them (which it probably did), they have disadvantage on that initiative roll.
(Obviously if they're aware of the enemy, and that they are an enemy, combat might start well before anyone makes an attack or casts an offensive spell. Awareness of hostility is the key discriminant.)
I just of an example, A squirrel (deer/etc.) walks across the path, then stops and retreats. That allows the "ambushee/victim" to look at the ambushers location and gives them a split second heads up.
If the DM knows everyone's Initiative, he can easily set the scene before revealing who goes 1st.
All of that is handled by perception/stealth, not initiative. The assumption here is the ambushers are not detected.
I agree that one shouldn't let a lucky initiative roll override a bad perception check to detect an ambush, but...
Whether it's appropriate for a character who rolls higher in initiative than the ambusher to act meaningfully depends on the ambush circumstances.
And none of these circumstances mean you can't roll initiative before.
You seem to be writing in contradictions. You appeared to write that you did not understand how the "ambushee/victim" can go 1st using their initiative.
Is initiative fixed based on perception/stealth, if so why allow a roll (of initiative) to supersede the perception/stealth roll?
It seems that the perception/stealth rolls set the odds (advantage/disadvantage) and determine the timeline. Initiative gives the "ambushee/victim" a split second last second chance to notice the ambush. Which does happen to be very realistic
Why are you assuming it's the players who are being ambushed? (I would actually expect the reverse - as the most active agents in the campaign, the players will be the ambushers frequently, especially if they intend to be).
If it's the players doing the ambushing, there's every reason why the NPCs acting in ways you suggest its perfectly okay for the players to act would cause the combat to never happen. Stabbey_TC has, in fact, given a great example.
And the same problem exists in reverse. If the PCs can react first, the ambushers may just withdraw rather than attack, and try again later. Indeed, the attack may well be impossible.
The DM decides when combat is occurring. I don't think it makes sense to say combat is occurring because combat will occur, or, indeed, combat might occur (since an ambusher is under no compulsion to actually attack on their turn).
Honestly, a series of one-shot takedowns from undetected ambush doesn't sound like a combat at all. We're in an infiltrator one-shot taking out the guards scene. That's stealthy, not combat, and most people intuitively understand that as a cinema trope. It's only when you screw up and that one guard gets to scream or hit the alert button that combat begins. That doesn't sound like a flaw; that sounds like an exciting scenario to play.
I don't particularly care about their intentions, nor think they are even knowable to any degree of specificity like you wish to give them here. I care about the game rules producing a sensible narrative. But even if we are caring, my interpretation still avoids the entire ambushing side getting a free round - there's one attack or obviously hostile spell before initiative is rolled in the worst case scenario. To the degree their intention is plain, that would seem to fulfill it.
The two scenarios are identical. A spell is being cast. Since it is subtle, there are no components to be observed, so the first indication of a difference is when the spell is successfully cast and the effect happens. There can be no difference in response before that moment, so they are identical until that moment.
And I disagree the intentions on the dominate person matter at all. If it is going to be part of a larger assault, the dominate person would still happen before that assault. Indeed, I wouldn't expect the player to declare what he intended to do with the dominated victim until after the dominate person spell had already resolved. If the victim is made to turn and attack his buddies, that's combat starting. (And since he is perceived to begin the attack, you'd roll initiative before the attack happened, but the victim is already dominated.)
And even in theatre of the mind, you always played with a marching order and relative position. (Even going back to the first games). That's easy to transpose to a battlemap at any time. (And DMs had to decide how much of a party was hit by a fireball or dragon breath in theatre of the mind all the time, it's not like this is something you need a battlemap to determine).
But if you are using a battlemap, you're always on it in the most dangerous scenarios (like a dungeon), because square positioning matters for things like triggering traps already. (If playing with miniatures, I would typically have the party place themselves in marching order and relative position in an unused part of the grid when not actively on a map).
You're not supposed to metagame as the DM, either. It's not about the DM knowing, it's about what the NPCs know or don't know. The world must respond the same to the same apparent activity, or the world stops making sense. The NPCs don't behave differently because the sorceror is subtly casting Dominate Person or Fireball - they don't even know he's casting a spell!
And if you're saying 'start combat, but the NPCs act like nothing is going on', then why should players be able to act other than 'like nothing is going on'? That's effectively starting after the first attack or offensive spell which generates surprise. Basically you've had everyone roll initiative and then said they can't do anything, so what was the point of rolling initiative then?
I don't disagree you could run everything in combat time if you wanted to, although the rules don't actually support that. They say you roll initiative when combat starts.
Strongly disagree. The game rules are written in colloquial English except when words are specifically given technical definitions as terms of art. Combat is never given a technical meaning by the rules - it always appears in lowercase (except when any word would be capitalized, like starting a sentence). There is no separate 'combat, the game mechanic', because it has no technical meaning. It carries the normal English colloquial sense at all times.
(That there are technical rules for what happens in combat does not give 'what is combat?' a technical definition: determining whether combat is happening is still referred back to colloquial English meaning).
So there's no 'the rules say we're in combat now'. Combat occurs when a colloquial English speaker understands combat to be occurring, and not before, and then you invoke the rules for what happens in combat. Edit: Indeed, the rules explicitly says the DM decides when you roll initiative, there's no compulsion to declare it at a specific moment.
And it's not just a 'me' thing. It's a narrative sense thing. I've watched DMs take a moment to realize the 2024 rules as they interpreted them absolutely suck at describing certain surprise scenarios adequately, and on-the-spot decide to use older editions surprise rules, because narratively that made sense and the 2024 rules did not. My interpretation lets me run 2024 as written and maintain narrative flow and consistency.
Almost everything you wrote is the 'ambushee' perceiving the ambusher. That is explicitly perception. That is not what the initiative mechanic is supposed to accomplish.
If the 'ambushee' is perpetually paranoid, they should have described that behavior and activity before an ambush was even on the table.
Many ranged attacks will be effectively 'silent' from the perspective of the victim. A longbow being fired at 80' away is only ~45db. Barely audible under most circumstances if things are silent. Gear rattling, talking, or any other noise louder than background is going to drown it out. And that's the sound of it being fired - the arrow is already in the air by the time you could even theoretically hear it. By a little over 100', it's completely inaudible in most conditions. So a 'silent' ranged attack is normal.
Even a non-silent ranged attack, the sound is the sound of the attack happening. By the time you hear the musket or crossbow firing, you're hit (or not) before you can do anything. That's not enough warning to act.
A subtle spell is, by definition, undetectable. This is not an uncommon situation for a party to create. (Similarly, any spell with no verbal component doesn't break Invisible from Hidden, so is also effectively silent).
I will grant the enemies bursting from concealment is a perceivable event that would trigger initiative. I would start combat there, before an attack.
But also consider the Hidden Thief who stabs someone and then supreme sneaks back behind cover. He was at no point perceptible (as he is still Hidden, he wasn't found by perception). The only indication anything has happened is the stab wound.
Where is it written that you can start combat before initiative?
For those interested in the New Fighter | 2024 Player's Handbook | D&D podcast the Devs further elaborate on surprise while talking about the Champion;
We have a disagreement on definition here. I don't think combat has started yet when the sorceror is subtly casting a spell (in an otherwise nonviolent situation), because no one else is aware of it.
Combat starts when both sides are aware of each other (and both sides recognize hostilities are commencing). If that only happens after an attack or aggressive spell, then that's when combat starts, and not before.
Nothing prevents you from making an attack roll or casting a spell outside combat. Indeed, there are plenty of situations where it makes sense to do so. An archery contest is not combat (and I wouldn't roll initiative for it even for sequencing, as sequencing doesn't matter because there'd be no uncertain sequencing), but you'd still make attack rolls. Traps frequently make attack rolls outside combat. You can also plainly attack objects outside combat. And there are tons of spells that routinely get cast outside combat, and without triggering initiative rolls. There's nothing special about either activity that requires combat to be ongoing when you do them.
Now, the act of drawing a weapon or preparing to attack, if perceived by the enemy, will trigger combat before the attack. Visibly casting a spell may trigger combat at the moment you start casting. But if they can't perceive you doing so, their first indication of hostility is the attack happening or the spell happening. That's when combat starts.
Go grab someone who doesn't play DND. Ask them when combat starts. Use an example like 'a caravan is traveling on a road through a forest. They don't spot an ambush. The ambushers begin the ambush by firing an arrow, which hits the lead guard, and that is the first evidence the caravan has that they're threatened. When should the defenders be able to start reacting to the ambush? When has combat begun for them?' Willing to bet the answer you get aligns with my understanding for the vast majority of non-DND players you ask. There's your colloquial test for what 'combat' means. (Bet you most of them think the answer is obvious, too).
And that has zero impact on my interpretation, because the initiating event is before initiative is even rolled. It's what causes initiative to be rolled.
And if it's not in Sage Advice, it's just his personal houserule. I do not consider Crawford authoritative.