For what it's worth, the probability an undetected invisible assailant (advantage on initiative) wins initiative against a single surprised opponent (disadvantage on initiative) with the same bonus to initiative is only 81.58%. So almost 1 in 5 times, a single ambushed enemy goes first.
This gets worse the more surprised enemies there are. P(ambusher with advantage goes first | all combatants have the same initiative modifier):
2 surprised opponents: 66.56%
3 surprised opponents: 54.30%
4 surprised opponents: 44.30%
5 surprised opponents: 36.14%
6 surprised opponents: 29.5%
So even with just 3 opponents, you've only got about a 1 in 2 chance of going first as the ambusher. Against typical party sizes, you expect at least one of them to act before you.
If any of the surprised opponents has a higher initiative bonus than the ambusher, these odds drop even further.
Given a party of adventurers is generally 4-6 players, it isn't a rare occurrence for an ambushing enemy to be beaten on initiative. It's actually the expected result.
(Method: generated the probability of any given result for both 2d20 drop highest and 2d20 drop lowest. Computed the probability of each die pairing by multiplying the vectors and forming a matrix. multiplied all elements of this matrix by the corresponding elements of a matrix of the same size that was 1 wherever 2d20 drop the lowest > 2d20 drop the highest (which is a triangular matrix with a diagonal of 0s, and 1s above it), then summed all squares of that final matrix).
There's no time machine. When action initiate combat its not resolved before Initiative but after in turn order, as explained in the DMG which can still be anticipated. Wether you're Invisible or surprised by combat starting doesn't make any mention changing that fact, all it does it say is affecting Initiative with Advvantage & Disadvantage respectively.
So when the narratives transition to violence everything pause to follow combat steps by steps how combat unfold; 1. Establish Positions 2. Roll Initiative 3. Take Turns
At this point you know you're surprised by combat starting with Disadvantaged to Initiative, while the Invisible creature have Advantage to Initiative.
You still can't see anyone Invisible who's action initiate combat which you anticipated somehow. How much is revealed at this point is up to DM.
There's many ways this can be described the rules don't elaborate on this. Did you see, heard, smelled or otherwise sensed something moments before the attack? Or suspect something due to lack thereof from unusual silence. Perhaps birds took off right before the attack following a noise. Ambusher jump out of the woods about to attack etc The more you fill the blank, the more narrative support to rules mechanic there will be.
That is essentially what the Devs were saying in the Dragontalk: Sage Advice when suggesting to come up with narrative ways to describe it when the D20 throw you a curve ball in unexpected ways.
There's no time machine. When action initiate combat its not resolved before Initiative but after in turn order, as explained in the DMG which can still be anticipated. Wether you're Invisible or surprised by combat starting doesn't make any mention changing that fact, all it does it say is affecting Initiative with Advvantage & Disadvantage respectively.
So when the narratives transition to violence everything pause to follow combat steps by steps how combat unfold; 1. Establish Positions 2. Roll Initiative 3. Take Turns
At this point you know you're surprised by combat starting with Disadvantaged to Initiative, while the Invisible creature have Advantage to Initiative.
You still can't see anyone Invisible who's action initiate combat which you anticipated somehow. How much is revealed at this point is up to DM.
There's many ways this can be described the rules don't elaborate on this. Did you see, heard, smelled or otherwise sensed something moments before the attack? Or suspect something due to lack thereof from unusual silence. Perhaps birds took off right before the attack following a noise. Ambusher jump out of the woods about to attack etc The more you fill the blank, the more narrative support to rules mechanic there will be.
That is essentially what the Devs were saying in the Dragontalk: Sage Advice when suggesting to come up with narrative ways to describe it when the D20 throw you a curve ball in unexpected ways.
Yeah, except the dragontalk assumes 2014 surprise rules, where the surprised characters don't get to act in round 1. Totally different, because at least if they're not acting, they don't have a time machine and it doesn't disturb causality, and not at all applicable to the 2024 rules. (Nor does it help that there's no narrative way to handle the unobserved invisible attacker or the subtle spell sorceror - if they're delayed for some reason, combat simply doesn't happen until they do manage to act). Even in the context of the 2014 rules, their discussion about narrative ways to explain weirdness only makes sense in the context of 'i draw my dagger in the middle of the masquerade ball' and similar situations, where people can react to things they can see (the dagger visibly being drawn) before the attack is actually made. If the invisible assassin gets distracted by seeing his aunt sally at the ball or a massive pile of almond pastries, no one does anything in the meantime, because nothing is happening as far as everyone but the assassin is concerned.
Here's the problem: Some characters are surprised but act before anything happens that would have surprised them - that's a time machine in action. The cause is in the future.
And the initiating character does not even expect to act first most of the time. Nor are they committed to do the action that would have initiated combat. So combat just starts for no reason, and could potentially not involve any combat at all (the attacker chooses to withdraw unobserved because the enemies act first). That's non-linear causality, quite possibly resulting in no causality at all (the initiating character gets killed before they get a chance to do the thing that was theoretically initiating combat, and is thus killed for no reason at all).
Both of these are huge problems, and no one could reasonably think things should work like that.
And they also lead to narrative problems. The evil chancellor orders his guards to kill the PCs, and the guards catch the PCs by surprise somewhere in the castle. The PCs win initiative and kill the guards before they act. Now instead of acting in self defense, the PCs are murderers under your interpretation - the guards never actually did anything! The PCs just suddenly slaughtered them, and that's how any eyewitness would describe the events that actually happened. The chancellor comes off as the good guy when he advises the king to imprison the PCs. It's an absolute disaster from a narrative perspective, because the PCs only attacked the guards because they were told they were being attacked!
There's no time machine. When action initiate combat its not resolved before Initiative but after in turn order, as explained in the DMG which can still be anticipated. Wether you're Invisible or surprised by combat starting doesn't make any mention changing that fact, all it does it say is affecting Initiative with Advvantage & Disadvantage respectively.
So when the narratives transition to violence everything pause to follow combat steps by steps how combat unfold; 1. Establish Positions 2. Roll Initiative 3. Take Turns
At this point you know you're surprised by combat starting with Disadvantaged to Initiative, while the Invisible creature have Advantage to Initiative.
You still can't see anyone Invisible who's action initiate combat which you anticipated somehow. How much is revealed at this point is up to DM.
There's many ways this can be described the rules don't elaborate on this. Did you see, heard, smelled or otherwise sensed something moments before the attack? Or suspect something due to lack thereof from unusual silence. Perhaps birds took off right before the attack following a noise. Ambusher jump out of the woods about to attack etc The more you fill the blank, the more narrative support to rules mechanic there will be.
That is essentially what the Devs were saying in the Dragontalk: Sage Advice when suggesting to come up with narrative ways to describe it when the D20 throw you a curve ball in unexpected ways.
Initiative is an mechanic used to make narration of actions happening in quick succession easier to manage. Seeing, hearing or otherwise sensing something is covered by Perception, not Initiative. If someone did not have a high enough active or passive Perception to notice an ambusher, having a high Initiative does not mechanically provide a benefit to Perception. A gut feeling due to an unusual silence, or animal reactions might be Insight. The same issue arises. There's no mechanical benefit to Insight from a high Initiative.
An attacker jumping out of the woods and being spotted doesn't apply to the OP's scenario, which has an ambusher already in hiding using an ability which makes them magically transparent and their footsteps silent.
Both of these are huge problems, and no one could reasonably think things should work like that.
And they also lead to narrative problems. The evil chancellor orders his guards to kill the PCs, and the guards catch the PCs by surprise somewhere in the castle. The PCs win initiative and kill the guards before they act. Now instead of acting in self defense, the PCs are murderers under your interpretation - the guards never actually did anything! The PCs just suddenly slaughtered them, and that's how any eyewitness would describe the events that actually happened. The chancellor comes off as the good guy when he advises the king to imprison the PCs. It's an absolute disaster from a narrative perspective, because the PCs only attacked the guards because they were told they were being attacked!
Guards attacking PC's in the castle is not a good example to support your case, because there could be any number of indications, expressions, body stance, pace of movement, and obviously the sound of swords being drawn.
The surprise system only really has problems for an unseen attacker who kicks combat off, but their initiative puts unaware characters ahead of them and lets them react to actions which haven't happened yet.
While action initiating combat aren't resolved before Initiative, something is iniatiated to make others surprised by combat starting. Something is told to DM to start combat.
DM preferring to limit Initiative randomness can always use Initiatice Score;
So what I actually do is a system that amounts to "if you successfully surprise the enemy, you win initiative". To cut down on die rolls I just combine the check for whether you successfully surprise the enemy (stealth vs perception most of the time, sometimes deception vs insight) with the initiative roll. This does mean the person who kicked off the combat might not go first, but at that point there's a narrative explanation: you botched your attempt to surprise them and they saw you coming.
OK, it's becoming quite clear that this is a you problem. You have a particularly idiosyncratic idea of how combat in D&D should behave, and it's incompatible with the 5e rules.
The 5e rules work. Whether they work well is a matter of opinion, but one can run combats with them by the book. Yes, one can contrive scenarios where they produce odd results, but so what? One can contrive scenarios for any set of rules that make them go badly.
To touch briefly on the scenario that started this thread, I'd probably drop into combat a couple of rounds before the party makes combat with the ambusher.
Jumping into combat a couple of rounds before making contact is not a great idea in my view. That's the GM practically insisting that the players actively metagame and roll perception checks until they succeed. If the GM constructed the situation with an ambusher designed to be undetected, I don't know why they would deliberately undermine it like that.
The thing is, they don't know why we're in combat time. Are there traps? Hazards? Enemies ready to rush out of the fortress gate? Snipers above? Etc.
(I also might introduce some traps or hazards, just to keep them on their toes.)
By dropping in early, IMO you reduce the players' ability to correctly predict what and when will happen.
But really, the only metagamey thing I'd expect players to do in the supposed problem situation here is prepare actions like attacking or cantrips that, narratively, are perfectly plausible things that one would do when an enemy pops out of nowhere by surprise. Nobody's gonna drop a fireball just because.
(As a side note, the great menace of metagaming is massively overrated. The problem, such as it is, is bad play.)
Would you as a GM have players roll initiative when traveling on an open road with no enemies around, just to fake players out?
I cannot disagree more. The answer cannot depend on what spell is being cast. No time machines. The GM should be able to decide what happens without being told what spell it is. (That is, yeah, he should be told, but his decision shouldn't change based on what he's told. The world needs to be consistent and causality linear barring prophecy, divination, or other explicit means of accessing the future).
Indeed, my preference as a DM would be for players to come up with what the components of each of their spells are, and narrate the components when they cast instead of declaring what spell they're casting.
OK, it's becoming quite clear that this is a you problem. You have a particularly idiosyncratic idea of how combat in D&D should behave, and it's incompatible with the 5e rules.
The 5e rules work. Whether they work well is a matter of opinion, but one can run combats with them by the book. Yes, one can contrive scenarios where they produce odd results, but so what? One can contrive scenarios for any set of rules that make them go badly.
To touch briefly on the scenario that started this thread, I'd probably drop into combat a couple of rounds before the party makes combat with the ambusher.
No time machines and linear causality is particularly idiosyncratic? Really?
Dude. You are talking about how the DM shouldn't know what spells the players are casting. Elsewhere you asserted that combat doesn't begin until everybody knows they're in a fight.
You appear to have this thing where you want the mechanics to be completely subservient to the fiction. Your "time machine" thing is because you're unwilling to accept that invoking the combat rules prior to an attack being made is perfectly fine and normal. (It's also how just about all non-surprise combats happen.)
I have yet to see the 2024 surprise rules played as you interpret them in any real game.
So? How many real games do you happen to observe?
It's also the kind of thing where a lot of tables have their own house practices. Plenty of people are still running surprise rounds in 24 games, likely because they are unaware there's a change. I might run it by the book, but my current game has virtually no fights where surprise is a factor, so it hasn't come up. (Combination of setting details, very negotiaty players, and not a lot of fights.)
OK, it's becoming quite clear that this is a you problem. You have a particularly idiosyncratic idea of how combat in D&D should behave, and it's incompatible with the 5e rules.
The 5e rules work. Whether they work well is a matter of opinion, but one can run combats with them by the book. Yes, one can contrive scenarios where they produce odd results, but so what? One can contrive scenarios for any set of rules that make them go badly.
To touch briefly on the scenario that started this thread, I'd probably drop into combat a couple of rounds before the party makes combat with the ambusher.
Jumping into combat a couple of rounds before making contact is not a great idea in my view. That's the GM practically insisting that the players actively metagame and roll perception checks until they succeed. If the GM constructed the situation with an ambusher designed to be undetected, I don't know why they would deliberately undermine it like that.
The thing is, they don't know why we're in combat time. Are there traps? Hazards? Enemies ready to rush out of the fortress gate? Snipers above? Etc.
(I also might introduce some traps or hazards, just to keep them on their toes.)
By dropping in early, IMO you reduce the players' ability to correctly predict what and when will happen.
But really, the only metagamey thing I'd expect players to do in the supposed problem situation here is prepare actions like attacking or cantrips that, narratively, are perfectly plausible things that one would do when an enemy pops out of nowhere by surprise. Nobody's gonna drop a fireball just because.
(As a side note, the great menace of metagaming is massively overrated. The problem, such as it is, is bad play.)
In my opinion, it's up to the PC's to decide whether to make Perception checks when doing things such as approaching an entrance to an enemy fortress. Is it smart for them to do so, absolutely. If they don't choose to make any, then it's up to their passive perception. If they are relying on passive perception, or they do make an active perception check but fail, them's the breaks. I'd typically only allow one or two rolls for Perception - either two players separately or one rolling with advantage.
Dropping them into initiative with no obvious threat means that they will almost certainly roll Perception checks, whether or not they already did that and failed. If they're dropped into initiative 2 or more rounds before making contact with the enemy, as you suggested, then they will get 2+ rounds to each make Perception checks, instead of just one each (and maybe they even made one before initiative started). The DM is the one who set up the situation with the Orc Garotter hiding near the entrance to begin with, and giving the players that many chances undermines the very scenario they set up.
By dropping in early, IMO you reduce the players' ability to correctly predict what and when will happen.
IMO, that's completely wrong. You yourself just said that you wouldn't have PC's roll initiative on an open road where nothing is going to happen, because that's a waste of everyone's time. That's correct. Which is why rolling initiative absolutely tells the players something IS going to happen, and there's an element of danger or risk to it. That's the exact opposite of reducing the players ability to correctly predict what and when something will happen.
But really, the only metagamey thing I'd expect players to do in the supposed problem situation here is prepare actions like attacking or cantrips that, narratively, are perfectly plausible things that one would do when an enemy pops out of nowhere by surprise. Nobody's gonna drop a fireball just because.
You'd think that, but earlier in the thread, dropping a fireball in response to an attacker which was silent, invisible, undetected and hadn't attacked yet (because they rolled lower on initiative) was one of the possibilities suggested:
The top of the order (before ambushers) is able to react to whatever is about to happen because they are just that much faster with their reflexes. If that means they take the dodge action, or ready a sword swing, or blow up the room, then so be it. Again, the ambusher is—supposedly—attacking in those same 6 seconds, so play into that. As the attack suddenly becomes visible, the PC who chose dodge was able to duck out of the way (or not, if the ambusher targeted another character). As the attack suddenly becomes visible, he gets stuck in the gut by the godly reflexes of the rogue (or not, because the attacker wasn't within range). As the attack becomes suddenly visible, the room explodes as the double 20 rolled by the wizard for initiative resulted in a fireball (or they ended up killing the tied up price they didn't spot and the attacker was actually 80 ft away with a xbow and shoots the wizard anyway).
Some of the quasi 5.24e rules proposed in this thread are even more awkward because it incentivizes the ambusher to roll low (i.e. they don't want advantage) so the party wastes their turn "doing nothing while waiting for combat to 'actually' start", effectively giving the "surprise round" that was supposed to be done away with.
***
I don't see any conflict with the rules as written by by letting the Garotter who the PC's failed to perceive get off the first attack and then rolling initiative with surprise afterwards (disadvantage for the surprised people, advantage for any attackers who are unseen - but no advantage on the one who just attacked). This is not the same thing as the 2014 surprise round where all the ambushers get a turn and all the ones ambushed are flat-footed and do nothing, it's one single attack which the attacker gets off first because they were undetected, and then initiative gets rolled.
I cannot disagree more. The answer cannot depend on what spell is being cast. No time machines. The GM should be able to decide what happens without being told what spell it is. (That is, yeah, he should be told, but his decision shouldn't change based on what he's told. The world needs to be consistent and causality linear barring prophecy, divination, or other explicit means of accessing the future).
Indeed, my preference as a DM would be for players to come up with what the components of each of their spells are, and narrate the components when they cast instead of declaring what spell they're casting.
OK, it's becoming quite clear that this is a you problem. You have a particularly idiosyncratic idea of how combat in D&D should behave, and it's incompatible with the 5e rules.
The 5e rules work. Whether they work well is a matter of opinion, but one can run combats with them by the book. Yes, one can contrive scenarios where they produce odd results, but so what? One can contrive scenarios for any set of rules that make them go badly.
To touch briefly on the scenario that started this thread, I'd probably drop into combat a couple of rounds before the party makes combat with the ambusher.
No time machines and linear causality is particularly idiosyncratic? Really?
Dude. You are talking about how the DM shouldn't know what spells the players are casting. Elsewhere you asserted that combat doesn't begin until everybody knows they're in a fight.
You appear to have this thing where you want the mechanics to be completely subservient to the fiction. Your "time machine" thing is because you're unwilling to accept that invoking the combat rules prior to an attack being made is perfectly fine and normal. (It's also how just about all non-surprise combats happen.)
No, I said the DM didn't need to know which spell was being cast to adjudicate what would happen at the moment spellcasting began, because it should be the same thing regardless of which spell it was. I conceded he should know (ie, the players should tell him), but that this knowledge shouldn't matter. Just because the DM knows it, doesn't mean the NPCs know it, and the DM should keep those things separate in his mind.
I want the mechanics subservient to common sense. If something causes something to happen, that something has to actually happen so causality is preserved. No bootstrap paradoxes! Bootstrap paradoxes are neither fine nor normal.
And if the mechanics aren't serving the "fiction", as you call it, then what are they there for? The whole point of mechanics is to avoid the cops and robbers style disagreement on how actions comes out (ie, we can agree on the resolution of actions), not to make a total hash of it so we can't even agree on what caused those actions to happen in the first place. Might as well go back to playing cops and robbers at that point. Even my niece and nephew understand action comes before reaction.
(I agree, in non-surprise situations, and even in some surprise situations, initiative should be rolled before the first attack - because combatants are aware of each other and know hostilities are commencing before an actual attack. I see you draw your sword, I know violence will ensue).
I have yet to see the 2024 surprise rules played as you interpret them in any real game.
So? How many real games do you happen to observe?
It's also the kind of thing where a lot of tables have their own house practices. Plenty of people are still running surprise rounds in 24 games, likely because they are unaware there's a change. I might run it by the book, but my current game has virtually no fights where surprise is a factor, so it hasn't come up. (Combination of setting details, very negotiaty players, and not a lot of fights.)
Ignoring games I've ran... a dozen different DMs at least? Some of which were con games theoretically run by RAW. I've never heard a story about ganking an invisible undetected assailant, either, from anybody describing their campaign.
I also see player character stealth as a frequent element in games. Most combats in my experience involve at least an attempt at surprise by one or both sides, with the players more frequently being the ones achieving surprise.
The most recent game I was a player in had 3 combats which should have involved attempts at surprise:
1. A statue which came to life due to a trap (just missed detection on the perception check, and party missed other clues something was up). DM seems to have decided it came to life slowly enough that he didn't call for surprise, but i would have said the party was surprised had I been running it. (That said, the eyes lighting up and it starting to move would have been a good indication combat was starting - so 2024 surprise rules would have worked fine there.)
2. Spiders with a lair down a side passageway with thin web across the floor of the intersection. Detected by my poor spider familiar (who, having web sense, detected the spiders as they detected him), and since I was sharing senses with it, I was aware they were there. Sadly, they beat me on initiative, but losing 10g worth of incense and the time it takes to cast Find Familiar again is much cheaper than my frail level 1 sneaky wizard getting jumped by spiders. Surprise avoided because I happened to choose a spider as my familiar. (Although in hindsight, a bat would likely have worked even better).
3. Troglodyte lair. I snuck down the cave, got a good look at them, reported back to the party. We set up an ambush at a narrow spot in the cave, then I crept back to the entrance to their lair. At which point, the DM considered the surprise rules (both 2014 and 2024 versions), decided neither made any sense, and DM gave me a 3.5 surprise round (one attack, then we went to initiative). I initiated combat with a crossbow attack from the shadows, won initiative, and then drew the Troglodytes back to the ambush (where they got absolutely thrashed).
(If it wasn't a convention game, I would've probably tried to use minor illusion to trick them into thinking some of their members were shapechanger infiltrators or creatures wearing their friends skins or something similar, and get them fighting amongst themselves. But it was the end of the adventure, we were running out of time, and the scout gets enough time in the spotlight without trying to solo an encounter with minor illusion).
The only encounter in the adventure that didn't involve surprise was a pair of rust monsters that we lured away from where we were hiding the party members wearing metal armor (which was more than half the party, and we stuck them ~90' down a side passage), and didn't fight at all. A different party could have easily ambushed them.
I think I spent almost the entire adventure Invisible from being Hidden when not in combat doing things that ended Invisibility.
And I generally see at least one member of any party taking the role of scout and doing similar things, and I've seen whole parties take stealth proficiency. Ambushing unaware foes is a regular occurrence, not a rare event.
There's no mechanical benefit to Insight from a high Initiative.
Regardless of Initiative result, being surprised by combat starting makes you roll it with Disadvantage. This is a fact from cause and effect.
Since the action initiating combat doesn't occur before Initiative, what cause surprise may not be as clear when an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting - as opposed to when not hidden - but the effect of surprise remains the same.
The DC 15 requirement is how you adjudicate whether or not you have successfully concealed yourself. In this context, this means that you have successfully become both unseen and unheard. Being unseen is a prerequisite for even making this attempt in the first place. When successful, it means that you have successfully concealed yourself and have become "hidden". While hidden, you have all of the benefits of being hidden -- most of which are detailed elsewhere, not within the text for the Hide action (see Unseen Attackers and Targets for what it means to be hidden mechanically in addition to what is explicitly listed within the Hide action). In addition, you also have the Invisible condition (explicitly declared within the text for the Hide action) while hidden.
. . .
No, the Hide action doesn't actually make you invisible. And no, having the Invisible condition is not the only result of successfully hiding.
Rather than actually making you invisible, the Hide action just says that you have the Invisible Condition while hidden. It's basically just saying that you have the same benefits as being invisible by virtue of the fact that you are currently unseen.
I would like you to quote rules to prove any of that. Most especially about the Hide action.
. . .
(There's also no difference between being invisible and the invisible condition. The only difference RAW between invisible from the spell Invisibility and the Hide action is the conditions for losing invisibility.)
. . .
(Edit: There most definitely are opposed rolls. The Hide action specifically tells you to make note of your stealth roll and compare the detecting characters perception to that roll. That's an opposed roll.)
I'll try to briefly summarize my stance about the Hide action although there are other threads where the debate about those mechanics is ongoing.
The main thing that I think that a lot of people miss is that not everything related to being hidden is contained within the text for the Hide action. What it means to be hidden (the mechanical consequences of being hidden) is declared in this other rule:
Unseen Attackers and Targets
When you make an attack roll against a target you can’t see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you miss.
When a creature can’t see you, you have Advantage on attack rolls against it.
If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
To summarize these benefits of being hidden:
-- In addition to having the benefits of being an unseen attacker or target, being hidden also makes it so that your enemy has to "guess the square" when trying to attack you because . . .
-- When you are hidden, your location is unknown due to being both unseen and unheard. However, . . .
-- If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
So, when you become hidden, these above rules apply. How do you become hidden? You successfully take the Hide action:
Hide [Action]
With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed . . .
. . .
On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition while hidden . . .
So, the thing that you are actually attempting to do when you take the Hide action is to conceal yourself. You are not attempting to become invisible. You are trying to hide your location by becoming both unseen and unheard. A prerequisite for making this attempt is that you have to make yourself unseen first. Then, you attempt to remain quiet enough so that your enemies cannot detect your location.
So, what happens when you succeed on your Stealth check? You successfully conceal yourself. While things remain this way, you have the Invisible condition.
So, in addition to the bullet points given above as mechanical consequences for being hidden, you also have the benefits that are listed within the Invisible condition. There is some overlap there, but those benefits include:
-- If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
-- You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
-- Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
The end result is that when you successfully Hide, you gain the benefits of ALL 6 of the above bullet points, not just 3 of them. This effectively makes you both unseen and unheard which by default makes your location unknown to your enemies. But you must remain both unseen and unheard in order to keep these benefits since you only have the Invisible condition while hidden. Meaning, you cannot Hide or be hidden while in plain sight. Ability checks, such as Perception checks, are only called for when there is a reasonable chance for success or failure. When a situation will yield an auto-successful result, the ability check is not required.
As for the statement that there is no difference between the being invisible and the Invisible Condition -- there most certainly is a difference. The condition is simply a set of rules / benefits that are applied to the creature in question. The condition could have been called anything. The authors have chosen to use the word "Invisible" for that condition. There is some ongoing debate about what precisely this condition actually describes in 2024 since there is no longer any mention of actually becoming unseen when you have this condition. There is a case to be made that true invisibility as a concept that most of us conjure in our minds when we see the word "invisible" doesn't actually exist in the universe of D&D 5e 2024. At least not within any feature that relies on the Invisible condition.
Lastly, the mechanic of opposed rolls -- referred to in 2014 as "Contested Checks" has been eliminated from the 2024 rules. This is well documented. The rules for hiding have changed significantly because of this. There is now a set DC for the Stealth check as well as a set DC for the Perception check (which is set to the value of the Stealth roll). Even this perception check works differently now. In the 2014 Contested Checks rule, a "tie" on the roll meant that the status quo was maintained. So, if a creature was already hidden, they would remain hidden. If a creature started out with their location already known (such as during combat) and attempted to hide, then a tie meant that their location would remain known. Now, in 2024, the more simplified DC mechanic is used where the creature that is making the attempt must always "meet or exceed" the DC in order to succeed. This applies to the DC 15 Stealth roll and then also the subsequent rolls for Perception.
__________
I'll try to catch up on the more recent comments later but so far in this thread there seems to be some discussion of the "this is how I would run it" (homebrew) variety and others are talking about "this is what the rules say" (RAW) and it seems like these two groups are talking past each other a lot.
Since the action initiating combat doesn't occur before Initiative, what cause surprise may not be as clear when an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting - as opposed to when not hidden - but the effect of surprise remains the same.
I agree that surprise is in effect. I agree that if there is a visible opponent, and combat starting which surprises someone, rolling initiative with the surprise rules works even if the one who is surprised acts before the person initiating combat (the example of the Sorcerer attacking the doppleganger).
The issue is this edge case of an undetected ambusher initiating combat. What I am disputing is the idea that the ambushee rolling higher initiative than the undetected attacker suddenly "somehow" becomes aware of hostilities and is able to act in response to an attack which - by the very definition of initiative - has not happened yet.
The end result is that when you successfully Hide, you gain the benefits of ALL 6 of the above bullet points, not just 3 of them. This effectively makes you both unseen and unheard which by default makes your location unknown to your enemies. But you must remain both unseen and unheard in order to keep these benefits since you only have the Invisible condition while hidden.
So the Orc Garroter's location is known when using Cloak rather than Hide would you agree?
The issue is this edge case of an undetected ambusher initiating combat. What I am disputing is the idea that the ambushee rolling higher initiative than the undetected attacker suddenly "somehow" becomes aware of hostilities and is able to act in response to an attack which - by the very definition of initiative - has not happened yet.
Something is about to happen for the DM to decides combat is starting. This is what you're surprised by, before Initiative is even rolled as you have Disadvantage to the roll. There is no edge case to me ''hidden from a foe who is unaware'' is even one of the example given in Surprise;
Surprise. If a combatant is surprised by combat starting, that combatant has Disadvantage on their Initiative roll. For example, if an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting, that foe is surprised.
Since the action initiating combat doesn't occur before Initiative, what cause surprise may not be as clear when an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting - as opposed to when not hidden - but the effect of surprise remains the same.
I agree that surprise is in effect. I agree that if there is a visible opponent, and combat starting which surprises someone, rolling initiative with the surprise rules works even if the one who is surprised acts before the person initiating combat (the example of the Sorcerer attacking the doppleganger).
The issue is this edge case of an undetected ambusher initiating combat. What I am disputing is the idea that the ambushee rolling higher initiative than the undetected attacker suddenly "somehow" becomes aware of hostilities and is able to act in response to an attack which - by the very definition of initiative - has not happened yet.
I agree, and one reason is that the definition of an ambush is not the same as surprise combat. Ambushes have killing zones (including who assigning individuals to only attack certain named individuals) as they are preplanned and ambushing individuals have prepared and maybe even practiced. Surprise combat is just that, a surprise.
The issue is this edge case of an undetected ambusher initiating combat. What I am disputing is the idea that the ambushee rolling higher initiative than the undetected attacker suddenly "somehow" becomes aware of hostilities and is able to act in response to an attack which - by the very definition of initiative - has not happened yet.
Something is about to happen for the DM to decides combat is starting. This is what you're surprised by, before Initiative is even rolled as you have Disadvantage to the roll. There is no edge case to me ''hidden from a foe who is unaware'' is even one of the example given in Surprise;
Surprise. If a combatant is surprised by combat starting, that combatant has Disadvantage on their Initiative roll. For example, if an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting, that foe is surprised.
Okay, we are definitely talking past each other. You seem to be thinking I'm saying to not use Surprise when rolling Initiative, which is not the case.
At least the 2014 rules do have an example of an 'attack' before rolling initiative:
"A band of adventurers sneaks up on a bandit camp, springing from the trees to attack them. A gelatinous cube glides down a dungeon passage, unnoticed by the adventurers until the cube engulfs one of them. In these situations, one side of the battle gains surprise over the other." (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/combat#Surprise)
The gelatinous cube in that example has already engulfed one of the party before surprise, which is an attack. (In the situation where the party member is already engulfed, the cube then gains surprise).
This also reinforced my idea that its when both sides become aware of each other that combat starts, because the cube is 'unnoticed' until the engulfing, and that happens before it gains surprise.
And this is literally the only surprise example from the rules or designers I can find of a group being caught completely unaware by a foe they couldn't perceive.
Now, they seem to have removed all examples of surprise from the rules in 2024 - i don't think we have a single apropos discussion from a designer post-2024 rules on Surprise. But in both cases, the rules never say 'combat starts before any attacks are made', it instead says the DM decides when you roll initiative (and thus when combat starts).
I don't actually think there is much "talking past each other". The main point of contention seems to be whether a hostile action can be executedbefore initiative is rolled. No one seems to be confused about who would get advantage or disadvantage when that actually happens, though.
I'm still of the camp that thinks the text and examples are quite clear: no. And I still like up2ng's "just narrate the die rolls like you always do" take on it. However, Squirreloid is not wrong when they point out that there is a bit of a disconnect, logically.
BG3 has certainly not helped, but again "taking turns" in combat should be seen as a complete abstraction of the 6-second round. The way it should be played (based on how the abstraction works) is that every player decides what they will do in that round, write it on a piece of paper, then all reveal at the same time and execute the actions in initiative order (this is how some board games, like Gloom/Frosthaven work). For better or for worse, that is not how the rules actually flow, and that leads players to think of turns as their own little sub-6-second chunks within the round (this is what I meant by the DM "metagaming" before by deciding not to do the hostile action after the fact).
Lastly, I want to reiterate that high initiative is not a substitute for insight or perception, but is your ability to react quickly to a situation. Fireballing a room is certainly an action you can take, but wow, that's a hell of a waste of a spell if the ambush was actually coming from behind... To me, the most reasonable actions one could take at the top of the order before the ambushers actually attack is either the Ready or the Dodge. And both of those play into the fantasy that if you have superhuman reflexes (roll high on initiative even with disadvantage) then you were not caught unawares.
At least the 2014 rules do have an example of an 'attack' before rolling initiative:
No they don't. The side with surprise is attacking during the surprise round.
There was no surprise round. Surprised characters simply couldn't take actions, and stopped being surprised after their first turn.
And the example is pretty explicit. The cube is unnoticed until one of the party members is already engulfed. Then it gains surprise in the ensuing combat.
For what it's worth, the probability an undetected invisible assailant (advantage on initiative) wins initiative against a single surprised opponent (disadvantage on initiative) with the same bonus to initiative is only 81.58%. So almost 1 in 5 times, a single ambushed enemy goes first.
This gets worse the more surprised enemies there are. P(ambusher with advantage goes first | all combatants have the same initiative modifier):
2 surprised opponents: 66.56%
3 surprised opponents: 54.30%
4 surprised opponents: 44.30%
5 surprised opponents: 36.14%
6 surprised opponents: 29.5%
So even with just 3 opponents, you've only got about a 1 in 2 chance of going first as the ambusher. Against typical party sizes, you expect at least one of them to act before you.
If any of the surprised opponents has a higher initiative bonus than the ambusher, these odds drop even further.
Given a party of adventurers is generally 4-6 players, it isn't a rare occurrence for an ambushing enemy to be beaten on initiative. It's actually the expected result.
(Method: generated the probability of any given result for both 2d20 drop highest and 2d20 drop lowest. Computed the probability of each die pairing by multiplying the vectors and forming a matrix. multiplied all elements of this matrix by the corresponding elements of a matrix of the same size that was 1 wherever 2d20 drop the lowest > 2d20 drop the highest (which is a triangular matrix with a diagonal of 0s, and 1s above it), then summed all squares of that final matrix).
There's no time machine. When action initiate combat its not resolved before Initiative but after in turn order, as explained in the DMG which can still be anticipated. Wether you're Invisible or surprised by combat starting doesn't make any mention changing that fact, all it does it say is affecting Initiative with Advvantage & Disadvantage respectively.
So when the narratives transition to violence everything pause to follow combat steps by steps how combat unfold; 1. Establish Positions 2. Roll Initiative 3. Take Turns
At this point you know you're surprised by combat starting with Disadvantaged to Initiative, while the Invisible creature have Advantage to Initiative.
You still can't see anyone Invisible who's action initiate combat which you anticipated somehow. How much is revealed at this point is up to DM.
There's many ways this can be described the rules don't elaborate on this. Did you see, heard, smelled or otherwise sensed something moments before the attack? Or suspect something due to lack thereof from unusual silence. Perhaps birds took off right before the attack following a noise. Ambusher jump out of the woods about to attack etc The more you fill the blank, the more narrative support to rules mechanic there will be.
That is essentially what the Devs were saying in the Dragontalk: Sage Advice when suggesting to come up with narrative ways to describe it when the D20 throw you a curve ball in unexpected ways.
Yeah, except the dragontalk assumes 2014 surprise rules, where the surprised characters don't get to act in round 1. Totally different, because at least if they're not acting, they don't have a time machine and it doesn't disturb causality, and not at all applicable to the 2024 rules. (Nor does it help that there's no narrative way to handle the unobserved invisible attacker or the subtle spell sorceror - if they're delayed for some reason, combat simply doesn't happen until they do manage to act). Even in the context of the 2014 rules, their discussion about narrative ways to explain weirdness only makes sense in the context of 'i draw my dagger in the middle of the masquerade ball' and similar situations, where people can react to things they can see (the dagger visibly being drawn) before the attack is actually made. If the invisible assassin gets distracted by seeing his aunt sally at the ball or a massive pile of almond pastries, no one does anything in the meantime, because nothing is happening as far as everyone but the assassin is concerned.
Here's the problem: Some characters are surprised but act before anything happens that would have surprised them - that's a time machine in action. The cause is in the future.
And the initiating character does not even expect to act first most of the time. Nor are they committed to do the action that would have initiated combat. So combat just starts for no reason, and could potentially not involve any combat at all (the attacker chooses to withdraw unobserved because the enemies act first). That's non-linear causality, quite possibly resulting in no causality at all (the initiating character gets killed before they get a chance to do the thing that was theoretically initiating combat, and is thus killed for no reason at all).
Both of these are huge problems, and no one could reasonably think things should work like that.
And they also lead to narrative problems. The evil chancellor orders his guards to kill the PCs, and the guards catch the PCs by surprise somewhere in the castle. The PCs win initiative and kill the guards before they act. Now instead of acting in self defense, the PCs are murderers under your interpretation - the guards never actually did anything! The PCs just suddenly slaughtered them, and that's how any eyewitness would describe the events that actually happened. The chancellor comes off as the good guy when he advises the king to imprison the PCs. It's an absolute disaster from a narrative perspective, because the PCs only attacked the guards because they were told they were being attacked!
Initiative is an mechanic used to make narration of actions happening in quick succession easier to manage. Seeing, hearing or otherwise sensing something is covered by Perception, not Initiative. If someone did not have a high enough active or passive Perception to notice an ambusher, having a high Initiative does not mechanically provide a benefit to Perception. A gut feeling due to an unusual silence, or animal reactions might be Insight. The same issue arises. There's no mechanical benefit to Insight from a high Initiative.
An attacker jumping out of the woods and being spotted doesn't apply to the OP's scenario, which has an ambusher already in hiding using an ability which makes them magically transparent and their footsteps silent.
Guards attacking PC's in the castle is not a good example to support your case, because there could be any number of indications, expressions, body stance, pace of movement, and obviously the sound of swords being drawn.
The surprise system only really has problems for an unseen attacker who kicks combat off, but their initiative puts unaware characters ahead of them and lets them react to actions which haven't happened yet.
While action initiating combat aren't resolved before Initiative, something is iniatiated to make others surprised by combat starting. Something is told to DM to start combat.
DM preferring to limit Initiative randomness can always use Initiatice Score;
Ambusher 15 + DEX mod
Surprised 05 + DEX mod
So what I actually do is a system that amounts to "if you successfully surprise the enemy, you win initiative". To cut down on die rolls I just combine the check for whether you successfully surprise the enemy (stealth vs perception most of the time, sometimes deception vs insight) with the initiative roll. This does mean the person who kicked off the combat might not go first, but at that point there's a narrative explanation: you botched your attempt to surprise them and they saw you coming.
The thing is, they don't know why we're in combat time. Are there traps? Hazards? Enemies ready to rush out of the fortress gate? Snipers above? Etc.
(I also might introduce some traps or hazards, just to keep them on their toes.)
By dropping in early, IMO you reduce the players' ability to correctly predict what and when will happen.
But really, the only metagamey thing I'd expect players to do in the supposed problem situation here is prepare actions like attacking or cantrips that, narratively, are perfectly plausible things that one would do when an enemy pops out of nowhere by surprise. Nobody's gonna drop a fireball just because.
(As a side note, the great menace of metagaming is massively overrated. The problem, such as it is, is bad play.)
No; that's wasting everybody's time.
Dude. You are talking about how the DM shouldn't know what spells the players are casting. Elsewhere you asserted that combat doesn't begin until everybody knows they're in a fight.
You appear to have this thing where you want the mechanics to be completely subservient to the fiction. Your "time machine" thing is because you're unwilling to accept that invoking the combat rules prior to an attack being made is perfectly fine and normal. (It's also how just about all non-surprise combats happen.)
So? How many real games do you happen to observe?
It's also the kind of thing where a lot of tables have their own house practices. Plenty of people are still running surprise rounds in 24 games, likely because they are unaware there's a change. I might run it by the book, but my current game has virtually no fights where surprise is a factor, so it hasn't come up. (Combination of setting details, very negotiaty players, and not a lot of fights.)
In my opinion, it's up to the PC's to decide whether to make Perception checks when doing things such as approaching an entrance to an enemy fortress. Is it smart for them to do so, absolutely. If they don't choose to make any, then it's up to their passive perception. If they are relying on passive perception, or they do make an active perception check but fail, them's the breaks. I'd typically only allow one or two rolls for Perception - either two players separately or one rolling with advantage.
Dropping them into initiative with no obvious threat means that they will almost certainly roll Perception checks, whether or not they already did that and failed. If they're dropped into initiative 2 or more rounds before making contact with the enemy, as you suggested, then they will get 2+ rounds to each make Perception checks, instead of just one each (and maybe they even made one before initiative started). The DM is the one who set up the situation with the Orc Garotter hiding near the entrance to begin with, and giving the players that many chances undermines the very scenario they set up.
IMO, that's completely wrong. You yourself just said that you wouldn't have PC's roll initiative on an open road where nothing is going to happen, because that's a waste of everyone's time. That's correct. Which is why rolling initiative absolutely tells the players something IS going to happen, and there's an element of danger or risk to it. That's the exact opposite of reducing the players ability to correctly predict what and when something will happen.
You'd think that, but earlier in the thread, dropping a fireball in response to an attacker which was silent, invisible, undetected and hadn't attacked yet (because they rolled lower on initiative) was one of the possibilities suggested:
***
I don't see any conflict with the rules as written by by letting the Garotter who the PC's failed to perceive get off the first attack and then rolling initiative with surprise afterwards (disadvantage for the surprised people, advantage for any attackers who are unseen - but no advantage on the one who just attacked). This is not the same thing as the 2014 surprise round where all the ambushers get a turn and all the ones ambushed are flat-footed and do nothing, it's one single attack which the attacker gets off first because they were undetected, and then initiative gets rolled.
No, I said the DM didn't need to know which spell was being cast to adjudicate what would happen at the moment spellcasting began, because it should be the same thing regardless of which spell it was. I conceded he should know (ie, the players should tell him), but that this knowledge shouldn't matter. Just because the DM knows it, doesn't mean the NPCs know it, and the DM should keep those things separate in his mind.
I want the mechanics subservient to common sense. If something causes something to happen, that something has to actually happen so causality is preserved. No bootstrap paradoxes! Bootstrap paradoxes are neither fine nor normal.
And if the mechanics aren't serving the "fiction", as you call it, then what are they there for? The whole point of mechanics is to avoid the cops and robbers style disagreement on how actions comes out (ie, we can agree on the resolution of actions), not to make a total hash of it so we can't even agree on what caused those actions to happen in the first place. Might as well go back to playing cops and robbers at that point. Even my niece and nephew understand action comes before reaction.
(I agree, in non-surprise situations, and even in some surprise situations, initiative should be rolled before the first attack - because combatants are aware of each other and know hostilities are commencing before an actual attack. I see you draw your sword, I know violence will ensue).
Ignoring games I've ran... a dozen different DMs at least? Some of which were con games theoretically run by RAW. I've never heard a story about ganking an invisible undetected assailant, either, from anybody describing their campaign.
I also see player character stealth as a frequent element in games. Most combats in my experience involve at least an attempt at surprise by one or both sides, with the players more frequently being the ones achieving surprise.
The most recent game I was a player in had 3 combats which should have involved attempts at surprise:
1. A statue which came to life due to a trap (just missed detection on the perception check, and party missed other clues something was up). DM seems to have decided it came to life slowly enough that he didn't call for surprise, but i would have said the party was surprised had I been running it. (That said, the eyes lighting up and it starting to move would have been a good indication combat was starting - so 2024 surprise rules would have worked fine there.)
2. Spiders with a lair down a side passageway with thin web across the floor of the intersection. Detected by my poor spider familiar (who, having web sense, detected the spiders as they detected him), and since I was sharing senses with it, I was aware they were there. Sadly, they beat me on initiative, but losing 10g worth of incense and the time it takes to cast Find Familiar again is much cheaper than my frail level 1 sneaky wizard getting jumped by spiders. Surprise avoided because I happened to choose a spider as my familiar. (Although in hindsight, a bat would likely have worked even better).
3. Troglodyte lair. I snuck down the cave, got a good look at them, reported back to the party. We set up an ambush at a narrow spot in the cave, then I crept back to the entrance to their lair. At which point, the DM considered the surprise rules (both 2014 and 2024 versions), decided neither made any sense, and DM gave me a 3.5 surprise round (one attack, then we went to initiative). I initiated combat with a crossbow attack from the shadows, won initiative, and then drew the Troglodytes back to the ambush (where they got absolutely thrashed).
(If it wasn't a convention game, I would've probably tried to use minor illusion to trick them into thinking some of their members were shapechanger infiltrators or creatures wearing their friends skins or something similar, and get them fighting amongst themselves. But it was the end of the adventure, we were running out of time, and the scout gets enough time in the spotlight without trying to solo an encounter with minor illusion).
The only encounter in the adventure that didn't involve surprise was a pair of rust monsters that we lured away from where we were hiding the party members wearing metal armor (which was more than half the party, and we stuck them ~90' down a side passage), and didn't fight at all. A different party could have easily ambushed them.
I think I spent almost the entire adventure Invisible from being Hidden when not in combat doing things that ended Invisibility.
And I generally see at least one member of any party taking the role of scout and doing similar things, and I've seen whole parties take stealth proficiency. Ambushing unaware foes is a regular occurrence, not a rare event.
Regardless of Initiative result, being surprised by combat starting makes you roll it with Disadvantage. This is a fact from cause and effect.
Since the action initiating combat doesn't occur before Initiative, what cause surprise may not be as clear when an ambusher starts combat while hidden from a foe who is unaware that combat is starting - as opposed to when not hidden - but the effect of surprise remains the same.
I'll try to briefly summarize my stance about the Hide action although there are other threads where the debate about those mechanics is ongoing.
The main thing that I think that a lot of people miss is that not everything related to being hidden is contained within the text for the Hide action. What it means to be hidden (the mechanical consequences of being hidden) is declared in this other rule:
To summarize these benefits of being hidden:
-- In addition to having the benefits of being an unseen attacker or target, being hidden also makes it so that your enemy has to "guess the square" when trying to attack you because . . .
-- When you are hidden, your location is unknown due to being both unseen and unheard. However, . . .
-- If you are hidden when you make an attack roll, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
So, when you become hidden, these above rules apply. How do you become hidden? You successfully take the Hide action:
So, the thing that you are actually attempting to do when you take the Hide action is to conceal yourself. You are not attempting to become invisible. You are trying to hide your location by becoming both unseen and unheard. A prerequisite for making this attempt is that you have to make yourself unseen first. Then, you attempt to remain quiet enough so that your enemies cannot detect your location.
So, what happens when you succeed on your Stealth check? You successfully conceal yourself. While things remain this way, you have the Invisible condition.
So, in addition to the bullet points given above as mechanical consequences for being hidden, you also have the benefits that are listed within the Invisible condition. There is some overlap there, but those benefits include:
-- If you’re Invisible when you roll Initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
-- You aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect’s creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
-- Attack rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your attack rolls have Advantage. If a creature can somehow see you, you don’t gain this benefit against that creature.
The end result is that when you successfully Hide, you gain the benefits of ALL 6 of the above bullet points, not just 3 of them. This effectively makes you both unseen and unheard which by default makes your location unknown to your enemies. But you must remain both unseen and unheard in order to keep these benefits since you only have the Invisible condition while hidden. Meaning, you cannot Hide or be hidden while in plain sight. Ability checks, such as Perception checks, are only called for when there is a reasonable chance for success or failure. When a situation will yield an auto-successful result, the ability check is not required.
As for the statement that there is no difference between the being invisible and the Invisible Condition -- there most certainly is a difference. The condition is simply a set of rules / benefits that are applied to the creature in question. The condition could have been called anything. The authors have chosen to use the word "Invisible" for that condition. There is some ongoing debate about what precisely this condition actually describes in 2024 since there is no longer any mention of actually becoming unseen when you have this condition. There is a case to be made that true invisibility as a concept that most of us conjure in our minds when we see the word "invisible" doesn't actually exist in the universe of D&D 5e 2024. At least not within any feature that relies on the Invisible condition.
Lastly, the mechanic of opposed rolls -- referred to in 2014 as "Contested Checks" has been eliminated from the 2024 rules. This is well documented. The rules for hiding have changed significantly because of this. There is now a set DC for the Stealth check as well as a set DC for the Perception check (which is set to the value of the Stealth roll). Even this perception check works differently now. In the 2014 Contested Checks rule, a "tie" on the roll meant that the status quo was maintained. So, if a creature was already hidden, they would remain hidden. If a creature started out with their location already known (such as during combat) and attempted to hide, then a tie meant that their location would remain known. Now, in 2024, the more simplified DC mechanic is used where the creature that is making the attempt must always "meet or exceed" the DC in order to succeed. This applies to the DC 15 Stealth roll and then also the subsequent rolls for Perception.
__________
I'll try to catch up on the more recent comments later but so far in this thread there seems to be some discussion of the "this is how I would run it" (homebrew) variety and others are talking about "this is what the rules say" (RAW) and it seems like these two groups are talking past each other a lot.
Yes, I'm not disputing that.
I agree that surprise is in effect. I agree that if there is a visible opponent, and combat starting which surprises someone, rolling initiative with the surprise rules works even if the one who is surprised acts before the person initiating combat (the example of the Sorcerer attacking the doppleganger).
The issue is this edge case of an undetected ambusher initiating combat. What I am disputing is the idea that the ambushee rolling higher initiative than the undetected attacker suddenly "somehow" becomes aware of hostilities and is able to act in response to an attack which - by the very definition of initiative - has not happened yet.
So the Orc Garroter's location is known when using Cloak rather than Hide would you agree?
Something is about to happen for the DM to decides combat is starting. This is what you're surprised by, before Initiative is even rolled as you have Disadvantage to the roll. There is no edge case to me ''hidden from a foe who is unaware'' is even one of the example given in Surprise;
I agree, and one reason is that the definition of an ambush is not the same as surprise combat. Ambushes have killing zones (including who assigning individuals to only attack certain named individuals) as they are preplanned and ambushing individuals have prepared and maybe even practiced. Surprise combat is just that, a surprise.
Okay, we are definitely talking past each other. You seem to be thinking I'm saying to not use Surprise when rolling Initiative, which is not the case.
At least the 2014 rules do have an example of an 'attack' before rolling initiative:
"A band of adventurers sneaks up on a bandit camp, springing from the trees to attack them. A gelatinous cube glides down a dungeon passage, unnoticed by the adventurers until the cube engulfs one of them. In these situations, one side of the battle gains surprise over the other." (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/combat#Surprise)
The gelatinous cube in that example has already engulfed one of the party before surprise, which is an attack. (In the situation where the party member is already engulfed, the cube then gains surprise).
This also reinforced my idea that its when both sides become aware of each other that combat starts, because the cube is 'unnoticed' until the engulfing, and that happens before it gains surprise.
And this is literally the only surprise example from the rules or designers I can find of a group being caught completely unaware by a foe they couldn't perceive.
Now, they seem to have removed all examples of surprise from the rules in 2024 - i don't think we have a single apropos discussion from a designer post-2024 rules on Surprise. But in both cases, the rules never say 'combat starts before any attacks are made', it instead says the DM decides when you roll initiative (and thus when combat starts).
No they don't. The side with surprise is attacking during the surprise round.
I don't actually think there is much "talking past each other". The main point of contention seems to be whether a hostile action can be executed before initiative is rolled. No one seems to be confused about who would get advantage or disadvantage when that actually happens, though.
I'm still of the camp that thinks the text and examples are quite clear: no.
And I still like up2ng's "just narrate the die rolls like you always do" take on it. However, Squirreloid is not wrong when they point out that there is a bit of a disconnect, logically.
BG3 has certainly not helped, but again "taking turns" in combat should be seen as a complete abstraction of the 6-second round. The way it should be played (based on how the abstraction works) is that every player decides what they will do in that round, write it on a piece of paper, then all reveal at the same time and execute the actions in initiative order (this is how some board games, like Gloom/Frosthaven work). For better or for worse, that is not how the rules actually flow, and that leads players to think of turns as their own little sub-6-second chunks within the round (this is what I meant by the DM "metagaming" before by deciding not to do the hostile action after the fact).
Lastly, I want to reiterate that high initiative is not a substitute for insight or perception, but is your ability to react quickly to a situation. Fireballing a room is certainly an action you can take, but wow, that's a hell of a waste of a spell if the ambush was actually coming from behind... To me, the most reasonable actions one could take at the top of the order before the ambushers actually attack is either the Ready or the Dodge. And both of those play into the fantasy that if you have superhuman reflexes (roll high on initiative even with disadvantage) then you were not caught unawares.
There was no surprise round. Surprised characters simply couldn't take actions, and stopped being surprised after their first turn.
And the example is pretty explicit. The cube is unnoticed until one of the party members is already engulfed. Then it gains surprise in the ensuing combat.