it's often not the action that initiates combat, but the result of the action that initiates combat.
There's no rules support for your claim in 5E24 the only exemple of action initiating combat is not resolved before Initiative.
There is no germane example in 5E24 at all. The rules still say the DM decides when combat starts. It never says 'the intention to take a hostile action starts combat'.
it's often not the action that initiates combat, but the result of the action that initiates combat.
There's no rules support for your claim in 5E24 the only exemple of action initiating combat is not resolved before Initiative.
There is no germane example in 5E24 at all...
I don't think that's entirely true. I believe with the examples we have and their comments on the change in the SRD, there is clear intention that it shouldn't work differently when the initial attack is from an invisible creature (wherein the examples are germane because there is not meant to be any distinction). How do you square their desire to get rid of the "surprise round" or "surprised creatures do not act on their first turn" with starting combat with the first hostile action already taken place? You can try to squeeze that into "combat hadn't started because I, the DM, hadn't said it did and therefore there was no first turn to miss", but that doesn't square with the intent. The attacker still got an extra action to act before initiative was rolled, and could potentially—and probably will—act again before the attackees get to act. And THAT is what the designers were trying to avoid, by their own words.
It is now our job to either houserule something different, or try to narrate what happens when the dice fall how they may within the rules provided.
it's often not the action that initiates combat, but the result of the action that initiates combat.
There's no rules support for your claim in 5E24 the only exemple of action initiating combat is not resolved before Initiative.
There is no germane example in 5E24 at all...
I don't think that's entirely true. I believe with the examples we have and their comments on the change in the SRD, there is clear intention that it shouldn't work differently when the initial attack is from an invisible creature (wherein the examples are germane because there is not meant to be any distinction). How do you square their desire to get rid of the "surprise round" or "surprised creatures do not act on their first turn" with starting combat with the first hostile action already taken place? You can try to squeeze that into "combat hadn't started because I, the DM, hadn't said it did and therefore there was no first turn to miss", but that doesn't square with the intent. The attacker still got an extra action to act before initiative was rolled, and could potentially—and probably will—act again before the attackees get to act. And THAT is what the designers were trying to avoid, by their own words.
It is now our job to either houserule something different, or try to narrate what happens when the dice fall how they may within the rules provided.
I refer you to the 2014 gelatinous cube example:
--The party is unaware
--It engulfs a PC.
--That situation gives it surprise. Roll initiative. (ie, the engulfing -> combat starting -> determine surprise -> roll initiative). Then:
--2014: The gelatinous cube acts in the first round. The party does not (they have turns but can take no action, and stop being surprised after their first turn). If the gelatinous cube acts before the party's initiatives, it acts again before them in the second round.
--2024: The gelatinous cube rolls initiative with advantage (invisible). The party rolls initiative with disadvantage (surprise). Everyone acts in the first round. If the gelatinous cube goes first, it only gets one action before the party gets to take actions.
ie, even with the interpretation that the unperceived attack's result causes combat to start, and only then do you roll initiative, the intent to reduce the ability to double act relative to the other side is still achieved. That initiating hostile act was always before initiative and the first round of combat, but now there's no round where the surprised characters don't do anything after it.
At worst, the surprise round meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the surprise round, and once before anyone else in subsequent rounds.
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.14 meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the first round, and once before anyone could "do anything" on their first available turn to "do something".
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.24 means that the ambusher only gets a high chance to act before the ambushees once; on the first round of combat due to advantage on the initiative roll. And even if it doesn't, the ones going before are reacting to partial information and will be not as effective as when the ambusher finally reveals themselves.
Your interpretation of the 5.24 rules means that just like previous editions and 5.14, the ambusher is allowed to act twice before the ambushees are allowed to act. Once to initiate the combat, and once before they get their turn if the ambusher beats them (and probably will). In other words, nothing much has changed.
At worst, the surprise round meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the surprise round, and once before anyone else in subsequent rounds.
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.14 meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the first round, and once before anyone could "do anything" on their first available turn to "do something".
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.24 means that the ambusher only gets a high chance to act before the ambushees once; on the first round of combat due to advantage on the initiative roll.
Your interpretation of the 5.24 rules means that just like previous editions and 5.14, the ambusher is allowed to act twice before the ambushees are allowed to act. Once to initiate the combat, and once before they get their turn if the ambusher beats them (and probably will). In other words, nothing much has changed.
I think the difference I laid out above is a pretty huge difference. Potentially the initiating action plus two rounds of attacks, vs. the initiating action and no more than one round of attacks.
Also, the odds that the singular attacker who manages to initiate combat with the result of their attack gets to act again before the entire party is actually really small for normal party sizes. I gave the odds already above. A monster who manages to initiate combat expects to lose initiative to at least one player despite having advantage (and the players having disadvantage) against a party of 4-6 players, even assuming they all have the same initiative modifier. (And frankly, at least some players in a standard party probably have a higher initiative modifier). The odds of d20 (advantage) beating d20 (disadvantage) with the same modifier is only ~80%. More players, more independent initiative rolls, that becomes 0.8^N, where N is the number of players.
My interpretation is less kind to the ambushers than the 3.x surprise round (which was less kind to the ambushers than the 2014 rules), where the entire ambushing side got to make one action before regular combat rounds. Now it's just one individual whose hostile act has to be completely unperceived, and only the result is apparent.
Frankly, your version is 'surprise might as well not exist'. Take Alert and a high dex. Blunder through the dungeon. Never care that you're surprised or that your perception is -1 or -5 or -20, because surprise doesn't actually do much of anything. Bonus points if you can do it while hiding.
At worst, the surprise round meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the surprise round, and once before anyone else in subsequent rounds.
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.14 meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the first round, and once before anyone could "do anything" on their first available turn to "do something".
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.24 means that the ambusher only gets a high chance to act before the ambushees once; on the first round of combat due to advantage on the initiative roll.
Your interpretation of the 5.24 rules means that just like previous editions and 5.14, the ambusher is allowed to act twice before the ambushees are allowed to act. Once to initiate the combat, and once before they get their turn if the ambusher beats them (and probably will). In other words, nothing much has changed.
One (1) ambusher against an entire team seems like it would be a pretty rare situation, because the action economy would be lopsided even with an ambush.
In 2014, I would argue that the worst case is not that a single ambusher acts twice before the ambushees; what's actually the worst case is that the ambusher isn't alone and everyone on the ambusher's team gets to act against the ambushees in the first round (and in the second round, who knows how many ambushers rolled higher initiative than a PC and will get a second turn before a PC gets to act).
The change in 2024 is still easier on the ambushees because they get to act in the first round, and that's true even if the ambusher gets their attack off before initiative is rolled. If the ambusher has a team with them, allowing the PC's to act in the first round is still easier than the 2014 version. I'd say there's even a case to be made that if the ambusher gets their attack off before initiative is rolled, they no longer roll initiative with advantage because they've been revealed by their attack - but anyone else on their team who is hidden does roll with advantage. (The ambushees are still surprised and roll initiative with disadvantage, though.)
At worst, the surprise round meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the surprise round, and once before anyone else in subsequent rounds.
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.14 meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the first round, and once before anyone could "do anything" on their first available turn to "do something".
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.24 means that the ambusher only gets a high chance to act before the ambushees once; on the first round of combat due to advantage on the initiative roll.
Your interpretation of the 5.24 rules means that just like previous editions and 5.14, the ambusher is allowed to act twice before the ambushees are allowed to act. Once to initiate the combat, and once before they get their turn if the ambusher beats them (and probably will). In other words, nothing much has changed.
One (1) ambusher against an entire team seems like it would be a pretty rare situation, because the action economy would be lopsided even with an ambush.
In 2014, I would argue that the worst case is not that a single ambusher acts twice before the ambushees; what's actually the worst case is that the ambusher isn't alone and everyone on the ambusher's team gets to act against the ambushees in the first round (and in the second round, who knows how many ambushers rolled higher initiative than a PC and will get a second turn before a PC gets to act).
The change in 2024 is still easier on the ambushees because they get to act in the first round, and that's true even if the ambusher gets their attack off before initiative is rolled. If the ambusher has a team with them, allowing the PC's to act in the first round is still easier than the 2014 version. I'd say there's even a case to be made that if the ambusher gets their attack off before initiative is rolled, they no longer roll initiative with advantage because they've been revealed by their attack - but anyone else on their team who is hidden does roll with advantage. (The ambushees are still surprised and roll initiative with disadvantage, though.)
I agree, but let's be specific:
It's being invisible that gives them advantage. If their invisibility ends because of the initiating attack, yeah, they don't get advantage. If they have greater invisibility, they're still invisible, and still get advantage. (And if they're a Thief with the right Cunning Strike, they're quite possibly still invisible).
If they were a sorceror casting a subtle spell, they never got advantage in the first place, even if the spell should go off before combat starts, and that spell causes combat and surprises their enemies. They weren't ever invisible, but their hostile act was imperceptible until it resolved.
I think the difference I laid out above is a pretty huge difference. Potentially the initiating action plus two rounds of attacks, vs. the initiating action and no more than one round of attacks.
This is assuming that the initiating action exists outside of initiative, which you have mostly failed to persuade anyone of. But yes, three actions before anyone else does something is even worse than two actions.
I think the difference I laid out above is a pretty huge difference. Potentially the initiating action plus two rounds of attacks, vs. the initiating action and no more than one round of attacks.
This is assuming that the initiating action exists outside of initiative, which you have mostly failed to persuade anyone of. But yes, three actions before anyone else does something is even worse than two actions.
I think that the initiating action existing outside of initiative makes sense just fine for a completely undetected attacker, and that it makes FAR more sense than having the ambushee potentially being able to react to the undetected attacker before the attack happens.
At worst, the surprise round meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the surprise round, and once before anyone else in subsequent rounds.
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.14 meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the first round, and once before anyone could "do anything" on their first available turn to "do something".
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.24 means that the ambusher only gets a high chance to act before the ambushees once; on the first round of combat due to advantage on the initiative roll.
Your interpretation of the 5.24 rules means that just like previous editions and 5.14, the ambusher is allowed to act twice before the ambushees are allowed to act. Once to initiate the combat, and once before they get their turn if the ambusher beats them (and probably will). In other words, nothing much has changed.
I think the difference I laid out above is a pretty huge difference. Potentially the initiating action plus two rounds of attacks, vs. the initiating action and no more than one round of attacks.
Also, the odds that the singular attacker who manages to initiate combat with the result of their attack gets to act again before the entire party is actually really small for normal party sizes. I gave the odds already above. A monster who manages to initiate combat expects to lose initiative to at least one player despite having advantage (and the players having disadvantage) against a party of 4-6 players, even assuming they all have the same initiative modifier. (And frankly, at least some players in a standard party probably have a higher initiative modifier). The odds of d20 (advantage) beating d20 (disadvantage) with the same modifier is only ~80%. More players, more independent initiative rolls, that becomes 0.8^N, where N is the number of players.
My interpretation is less kind to the ambushers than the 3.x surprise round (which was less kind to the ambushers than the 2014 rules), where the entire ambushing side got to make one action before regular combat rounds. Now it's just one individual whose hostile act has to be completely unperceived, and only the result is apparent.
Frankly, your version is 'surprise might as well not exist'. Take Alert and a high dex. Blunder through the dungeon. Never care that you're surprised or that your perception is -1 or -5 or -20, because surprise doesn't actually do much of anything. Bonus points if you can do it while hiding.
The fewer the combatants the larger that one individual's impact will be, relatively speaking.
Pentagruel already covered it, but the prior rules had no need for combat events to happen outside of combat. If you attacked someone suddenly, that attack is the one that happened in the surprise round. I am comparing this to what you are doing, which is adding a combat action outside of combat. Which is why the worst case of before is equal to the worst case of your interpretation (albeit with a single ambusher).
Ambushers are likely to have a high Dex already... meaning analyzing it with everyone having the same initiative modifier is probably not an accurate way to go about it. Sure, the rogue has a roughly 20% chance to beat the ambusher in initiative, but you've got to have superhuman rolls to beat them on your wizard or plate-wearing paladin.
In any case, everyone taking Alert and having high Dex is certainly a way for surprise not to have a noticeable effect on your party (I would argue that is kind of the point of the feat), but there's an opportunity cost there, especially if more than one person takes it. And perception is a hell of a lot more than just noticing ambushers. High initiative order isn't going to help you find the secret door, for example.
There's no rules support for your claim in 5E24 the only exemple of action initiating combat is not resolved before Initiative.
There is no germane example in 5E24 at all. The rules still say the DM decides when combat starts. It never says 'the intention to take a hostile action starts combat'.
I don't think that's entirely true. I believe with the examples we have and their comments on the change in the SRD, there is clear intention that it shouldn't work differently when the initial attack is from an invisible creature (wherein the examples are germane because there is not meant to be any distinction). How do you square their desire to get rid of the "surprise round" or "surprised creatures do not act on their first turn" with starting combat with the first hostile action already taken place? You can try to squeeze that into "combat hadn't started because I, the DM, hadn't said it did and therefore there was no first turn to miss", but that doesn't square with the intent. The attacker still got an extra action to act before initiative was rolled, and could potentially—and probably will—act again before the attackees get to act. And THAT is what the designers were trying to avoid, by their own words.
It is now our job to either houserule something different, or try to narrate what happens when the dice fall how they may within the rules provided.
I refer you to the 2014 gelatinous cube example:
--The party is unaware
--It engulfs a PC.
--That situation gives it surprise. Roll initiative. (ie, the engulfing -> combat starting -> determine surprise -> roll initiative). Then:
--2014: The gelatinous cube acts in the first round. The party does not (they have turns but can take no action, and stop being surprised after their first turn). If the gelatinous cube acts before the party's initiatives, it acts again before them in the second round.
--2024: The gelatinous cube rolls initiative with advantage (invisible). The party rolls initiative with disadvantage (surprise). Everyone acts in the first round. If the gelatinous cube goes first, it only gets one action before the party gets to take actions.
ie, even with the interpretation that the unperceived attack's result causes combat to start, and only then do you roll initiative, the intent to reduce the ability to double act relative to the other side is still achieved. That initiating hostile act was always before initiative and the first round of combat, but now there's no round where the surprised characters don't do anything after it.
At worst, the surprise round meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the surprise round, and once before anyone else in subsequent rounds.
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.14 meant that the ambusher acted twice before the ambushees. Once during the first round, and once before anyone could "do anything" on their first available turn to "do something".
At worst, the surprised condition in 5.24 means that the ambusher only gets a high chance to act before the ambushees once; on the first round of combat due to advantage on the initiative roll. And even if it doesn't, the ones going before are reacting to partial information and will be not as effective as when the ambusher finally reveals themselves.
Your interpretation of the 5.24 rules means that just like previous editions and 5.14, the ambusher is allowed to act twice before the ambushees are allowed to act. Once to initiate the combat, and once before they get their turn if the ambusher beats them (and probably will). In other words, nothing much has changed.
I think the difference I laid out above is a pretty huge difference. Potentially the initiating action plus two rounds of attacks, vs. the initiating action and no more than one round of attacks.
Also, the odds that the singular attacker who manages to initiate combat with the result of their attack gets to act again before the entire party is actually really small for normal party sizes. I gave the odds already above. A monster who manages to initiate combat expects to lose initiative to at least one player despite having advantage (and the players having disadvantage) against a party of 4-6 players, even assuming they all have the same initiative modifier. (And frankly, at least some players in a standard party probably have a higher initiative modifier). The odds of d20 (advantage) beating d20 (disadvantage) with the same modifier is only ~80%. More players, more independent initiative rolls, that becomes 0.8^N, where N is the number of players.
My interpretation is less kind to the ambushers than the 3.x surprise round (which was less kind to the ambushers than the 2014 rules), where the entire ambushing side got to make one action before regular combat rounds. Now it's just one individual whose hostile act has to be completely unperceived, and only the result is apparent.
Frankly, your version is 'surprise might as well not exist'. Take Alert and a high dex. Blunder through the dungeon. Never care that you're surprised or that your perception is -1 or -5 or -20, because surprise doesn't actually do much of anything. Bonus points if you can do it while hiding.
One (1) ambusher against an entire team seems like it would be a pretty rare situation, because the action economy would be lopsided even with an ambush.
In 2014, I would argue that the worst case is not that a single ambusher acts twice before the ambushees; what's actually the worst case is that the ambusher isn't alone and everyone on the ambusher's team gets to act against the ambushees in the first round (and in the second round, who knows how many ambushers rolled higher initiative than a PC and will get a second turn before a PC gets to act).
The change in 2024 is still easier on the ambushees because they get to act in the first round, and that's true even if the ambusher gets their attack off before initiative is rolled. If the ambusher has a team with them, allowing the PC's to act in the first round is still easier than the 2014 version. I'd say there's even a case to be made that if the ambusher gets their attack off before initiative is rolled, they no longer roll initiative with advantage because they've been revealed by their attack - but anyone else on their team who is hidden does roll with advantage. (The ambushees are still surprised and roll initiative with disadvantage, though.)
I agree, but let's be specific:
It's being invisible that gives them advantage. If their invisibility ends because of the initiating attack, yeah, they don't get advantage. If they have greater invisibility, they're still invisible, and still get advantage. (And if they're a Thief with the right Cunning Strike, they're quite possibly still invisible).
If they were a sorceror casting a subtle spell, they never got advantage in the first place, even if the spell should go off before combat starts, and that spell causes combat and surprises their enemies. They weren't ever invisible, but their hostile act was imperceptible until it resolved.
This is assuming that the initiating action exists outside of initiative, which you have mostly failed to persuade anyone of. But yes, three actions before anyone else does something is even worse than two actions.
I think that the initiating action existing outside of initiative makes sense just fine for a completely undetected attacker, and that it makes FAR more sense than having the ambushee potentially being able to react to the undetected attacker before the attack happens.
The fewer the combatants the larger that one individual's impact will be, relatively speaking.
Pentagruel already covered it, but the prior rules had no need for combat events to happen outside of combat. If you attacked someone suddenly, that attack is the one that happened in the surprise round. I am comparing this to what you are doing, which is adding a combat action outside of combat. Which is why the worst case of before is equal to the worst case of your interpretation (albeit with a single ambusher).
Ambushers are likely to have a high Dex already... meaning analyzing it with everyone having the same initiative modifier is probably not an accurate way to go about it. Sure, the rogue has a roughly 20% chance to beat the ambusher in initiative, but you've got to have superhuman rolls to beat them on your wizard or plate-wearing paladin.
In any case, everyone taking Alert and having high Dex is certainly a way for surprise not to have a noticeable effect on your party (I would argue that is kind of the point of the feat), but there's an opportunity cost there, especially if more than one person takes it. And perception is a hell of a lot more than just noticing ambushers. High initiative order isn't going to help you find the secret door, for example.