I've been googling this for a couple days but have not been able to find anything that covers this example - my apologies if this is covered elsewhere. I had this scenario occur as a player in a recent session. I'm playing a level 1 bard with the level 1 Dissonant Whispers spell, which does the following:
"On a failed save, [the target] takes 3d6 psychic damage and must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move as far as its speed allows away from you."
Our party set up an ambush in a tavern for a local pirate captain who was going to arrive in a little while. He and his gang show up, and before he has a chance to say hello and survey the scene, we all attack at once. DM determines he and his gang are surprised, and we roll initiative. Initiative looks something like this:
19) My bard
17) Player 2's cleric
14) Pirate captain
Etc...
Right out of the gate, I cast Dissonant Whispers to try to deal damage and get the captain to run out of the tavern, directly away from where I'm standing. He fails the save, takes damage, but the DM rules that due to his surprised state, he cannot use his reaction to run away. Rules of surprise are as follows:
"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends."
The DM and I followed up after the session to discuss our differing interpretations on this, but were not able to come to a shared agreement on how to properly interpret this. From the DM's perspective, the RAW for surprise means no action, movement, or reaction exists for the surprised creature as they're essentially stupefied into inaction until the end of their first turn. Thus, if a spellcaster successfully targets a surprised creature with a spell that forces it to use any of its action economy either during the player's turn, or during the surprised creature's first turn, then the compelled effects of the spell do not take effect since the surprised creature can't use its action economy.
While I understood where the DM's interpretation of the RAW came from, I still thought it was illogical in practice. My interpretation is that while the surprised creature cannot, of their own volition, use their action economy to their own ends, they should still be compelled to use it by spells, as it's really the spellcaster forcing the target to do something regardless of the target's awareness.
There were a few scenarios that came to mind which I used to support this:
Let's say my bard was walking down the street and targeted a random civilian passerby with Dissonant Whispers. The civilian would likely be surprised by such an attack. Assuming the civilian failed the save and survived the damage dealt, it would be reasonable to expect them to run away as well, as the spell is meant to do. Why should an enemy who is in the middle of combat with my Bard, and is not surprised, be forced to run away if a terrified, unaware civilian isn't?
Let's say at level three, my bard gets Crown of Madness, which says: "The charmed target must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. . . . The target can make a Wisdom saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends." Theoretically, if cast on a surprised target with the RAW interpretation, the target could fail it's save on the spell, then not take any actions on its turn, then succeed on the save at the end of its turn, ending the spell and denying what would have been a guaranteed attack on an enemy if the target was positioned next to one at the start of the fight.
Looking at the list of Enchantment spells alone, there seem to be several that compel use of a target's action economy to benefit the spellcaster, including powerful ones like Dominate Monster, Otto's Irresistible Dance, Mass Suggestion, Dominate Person, Confusion, Compulsion, and others. Would all of those essentially be less effective when used at the start of combat if the spellcaster happened to both surprise the target and roll higher on initiative? It seems that rolling higher than the surprised target on initiative shouldn't diminish the effectiveness of the spells cast.
Is there a certain answer here on how these kinds of scenarios are meant to be interpreted and adjudicated, or is this in a grey area that boils down to "whatever your table can agree upon?" I appreciate any and all help!
A surprised creature does not have a reaction until after its first turn so it can't be forced to use it.
The 5e surprise rules are weird and janky. You can surprise a creature that can see/notice you.
Correct. I would save that slot or choose a different target.
Right. You are looking at it wrong. If the target had rolled higher initiative or not been surprised, these spells would all work normally. Instead you have 1 whole free turn in which the target can't act. Obviously, using your free extra turn to try to force the target to act when it can't is a waste of a turn and spell.
The RAW is pretty clear about surprised creatures being unable to act, forced or otherwise.
There's a little wiggle room here whether a creature "taking its reaction" is the same thing as being compelled to "use its reaction." I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's any intent to use them as different terms by the authors, but Dissonant Whispers doesn't ask the victim to "take" their reaction, it compels them to "use" it. I think "use" a reaction generally shows up in spells that compel action, while "take" a reaction is what a creature does under its own free will?
Surprise
If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren't.
Reactions
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Of course, if that sort of hair splitting doesn't float your boat, there's also just the argument that Dissonant Whispers and the like which cause the creature to reactively act serve as specific exceptions to the general rule about what a creature can do while Surprised. Either way, I don't see any reason to make the spell less effective against surprised foes.
Crown of Madness and other spells which control how a creature acts on own turn, however, are an entirely different sort of compulsion. It isn't just the question of whether the creature is allowed to take the action the spell commands, because "Before moving..." wouldn't normally even trigger when a creature is unable to move due to being surprised. I think a DM would be well justified in treating these as the same specific exception that gives the player the benefit of their spell notwithstanding the creature's penalty for being surprised... but it is an additional threshhold to cross beyond the use case of Dissonant Whispers.
If take and use are different things, then you can be forced to use your reaction a dozen times per round and still take one reaction when you choose. The rules only limit how many reactions you can take and say nothing about how many reactions you can use.
I think it is clear that you only have 1 reaction per round and use and take mean the same thing (use is just stronger language). So if you can't take actions, you can't use actions either.
Yeah, "use" vs. "take" probably isn't the right approach to make. I'm kind of surprised to realize just now that there really isn't a single page or section anywhere in the rules that says anything like "every round, each character has one Action, one Bonus Action, one Move, and one Reaction available to them." Those terms kind of get thrown around all over the place seperately, and reading as a new player I can imagine being a little murky on what the action economy is since it's never all put in one place like that.
But I still think that magical effects can serve as specific exceptions to the general prohibition on taking/using a reaction before the end of the surprise round, that's a better argument to rely on.
Yeah, "use" vs. "take" probably isn't the right approach to make. I'm kind of surprised to realize just now that there really isn't a single page or section anywhere in the rules that says anything like "every round, each character has one Action, one Bonus Action, one Move, and one Reaction available to them." Those terms kind of get thrown around all over the place seperately, and reading as a new player I can imagine being a little murky on what the action economy is since it's never all put in one place like that.
But I still think that magical effects can serve as specific exceptions to the general prohibition on taking/using a reaction before the end of the surprise round, that's a better argument to rely on.
It's not all in one sentence, but it is all in one section of rules. Technically, you don't only get "1 move" you get as much movement as your speed and it can be broken up whenever during your turn.
So in your opinion if an ally that is not surprised uses a spell or feature that lets a surprised ally use and action or reaction to do something, that surprised ally can use what it would not otherwise have so it does not waste its turn? I suppose this would also apply to unconscious and incapacitated creatures?
I'm of the opinion that if a creature can't take actions, then it also can't "use its reaction if available," since the reaction is not available and all.
Ally 1 is not surprised, Ally 2 is surprised (no move, no action, no reaction until the end of their turn).
Ally 1 goes before Ally 2 and uses a spell or feature that lets Ally 2 use their reaction to do something (e.g. Battlemaster's Maneuvering Strike)
So the question is, Ally 2 can either:
A) take the reaction granted by Ally 1, because the ability is a specific exception to the Surprise rules?
B) not take the reaction granted by Ally 1, because the Surprise rules are a specific exception to the ability?
I would come down on A) there for Surprise, because like I said, the use of the ability is a subsequent special exception to the general expectation that that surprised creature can't move/act/react. I would not extend this to unconscious and incapacitated creatures because (A) doing so would be absurd and more importantly (B) those are Conditions while Surprised is not. Conditions "last either until it is countered or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition." Since Surprised is not a Condition, I don't feel the same need to respect its counter/duration requirements when subject to an outside exception.
Bonus Round: Is it different if Ally 2 is an enemy instead, and its a reaction that they are forced to make instead of allowed to make? Yes, even if you were persuaded that its against RAI for an ally to be allowed to bypass being surprised by way of a helpful ability, that isn't to say that it's RAI for an enemy to be helped by being surprised. And non-voluntary reactions just don't feel like "you" (the surprised creature) are taking them, so much as they feel like the caster is forcing them (even if the language isn't written quite tight enough to draw that line, like discussed earlier).
Or C)There is no contradiction between the spell and surprise so neither makes an exception.
Compulsion "must use as much of its movement as possible" can't move, so not possible.
Otto's irresistible dance "A dancing creature must use all its movement to dance without leaving its space" technically doesn't matter since the end effect is not being able to leave their space, but they technically can't dance since they can't move.
Dissonant whispers "must immediately use its reaction, if available" reactions are not available.
A condition is just a bunch of rules attached to a keyword. As far as the rules are concerned there is no difference between "If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends," and "An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions," as far as taking actions are concerned. If something makes an exception for one, it will make an exception for the other.
Now in the case of crown of madness, either the spell or the (pseudo)condition has to take priority. I argue that not being able to do something takes priority over the forced action, after all you can't be forced to do something you can't do. Not to mention the previously mentioned fact that any exception made for surprise has to apply to incapacitation since they use the same rules wording.
DxJxC’s C) option is the one I would go with as well.
I think if you go with A) as you suggest, you’re also forced to rule that Ally 2 can take the reaction even if they’ve already used their reaction to do something else, which is obviously silly. To be fair, I ALSO think your argument forces you to grant it to incapacitated or unconscious creatures. Your exclusion of such creatures feels arbitrary to me. Whether or not something is a condition isn’t at all relevant. Rules are rules.
A spell that forces someone to use their action, bonus action, or reaction has no effect if the target does not have the relevant one available. It's like casting Dominate Person and using your action to force a person with no arms to punch themself in the face. It just doesn't work.
I'd tend to go the more generous-to-the-player route to reward both managing to set up a successful ambush AND using the surprise round to impose a significant negative effect on the bad guy. Here's the logic I'd follow:
1. Surprise means the pirate captain can't *use* his reaction until his first turn ends. It doesn't mean he doesn't have one available. 2. Part of the spell's effect is specifically to force an unwanted action/reaction on the target.
So I'd absolutely have the pirate captain go running away. Bravo to the characters for setting up a good ambush. To do otherwise is playing DM gotcha by saying "oh, sorry, you just blew a spell slot for nothing. Sucks to be you."
Typically when things like this happen, I explain to the player "Through your character's familiarity with the spell and the situation, they would know that even though they can cast the spell, they won't be getting the full effect since the surprised enemy cannot move or react while he is surprised," and then let the player decide if they want to go through with it or change their approach.
I hadn’t noticed the “if available” on Dissonant Whispers. Other than that though, your (C) just sounds like (B) to me, giving surprised the same priority a condition would have.
The other way to look at it is that the spells state specific rules that are used when the spells are cast. Surprise is a more general rule that applies in certain combats depending on circumstances. Specific spell rules could be interpreted to supercede the more general surprise rules in the cases where they conflict.
Would a creature normally have a reaction? Yes 1/round. Surprise removes this reaction until after the creature's first turn would have occurred.
Spells could be interpreted to effectively give the reaction/action back (even if surprised) under the very specific circumstance of (1) the spell being cast (2) the creature failing the saving throw and the targeted creature is then forced to use their action/reaction for the specific use specified in the spell.
Anyway, it is an alternate way to look at it which doesn't get into weird issues of spells operating differently against surprised or unaware targets. In the end, interpretation in a specific game would be up to the DM.
However, spells often involve effects that modify or change other game rules in specific ways that override the general rules, so why should spells that modify the action economy be treated any differently. EVERY spell can be considered an example of SPECIFIC > GENERAL.
On the other hand, there are a number of other spell and condition effects that remove actions and reactions which are clearly intended to supercede spell effects.
Examples:
A character affected by both hold person and crown of madness should not be able to use an action to attack. Similarly, dissonant whispers should not be able to force them to run away.
An incapacitated character can't take actions or reactions. It would not make sense in this case for spells to be able to force an incapacitated character to take an action or reaction.
On the other hand, applying the same logic to a surprised creature which still has actions and reactions but is temporarily prevented from taking them because they aren't aware of what is currently going on, doesn't really make a lot of "sense". So .. in the end, it comes down to how a DM wants to run it.
I've been googling this for a couple days but have not been able to find anything that covers this example - my apologies if this is covered elsewhere. I had this scenario occur as a player in a recent session. I'm playing a level 1 bard with the level 1 Dissonant Whispers spell, which does the following:
"On a failed save, [the target] takes 3d6 psychic damage and must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move as far as its speed allows away from you."
Our party set up an ambush in a tavern for a local pirate captain who was going to arrive in a little while. He and his gang show up, and before he has a chance to say hello and survey the scene, we all attack at once. DM determines he and his gang are surprised, and we roll initiative. Initiative looks something like this:
Right out of the gate, I cast Dissonant Whispers to try to deal damage and get the captain to run out of the tavern, directly away from where I'm standing. He fails the save, takes damage, but the DM rules that due to his surprised state, he cannot use his reaction to run away. Rules of surprise are as follows:
"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends."
The DM and I followed up after the session to discuss our differing interpretations on this, but were not able to come to a shared agreement on how to properly interpret this. From the DM's perspective, the RAW for surprise means no action, movement, or reaction exists for the surprised creature as they're essentially stupefied into inaction until the end of their first turn. Thus, if a spellcaster successfully targets a surprised creature with a spell that forces it to use any of its action economy either during the player's turn, or during the surprised creature's first turn, then the compelled effects of the spell do not take effect since the surprised creature can't use its action economy.
While I understood where the DM's interpretation of the RAW came from, I still thought it was illogical in practice. My interpretation is that while the surprised creature cannot, of their own volition, use their action economy to their own ends, they should still be compelled to use it by spells, as it's really the spellcaster forcing the target to do something regardless of the target's awareness.
There were a few scenarios that came to mind which I used to support this:
Is there a certain answer here on how these kinds of scenarios are meant to be interpreted and adjudicated, or is this in a grey area that boils down to "whatever your table can agree upon?" I appreciate any and all help!
A surprised creature does not have a reaction until after its first turn so it can't be forced to use it.
The RAW is pretty clear about surprised creatures being unable to act, forced or otherwise.
There's a little wiggle room here whether a creature "taking its reaction" is the same thing as being compelled to "use its reaction." I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's any intent to use them as different terms by the authors, but Dissonant Whispers doesn't ask the victim to "take" their reaction, it compels them to "use" it. I think "use" a reaction generally shows up in spells that compel action, while "take" a reaction is what a creature does under its own free will?
Of course, if that sort of hair splitting doesn't float your boat, there's also just the argument that Dissonant Whispers and the like which cause the creature to reactively act serve as specific exceptions to the general rule about what a creature can do while Surprised. Either way, I don't see any reason to make the spell less effective against surprised foes.
Crown of Madness and other spells which control how a creature acts on own turn, however, are an entirely different sort of compulsion. It isn't just the question of whether the creature is allowed to take the action the spell commands, because "Before moving..." wouldn't normally even trigger when a creature is unable to move due to being surprised. I think a DM would be well justified in treating these as the same specific exception that gives the player the benefit of their spell notwithstanding the creature's penalty for being surprised... but it is an additional threshhold to cross beyond the use case of Dissonant Whispers.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If take and use are different things, then you can be forced to use your reaction a dozen times per round and still take one reaction when you choose. The rules only limit how many reactions you can take and say nothing about how many reactions you can use.
I think it is clear that you only have 1 reaction per round and use and take mean the same thing (use is just stronger language). So if you can't take actions, you can't use actions either.
Yeah, "use" vs. "take" probably isn't the right approach to make. I'm kind of surprised to realize just now that there really isn't a single page or section anywhere in the rules that says anything like "every round, each character has one Action, one Bonus Action, one Move, and one Reaction available to them." Those terms kind of get thrown around all over the place seperately, and reading as a new player I can imagine being a little murky on what the action economy is since it's never all put in one place like that.
But I still think that magical effects can serve as specific exceptions to the general prohibition on taking/using a reaction before the end of the surprise round, that's a better argument to rely on.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's not all in one sentence, but it is all in one section of rules. Technically, you don't only get "1 move" you get as much movement as your speed and it can be broken up whenever during your turn.
So in your opinion if an ally that is not surprised uses a spell or feature that lets a surprised ally use and action or reaction to do something, that surprised ally can use what it would not otherwise have so it does not waste its turn? I suppose this would also apply to unconscious and incapacitated creatures?
I'm of the opinion that if a creature can't take actions, then it also can't "use its reaction if available," since the reaction is not available and all.
I would come down on A) there for Surprise, because like I said, the use of the ability is a subsequent special exception to the general expectation that that surprised creature can't move/act/react. I would not extend this to unconscious and incapacitated creatures because (A) doing so would be absurd and more importantly (B) those are Conditions while Surprised is not. Conditions "last either until it is countered or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition." Since Surprised is not a Condition, I don't feel the same need to respect its counter/duration requirements when subject to an outside exception.
Bonus Round: Is it different if Ally 2 is an enemy instead, and its a reaction that they are forced to make instead of allowed to make? Yes, even if you were persuaded that its against RAI for an ally to be allowed to bypass being surprised by way of a helpful ability, that isn't to say that it's RAI for an enemy to be helped by being surprised. And non-voluntary reactions just don't feel like "you" (the surprised creature) are taking them, so much as they feel like the caster is forcing them (even if the language isn't written quite tight enough to draw that line, like discussed earlier).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Or C)There is no contradiction between the spell and surprise so neither makes an exception.
Compulsion "must use as much of its movement as possible" can't move, so not possible.
Otto's irresistible dance "A dancing creature must use all its movement to dance without leaving its space" technically doesn't matter since the end effect is not being able to leave their space, but they technically can't dance since they can't move.
Dissonant whispers "must immediately use its reaction, if available" reactions are not available.
A condition is just a bunch of rules attached to a keyword. As far as the rules are concerned there is no difference between "If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends," and "An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions," as far as taking actions are concerned. If something makes an exception for one, it will make an exception for the other.
Now in the case of crown of madness, either the spell or the (pseudo)condition has to take priority. I argue that not being able to do something takes priority over the forced action, after all you can't be forced to do something you can't do. Not to mention the previously mentioned fact that any exception made for surprise has to apply to incapacitation since they use the same rules wording.
DxJxC’s C) option is the one I would go with as well.
I think if you go with A) as you suggest, you’re also forced to rule that Ally 2 can take the reaction even if they’ve already used their reaction to do something else, which is obviously silly. To be fair, I ALSO think your argument forces you to grant it to incapacitated or unconscious creatures. Your exclusion of such creatures feels arbitrary to me. Whether or not something is a condition isn’t at all relevant. Rules are rules.
A spell that forces someone to use their action, bonus action, or reaction has no effect if the target does not have the relevant one available. It's like casting Dominate Person and using your action to force a person with no arms to punch themself in the face. It just doesn't work.
I'd tend to go the more generous-to-the-player route to reward both managing to set up a successful ambush AND using the surprise round to impose a significant negative effect on the bad guy. Here's the logic I'd follow:
1. Surprise means the pirate captain can't *use* his reaction until his first turn ends. It doesn't mean he doesn't have one available.
2. Part of the spell's effect is specifically to force an unwanted action/reaction on the target.
So I'd absolutely have the pirate captain go running away. Bravo to the characters for setting up a good ambush. To do otherwise is playing DM gotcha by saying "oh, sorry, you just blew a spell slot for nothing. Sucks to be you."
Typically when things like this happen, I explain to the player "Through your character's familiarity with the spell and the situation, they would know that even though they can cast the spell, they won't be getting the full effect since the surprised enemy cannot move or react while he is surprised," and then let the player decide if they want to go through with it or change their approach.
Or if it's clever, I just let it work :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I hadn’t noticed the “if available” on Dissonant Whispers. Other than that though, your (C) just sounds like (B) to me, giving surprised the same priority a condition would have.
i can be persuaded though, B it is.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The other way to look at it is that the spells state specific rules that are used when the spells are cast. Surprise is a more general rule that applies in certain combats depending on circumstances. Specific spell rules could be interpreted to supercede the more general surprise rules in the cases where they conflict.
Would a creature normally have a reaction? Yes 1/round. Surprise removes this reaction until after the creature's first turn would have occurred.
Spells could be interpreted to effectively give the reaction/action back (even if surprised) under the very specific circumstance of (1) the spell being cast (2) the creature failing the saving throw and the targeted creature is then forced to use their action/reaction for the specific use specified in the spell.
Anyway, it is an alternate way to look at it which doesn't get into weird issues of spells operating differently against surprised or unaware targets. In the end, interpretation in a specific game would be up to the DM.
However, spells often involve effects that modify or change other game rules in specific ways that override the general rules, so why should spells that modify the action economy be treated any differently. EVERY spell can be considered an example of SPECIFIC > GENERAL.
On the other hand, there are a number of other spell and condition effects that remove actions and reactions which are clearly intended to supercede spell effects.
Examples:
A character affected by both hold person and crown of madness should not be able to use an action to attack. Similarly, dissonant whispers should not be able to force them to run away.
An incapacitated character can't take actions or reactions. It would not make sense in this case for spells to be able to force an incapacitated character to take an action or reaction.
On the other hand, applying the same logic to a surprised creature which still has actions and reactions but is temporarily prevented from taking them because they aren't aware of what is currently going on, doesn't really make a lot of "sense". So .. in the end, it comes down to how a DM wants to run it.