I'm starting my own campaign this weekend and had questions about how the surprise aspects work in D&amp;D 5e. I know this question has been asked before, but I have yet to see an answer describing what takes place when there are multiple attackers and defenders.   In the Lost Mines campaign, there is a goblin ambush section where EACH goblin must roll for stealth and compare it with the passive ability of the characters. As a DM, do I just arbitrarily decide which goblin attacks which character? And what if there are more goblins than characters rolling for stealth? What if multiple goblins attack one person? Or does each goblin have to have a higher stealth roll than ALL the party members passive perception? How is that all decided?
123727
Here’s the basic rule for Surprise (Player’s Basic Rules, p. 69):  If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the counter.  I’m not sure how to interpret that last sentence. For example, suppose that the players try to sneak up on on some monsters, so they roll Dexterity (Stealth) checks. The thief and the champion both roll 14, but the evoker only rolls 9. The DM compares this to the monsters’ passive Perception: a cyclops with 8, a dire wolf with 13, and a giant owl with 15. The cyclops doesn’t notice any threat, so it’s surprised. The owl notices all the threats, so it’s not surprised. But what about the dire wolf? It notices the evoker but not the rogue or the champion. Which is correct:  The dire wolf noticed a threat (the evoker) so it’s not surprised. It didn’t notice a threat (the rogue and champion) so it’s surprised.  If the former is true, could the rogue and champion take advantage of the group check rule to help the less-stealthy evoker hide from the dire wolf? Group Checks (Player’s Basic Rules, p. 59):  To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails. Group checks don’t come up very often, and they’re most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group.   covers a couple of related situations, where a rogue sneaks up separately from the rest of the players, or where all of the monsters use a single group Dexterity (Stealth) roll, but not this case where all of the players try to sneak with different rolls.
46888
I think I've gotten the wrong end of the stick when it comes to what and when the DM should be calling for rolls when the party is exploring a dungeon.   Picture your typical D&amp;D dungeon crawl. There's winding passageways, a handful of monsters on the prowl, one or two traps and a couple of secrets. My party, understandably, wants to move stealthily, keep an eye out for traps, and watch for secrets. We're playing in roll20 with dynamic lighting on, so they can only see a few squares in all directions, making travel treacherous.   As it stands I end up having them advance a few squares at a time, calling for a new perception check every time they find a new passageway, asking for stealth checks every now and again and having the rogue roll to look for traps each time they wander down a new hall.   This feels clunky, repetitive, and subject to . The more they roll, the more likely it is someone will fail badly enough to be spotted by a monster or fall prey to a trap. However, running the entire dungeon on a single set of rolls seems to be against the whole spirit of dungeon crawling; why bother to explore a dungeon at all when a single roll has determined your fate?  I'm aware of the rationale  behind  in premade maps. In an ideal world you'd design a dungeon crawl that was only rooms, and parcel out your checks per room. But what about a cave system? There's no "rooms", per se... the whole map IS long, possibly empty "hallways". Sometimes you really are trying to navigate a large area with no obvious beginning or end.   I'm sure I'm missing something here... when, and how often, should players be rolling when dungeon crawling?
103930
Say the party is smooth-talking a guard, and the rogue loses patience and throws a dagger. Combat ensues...is the next step to roll initiative? If so, does the rogue's thrown dagger not count as his first round attack?
18797
I am trying to figure out if the surprised state ends on a creature after the first attack of a surprise round, or if the surprised state (which I would then see almost as an unofficial condition) ends only after the first round of combat.  In the second case, I would believe that a character (having the rogue's Assassinate ability) attacking a surprised creature AND having multiple attacks would score a critical hit on all hits.  Example: Does a Monk 5/Rogue 3 surprising a creature get automatic critical hits on all hits if he does 2 attacks (with extra attack) and additional unarmed strike(s)?  Or does the critical hit only affect the first hit? However, that would surprise me as the rules mention any hit is a critical hit.
28290
I'm reading through the new DM D&amp;D Basic Rules, but I'm confused about the challenge rating of a monster.  Does the challenge rating assume a single PC or a group of PC's? As a CR3 a challenge for 1 PC (like with 4th Edition), or for a group of PC's? If so, for how large a group? How should a DM choose monster with more or less PC's?
77086
I'm a new DM and over the last few weeks I've been slowly learning the game and how it runs. My party consists of 5 PCs.   One thing I have been wondering after our last two sessions is: What rolls should all the players see and which rolls shouldn't they see?  Is there a comprehensive list of what rolls are public and which go behind the DM screen, or is it more down to house rules or personal preference?
115284
DMed for the first time yesterday and one of the things I feel I need to sort out, among other comments, improvements, and similar, is how combat itself is actually initiated. The main example I want to use involves  attempting to generate surprise conditions by players. Here the characters have entered a ruined city and generally been noisy about the whole thing - using a spell to make their voice louder and literally ask if there is anyone about. Any enemies around probably know what something is about to kick off but arguably don't know precisely what. After resting the PCs head up a long flight of steps to a temple on the edge of the city. At the top only one crests and finds 3 bandits lounging around, chatting, and doing whatever bandits do in their spare time. After a brief exchange of pleasantries a combat starts:  DM &quot;The bandit spits in your direction 'we're not done looting the temple, so you can clear off', and starts raising his crossbow as his mates emerge from their cover behind the pillars... PC &quot;I cast Firebolt at Bandit Keith&quot; DM &quot;Hang on, I hadn't finished, everyone rolls for initiative...  Which sparked a debate about whether or not the PC could preemptively cast/attack before the combat starts by &quot;instant actioning&quot; (as above) as I was describing the start of the combat. As far as the bandits are concerned a lone half-elf who is pretty heavily armed has popped up in front of them, not even tried to be diplomatic, and ended up saying something rather suggestive about their mothers. The PC then asked about it being &quot;surprise&quot; because the bandits wouldn't necessarily expect an attack, but my view of &quot;surprise&quot; is closer to an ambush where one party is unaware of the other's existence. (This precise example is close to how  works, however this specific PC was always the first of the party to go into rooms (only one with darkvision) and consistently felt they should get free rounds at the start of combat based on declaring attacks before I could &quot;start&quot; the combat.) The second example the party came to more bandits, who were not alert immediately, in an underground room. They used magic to yell something obscene at the bandits and shut off all the torches so the bandits were effectively blinded. At this point they wanted to burst into the room casting spells, swinging maces, and playing some &quot;meaty chords&quot; (the bard's words, not mine). Again they wanted surprise arguing that, despite the fact that the bandits were yelling and cursing in confusion, they couldn't be sure they were actually being attacked as such. In the end a character with darkvision wanted to sneak in to a corner and again wanted surprise based on passing stealth rolls, so they would start the &quot;combat&quot; by firing a crossbow. At that point I think I relented because it was clear that they would do anything to try and win combats in a single round. In a nutshell, my question is: &quot;how liberally can the concept of surprise be applied to combat - is it only when one party is literally unaware of a threat (as I read the rules), or just when they are caught slightly off guard by the exact situation?&quot; NB I already plan to address the attempts at interrupting descriptions with actions next session, because it happened at other times and actually threw me off quite a bit.
83099
In our D&amp;D 5e games, I am not sure how to handle the following situation relating to stealth:  Enemies are in a room. The rogue stays outside, stepping to the side in order to be able to hide. Now, can he attack the enemies inside the room with his bow while getting advantage and sneak attack?  In favor of sneak attacking one might say, that the enemies don't see him prepare and have little time to react to his attack.  On the other hand, they know where he is, they just can't see him.  Is the situation different with a pile of boxes, where they know he's hidden behind the boxes, but not from which end he will attack?
94668
When I first heard of , I originally thought it was quite a powerful cantrip that would allow the castor to sacrifice 1 attack in order to be granted insight into the target's elemental weaknesses and resistances. It reminded me of my first campaign when I walked into it at level 4 and felt lost hearing my DM state "your attack seems to have done nothing" even when I knew it was a hit.   However, I now realize that was a false understanding of the rules. As such, I was wondering:  Is there a spell, item, or other game feature that would give my character insight to an enemy's weaknesses and resistance?  I am curious about any possible solution that would let a group know why the arcane wizard is not taking any damage in the middle of a fight, for example.
91711
Last session, my DM made me roll a Deception check against another player. I failed the roll, and as a result I was forced to reply a specific way and reveal information I otherwise wouldn't have revealed to the other player.  Now I know player-vs-player social dice checks aren't a thing and players aren't supposed to roll against each other because that takes away the players' choice and autonomy. I rolled it once because I am of the view that you roll with the punches during the game and air out any issues that you have after the session.   I confronted the DM about this, saying I was under no obligation to obey any social checks that he demanded I make against other players. As even :     There are three skills in the game that pertain to social interaction, especially when you're dealing with non-player characters. There's the persuasion skill, the deception skill, and the intimidation skill. I often get asked, are these skills meant to be used against player characters? And honestly they're not, because so much of how a player character talks and feels is really just up to the player's decision. We don't want dice to override the characterization that a player is bringing to their character. So these skills are mostly intended to be used on non-player characters, whether by player characters or by other NPCs   (Emphasis mine.)  So I told him that in the future, I will not obey any social checks of this nature that he wants me to make against player characters, as that’s going against the core principles of D&amp;D.   He then said that I do not have to do so, but then I will just auto-fail the check. He didn't expand on what would happen if I "auto-fail".   Is a DM allowed to force a player to make social checks against other player characters? If the player fails, are they mandated to respond how the DM says they must?
81824
While running a session recently, one of the players chose to "assist" his companion who was in melee with a goblin, by firing an arrow at the pair of them. I couldn't find any particular rules for this scenario so just had him roll at a disadvantage, counting a miss as a hit on his companion (damage to be ascertained by a second roll).   This seemed to work okay, and became a running joke for the night as the arrow bounced off the companions back, but are there specific rules for this scenario?
66460
Is it true that not even the person/creature/thing doing the initial action that starts a combat is able to use a full-round action?  According to all sources I can find, the initial attack already is part of the surprise round, so you're only entitled to a move action or standard action; but that leads to an (in my opinion) absurd scenario, so I just wanted to be sure whether there is something I'm missing:  Let's say sorcerer A is hiding in the bushes, 1HP left, waiting to finish sorcerer B (1HP left) off with magic missiles before B does the same to A. Then he suddenly spots sorcerer B - but sadly, he's some feet out of range. Now sorcerer A wants to use metamagic to double his magic missiles range and fire that on sorcerer B ... but now his magic missile takes a full-round action to cast, so sorcerer A cannot surprise sorcerer B with it anymore.  Is this interpretation right RAW-wise or am I missing something?
27826
As the title question, my DM rolls a single d20 save for groups affected by my area of effect spells that require a save, in order to save time.  I can't help but feel like I'm being ripped off by this as a wizard with primarily AoE save-or-suck spells.  I don't know if this is just a feeling or if the probabilities actually back this up.  I know this can also work in my favor but it still feels off.  How are the probabilities affected when a (homogenous) group gets a single save vs. each individual in the group having their own save?  I want to know specifically if this works more in my favor or more in the favor of my enemies, or if it is statistically speaking a 50/50 split.  I am looking for evidence that this is a bad idea (whether it benefits me or harms me) and that the DM should roll separately for each affected target in the area of effect.    I realize this probably puts the odds in my favor when targeting weak saves in the group (i.e., WIS save on a group of ogres or orcs), but this will not always be the case and especially when there are mixed enemies in the AoE.  So far we have only faced groups that contained single enemy types so I don't know what happens when there are two different enemies with two different saves.  Ideally answers will address a sliding group size (2..N group members, 5 is probably a good stopping point) and a range of save DCs -- DC 14-19 should address most levels of play.
19688
This example is a somewhat simplified version of what happened during the last game I DMed for a bunch of friends. A party of PCs was trudging through the woods when they happened upon a very small outpost in a clearing containing hostile elves. The rogue goes and checks it out, and sees two hostiles patrolling, one near the northern edge of woods (Elf1), one on a stone platform about 15 ft from the southern edge of the forest (Elf2).   The rogue goes back and relays the information. If the warrior of the party would simply trudge into the middle of the clearing, all enemies would be aware of a threat and the enemy wouldn't be surprised. They want to start combat with an edge, so they formulate a plan that would cause the enemies to be surprised: the rogue will go stealth up to the northern edge of the clearing, wait for Elf1 to get close, and sneak attack him. When that happens (it's a small clearing, so it's within his vision) the warrior in the party, who will attempt to sneak up to the southern edge of the forest, will run for Elf2 and beat him up. They both roll great stealth checks and head to their positions. So far so good.   The rogue waits for Elf1 to get close and attacks with his short sword. Time for combat, and this is where things got confusing, and where a discussion broke out between players:  According to page 189 of the PHB:   Determine surprise — Both Elf1 and Elf2 are surprised, because they didn't notice any threat. Establish positions — Should be clear from the description of the situation above. Roll Initiative — The warrior gets a 20, Elf2 a 15, the rogue a 5, and Elf1 a 1. Take Turns — The warrior can go first. However, as the party discussed before, he was supposed wait until he sees the rogue hit Elf1. The rogue's attack is what started the combat encounter, yet the attack hasn't been resolved yet due to his poor initiative roll. And .   Option 1: Some people at the table argue that he can't yet run into the clearing because that would pose a clear and noticeable threat and the elves would not be surprised. He should wait for the rogue to hit Elf1 and use the Ready action on his first turn. This option seems to punish the warrior for rolling well on his initiative.  Option 2: As determining surprise occurs before the initiative roll according to page 189 of the PHB, I would argue that the rules support that the warrior should be able to run up to Elf2 and hit him, without breaking surprise. The fact that the attack that caused the surprise hasn't yet been resolved and that this goes somewhat counter against their agreed plan of waiting for the rogue to hit Elf1, makes this option incredibly unintuitive though.  Which of these options is the correct one? Or is there a hidden option 3?
46701
I could use some advice as a GM on how to handle rolls which get repeated by several players one after the other.  Example 1     The PCs stand in front of a locked door and try to force it open. The tough   guy: "Stand back, I'll handle this!" Gives it a try, fails his roll,   the door stands. Up comes PC number 2. "Okay, I throw myself against the   door". Rolls okay, but not sufficient; the door holds. Eventually, the   Elf with back pain or the paraplegic Halfling succeeds with a lucky   roll.   Example 2     The PCs come upon a strange herb that they found somewhere. First   player checks herbology, zip. Second player, "Maybe I know the   kraut?", rolls, nothing. Third player...   This happens kind of frequently in our game. I'm not entirely sure it is a bad thing, but somehow it feels wrong. Firstly it greatly changes the balance of skill checks: 'sneaking' rolls, for example, must be succeeded by everyone in the group, 'herbology' only by one out of many. Secondly, I feel it lessens the satisfaction of actually solving problems unless the players explicitly want their characters to work together (and somewhat act it out, maybe). It boils down to "Okay, you try it first, then you, then you, and you with 0.1% chance of succeeding, why don't you give it a shot as well?"  The problem is lessened in some situations:   Some skill checks can have bad effects if they go wrong (e.g. Surgery, First Aid). Others will take time/resources that not all PCs are willing to spend.   But in many cases there is no game mechanical or rational way why players should not do it.   Do you think this is an issue, i.e., does this bother you as a GM? How do you handle these kinds of situations? (Ignore it? Forbid rerolls by other players? Add penalties to consecutive tries?)   I am totally okay with answers involving just talking to your players, or suggesting they try this or that. I don't necessarily need a game-mechanical way to address this issue.
2708
This actually a number of questions that conform to the title question, and which all stem from a bit of rules confusion.  Let's start with the rules confusion.  On pg 178, under the skill Investigation the rules says the following;     You might deduce the location of a hidden object,...   On the same page, directly to the right of the investigation skill, is a green box titled Finding a hidden object. In the box the rules says the following;     When your character searches for an hidden object such as a secret door or trap, the DM typically ask you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check.   Now here we have two skills that clearly does the same thing.  So my first question is: Are the skills interchangeable or mutually exclusive?  That is: can you use either skill to search for traps in any situation, or do you use Investigation only in specific situations you can't use Perception in, and Perception only in specific situations you can't use Investigation in?  My second question is: What do you use to make passive checks to spot a trap?  Do you only use Perception, as you would if a character did not have proficiency in either skill? Or, if a character is proficient in Investigation but not Perception, would you then use Investigation instead?  Which leads me to my last question: What if a character is alert to the possibility of hidden objects like traps, but isn't actively searching for them?  In other words, what happens if a player utters the oh so familiar words: "I'm prepared for the possibility that there might be traps in here." He/she isn't actively searching, but it isn't exactly passive either. If the character has proficiency in Investigation, do you then use that skill, or do you stay with Perception checks?  In other words: when do you use what skill?
73340
I was working on building a Zorro character and this question came up: if a rogue is riding on a mount, is that mount considered an ally, or, specifically, an "enemy" of your target?  One of the ways Sneak attack can be trigged is...     "... if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy   isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack   roll."   My assumption is yes. Every mount I'm aware of has some kind of attack at its disposal, and thus they represent a threat to your target in addition to the increased threat potential they grant you as the rider. Moreover, if a gnome can proc a sneak attack by acting as a distraction, I don't know why a warhorse wouldn't be able to. That said, is there anything in the books or elsewhere that defines what "enemy of the target" is allowed to include?