Pure Reflex
I think perhaps Drow Priestess has become the Wile E. Coyote of this comic. Will she ever enact her revenge, slay the Heroes, and escape her humiliating captivity? In the immortal words of my favorite IRL magic item, “All signs point to no.”
Of course, our indentured drow could be forgiven her error. On paper, it certainly looks like she has the drop on Thief. Firing at an unconscious target from close range ought to be easy. But then again, you’ve got to make allowances for the rules, not just your assumptions.
I’ll never forget the argument this mess spawned at my first 5e table. We had stumbled upon a troglodyte camp, and by some miracle managed not to raise the alarm. It was the first time in our Out of the Abyss campaign that we’d managed to make a group stealth check, and our light domain cleric was practically drooling at the target-rich environment.
“Scorching ray!” he shouts.
“Alrighty,” says our DM. “They’re technically prone since they’re still wrapped up in their little lizardman bedrolls. Roll at Disadvantage.”
What followed was a tirade straight from the lands of Air Force basic training: Dropping prone wouldn’t help in real life! Projectiles that missed would just ricochet off the floor! Going prone would be more dangerous because your head is now biggest target! It should be opposite because standing dudes can dodge! Plus there’s more surface area if you go prone because, dude… OK fine, it’s the rules, but this is bullshit and I shouldn’t have Disadvantage!
Suffice it to say that the scorching rays missed. Sportsmanship aside, the incident does highlight one of the strategies people use for making rules calls. When we’ve got complex systems of game mechanics flying around, falling back on common sense often is the right approach. That’s why we have GMs in the first place: making oddball decisions in weird situations and corner cases. Sometimes though, that instinct takes you to the wrong conclusion.
I can tell you from experience that folks will argue these points vehemently. The rallying cry is usually, “But that doesn’t make sense!” And I don’t think any of us are immune. In today’s comic, keeping your Dex while unconscious is one example. In a more recent Starfinder game, I got got by the paralyzed condition. Turns out your aren’t helpless while paralyzed (a change from the Pathfinder rule), and therefore not subject to coup de grace attempts. I still can’t conceive of being paralyzed and not helpless, but when life and death are on the line, it’s probably better to go by the book.
No doubt you guys have faced similar examples from your own games. So for today’s discussions, why don’t we channel the rage of my old airman pal, and call out all those weird rules that ‘don’t make sense?’ Sound off with your favorite example down in the comments.
ADD SOME NSFW TO YOUR FANTASY! If you’ve ever been curious about that Handbook of Erotic Fantasy banner down at the bottom of the page, then you should check out the “Quest Giver” reward level over on The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. Thrice a month you’ll get to see what the Handbook cast get up to when the lights go out. Adults only, 18+ years of age, etc. etc.
I see Thief is a fan of Vax of the Legends of Vox Machina! ^_^
And why not? We know she’s into elves (half-elf in his case), and he’s a fellow Rogue (at the start).
I’m not too worries about what Drow Priestess can do with a crossbow. I’m more concerned about what she’ll get up to with Jeremy’s cold, unbeating heart.
No matter how many pratfalls he takes, Wile E. Coyote only has to get lucky once, and then the Road Runner is lunch…
We have an old gaming buddy visiting at the moment. Having great fun introducing her to Legend of Vox Machina.
Dammit… Put the heart next to the ratfolk village in plot threads I need to pay off
Pathfinder 2E. Flanked is now a status effect, which is fine… except it works in a weird and unintuitive way where only the people that are actually doing the flanking get the benefit of it. My playgroup was incredibly annoyed when the enemy would be flanked to the Barbarian and the Oracle or Druid, but not to the Rogue even though it had the flanked status effect.
Isn’t that the way it’s always worked? And I don’t see how that’s unintuitive.
Though I guess the main difference now is just that flanking doesn’t stack with other flat-footed effects.
It is the way it’s always worked, but making it a status effect is confusing. Status effects generally only check whether the creature has the status or not, but flanking doesn’t actually care about the status, just where the attackers are positioned.
To be honest, I don’t really get the confusion, as there is still no difference in how its played.
Third fighter to the side (not diametrically opposed) doesn’t get to take advantage of the status effect. So it’s a status effect that doesn’t exist depending on where you stand. I could see the weirdness in that.
Pathfinder 1e gunslinger: if you can reload a single-chamber gun as a free action (via class features or feats), you can shoot multiple times, even with an old-timey flintlock or musket. So your gunslinger reloads and fires a gunpowder weapon four to five times in the span of a turn (6 seconds).
…and yet despite this blinding feat of speed, attempting to do so next to an enemy provokes an attack for not only shooting, but for the reloading. Meaning if you attack four times, every enemy might get up to eight free attacks (assuming combat reflexes and high dex) in the span of a turn.
Had to remind Laurel’s divine hunter paladin about provoking multiple times in a full attack once upon a time. She was not a happy camper.
My Ratfolk wizard once took the opportunity to coup-de-grace an unconscious enemy demon. Unfortunately, being a negative STR modifier build, my automatic crit did a piddly 8 damage, which was entirely resisted by their DR, and easily made the death save. The attack then woke it up, making the beefier PCs unable to do their own coup attempts.
And the worst part of it? You can’t coup with spells unless they’re very specific about it AND you’re next to the helpless foe.
I believe we have found a point in the martial characters’ favor. 😛
Blood Bowl rule number 1. the less dice you have to roll the more likely you are to succeed.
Never perform a plan that requires lots of dice. I would have tried roleplaying my way sliting each and every throath as they slept.
But as for rules that make no sense my personal “favourites” are weapons and especially shields… almost no protection and pidly damage my ass. Those guys making the rules need to fight against some one holding one and be punched by one, naturally the later test requires to be performed next to hospital emergency ward.
I would also like to rant about using ricochets and other unnatural ballistics with guns in some games but I leave it at that.
We straight up weren’t allowed to shield punch in the SCA. Knowing that a jagged metal rim lay just under the padding was a persuasive argument.
I know I did it too. That’s why I put the need for emergency care, and it is a heavy blunt objet coming at you, if you get hit with shield and have intact bones, you are lucky. Still doesn’t remove need for some practical hands on experience. This reminded me of that Shield hero anime and me almost yelling at the screen “shield punch that mouthbreather already” knowing that the shit talking would end permanently after that.
I mainly used shield when not swinging two handed axe around.
That is a PARTICULARLY flattering angle for Thief… I have no doubt we’ll soon see that pose in the other handbook too…
See hover text. Instant cure. Practically a bonk stick.
You’d think so, but there’s always the edge case…
https://youtu.be/jtjnnykvnh4
Yup. Don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
If I had to see it, EVERYONE has to see it. Thems the rules!
Labrys, could you at least have shown the silver lining of her being hospitalised due to the diet she was on to manufacture those… I can even think of a word to describe her… “product”.
Sometimes I plot how to get accest to such funds, maybe agree a 50-50 split on profits with a young hottie, all she has to do is to play along while I make the “gamer girl bath water” and fart jars.
In 5e, paralysis does mean that any hit is an auto-crit, but you do still have to accurately hit the target, however unconscious is not paralyzed.
The main thing the DM in your example goofed on was that he forgot that sleeping targets are functionally blind (excepting possibly for tremorsense and probably blindsense, but even then, if you successfully stealthed, that means they haven’t sensed you, hence you’re at advantage regardless) which would have put him back at a regular hit instead of disadvantage.
There’s also an argument to be made that if they were in bedrolls, they might count as temporarily restrained, which could give them disadvantage on dex saves (and a fireball could bypass the disadvantage from prone issue) Not helpful for that cleric, but something to keep in mind.
What a lot of people don’t ever seem to get about 5e is that it derives its balance not from its accuracy, but cooperating points of inaccuracy. That’s why advantages and disadvantages don’t stack and multiple different contributing sources just boil down to normal again. It made a point of simplifying everything in just the right amount that everything comes out mostly even, and where it’s uneven, it’s the same way for both sides.
In the same vein, people still go fishing for their templates to calculate spell area, even while they use the “diagonals count as 1 square” rule. If you’re 15ft away from a person, a 15ft cone should reach you, it shouldn’t matter where you are, but going by templates it doesn’t reach as long as you’re in a corner.
This is why I tossed my templates and go purely by the methods listed by the PHB for different spell shapes, which functionally make all spheres look like cubes on the battle map.(but the source is in the center instead of from a side)
This has drastically streamlined range arguments, as only the longest distance needs to be measured to tell if you’re out of range or not, if you’re 110ft away in one direction, it doesn’t matter if you’re 20ft to the left and 40ft up. Instead of needing to calculate hypotenuses twice over, you’re just 110ft away. Is it “accurate”? Not at all. A square house is functionally round in this situation (though it already was before) but for the most part it’s balanced since enemies get all the same pros and cons.
It does have the interesting side effect of making dragons much more dangerous when calculated in 3 dimensions though. Technically a cone has a diameter as wide as however far from its source it is, so a 60ft cone is 60ft across, but if a dragon is 60ft in the air, and breathes that cone pointed down, that means that it can hit an area of 12×12 squares just counting what it hits on the ground.
Goddammit… I knew I should have invented some other reason for them being prone. I couldn’t remember what spell we used to knock over the trogs, so I just said, “Fuck it, they were asleep,” for the sake of the anecdote.
Suffice it to say that we went over all the relevant rules with a fine-toothed comb. The larger point here (and the real rule weirdness in my eyes) is that you keep your Dex to AC while unconscious. That shit is weird.
My biggest problem with range is remembering to switch back and forth from the 5e to Pathfinder square-counting system over in Roll 20.
you are talking in 5e rules right? (i never played it so i don’t know)
cause in pathfinder sleeping\parlayed helpless etc have a dex score of 0 (-5)
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Helpless-Defenders
so not only losing any bonus to dodge they get from high dex (and while at it any other dodge bonus they might have, since if you lose dex dodge you lose other dodge like..dodge feat dodge bonus etc) their ac plummet 5 more down (but then prone is still +4 to ac vs ranged attack so +4 to that).
also can coup de grace if 5 ft away and not need to roll to hit. guess drow priestess didn’t have a full round to shoot.
Yes. The comic and the conversation is about 5e.
The Advantage Disadvantage System at it’s finest :\
I’ll be honest, attacking an unconscious enemy should probably be an auto-hit, no matter what system your using.
For a rule that makes no sense physically but is fine for game balance, flying martials. A lot of the power behind a strike comes from your legs on the ground, it’s why in fighting game you always see flying characters twist their entire body a lot more then anyone else. For game balance its fine, but it technically isn’t logical.
I don’t think attacking an unconscious enemy should automatically hit, at least not for ranged attacks. People do miss human shaped targets at range all the time (especially when surging with adrenaline and such from know it’s for real against a deadly enemy rather than a target at a shooting range).
It should still get a significant bonus compared to trying to him them while awake and moving (in similar positions with similar range and cover and wind and so on).
yeah at range, missing at point blank reguires either no skill at all or too much/little compensating for recoil. You do have a point in that shooting isn’t as easy as to just point and squeese.
But melee, yes sinking a dagger to sleeping character really should be an auto hit, kill not neccesarilly but hit definately.
Kind of makes me wonder if there is a depiction of flying swordmen that makes sense…
If this is D&D 5e we’re talking about, then all attacks against an unconscious target have advantage, but ranged attacks against an adjacent (or prone) target have disadvantage.
Since any advantage cancels all disadvantage and vice versa, the cleric should have made the attack without either advantage or disadvantage.
Also, because the target was unconscious, had the attack hit, it’s damage would have been calculated as if the attack had been a critical success.
Goddammit… I knew I should have invented some other reason for them being prone. I couldn’t remember what spell we used to knock over the trogs, so I just said, “Fuck it, they were asleep,” for the sake of the anecdote.
Suffice it to say that we went over all the relevant rules with a fine-toothed comb. The larger point here (and the real rule weirdness in my eyes) is that you keep your Dex to AC while unconscious. That shit is weird.
Don’t forget the weirdness of being able to roll a reflex save… Whilst paralyzed.
Not in 5e, you auto-fail Dex and Str saves.
not in pathfinder 1e. sleeping mean 0 dex
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Helpless-Defenders
> Also, because the target was unconscious, had the attack hit, it’s damage would have been calculated as if the attack had been a critical success.
Not true. Only attacks made within 5ft get that (i.e non-reach melee attacks or point blank ranged attacks)
DM: “Your dwarven character is four feet tall.”
Player: “Yeah?”
DM: “He dual-wields a 1d6 short sword –that’s two feet tall, half his height– and an Oakeshott type-xiiii bastard sword, 1d10 damage, that’s easily as tall as he is.”
Player: “And?”
DM: “I’m just trying to visualize this—”
Player: “Dwarf’s a medium-sized creature; a war-axe –or a bastard sword at the expense of a feat– is one-handed. Short sword’s a light weapon; with feats, the penalty is only -2. Oh, and I picked up Two-weapon Defense so my AC won’t suffer.”
DM: (facepalms at the mental image of a waddling, bladed ball of steel)
This is why more dwarves should wield spears. They were the most common (dedicated) weapon in basically every premodern culture for a reason.
What the DM in your anecdote is missing is that swords aren’t “one-size fits all”, they are very much designed to fit the wielder (except in outfitting an army for war, then it’s “one-size fits no one”).
So the Dwarf probably has slightly shorter, but wider blades, or has more weight in the ricaaso and pommel to maintain cutting inertia despite being slightly shorter.
Or they’ve just learned to fight with a sword slightly longer than their arm mechanics would find comfortable. I’ve sparred using a 7 foot nodachi and I’m only 5’11″… (granted that is wielding it two-handed, I wouldn’t be able to use it one-handed at all effectively).
The longest known odachi is like 10 foot from tip to pommel and was made in 1844… granted the samurai who wielded probably wasn’t duel-wielding….
Okay, if the initial image wasn’t silly enough, consider a dwarf—or better yet, a halfling—Rogue duel-wielding sun blades with Finesse and the above feats:
“This sword is the size of a bastard sword. However, a sun blade is wielded as if it were a short sword with respect to weight and ease of use. In other words, the weapon appears to all viewers to be a bastard sword, and deals bastard sword damage, but the wielder feels and reacts as if the weapon were a short sword. Any individual able to use either a bastard sword or a short sword with proficiency is proficient in the use of a sun Blade. Likewise, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in short sword and bastard sword apply equally, but the benefits of those feats do not stack.”
Have we hit Tex Avery cartoon status yet?
Look man, I play a dwarf SPECIFICALLY so that I can be a waddling bladed ball of steel.
My favorite example of strict RAW insanity is still tripping in 3.5. If you trip someone, they become prone, the definition of which includes “You are on the ground”. There are special rules for what happens when you trip a flying character… but not for a swimming character.
So if you trip a swimming character, they go rocketing towards the nearest source of “ground” like Team Rocket blasting off again!
You’d think there would be wording about “can’t trip a creature in the water.”
I distinctly remember my first ever game, back when I just got pathfinder (mistake to give that game to someone completely new). The barbarian was CONVINCED that skeletons shouldn’t resist slashing because it’s still hitting them with a big metal stick, despite the fact that they HAVE NO FLESH TO CUT.
I remember hearing a story about a new player who jumped a behir from ambush.
“You miss.”
“How could I possibly miss? It’s a giant slow-moving monster that doesn’t know I’m there!”
Dudes immersion was broken and he never played again. So like… I guess those combat descriptions are CRAZY IMPORTANT for some players.
I think, part of the “how could I miss!?” Problem in Pathfinder and D&D comes from a misunderstanding on what missing means – it can mean hitting the target but not piercing armour – and DMs often just decribe a missed attack asgoing wide even when it’s probably caused by a highly armoured target.
“Your arrow sticks in a knot in the behir’s hide, doing no harm” is easy enough to visualise, and it would take a very poor player to protest that outcome!
That is exactly right. And exactly what I meant about combat descriptions being important. You’ve got to make the fiction make sense for your players.
Regarding the proneness tirade, since when does Scorching Ray ricochet? A think he’s thinking of lightning bolt, and of a completely different edition of the game
He was arguing about “ranged attacks” in a general sense. Also he was pissed that he missed.
shouldn’t he have got advantage for shooting at a helpless target?
P1e would have got
+4AC for prone
effective DEX of 0 so about -4 to AC for clumsy fighter
And for the record, it makes sense that prone characters would generally be harder to hit with ranged attacks in general. You’re generally presenting a smaller profile to the enemy, and frequently forcing them to either aim at an awkward angle or get down on the ground (which is even more awkward). Sure, that all goes away if you’re right next to the target, but so does the disadvantage.
The problem isn’t prone characters imposing disadvantage, it’s requiring a roll to hit a stationary target.
Is Thief’s sleeping mask a custom job that covers all her eyes?
She got better at crafting, remember?
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/thief-wizard-part-3-5
Speaking of Reflex, an oldie, in the same vein:
Fireball on an unconscious/helpless/sleeping character.
Should they have a Reflex save? Shouldn’t they, at least, reduce their Reflex value by losing their Dex bonus?
AFAIK, 3.x doesn’t cover that parts.
You are mistaken. The 3.5 rules are clear about this: an unconscious/helpless/sleeping character has Dexterity 0. That’s a -5 modifier to reflex saves.
Though they still have reflex saves. On the other hand, Evasion cannot be used by an unconscious character, so the “rogue waking up unharmed in a crater” isn’t going to happen here: they’ll at least get half-damage even if they’re lucky enough to make the save.
How about the fact that an unconscious character gets a reflex save AT ALL?
pathfinder 1e doesn’t allow ref for unconscious characters, but you need to look at 2 rules to know that – both in the magic section:
in ‘Saving Throws’:
‘Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw
A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.’
and in ‘Aiming a Spell’ :
‘Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn).* Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing*, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.’
so Unconscious is considered willing and willing target automatically fail the save.
funny thing, raw this is only for saving vs magical effects, a sleeping rogue in a trap\dragon breath will still get his ref save…
I think those are different uses of the word “willing.” Note that one uses “willingly” and the other specifies “willing targets.” That’s meant to let you teleport unconscious creatures rather than deny a save in this weird corner case.
but..both are the same thing, no?
they both talk about accepting the spell without fighting it’s effects.
one just happen to talk about a spell that can easily be negated if you fight it while the other talk about one that allow a save.
the only difference here is the fact the spell is harder to resist in one case. the part of the target side, accepting the spell is the same. so if in one case they talk about how unconscious target=willing, it should stand to be the same in the other. or are you saying there is a difference between the way some1 accept a spell that ask nicely to some1 who accept a spell that barges over?
two guys tagging a rope, if one let go of the rope, it shouldn’t matter if the other side pulled hard or not. what more the one talking about not getting a save for being unconscious is the one who pull lightly. so if i pull lightly and you faint you let go and i end with the rope. what happen if you faint when i pull harder?
There are arguments for things working this way (you have put them pretty well), but there’s also some against it, particularly in that
See for instance the Nightmare spell https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/n/nightmare/
It has a will save to negate and a whole thing about modifying it based on the connection to the caster. It also have a clause about only finishing casting when the target is asleep.
If being asleep meant that the target automatically failed all will saves then giving it one (and a subsystem) would be entirely pointless.
Personally I prefer the interpretation where sleep doesn’t mean auto-failing saves. I’ll admit that’s at least partially because it’s all saves, not just reflex. I mean why should your immune system be worse at resisting a Contagion just because you are asleep?
Having still a Reflex save while unconscious, I more or less consider it part of the fact that fantasy characters can be incredibly lucky; they just happen to be sleeping right next to something offering cover that absorb part of the damage, or there’s coincidentally another creature blown by the magical attack that just happen to fall on them and protect them unwittingly… a winds of fate thing, basically.
High dex characters have greater luck. It is known.
Things that don’t make sense? Vancian magic system 😀
Also surprised you didn’t mentioned dodge charms 🙂
Vancian magic systems, aside from being arbitrary, also make balancing Vancian classes (like wizards) against non-Vancian classes (like fighters) reliant on a standardized number of encounters per day. I’ve had campaigns where my spellcasters could burn a spell every combat round if they wanted, and campaigns where I’d run out of decent-level spells if I only cast one per combat. Weapon performance stays consistent regardless of schedule, though.
I don’t have a problem with Vancian systems in 4e (it’s still arbitrary, but so are hit points), but every other D&Derivative stumbles into that problem. Which is part of my argument why even martial characters should get some kind of magic, alongside “Magic in a fantasy world shouldn’t be restricted to a handful of specialists when it’s clear that even dabblers can cast useful spells”.
Like, not everyone IRL is a programmer or IT expert, but that doesn’t mean only a handful of specialists can use computers. There’s so much you can do with an Internet browser alone, and it’s easy to learn how to use it. Why shouldn’t magic be the same if it has a breadth of application more comparable to modern computers than the ENIAC era?
Vancian magic is just a system because Gigax liked Jack Vance’s novel magic system so they used that. There is no mechanical reasons or lore reasons for magic being as it’s on the game. Other than Gigax liking it and his word being the only that matters 🙂
I dunno. Speaking as a scholar, I’ve got to re-study the shit I learned yesterday if I want to retain it.
Be proud of your effort, you are never too old to learn things 😀
I’ve still got a place in my heart for all those weird 3.5 rules, like how if you start drowning while dying, you arguably “fall” back up to zero HP. They’re harmless because nobody’s actually going to argue they apply outside a
laboratoryweb forum environment, and they’re hilarious to imagine.The commoner railgun just straight-up doesn’t work, though. It requires ignoring common sense in favor of the rules and the rules in favor of common sense, at the same time. RAW, the orange or whatever reaches the end of the line and falls to the ground. By common sense, peasants can’t pass an orange down a mile-long line in less than six seconds.
What, you don’t like horse-based super highways?
my pet peeve since 3.5 is armor weights for small races:
By the rulez it’s half of that for medium races.
Unless of cause you have a medium character and „reduce person“ them when it is the appropriate ¼ weight for all equipment carried.
There must be some math behind that somewhere….
oh, sure.
just not the math I learned at school.
My first DM waffled something about „balance“ and small characters getting too much of an advantage from ¼ gear weight on top of ¾ carrying capacity.
To which I replied, „well dump the arbitrary ¾ than and use proper physics“
just don’t bullshit me with the rules.
All the acrobatic tricks a PC can do while wearing a backpack. I understand *why* rules are rarely made so complicated that you have to shed your kit to fight properly; but damn if even the optional encumberance rules don’t take the laws of physics for a ride. On a related note, there needs to be a limit to the bouyancy of characters with mountains of gear…
Oh! And one “that doesn’t make sense” that is particularly frustrating for DMs in 5e… just how few creatures are immune to being stunned! Gelatinous cube? One punch and it really does turn to jelly. Magically animated construct of solid metal? Somehow that kung-fu move found a nerve to pinch, ’cause the iron giant is stun-locked. Ugh.
That must be new to 5e, because in 3.x there’s fuck-all that stunning actually works on
Yeah, it’s a 5e thing. Very few creatures are immume to stunning (most of these are undead). You can stun an ancient dragon or even an ancient dracolich. You can stun Baphomet or Orcus or Zariel. At least at the level of these legendary creatures, huge Con save bonuses make it easy for them to resist the infamous 4-per-turn stunning strike opportunities of a fully pumped monk; but some high cr creatures like Death Knights and Iron Golems, with no xtra con save bonus, are trivialised by even a mid-level monk.
This is of course only an issue for DMs using by-the-book creatures and favouring single high-level rather than multi-creature encounters. Though, make too many creatures immune to stun and monks would feel persecuted.
It’s pretty clear that Wizards have realised the issue that stunning strike can pose – wuite a few of their more recently published legendary foes (such as the aspects of Bahamut and Tiamat) are notably immune to stunning.
The backpack comment reminded me: Letting your barbarian act as a mobile archery platform for your gnome. I mean sure, you can do a piggy back ride no problem. But I’ll be damned if I’m not Imposing siadvantage for that mess. You ever try to swing a greataxe with a toddler wrapped around your neck?
This is what coup de grace is for, rules edition permitting.
Still gotta hit with that crossbow, right? I mean, what if it misfires and explodes in your hand?
coup de grace is auto hit + auto crit in pathfinder 1e.
no to hit roll needed and after the damage you do the save not to die (if the damage didn’t kill by itself)
As is clearly depicted in the comic, Drow Priestess is 5′ 1″ away from Thief. She doesn’t get coup de grace and has to roll to hit.
I’ve certainly seen the unconscious/helpless “why can’t we autokill this” argument come up a lot.
Mostly not in the case of shooting at sleeping targets, but in successfully coup de gracing targets in their sleep….. who have more than enough hp to somehow be in basically fine fighting condition after you…. slit their throat in their sleep? Or stuck your entire sword through their eye socket?
In such cases I often will argue for the rule of “let’s just go for what makes any sense here”.
On the GM side, if the NPC is so strong that the PC’s *can’t* possibly one shot them (or like… four or five shot them really since nothing logically stops all party members from getting a hit in before someone who’s asleep can act), I’d probably try to narrate things such that this above their pay grade level foe *does* wake up from their approach…. just not quick enough to deny them their opening moves.
Just because I’ve been on the player side of “So you’re telling me narrative wise it was just physically impossible for my in universe person with a sword to kill this other person with a sword in a single blow?” to be pretty annoyed with that kind of laziness/obstinacy for following the rules in spite of the fiction. If the foe is too precious to you to allow to be killed while asleep…. why were they asleep or why can’t you write them out of being asleep? (Though I’ve had this happen as often as not with completely nameless NPCs that were just supposed to be muscle, so I don’t even know what the logic is in those cases aside from just not wanting to let the players getting away with bypassing combat.)
I think the ruling has a lot to do with the other side of the equation.
“What do we mean we got TPK’d in our sleep? This is bullshit!”
I imagine there’s a solution in treating PCs with explicitly different coup de grace rules, but that rubs some players the wrong way.
If a player asks for a specific house rule this is what I offer:
„I‘ll write it down and at some random point in the campaign ‚IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU.‘ Still interested?
Given how ingrained it is in the culture to set watches, alarm spells, and anything else PCs can do to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening even *without* such rulings specifically noted as applying to them, I’m not sure there’s a point to going of your way to say it does.
PCs are already playing a game where they have to resource manage vs foes that don’t and even the kindest of versions of failing to notice foes attacking you in your sleep (the enemies just getting a surprise round or even just all auto-winning initiative) is already extremely costly/potentially deadly.
So if you think about it, there’s basically no downside for the players if you *do* tell them that they can get auto-killed in their sleep. They’re already going to do everything they can to prevent it and unless you’re dealing with an assassination attempt by basic goblins on a high level party, the “will failing to notice foes while we sleep kill us?” question is pretty much still at 50/50 odds.
And just given the amount of control the GM has and how little the PCs do about all of these scenarios… well denying the opportunity to the players on the few occasions in a given game to manage it or going out of your way to apply it to the players just seems like an intentional act to deny the players the bit of power fantasy that they’re there for in the first place. Basically, I think it’s the kind of GM behavior that shows the GM, is at least in this circumstance, failing to recall why the game is being played.
(Sure you can say not everyone is there for that kind of thing…. but obviously that doesn’t apply to any player that’s trying to do it now does it?)
There’s „not beeing caught sleeping without someone watching“
and there’s „paralyzed/put to sleep during combat“ while a Redcap takes a full round action to cut your throat to soak his hat.
So much for the specifics of coup de gras.
But the tone I get from most of your post is:
If a player is murder hobos I should just let them be a happy little murder hobo?
well, no.
No reward of monster insta-death without the risk of waking it up.
The risk of waking it up was what the stealth roll is for. Making it impossible for the stealth roll to accomplish the goal of the stealth roll is just making the players roll several times for an auto-fail you couldn’t just be honest about being an auto-fail and expecting them to be happy with it.
If you know what the players are trying to do and have decided they aren’t allowed to succeed at them and you know that they don’t know that, that’s not good table behavior. You’re just wasting everyone’s time and not caring about what’s fun for others.
As for your Redcap example…. what? Obviously things that are happening *during* combat follow the rules for things that happen *in combat*. That really doesn’t have anything meaningfully to do with what I brought up.
I don’t often comment here, but I often return to the comic to see what the comments have been up to.
I have to let you know that each time I have returned to this one, the alt text has made me giggle immaturely.
Happy to have ya! 🙂
I also giggled immaturely at this one. Especially when I realized how well it fit the art.
Pathfinder 2nd edition almost completely removed all forms of forced movement. You are also no longer allowed to move while grappling a creature, even if you’re significantly larger than it is. As a barbarian specializing in athletics to grapple, the amount of times I’ve wanted to just. put an enemy somewhere else. Is so high, and I’m just. Not allowed to. Please. I just want to drag this stupid derro bastard into the sunlight.
What, no shove?
Shove is the only form of forced movement that remains, and it can only be done in a straight line away from you- you can’t shove someone to your right, for example. The Derro I was trying to drag into the sun had his back to a wall so I physically couldn’t get into a place where he could be shoved from. Me being a large-sized dragon at the time, and him being a small-sized humanoid, apparently I’m still not allowed to drag him even though I could literally pick his entire body up in my mouth.
the more I read about P2e the happier I am to give it a miss.
Ditto.
Is there no generic “combat maneuver” that could cover this situation? It’s clearly possible within the fiction. It’s just a matter of representing it with mechanics.
Wait, wait, wait, wait…
Are those ELBOWS I’m seeing on Thief here?
I thought they were definitively off-limit for this comic…
That was Handbook 2.5. This is Handbook 2.75. They tightened up some of the wording and made the elbows from errata official.
Flat foot AC is one of the few ideas unique to 3X I feel should come back. (Not you touch AC, you’re just a Dexterity save with something else taking up space on your sheet/in your brain) Same with extra skills from Intelligence. (Arguably not entirely unique to 3X since 2E did it with languages, but the overall point is there)
Plus there’s so many situations where advantage/disadvantage cancel out that would be better if the advantage was instead targeting flatfoot: Prone incapacitated target, neither of you can see each other, etc. Making it an attack at disadvantage against their flatfoot AC would be so much better.
Touch AC become the gunslinger class though. You can see how awkward it is porting that concept into 5e with Mercer’s attempt in Critical Role.
Firstly guns and plate armor coexisted because plate armor could actually protect you from guns. Breastplates were effective as late as Napoleon. They shouldn’t go for your touch AC. Granted my opinions on guns in fantasy are “We should have the actual medieval guns that actually existed rather than jumping straight to flintlock muskets and revolvers”. The problem was that for the price of armoring one guy you could hire an entire squad of muskets, and that was usually a better deal.
Mercer’s gunslinger is a mess both because for all his merits Mercer is a terrible designer, and because it attempted to faithfully convert the gunslinger rather than make it make sense in 5E. (Granted to make sense in 5E it should just be a Battlemaster who uses guns)
You ruled that wrong, while being prone does provide disadvantage against non-adjacent attacks, being unconscious (such as sleeping) provides advantage, as does being hidden (the successful stealth roll). Advantage and disadvantage cancel out so they should have just rolled
See my other comments on this point.
Thief reflexes be good.
On topic, honestly the vast majority of bad rules in that vein come from poor edition swaps and awkward grandfathered in rules. They apply to classes as well.
I am working to eliminate all mistakes from my custom RPG.
> I am working to eliminate all mistakes from my custom RPG.
But what’s the DC to tilt at a windmill? Have you figured that out yet?
Of course /s.
Please don’t denigrate my work, by the way.
I mean, one of the reasons I write about it is because of my bad experiences with these exact problems (and others).
In any case, I hope we are cool with each other.