Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening

Coroc said:

@jasper two things about that, if some Mobs run the logic thing is to chase them they might fetch backup else, which does not improve the chance for a successful rest. The bad luck here was that the Party chasing ran into the backup.

Click to expand...

Essentially, the PCs had been chasing fleeing goblins well before they reached the pillared hall. It was a hit and run battle until they drove off a group of goblins, then barricaded a supply room and set the contents ablaze to shut that down as a way to get around the party for a flank. At that point the PCs busted into a chamber with a white dragon wyrmling (which connected to the pillared hall). While they dealt with knocking out the dragon and tying it up, the goblins they chased off gathered some reinforcements in the pillared hall and waited. When the PCs entered, the events that led to the outcome of the original post kicked off.

The thing is, as noted, even as they fought the 7 goblins in the pillared hall, they could see the goblins in the warren to the west through the open doorway rallying. It wasn't bad luck that they later decided to have their hireling kick in the door after an opportunity to withdraw presented itself - it was hubris.

Coroc said:

The goblins chain awakening - the unlogic part about that is - that the first goblin would try to either run and leave his buddies OR
the other Option for the first gob awake would be to try and wake up ALL of his buddies, and NOT RUN after the first. Otherwise the DM is gaming the System.

Click to expand...

I think it is equally logical for Wartiak (the goblin wounded by Drongo) to slap awake the goblin Xutz and shout at Xutz to wake up Stet and so on as he made his way into the warrens.

The form of argument you present here is very common in my experience on D&D forums: The monster "would" do this or "will" do that. In order to arrive at that conclusion, you have to be operating from presuppositions and said presuppositions are not axiomatic. It is far better in my view to operate from a position of "The monster could do this" or "The monster might do that." It simply makes more sense to do so given the mutability of the fiction.

Coroc said:

A quick Investigation / medicine / arcana check to decide what would be the most logic reeaction of the goblin would also be in order for the gob to estimate whether his comrades are asleep or dead.

Click to expand...

I mentioned the goblins' sleep apnea upthread. That removes the uncertainty from the determination and thus there's no need for an ability check to resolve an outcome for the goblin's action.

Krachek said:

There is an old legend that say, once ago, a powerful wizard use a mighty spell to put asleep a entire city of goblins, in order to rescue a princess. The magic put everyone asleep except a little Imp, who manage to wake its master, and a mere 6 seconds after the wizard put everyone asleep, all was wake up.
The wizard throw himself over a cliff....

Click to expand...

...and cast Feather Fall.

Tony Vargas said:

Ah, so he should've killed 'em from the other end!


You'd have to call the whole game 'unfair,' in that case.
Which'd seem unfair.

Wait, is group initiative a 'rule' in 5e, not just a suggestion for the DM's convenience?
Not that there's much of a difference.

So I don't usually bother to closely parse 5e rules, but...
.... hm, the SRD seems to state it flatly, like a rule. It's what the DM does, not something he might do, like in prior eds.
Odd little difference in phrasing.

...and it explicitly says "acts at the same time." While 'ties' are decided by the DM.
So maybe you could have ruled the sleeping goblins woke up with less than a full round of actions, if their turns really were simultaneous...

Click to expand...

Don’t have it in front of me, but if I recall the DMG (maybe it’s the PHB) provides several options, such as individual for all monsters. Also not the group initiative doesn’t require you to group all goblins together, for example. The DM decides how best to group them, and a “group” can be a single individual.

Ilbranteloth said:

Don’t have it in front of me, but if I recall the DMG (maybe it’s the PHB) provides several options, such as individual for all monsters. Also not the group initiative doesn’t require you to group all goblins together, for example. The DM decides how best to group them, and a “group” can be a single individual.

Click to expand...

The Basic Rules say "The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures..." There are no exceptions or variants called out. (Not that prevents the DM from doing whatever he or she wants.) There are variant initiative rules in the DMG, but those appear to be solutions to resolving initiative faster such as using passive Dexterity checks or handling turn order by the "side" of the combat. Then there's speed factor initiative which is a solution to a whole other "problem." None of these rules suggest the DM should roll individual initiatives for identical creatures with the possible exception of speed factor initiative since in that variant each character or monster must choose an action before rolling.

I would straight up quit a game that didn't use group monster initiative for identical creatures and have done before. It really slows down the game otherwise in my experience and is a sign to me that the DM cares about some things that I think are best ignored for the benefit of the play experience.

Uller said:

Goblin wakes up after being nearly killed by a cleric with a mace. He sees all his companions lying about with varying amounts of blood on them. How would he know to smack some of his companions? Do typical goblins know about sleep spells and how to awaken someone from such enchantments? At a minimum I would think an int check would be in order.

Besides the rp aspects of it (I generally assume that most monsters do not have xp fighting adventuring parties...the goblins in Sunless Citadel are probably most experienced at fighting kobolds and raiding the outlying farms from the nearby town...) as a DM I try to avoid artifacts of the rules that seem contrived. Chain events like that seem to fit that.

If it seems like something that can only be done because of the nature of turns and rounds I generally avoid it unless the PCs do it...then it becomes fair game.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in a world where goblins have been at war with humans, elves, dwarves, and other intelligent races including spellcasters, I wouldn’t even question it. However, a cowardly goblin stopping to help its “weaker” friends?

More importantly, creatures often don’t wake up instantly. To stop while there’s an imminent threat when you don’t know if the others are alive or whether they’ll wake up in time seems a bit unlikely. But kicking them on the way by isn’t too far-fetched.

Really, it’s the idea that any creature can shake a companion, have them wake up, then get up, shake another one themselves, and run to safety all in less time than it takes the person standing next to them (or a few feet away) with weapon ready and the intent already underway, a lot less so.

It also makes for some odd narratives in order to avoid it like moving to position to make the kill, readying an action to strike any goblin that moves, and then waiting until the next round so you can all make your attacks first. Especially since players are extremely reluctant to ever let a turn go unused.

This is also an artifact of a round being described as 6 seconds in duration, yet allowing virtually any number of activities in a sequential manner to occur within those 6 seconds, combined with a general design approach to not design things (other than spell durations) that take multiple rounds.

This is all what we try to avoid in our game. The idea is that the rules should help adjudicate the action in the fiction, not define the fiction itself. The fiction unfolds in an asymmetric way with activities taking as close to the amount of time as we think they should. We also prefer more variability than a fixed rule. So awakening a creature might take a 1d4 amount of time, and a creature has to weigh the risks of attempting to awaken their ally to other alternatives, such as trying to drag them away, defending them, at abandoning them, or any other option that’s appropriate at the time.

iserith said:

The Basic Rules say "The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures..." There are no exceptions or variants called out. (Not that prevents the DM from doing whatever he or she wants.) There are variant initiative rules in the DMG, but those appear to be solutions to resolving initiative faster such as using passive Dexterity checks or handling turn order by the "side" of the combat. Then there's speed factor initiative which is a solution to a whole other "problem." None of these rules suggest the DM should roll individual initiatives for identical creatures with the possible exception of speed factor initiative since in that variant each character or monster must choose an action before rolling.

I would straight up quit a game that didn't use group monster initiative for identical creatures and have done before. It really slows down the game otherwise in my experience and is a sign to me that the DM cares about some things that I think are best ignored for the benefit of the play experience.

Click to expand...

It’s never slowed down our campaigns when O still used initiative, going back to AD&D. But to each their own.

I’d prefer to never see combat on a grid ever again. But that wouldn’t be enough to make me choose not to play either.

Oofta said:

Which they still could have done with readied actions. The player probably just didn't think they couldn't kill a sleeping goblin - he just had a really bad roll. Not saying other initiative/turn order systems are bad.

This is a bit of an unusual situation. Times I've seen it, at least one bad guy was still awake.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I mention the ready option in another reply. My issue, though, is that it causes the game to get caught up in the minutia of the rules to figure out how we can ensure the goblins won’t get their turn and gain a potential chain reaction like that. I’d rather focus on the fiction than the rules.

Ilbranteloth said:

Absolutely, I mention the ready option in another reply. My issue, though, is that it causes the game to get caught up in the minutia of the rules to figure out how we can ensure the goblins won’t get their turn and gain a potential chain reaction like that. I’d rather focus on the fiction than the rules.

Click to expand...

Given that we're talking magical sleep where creatures can and do wake up instantly, I don't have that big of a problem with the idea the group would want to take them all out at once.

D&D is my favourite fantasy world simulator, but it's far from perfect. Ultimately we have to accept the limitations of a pen and paper game. Readying an action is just the way you implement the group looking at each other and saying "Okay, on three. One, two, THREE!"

Ilbranteloth said:

Yeah, in a world where goblins have been at war with humans, elves, dwarves, and other intelligent races including spellcasters, I wouldn’t even question it. However, a cowardly goblin stopping to help its “weaker” friends?

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the entry in the Monster Manual says nothing about goblins being cowardly. They are "individually weak," "black-hearted," and "selfish" creatures who "crave power and regularly abuse whatever authority they obtain." Plus they are "lazy and undisciplined." But unless I missed something, nothing says they are cowardly. To the extent they are canonically selfish, a reasonable case can be made that it is not a selfless act to wake up a sleeping comrade. It could be said that Wartiak needed those goblins to help over his own escape. Goblins are "made bolder by their numbers," after all.

Ilbranteloth said:

More importantly, creatures often don’t wake up instantly.

Click to expand...

Maybe goblins do. The Monster Manual and spell entry for sleep don't say one way or another.

Ilbranteloth said:

It also makes for some odd narratives in order to avoid it like moving to position to make the kill, readying an action to strike any goblin that moves, and then waiting until the next round so you can all make your attacks first. Especially since players are extremely reluctant to ever let a turn go unused.

Click to expand...

What's odd about that? Can you imagine a fictional justification that would make sense for a character to do that? I bet you can.

Ilbranteloth said:

It’s never slowed down our campaigns when O still used initiative, going back to AD&D. But to each their own.

I’d prefer to never see combat on a grid ever again. But that wouldn’t be enough to make me choose not to play either.

Click to expand...

The perception of resolution speed is relative. My games run fast compared to most games in which I've played and that's particularly true in games where DMs use individual initiative. In those games, I've suggested the DM go to group initiative to speed things along. If they refused, I found other games. I value my time a great deal.