Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening

Tony Vargas · Jul 19, 2018

iserith said:
It would have been for sure harder in 4e. Goblin tactics might have squeezed out some extra movement if an OA missed (iirc), but the PCs would likely have had another round of attacks before they got behind that door.

Goblin Tactics couldn't be used on an OA you provoked, because it was your turn (no reactions on your turn), and there was no separate 5' step in 4e, and using your action to wake the sleeper just gave them a (straight d20 DC 10) 'save' to wake up, so pretty grim for Team Goblin, unlikely they'll even all wake up.

Can't recall how it would have gone in 3e. I assume the wizard would have just defeated everything in one go and none of this would have come about.

Lol. You could wake sleepers with a standard in 3e, and you could 5' step & not provoke for free as long as you hadn't moved (can't recall if standing counted), so if they were close together, you could get a chain-wakening, but no way were they getting away on the same turn.

Edit: and, as long as I'm doing my usual historical retrospective ('cause I'm old), in 1e AD&D: "...sleeping enemies may be slain at a rate of one per round." (which is pretty slow given the 1 min round, but wasn't everything) And, Sleep gave no save.
It's tough out there for a goblin.

Of course, what's 'better?' The goblins all waking eachother up and scarpering just when you thought you had 'em beat and were underestimating the little buggers has a certain flair to it, too.

Yeah, where are all the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander!" people?

When heroes do it, it's 'rallying' and "..snatched victory from the jaws of defeat!" When goblins do it, it's 'cowardice' and "..slippery little buggers got away again!"

Shiroiken · Jul 19, 2018

Out of curiosity, why did the DM assume that the slapped goblins got a turn? If you run group initiative for monsters (which is REALLY convenient), you should run the monsters as a group, not individually in whatever order benefits them the most. As the DM, I would allow the goblins to awaken an ally, as an action, but because the goblin started it's turn unconscious, it doesn't get an action, bonus action, or movement until after the turn is over. Even IF the DM wants to give them actions, he should randomly determine if the sleeping ones were before or after the awake ones, rather than just assuming the optimal position that hurts the players.

iserith · Jul 19, 2018

pming said:
I think @Uller pretty much got it.

I think what you and Uller "got" are some presuppositions about what goblins know and can do that are not axiomatic. I have already shown a reasonable, even enjoyable, case can be made for goblins knowing and acting the in the manner it played out in the game. The mutability of fiction is great that way!

As well, I would say nothing about how the rule was applied was unfair, unfun, or incorrect or required a ruling other than the one that I made in my view. Nothing was "broken" about the system or the outcome as I see it. It was an interesting interaction based on turns and in particular group monster initiative, notable enough to make it worth my time in sharing it here. And as far as being "realistic," we are talking about goblins and magic.

Harzel · Jul 19, 2018

pming said:
Hiya!

I think Uller pretty much got it.

This sort of "incident" falls into the category of "newb DM mistakes" (I'm not calling you a newb DM, iserith, I know you aren't). I say it's a newbie mistake because a beginning DM will usually just default to "Well, the rules say..." rather than make an at the moment ruling because they lack the confidence in their DM'ing capabilities.

A more experienced DM will look at it and say "Well, the rules say X, but that doesn't make sense. Hmmm... Ok, lets do it this way...". An experienced DM will take the rules for what they are and are actually meant to do: be guidelines for making rulings to help the players imagine being adventurers in a fictional world. Alas, there are an infinite amount of things a Player character (and NPC/Monsters) can do in the overall scheme of the game setting. Because of this it is impossible for a rule to "always be THIS way" and make sense in every situation where said rule comes up. Case in point... Sleep spell and group initiative.

Group Initiative is NOT meant to reflect any sort of "reality" of combat in the game; it is meant to be used as a means of speeding up PLAY. The very nature of the rule makes no sense if looked at from a "real world perspective". Combat doesn't work like that. However, as using individual initiative for every single combatant would take a lot longer and require more book keeping on the part of the DM and players, we have "Group Initiative".

It is assumed that a DM will eventually be experienced enough to see this situation and think "Nope. I'm not going to use 'group initiative' for this. Doesn't make any sense. I'll do it this way instead...".

TL;DR - It's not that Group Initiative 'broke' the system so much as it was the DM trying to fit a square rule into a round situation.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Group initiative, 5e movement rules, etc., are the minor villains here. What makes this sort of thing possible is my-turn-your-turn; group initiative just makes it more likely.

With respect to your assertion that this should be cured by DM rulings - players mostly won't object to your deciding not to play the monsters so as to take advantage of the system (they may not even notice if you don't say anything), but players take advantage of this kind of thing all the time. Do you forbid that also, or do you nerf only the opposition?

iserith · Jul 19, 2018

Shiroiken said:
Out of curiosity, why did the DM assume that the slapped goblins got a turn? If you run group initiative for monsters (which is REALLY convenient), you should run the monsters as a group, not individually in whatever order benefits them the most. As the DM, I would allow the goblins to awaken an ally, as an action, but because the goblin started it's turn unconscious, it doesn't get an action, bonus action, or movement until after the turn is over. Even IF the DM wants to give them actions, he should randomly determine if the sleeping ones were before or after the awake ones, rather than just assuming the optimal position that hurts the players.

I don't think anything in the rules would lead me to this conclusion. While each member of the group acts at the same time in group initiative, there are no actual limits on how that may play out within the scope of the turn. The DM is left to decide. To the extent my decisions are informed by the goals of play, that is, everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable tale by playing, I would say the ruling helped achieve that based on the game's postmortem. It was probably the best Sunless Citadel session to date and sets us up really well for the next one. It was truly the Act II complication of this adventure.

Oofta · Jul 19, 2018

pming said:
Hiya!

I think [MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION] pretty much got it.

This sort of "incident" falls into the category of "newb DM mistakes" (I'm not calling you a newb DM, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I know you aren't). I say it's a newbie mistake because a beginning DM will usually just default to "Well, the rules say..." rather than make an at the moment ruling because they lack the confidence in their DM'ing capabilities.

A more experienced DM will look at it and say "Well, the rules say X, but that doesn't make sense. Hmmm... Ok, lets do it this way...". An experienced DM will take the rules for what they are and are actually meant to do: be guidelines for making rulings to help the players imagine being adventurers in a fictional world. Alas, there are an infinite amount of things a Player character (and NPC/Monsters) can do in the overall scheme of the game setting. Because of this it is impossible for a rule to "always be THIS way" and make sense in every situation where said rule comes up. Case in point... Sleep spell and group initiative.

Group Initiative is NOT meant to reflect any sort of "reality" of combat in the game; it is meant to be used as a means of speeding up PLAY. The very nature of the rule makes no sense if looked at from a "real world perspective". Combat doesn't work like that. However, as using individual initiative for every single combatant would take a lot longer and require more book keeping on the part of the DM and players, we have "Group Initiative".

It is assumed that a DM will eventually be experienced enough to see this situation and think "Nope. I'm not going to use 'group initiative' for this. Doesn't make any sense. I'll do it this way instead...".

TL;DR - It's not that Group Initiative 'broke' the system so much as it was the DM trying to fit a square rule into a round situation.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Not sure I could disagree more. The game is what it is, foibles of initiative order and all. if a goblin has a chance to rescue their buddy so that there are more of them to fight off the vicious, cruel invaders so be it.

I see no problem with what the goblins did. I guess that that makes me a newb DM after 40ish years of DMing. Goblins are cowardly, that doesn't mean they won't work together or realize that they have one last chance to fight off the adventurers but only if they gather forces.

I do break up groups of monsters when I get more than half a dozen or so, but even when I do it seems like the dice gods dictate they'll act sequentially anyway.

But unless you change how the game works, having the monsters use appropriately intelligent tactics is part of the game.

Blue · Jul 19, 2018

The goblins didn't all act at the same time - they acted one after another. For PCs that roll the same initiative there is a tiebreaker to see which one went first. In this case they acted serially and there was no mechanical determination of order even though it mattered.

Instead they went in the perfect order to execute their retreat. In effect, they took advantage of a loophole in the rules to get a better-than-should-happen result. If that was done by my players, I'd talk to them about not abusing the rules. I can't see holding myself to a lesser standard. After all, I've got ALL THE MONSTERS - I don't need to anything that could be looked askance by my players to keep them alive.

Harzel · Jul 19, 2018

iserith said:
I think what you and Uller "got" are some presuppositions about what goblins know and can do that are not axiomatic. I have already shown a reasonable, even enjoyable, case can be made for goblins knowing and acting the in the manner it played out in the game. The mutability of fiction is great that way!

Agree.

As well, I would say nothing about how the rule was applied was unfair, unfun, or incorrect or required a ruling other than the one that I made in my view.

Agree.

Nothing was "broken" about the system or the outcome as I see it.

Disagree about brokenness. Can't dispute how you see it, of course.

It was an interesting interaction based on turns and in particular group monster initiative, notable enough to make it worth my time in sharing it here.

Agree.

And as far as being "realistic," we are talking about goblins and magic.

No, I don't see the logic as really holding together here. This seems analogous to, "Oh, look, you're wearing make-up. So you have foreign substances on your skin. Ok, then it is fine if I smear used engine oil all over the rest of your body."

Tony Vargas · Jul 19, 2018

Blue said:
The goblins didn't all act at the same time - they acted one after another. For PCs that roll the same initiative there is a tiebreaker to see which one went first. In this case they acted serially and there was no mechanical determination of order even though it mattered.

Instead they went in the perfect order to execute their retreat. In effect, they took advantage of a loophole in the rules to get a better-than-should-happen result. If that was done by my players, I'd talk to them about not abusing the rules. I can't see holding myself to a lesser standard. After all, I've got ALL THE MONSTERS - I don't need to anything that could be looked askance by my players to keep them alive.

Yeah, I noticed that aspect. One possibility that occurred to me (because I ran D&D in the 80s) was to randomly roll (the DM's panacea) where in their hypothetical initiative order the first awakened goblin 'really' was.
(BTW, I use an oddball table rule (lifted from another DM I game with) that PCs who roll the same initiative get to decide which one goes first each round - kinda like free delays (which is gold in games that don't have a delay, at all) - it's a definite advantage, and very similar to the advantage that my group-initiative monsters get. Another goose/gander thing, I guess.)

Shiroiken · Jul 19, 2018

iserith said:
I don't think anything in the rules would lead me to this conclusion. While each member of the group acts at the same time in group initiative, there are no actual limits on how that may play out within the scope of the turn. The DM is left to decide. To the extent my decisions are informed by the goals of play, that is, everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable tale by playing, I would say the ruling helped achieve that based on the game's postmortem. It was probably the best Sunless Citadel session to date and sets us up really well for the next one. It was truly the Act II complication of this adventure.

Yes, it is up to the DM to decide, but a fair DM doesn't automatically choose the option that benefits the enemy best. It may make for a "fun" session, but it tells the caster to never bother casting sleep ever again. This may work well for you, but it is the antithesis of my DM style. I don't "fix" encounters that were made easier by smart play, which is what this is an example of.