Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening

[Harzel]

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.

Just to clarify - the abuse you are talking about here is the arrangement of turns for creatures with (conceptually) tied initiative to maximize advantage (goblins in this case, but you would apply the same to PCs)?

So then if an initiative tie breaker amongst the goblins had been rolled and it just happened to put woken one first, would you be ok with that goblin choosing to wake the goblin that was next in initiative order?

 

[iserith]

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.

Looking at the rules for initiative, I think it's open to interpretation on what it means for each member of the group acting at the same time. A reasonable read on that in my view is that they're acting on the same initiative count, not at the exact same time in the fiction. And that's how I resolve it. As for whether there was no mechanical determination of the order: (1) To the extent a group of identical creatures acting on the same initiative count is viewed as effectively a tie, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures per the rules; and (2) The DM determines whether there's any uncertainty to any action, including initiative, and can say whether there's a roll or not anyway.

Further, there is in my opinion reasonable fictional justification for the execution of their retreat. Without even needing to go into the backstory of the adventure location which includes a pitched guerrilla war with invading kobolds, goblins have a Trait called Nimble Escape. That's a pretty good justification in my view for their actions.

For all these reasons, I see none of this as an abuse of the rules. It can probably even be argued rather easily (though I won't try) that the DM can't abuse rules.

 

[iserith]

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.

I'm not sure I see how a caster gets to the conclusion to never bother with the sleep spell again based on the outcome I described. It did work for them. They shut down 4 shortbow attacks for two rounds or a potential 8d6+16 damage. That's pretty good for a 1st-level spell, don't you think?

Further, that the goblins could achieve what they did was in large part due to Nimble Escape and being close enough to an open doorway with a functioning door such that they had enough movement to get to safety. What are the odds that this same scenario comes up again for the caster?

What is at all unfair about the ruling and the outcome?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First, I didn't say anything about "unfair" or "unfun". My point was that the rules are to be used to adjudicate a situation. A rule will not be able to fit into every situation every time. The group initiative rules are used to speed up play. This works most of the time. In some unusual situations, like what we are talking about, they still 'work', but they lead to some "amusing" results; where the image is similar to the scene where Jack Burton causes a hanging gong to knock over two statues...that fall over, hitting other statues, that fall over, hitting other statues (insert "domino" effect). All the while this is happening, Jack and crew are just sort of standing there, watching this unfold over the course of multiple seconds (like, 15 or 20 iirc). This is used for comedic effect. A goblin waking up, slapping a sleeping goblin, who wakes up, and slaps a sleeping goblin, who wakes up, and slaps a sleeping goblin (insert domino effect)...and you end up with a comedic, light-hearted "gag scene" meant to alleviate the seriousness of the situation.

If this is what a DM is going for...great! Go for it! But if the players (and especially the player of the wizard) were all tense and into the drastic life-or-death consequences of the battle....well, maybe using group initiative as-is wasn't such a good base rule to used.

That's my point. Not every rule fits every situation, and sometimes it's best to just figure out something different that doesn't benefit one side or the other and has the effect of keeping the momentum and tone of the scene going. Then again, the whole domino-slapping-goblin thing would be pretty dang funny! (Reminds me of a 3.x rule that had a dwarven PC almost drown in a river because she was carrying about 50lb of firewood...she couldn't carry that much weight and still swim..."weight" does not mean "density", but the rules don't go into that because they are meant to keep play moving at a good pace...just like the group initiative rules).

Of course, if in "your" (general your) game this is a non-issue, then just keep on keeping on! Me? I would have handled it differently.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Uller]

What is at all unfair about the ruling and the outcome?

Did the goblins act in the same order they had been acting in the entire combat or did you let them change their order to take advantage of the fact that they were using group init? If they changed their order or if you made up the order just to give them the biggest possible advantage, do you allow your players to change the order they act in to similarly maximize the effectiveness of their actions?

If you are giving your monsters a tactical flexibility that you don't afford your players then it is unfair.

Either way, imo, it is cheesy. It comes across as the DM trying too hard to "win" by taking advantage of a glitch in the rules.

 

[Unwise]

I seldom play my NPCs as well coordinated as the OPs goblins were. I play them as confused and scared after waking up being attacked. My goblin at 2HP would have begged for his life, done a sneaky disengage and run for his life. If he really liked one or more of the other goblins he might have tried to drag one away or wake him up. He probably would assume they were already dead though.

 

[iserith]

Did the goblins act in the same order they had been acting in the entire combat or did you let them change their order to take advantage of the fact that they were using group init?

I was resolving east to west starting with the melee goblins (which were killed before Drongo's turn), then the ranged ones closer to the door which were asleep. That was consistent from the start of the fight. Drongo attacked the sleeping one furthest to the east.

If you are giving your monsters a tactical flexibility that you don't afford your players then it is unfair.

Monsters and PCs are not created, run, or resolved in the same way all the time. So on that basis I don't think a lack of parity in some areas is grounds for calling something unfair.

Either way, imo, it is cheesy. It comes across as the DM trying too hard to "win" by taking advantage of a glitch in the rules.

You may have no way of knowing this based on the information provided, but the fleeing goblins actually gave the PCs an opening to safely withdraw from the battle. At that point in the session, they were talking about a retreat to rest. But they talked themselves out of that idea and had their hireling, under the effect of Drongo's guidance spell, kick down the door the goblins shut. That's when Lex died and the death spiral began.

So, no, I wasn't trying to "win." I gave them an opening they had been talking about that seemed reasonable for the fiction. They knew what was coming. They didn't take advantage of the opportunity and even pushed things further. Three PCs and a hireling died as a result.

 

[Blue]

Just to clarify - the abuse you are talking about here is the arrangement of turns for creatures with (conceptually) tied initiative to maximize advantage (goblins in this case, but you would apply the same to PCs)?

So then if an initiative tie breaker amongst the goblins had been rolled and it just happened to put woken one first, would you be ok with that goblin choosing to wake the goblin that was next in initiative order?

Sure. As appropriate for the foe, which may be very or may not not a lot.

You're in a fight where you are focusing on your enemies. You wake up first and there are Artz, Blarg, Chuk and Drung.

Artz is the closest, wake him.

Or (check) Chuk acts before Artz and Blarg let's wake him.

Or (check) but Chuk is likely to just run, let's wake Blarg. he might wake Artz.

Or (check) Oh shoot, I didn't realize that Blarg is dead. Oh well, there goes my action.

Or (check) Run away screaming, the yell should wake them all up since I don't know that Sleep requires an interaction to cancel it, not having any arcana skill or exposure to it.

Or (check) I'm the only one moving with lots of wounds (1 HP left) and if I fail my disengage I'm dead. I shouldn't antagonize them. I'll surrender.

So sure, intelligent foes that know Sleep, can tell without an action to investigate (most ability/skill checks are an action) which allies are dead and which are merely sleeping with just a moment's glimpse in a high stress environment, who pay attention to their fellows so know initiative order, and who value their comrades and aren't likely to break morale. Then yes. The lawful militaristic hobgoblins in my last campaign could do it. A groups of ogres probably not.

 

[iserith]

First, I didn't say anything about "unfair" or "unfun". My point was that the rules are to be used to adjudicate a situation.

True, that was a more general comment that I did not mean to attribute to you.

A rule will not be able to fit into every situation every time. The group initiative rules are used to speed up play. This works most of the time. In some unusual situations, like what we are talking about, they still 'work', but they lead to some "amusing" results; where the image is similar to the scene where Jack Burton causes a hanging gong to knock over two statues...that fall over, hitting other statues, that fall over, hitting other statues (insert "domino" effect). All the while this is happening, Jack and crew are just sort of standing there, watching this unfold over the course of multiple seconds (like, 15 or 20 iirc). This is used for comedic effect. A goblin waking up, slapping a sleeping goblin, who wakes up, and slaps a sleeping goblin, who wakes up, and slaps a sleeping goblin (insert domino effect)...and you end up with a comedic, light-hearted "gag scene" meant to alleviate the seriousness of the situation.

If this is what a DM is going for...great! Go for it! But if the players (and especially the player of the wizard) were all tense and into the drastic life-or-death consequences of the battle....well, maybe using group initiative as-is wasn't such a good base rule to used.

That's my point. Not every rule fits every situation, and sometimes it's best to just figure out something different that doesn't benefit one side or the other and has the effect of keeping the momentum and tone of the scene going. Then again, the whole domino-slapping-goblin thing would be pretty dang funny! (Reminds me of a 3.x rule that had a dwarven PC almost drown in a river because she was carrying about 50lb of firewood...she couldn't carry that much weight and still swim..."weight" does not mean "density", but the rules don't go into that because they are meant to keep play moving at a good pace...just like the group initiative rules).

Of course, if in "your" (general your) game this is a non-issue, then just keep on keeping on! Me? I would have handled it differently.

I still don't see from your posts how the group initiative rule didn't work just fine in this situation.

I would also say my games are a mix of tough, meaningful choices and trade-offs plus a lot of comedy. So even as the PCs begin to fall, we're having a laugh about it.

 

[iserith]

So sure, intelligent foes that know Sleep, can tell without an action to investigate (most ability/skill checks are an action) which allies are dead and which are merely sleeping with just a moment's glimpse in a high stress environment, who pay attention to their fellows so know initiative order, and who value their comrades and aren't likely to break morale. Then yes. The lawful militaristic hobgoblins in my last campaign could do it. A groups of ogres probably not.

The fat, scrofulous goblins in my campaign setting have terrible sleep apnea and snore like crazy. It's easy to tell which ones are asleep and which ones are dead. "The Growl of Maglubiyet" they call it.