Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening

[Tony Vargas]

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.

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

I don't think a lack of parity in some areas is grounds for calling something unfair.

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

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

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...

 

[iserith]

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 may 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...

I address this upthread. I think "acts at the same time" can be reasonably read as "acts on the same initiative count," not necessarily "act at the exact same time in the fiction." I see it as "more or less at the same time between the initiative counts above and below it, resolved in the way that helps achieve the goals of play." And even if I did read it as "act as the exact same time in the fiction," I still get to resolve ties in that regard however I want. So whichever way you want to read it, the result is "DM said so."

The consumers wanted DM Empowerment and, brother, THEY GOT IT.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And even if I did read it as "act as the exact same time in the fiction," I still get to resolve ties in that regard however I want. So whichever way you want to read it, the result is "DM said so."

The way I read it, it's not a tie, it's acting at the same time - otherwise it could have just said the DM decides what order the individuals in the group go in & sticks to it (east-to-west worked fine). (Or decides it every round, which seems consistent in a system with a delay option.) But, yeah, nothing wrong with how you ran it.

..oh: a DM could run the 'simultaneous' turn by having each goblin wake up with just the movement that the goblin waking him had left. That'd be a fairly consistent & easy ruling.

The consumers wanted DM Empowerment and, brother, THEY GOT IT.

Darn straight.

 

[Blue]

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.

You have the most permissive view. That acting on the same initiative means that they act one after the other in an ever-changing order that is most beneficial for them.

However, as you explained in another comment (that I read after I wrote my original), you allow your PCs who roll the same initiative to do the same.

So in this case you're treating them the same and I don't have an issue. No loophole and I'd play at that table.

At my table I make ties get resolved when initiative is rolled, and either they all act at the /exact/ same time so this wouldn't work, or they act serially and ties should have been resolved - not freeform. But that's at my table. I do things like announce "the four goblins are attacking Barton" and even if the second goblin drops Barton the other two don't get to change their actions since they all are at the exact same time.

But what is RIGHT by the rules? Eh, both of us and probably a few other interpretations. It can be read either way, and even if it doesn't a DM can set whatever houserules they want at their table. Viva la difference!

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.

I wasn't questioning this at all. Though at my table if they weren't familiar with the Sleep spell they might have just yelled as they ran, assuming it would wake everyone sleeping.

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.

This was more that if players came up with a "eh, well, technically that works but I feel it's against the spirit" it would be something I'd talk to them about so we all get on the same page - and it may be me as DM that changes opinion. We have a mature group and talk a lot.

I think a DM can abuse the rules, but the first example that leaps to mind is pretty far out from our discussion we're talking about here. How's this: A DM applying rules inconsistently because of favoritism or bias against a player would be an example of the DM abusing the rules to me.

 

[iserith]

You have the most permissive view. That acting on the same initiative means that they act one after the other in an ever-changing order that is most beneficial for them.

However, as you explained in another comment (that I read after I wrote my original), you allow your PCs who roll the same initiative to do the same.

If I did say that, then I wasn't clear or there was a typo or grammatical error: Players resolve ties at the time initiative is rolled and it stays that way. I generally resolve monsters in a group in the same order each turn (because it's easier) but I reserve the right to do otherwise and consider that within the rules. After all, every decision I make is through the lens of the goals of play. I'm doing it because I perceive it will be more fun for everyone and will help contribute to an exciting, memorable tale. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it.

I wasn't questioning this at all. Though at my table if they weren't familiar with the Sleep spell they might have just yelled as they ran, assuming it would wake everyone sleeping.

I don't think noise works to awake someone under the effects of a sleep spell. But anyway, when I decide what a monster will do, I think about the goals of play in context and do that. Then I provide a fictional justification if one is called for. Because I don't think anything really exists until it's established in play, as long as I'm not contradicting something I've said before, it's now canon e.g. Wartiak is a veteran of the Red Hand, all goblins have sleep apnea, etc. Years of doing this means I'm very fast at coming up with this on the fly. A few months back I got a message from a player in my one-shots marveling at how not only did I name every single humanoid monster in the adventure, but I also took the time to create a connected backstory for each individual one that explained why they did what they did. I didn't actually - I made it all up on the spot as needed!

This was more that if players came up with a "eh, well, technically that works but I feel it's against the spirit" it would be something I'd talk to them about so we all get on the same page - and it may be me as DM that changes opinion. We have a mature group and talk a lot.

I think a DM can abuse the rules, but the first example that leaps to mind is pretty far out from our discussion we're talking about here. How's this: A DM applying rules inconsistently because of favoritism or bias against a player would be an example of the DM abusing the rules to me.

To me, that's something else than abusing rules. I could see a fairly decent argument that since the DM is "Master of Rules" as defined by the rules he or she can apply them however he or she wants which would seem to exempt the DM from claims of abuse. It doesn't mean the players need to put up with bogus, punitive, inconsistent, or biased rulings though!

 

[Tony Vargas]

You have the most permissive view. That acting on the same initiative means that they act one after the other in an ever-changing order that is most beneficial for them.
However, as you explained in another comment (that I read after I wrote my original), you allow your PCs who roll the same initiative to do the same.

If I did say that, then I wasn't clear or there was a typo or grammatical error

That was me:

(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.)

Players resolve ties at the time initiative is rolled and it stays that way. I generally resolve monsters in a group in the same order each turn (because it's easier) but I reserve the right to do otherwise and consider that within the rules. After all, every decision I make is through the lens of the goals of play I'm doing it because I perceive it will be more fun for everyone and will help contribute to an exciting, memorable tale. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it..

Amen.

 

[Blue]

Thanks for clearing that up [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] about character initiative ties was you. Sorry to have mixed you and iserith up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thanks for clearing that up [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] about character initiative ties was you. Sorry to have mixed you and iserith up.

I'll take it as a complement.

 

[werecorpse]

I don't allow chain awakenings with group initiative.

In the circumstance described I would have allowed the injured goblin to wake one other goblin and finish his turn. Then it would be the PCs turn as the newly woken goblin was asleep when his turn started. The newly awake goblin would be awake and prone.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There was an occurrence at last night's Sunless Citadel game that I wanted to report because I thought it was interesting and I'd like to see if this has happened in other games. Some spoilers will follow.

Having defeated the hostile kobolds and installed Meepo as their puppet dictator over what remained, the PCs decided to push into goblin territory. This led to some running battles as goblin archers in defensible positions took shots at PCs, but fled deeper into the dungeon when overrun, repeating a tactic of fleeing, hiding, readying attacks, and fleeing as best they could. The goblins were slowing getting picked off, but the PCs were losing resources, too.

At a certain point, the PCs pushed them back to an area rife with goblins and so now things got very dangerous for the adventurers. In a long hall dotted with pillars they found themselves in a pitched firefight with their foes as reinforcements in the chamber past the goblins starting rallying. The crotchety PC wizard, Farkus the Illuminator, decided to put the back ranks of the goblins to sleep, in particular the ones guarding the door into the chamber beyond, leaving the front ranks to be dispatched fairly easily by the PCs. This would give them the opportunity to fall back before the goblin horde retaliated.

Or so he thought.

With a roll of 23 on sleep, he was able to knock three goblins at full hit points and one goblin at 2 hp who had taken some damage from an earlier skirmish with the PCs. Those four goblins down, the PCs set about attacking three conscious goblins that remained. One died to a spear, another to a javelin, the last one to a crossbow bolt. The simple cleric Drongo waddled up to one of the sleeping goblins and smashed it with his mace doing 6 damage - one hp shy of a kill. It woke up, and now it was the goblins' turn in initiative.

Here's where an artifact of group monster initiative came into play: The wounded goblin stood up, slapped the face of the sleeping goblin next, disengaged, and fled into the chamber where the goblins were rallying. The slapped goblin did the same thing. So did the next one, and the next one. Essentially, the work of the sleep spell was undone by monsters all acting on the same initiative. The last goblin to flee into the chamber slammed the door while another locked it. Meanwhile, sounds of heavily-armored reinforcements - probably hobgoblins - were coming from a corridor north of the PCs' position.

What happened next was pure hubris on the part of the adventurers that led to three out of five of the PCs dying. But what I found interesting was how the sleep spell was undone essentially because like monsters all act on the same initiative. This would be much harder for PCs to pull off, I think, if the situation was reversed since they act on different turns, often with monsters in between. It was the first time I had seen things go that way, so I found it notable.

Have you seen a situation like this unfold in your game? What other sleep shenanigans have you seen play out?

Which is a great example of why we don’t use initiative in our campaign. Things happen in a logical order, and in this case, with the goblins asleep, the opposite would have happened. The PCs could coordinate their actions to disable the sleeping opponents since that amount of time was a non-issue.

With the standard rules, each PC could ready their attack for when the last of the PC’s turn occurs and they make their attack, with a secondary trigger of “when the goblin in front of me moves.” That way, those characters who go first wouldn’t awaken the goblin before the others are ready to make their attack.

But it’s a really convoluted way to say, “we’ll each attack a different sleeping goblin to dispatch them.”