D&D 5E Unarmored Defense and Surprise

[Wolf118]

The OP keeps quoting "Rulings, not Rules". In the words of the inestimable Inigo Montoya, I do not think that means what you think it means.

Rulings are for situation where the rules don't cover a given situation. The early days of Chainmail, Basic & Expert, and 1st Ed left a lot of room for the DM to decide what was what. The phrase is intended to keep the game fun and keep it moving, instead of bickering over which rule applied in the situation.

From the 5e DMG: The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!

Yes, you're the DM, and you decide how the rules apply. But if you're ruling via inviolate fiat, I doubt your players will be coming back for more.

 

[Hriston]

That is true, keeping in mind that being hidden makes you unseen by definition.

Ah, I see. I'm of the school for which being unseen (clearly) is a prerequisite to hiding, so hiding is dependent on not being seen (clearly), and if you become seen (clearly) while you are hiding then you are no longer hidden. In my view, hiding in itself does not confer a quality of being unseen.

Concealment often cuts both ways. If you are in dense foliage, then you probably can't see me clearly either unless you've established a kill zone and I happen to be in it (the limited area where you have clear line of sight through the foliage). If a PC is running around in dense foliage and tries to attack a creature outside of it, I'd treat them both as unseen (advantage and disadvantage cancel out and the attack is rolled normally; well, technically speaking I've house ruled it such that if both creatures are unseen the attack is made with disadvantage, because my players enjoy using effects like Darkness defensively). If, on the other hand, the PC had prepared an ambush and the creature wandered into his kill zone, then he would gain the benefits of being unseen so long as both he and that creature are in position. That's how I would rule it anyway.

Fair enough. Personally, I see no need to muck about with lines of sight or kill-zones, since the light and vision rules (Basic Rules, p. 65) seem to work just fine since they were fixed. What they say is that a creature in a heavily obscured area (such as an area of dense foliage) cannot be seen by any observer, whereas a creature in the open (say, in an adjacent meadow) can be seen readily, whether by an observer standing next to them or in a nearby heavily obscured area. It works just like it would if the observer was in an area of darkness. A creature in an area of darkness has no trouble seeing a creature in an adjacent brightly lit area.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A succinct way of putting it.

As for game balance, my primary concern is to eliminate anything outside the fuzzy edge of moderate imbalance. Again, the threshold for this is relative.

The popular conception of game balance that many folks espouse (with talk of "DPI" and "optimization," etc.) is not one I share. All classes are not created equally; they are not all equally capable in all circumstances; they don't have to be perfectly balanced. At certain times, Class A might shine more brightly than Class B, and vice-versa. There are no ribbons just for participating.

You mean like when the Monk keeps his AC in town while the Paladin takes his armor off?

You're selectively applying arguments to support your conclusion, not considering the arguments and then reaching a conclusion. Which is why most of your defenses of your decision just sound like "I wanna."

 

[canucksaram]

Yes, you're the DM, and you decide how the rules apply. But if you're ruling via inviolate fiat, I doubt your players will be coming back for more.

If a player can't take a fair lump now and again then he or she should return to watching My Little Pony and wondering about the magic of friendship. Better for all concerned.

 

[pukunui]

If a player can't take a fair lump now and again ...

I'm not sure I know what a "fair lump" is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply in this context.

If I were to play in a game using your flat-footed AC house rule, I'd be inclined to play a human assassin with the Alert feat. That way I'd be able to avoid being surprised while taking advantage of the fact that surprising others will usually make them easier to hit (and therefore auto-crit).

 

[Dausuul]

Were a character with Unarmored Defense to be the subject of a surprise attack, would their AC still benefit from the class feature?

Why do you ask questions when you're wholly unwilling to listen to the answer?

 

[Caliburn101]

Fine by me. If a player wants to be a rules pedant rather than a flexible player, well...that's a style of game play I can do without.

Someone posted that a DEX bonus would apply to a sleeping person's AC, and with no slight intended to him or her, that's just silly. I would simply rule an autohit in that case--no need to even make a die roll, advantaged or not.

The rules are a guide to how things work in most situations, most of the time. Common sense has a place, too, thus the need for DM adjudication. Rulings, not rules...suspension of disbelief, not total disregard for disbelief.

If you think the player of a higher level Barbarian who is immune to this mechanic whilst his Fighter buddy get's wailed upon even more by ambushing mobs is a pedant for not liking a homebrew ruling that favours some classes over others then you are being pretty harsh.

Likewise, anyone in the group looking at he Rogue almost auto-hitting with sneak attacks in the first round is entirely justified in asking you why you've significantly boosted the effectiveness of that character and not their own.

The rules are a guide, but many years of GM'ing have taught me that rules changes you make should be aimed at changing things for everyone evenly. Your suggestion is both clunky and class-bias.

Not the best combination...

 

[Flamestrike]

Versimiltude is a good word. I've also used the term suspension of disbelief, rather than a wholesale breaking of it. I've addressed the flavor origin of an unarmored defense. I've also stated that inasmuch as it's a game of magic and adventure, some folks like a more grounded playstyle. Obviously, I'm one of them. Does all of that seem like whim?

I also stated what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rulings like this cut all ways, which should not have to be stated. Why some folks resort to being asinine is lamentable.

As for having to be informed of a lawyer's list of house rules before you play a game...no. If you want to play a pure vanilla D&D game, go ahead. I like to use the game's rules as a starting point with the understanding that rulings favoring suspension of disbelief (i.e., versimilitude) precede any rules that break disbelief. Who decides when a break occurs? The DM.

Bob: My 5th level fighter action surges and fires 4 crossbow bolts from his heavy Xbow at the Orc!

DM: You cant do that. Its not realistic, and I dont believe its possible.

Steve: My 5th level PC flings a bolt of lightning at the Orcs from his fingertips.

DM: OK.

Yeah bro, your logic sucks and I would walk from your game. Dont take it personally.

 

[Caliburn101]

If a player can't take a fair lump now and again then he or she should return to watching My Little Pony and wondering about the magic of friendship. Better for all concerned.

Translation;

"Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a fair target for being belittled."

If you to act like that as GM, don't expect players to stick around...

 

[canucksaram]

If you think the player of a higher level Barbarian who is immune to this mechanic whilst his Fighter buddy get's wailed upon even more by ambushing mobs is a pedant for not liking a homebrew ruling that favours some classes over others then you are being pretty harsh.

Likewise, anyone in the group looking at he Rogue almost auto-hitting with sneak attacks in the first round is entirely justified in asking you why you've significantly boosted the effectiveness of that character and not their own.

The rules are a guide, but many years of GM'ing have taught me that rules changes you make should be aimed at changing things for everyone evenly. Your suggestion is both clunky and class-bias.

Not the best combination...

I don't understand your post.

Immune to what mechanic? Auto-hits from sneak attacks? And what favor? The mechanic applies to one and all.

How is requiring the DEX component to add to AC be predicated upon one's awareness of the attack? It's simply the flat-footed condition from earlier editions of the game.