D&D 5E Attacking defenseless NPCs

The Crimson Binome · Jun 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Totally disagree. I consider whether the action is possible in the fiction first, then, if it seems uncertain, then determine the mechanic.

But how do you determine whether the outcome seems uncertain, if you don't even know which underlying mechanics apply? Do you just blindly guess? Do you use out-of-game knowledge?

If possessing 30hp is not criteria which proves a character is immune to being dropped from an attack for (1d8+5) damage, then what is the criteria? More importantly, how are the players supposed to know what criteria you're using, if you aren't using the criteria in the book?

Ovinomancer said:
Take walking across a room with no hazards. According to you, I have to determine the controlling mechanic, determine the difficulty, and then determine success/uncertainty status. My way, I just say yes. But, this is easy, so let's go harder.

Trivial examples resolve trivially at the table. I would adjudicate walking across an empty room is a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check at DC -2, so the outcome is certain unless your Dexterity modifier is worse than -3; and the only reason to roll, outside of combat, is to figure out whether you briefly stumble and look clumsy. In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't take me any longer to resolve with my method than it does with yours. The difference is that I'm actually using the rules in the book, instead of avoiding them.

Ovinomancer said:
Now the PC wants to pole vault across a dangerous stream (maybe acid, or a super-saturated mineral steam that causes immediate crystal growth, doesn't really matter) that they can't jump across. I consider if the pole is long enough then it's plausible. Seems risky, though, so both uncertain and has a consequence. Mechanics time! STR controls here, but it's not too hard, so DC 15 STR check is called for.

Your way you look at STR first, determine DC (not sure how, chart?), then look at PC stats and determine if a check is called for, for each PC? I have the one for any PC that uses that approach because it's based on the approach and not the character sheet.

My way is the same as yours. I look at the approach, and make a judgment call as to the DC. If the DC is 15, then anyone with a bonus between -5 and +13 has to make a Strength (Athletics) check, with failure indicating a fall. If your bonus is worse than -5, or greater than +13, then the outcome is definitionally certain and no roll is necessary.

Ovinomancer said:
So, no, the way you see the uncertainty determination part of the loop.dies not have to work the one way. I'd arguably say that you're doing way more work than me for no appreciable gain -- you onload PC skill calculations to the DM overhead. I don't see the advantage.

If you're bad at math, or at tracking numbers, then feel free to put the "burden" back onto the players - tell them that the DC is 15, and let them figure out whether or not they need to roll.

Ellsworth · Jun 27, 2019

robus said:
My reasoning is, HP models a character’s ability to put up a fight. If you’re not fighting back then you’re not expending HP and thus it is not a factor here.

I haven't thought of HP as being conditional. Nice observation. However, the condition you propose may not be completely accurate per RAW.

"Your character’s hit points define how tough your character is in combat and other dangerous situations." (PHB 12)

The "dangerous situation" condition may apply to your scenario. Being an orc guard in an orc camp could be considered a dangerous situation.

I think this is the best solution:

Umbran said:
It is an attack. The attacker is unseen by the target, so the attack is rolled with advantage. The PC is attacking with surprise.

Advantage is powerful.

If you're not convinced, arrow damage should be taken into consideration as well:

iserith said:
The ranger simply can't do enough damage in one shot to take out the orc except on a crit and even that's no guarantee.

iserith · Jun 27, 2019

Ellsworth said:
If you're not convinced, arrow damage should be taken into consideration as well:

Change "should" to "could" and I think you got it.

Ovinomancer · Jun 27, 2019

Saelorn said:
But how do you determine whether the outcome seems uncertain, if you don't even know which underlying mechanics apply? Do you just blindly guess? Do you use out-of-game knowledge?

If possessing 30hp is not criteria which proves a character is immune to being dropped from an attack for (1d8+5) damage, then what is the criteria? More importantly, how are the players supposed to know what criteria you're using, if you aren't using the criteria in the book?
Trivial examples resolve trivially at the table. I would adjudicate walking across an empty room is a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check at DC -2, so the outcome is certain unless your Dexterity modifier is worse than -3; and the only reason to roll, outside of combat, is to figure out whether you briefly stumble and look clumsy. In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't take me any longer to resolve with my method than it does with yours. The difference is that I'm actually using the rules in the book, instead of avoiding them.
My way is the same as yours. I look at the approach, and make a judgment call as to the DC. If the DC is 15, then anyone with a bonus between -5 and +13 has to make a Strength (Athletics) check, with failure indicating a fall. If your bonus is worse than -5, or greater than +13, then the outcome is definitionally certain and no roll is necessary.

If you're bad at math, or at tracking numbers, then feel free to put the "burden" back onto the players - tell them that the DC is 15, and let them figure out whether or not they need to roll.

This is so confused. You start by asking how I can tell if an action is uncertain, then repeat what I said I did as an example of how you do it. You even say you set DC based on approach! I have absolutely no idea what your question might be, as it appears the one you asked was answered by you.

Ellsworth · Jun 27, 2019

Ellsworth said:
If you're not convinced, arrow damage should be taken into consideration as well:

iserith said:
Change "should" to "could" and I think you got it.

I stand corrected.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
This is so confused. You start by asking how I can tell if an action is uncertain, then repeat what I said I did as an example of how you do it. You even say you set DC based on approach! I have absolutely no idea what your question might be, as it appears the one you asked was answered by you.

How do you decide whether an action is certain or uncertain, if you don't first figure out the DC, or which modifier applies?

It's trivial to figure out whether an action is certain or uncertain after you figure out the DC and the relevant modifier. The reverse should be impossible, since those two values are the only variables in the formula for certainty.

JiffyPopTart · Jun 27, 2019

tglassy said:
You don't have any Assassin characters at your table because checkmate rules make them obsolete.....(big snip). ....The only reason I can see for having a "Checkmate" rule is if the group is so powerful, rolling is just a formality....(snip)

So you are saying you can see a case for an "instant death" rule in a game...and one that doesnt step on the Assassins toes. All that would be left to do in this case is for the GM to judge when thoae cases are in any given situation....which is exactly what pro-instant-kill posters are saying.

Just because you have a "checkmate" rule doesnt mean it applies in every situation. The Assassin is still useful because they can "force" the GM to use their own unique version of instant kill based on other qualifications.

DS

Ovinomancer · Jun 27, 2019

Saelorn said:
How do you decide whether an action is certain or uncertain, if you don't first figure out the DC, or which modifier applies?

It's trivial to figure out whether an action is certain or uncertain after you figure out the DC and the relevant modifier. The reverse should be impossible, since those two values are the only variables in the formula for certainty.

The same way you determine the DC? You consider the approach in regards to the fictional positioning?

I honestly don't understand this question, given you're doing the same thing only you've cloaked it inside a mechanics check and are pretending that makes it somehow more valid. I work at the level of the approach, not the specific PC. You seem to want to never ask for a roll that automatically succeeds, I don't care about it. If the approach is uncertain, a roll is asked for. I don't go through the extra step of assigning a DC and checking numbers. You seem to understand setting DCs according to the aporiach and the fiction, so just step back one step.

Ovinomancer · Jun 27, 2019

Umbran said:
Not just D&D. Also GURPS, WoD (o and n), FATE, Cortex+. Loads of RPGs... probably *most* RPGs, have NPCs take actions independently. We could consider this a holdover from teh wargame root - every "unit" gets its move. The case is so common and traditional, it is a little weird to call it "odd".

Games that *don't* have this case (Powered by the Apocalypse, Forged in the Dark, f'rex) are relatively new to most folks, and (at least in my experience) when approaching them from the context of having been, say, a long time D&D player, the difference causes folks no end of cognitive dissonance. "What do you mean, the enemy doesn't roll an attack against me?"

D&D's shift is pretty sudden. There's a reason people have talked about the combat whoosh before. Otherwise, yes? Was there a point beside this extra qualification?

Umbran · Jun 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
This is so confused.

It seems pretty straightforward, to me. It is the basic conflict between a GM's judgement, and resolution through an objective process.

Say my character wants to lift an object. In the GM's judgement, there is uncertainty in the result of this attempt. So, the GM says, "I will use the resolution mechanic the written rules have for lifting heavy objects." You then check these rules, and find that either the character cannot fail (if the object is light) or cannot succeed (if the object is heavy). So, it turns out there *wasn't* uncertainty.

Well, maybe we say there's no big deal. The GM gave you an even shot, at least.

The problematic case is when the GM determines there is no uncertainty, but a reasonable person looking at the rules thinks there ought to be. This goes south generally when the result goes against the player, and the typical mechanics you'd apply said there was a good chance for things to be different, but the GM decides to not use the rules.

This looks like an arbitrary (or worse, a purposeful, non-arbitrary) fiat on the part of the GM.

The core play loop you described is idealized, and does not include subtle factors relating to how both the GM and players are imperfect humans, with social dynamics and expectations, and major expectation failures are a failure mode for play.