D&D 5E Attacking defenseless NPCs

tglassy · Jun 27, 2019

Bawylie said:
None of my players have assassin characters.

You don't have any Assassin characters at your table because checkmate rules make them obsolete. Who would choose to be an Assassin when they can get a better benefit through house rule? That's my problem with that houserule. When a Houserule grants abilities normally only granted to a specific class, but but gives them to anyone who wants it, that is a problem. If they wanted to be able to "checkmate" someone and kill them in one round, they should have been a Rogue Assassin. Just like if you want to be able to learn every Arcane spell in the game, they should be a Wizard. Don't just give Spellbooks to Bards and Sorcerers and Warlocks and let them learn every spell on their list. That's a huge part of what makes a Wizard different. If a certain class feature is important to you, you need to take that class.

Bawylie said:
I’ll agree there doesn’t need to be a special checkmate rule. Certainly not in every game at every table. You reckon I might have a reason to use it in my own home games,
or nah?

The only reason I can see for having a "Checkmate" rule is if the group is so powerful, rolling is just a formality. TECHNICALLY, they could roll 1's the whole time and miss every attack, but that's not likely to happen. If it's a group of lvl 20's coming across a low level Orc camp, yeah, the Ranger can just say "I one shot the orc" because he, in all likelihood, probably would, it's almost a forgone conclusion, and rolling will just slow down the game. If the Assassin wants to sneak up on a dude and slit his throat and the guy is a lower level bandit or something, sure. Don't even need to roll. They've got a +17 Stealth Check, +13 to hit, auto Crit and can force a con save or double the damage from the crit. He's dead many times over. His children's children's children should die from the splash damage. Why bother rolling?

Bawylie · Jun 27, 2019

tglassy said:
You don't have any Assassin characters at your table because checkmate rules make them obsolete. Who would choose to be an Assassin when they can get a better benefit through house rule? That's my problem with that houserule. When a Houserule grants abilities normally only granted to a specific class, but but gives them to anyone who wants it, that is a problem. If they wanted to be able to "checkmate" someone and kill them in one round, they should have been a Rogue Assassin. Just like if you want to be able to learn every Arcane spell in the game, they should be a Wizard. Don't just give Spellbooks to Bards and Sorcerers and Warlocks and let them learn every spell on their list. That's a huge part of what makes a Wizard different. If a certain class feature is important to you, you need to take that class.

The only reason I can see for having a "Checkmate" rule is if the group is so powerful, rolling is just a formality. TECHNICALLY, they could roll 1's the whole time and miss every attack, but that's not likely to happen. If it's a group of lvl 20's coming across a low level Orc camp, yeah, the Ranger can just say "I one shot the orc" because he, in all likelihood, probably would, it's almost a forgone conclusion, and rolling will just slow down the game. If the Assassin wants to sneak up on a dude and slit his throat and the guy is a lower level bandit or something, sure. Don't even need to roll. They've got a +17 Stealth Check, +13 to hit, auto Crit and can force a con save or double the damage from the crit. He's dead many times over. His children's children's children should die from the splash damage. Why bother rolling?

Thanks for your input.

Edit: yeah, you’ve confused my called shot rule for my checkmate rule. They’re not the same rule.

Ovinomancer · Jun 27, 2019

Elon Tusk said:
I'm questioning (for myself as well) if this part is true.
The PHB states on p. 174: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.:
But the PHB also states on p. 194: "When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses."
The uncertainty-factor RAW seems to be only for Ability Checks, not Combat.

Core play loop is in chapter 1. Everything else serves the loop.

This, though, is why I said earlier that D&D does a hard entry into combat. Combat is an extended uncertainty resolutuon mechanic that is much more granular than the non-combat resolution mechanics. Yet, the DM decides when to use the combat rules when they determine character actions are uncertain and the proper resolution is using combat rules. You don't have to, but, if you do, then there are more concrete procedures. This doesn't alter the play loop or anything about 3, it just says there's a combat subloop -- a 3a, if you will -- that exists as a possible uncertainty resolution mechanic.

Elon Tusk · Jun 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Core play loop is in chapter 1. Everything else serves the loop.

This, though, is why I said earlier that D&D does a hard entry into combat. Combat is an extended uncertainty resolutuon mechanic that is much more granular than the non-combat resolution mechanics. Yet, the DM decides when to use the combat rules when they determine character actions are uncertain and the proper resolution is using combat rules. You don't have to, but, if you do, then there are more concrete procedures. This doesn't alter the play loop or anything about 3, it just says there's a combat subloop -- a 3a, if you will -- that exists as a possible uncertainty resolution mechanic.

Thanks, that makes sense.
FYI (for anyone else looking), it's actually in the intro on p. 6 with the relevant quote "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

iserith · Jun 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Core play loop is in chapter 1. Everything else serves the loop.

This, though, is why I said earlier that D&D does a hard entry into combat. Combat is an extended uncertainty resolutuon mechanic that is much more granular than the non-combat resolution mechanics. Yet, the DM decides when to use the combat rules when they determine character actions are uncertain and the proper resolution is using combat rules. You don't have to, but, if you do, then there are more concrete procedures. This doesn't alter the play loop or anything about 3, it just says there's a combat subloop -- a 3a, if you will -- that exists as a possible uncertainty resolution mechanic.

Right. That section specifically says the play loop applies to all situations in D&D 5e and does call out combat as being a bit more structured but otherwise follows the same pattern.

See also DMG page 237 wherein the specific process the DM follows to determine if some kind of roll is appropriate is laid out. That being, the task's outcome has to fall somewhere between impossible and trivially easy and it must have a meaningful consequence for failure. On the next page, attack rolls are discussed and it further states when an attack roll is appropriate (given the preceding process), leaving the door open for no attack roll being required in certain situations. It even underscores the fluidity of attack rolls themselves by suggesting they can be used for noncombat activities.

Taken as a whole with other aspects of the rules, what we have is a play loop and DM adjudication process that are fixed and unchanging for all pillars of the game, but mechanics that can be swapped in an out as the DM sees fit.

robus · Jun 27, 2019

MarkB said:
Where do you draw the line? And if HP isn't a factor here, what is?

Would you make the same ruling for an attack against an unsuspecting ogre? An unsuspecting Glabrezu? An unsuspecting Arch-Druid? An unsuspecting dragon?

I'd adjudicate it just like any other action a PC might take. I think [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and others have summed up my point of view well in that this is really just a case of action resolution. The player wants their character to take out the unsuspecting guard with a single arrow shot. As they have time to take the perfect shot and an arrow to the head seems likely to kill an orc outright I can see that the action is achievable but has a cost (if the ranger misses the camp will be alerted). In my OP I was setting the DC to simply be the AC of the orc (because again the ranger has all the time in the world) - but other factors might complicate the ability check (perhaps there's a strong crosswind, or it's raining, or its dark). In that case I might set a separate DC.

As for these other situations I would probably rule differently. If the creature is suitably tough skinned enough then absolutely not, a single shot to kill is impossible, no roll required. An unsuspecting humanoid Arch-Druid? They can certainly try...

And, absolutely, I'm not interested in applying this against the PCs. They're the heroes of the story, they get to do the cool stuff. If their actions lead them into danger then sure they'll feel some pain, but I'm not interested in "gotcha'ing" them (which is what that would entail). But I'm totally fine with the player's "gotcha'ing" my NPCs - that's fun!

robus · Jun 27, 2019

To my mind the combat rules are provided to provide a system to resolve a conflict the outcome of which is uncertain - this uncertainty is guided by the CR expectation of the encounter: Easy, Medium, Hard, Deadly. As the party gains levels the CR of these encounters changes and it means that there are some combat counters which are completely certain and it would be ridiculous to drop into the combat rules:

* Level 1 PCs against an Ancient black dragon? Insta-death for the PCs, no combat rounds necessary.
* Level 20 PCs against some goblins? Insta-death for the goblins, no combat rounds necessary.

So given that the rules are modeling a battle between reasonably matched opponents (and HP is a large part of this modeling) why would we resort to the combat rules whenever a player wants to drop an NPC (and the NPC is not in a position to fight back)? If the action (goal and approach) can be adjudicated by the DM, the DM should do so. Just because a PC pulls out a weapon, it doesn't mean that the DM immediately has to pull out the combat rules.

iserith · Jun 27, 2019

robus said:
To my mind the combat rules are provided to provide a system to resolve a conflict the outcome of which is uncertain - this uncertainty is guided by the CR expectation of the encounter: Easy, Medium, Hard, Deadly. As the party gains levels the CR of these encounters changes and it means that there are some combat counters which are completely certain and it would be ridiculous to drop into the combat rules:

* Level 1 PCs against an Ancient black dragon? Insta-death for the PCs, no combat rounds necessary.
* Level 20 PCs against some goblins? Insta-death for the goblins, no combat rounds necessary.

So given that the rules are modeling a battle between reasonably matched opponents (and HP is a large part of this modeling) why would we resort to the combat rules whenever a player wants to drop an NPC (and the NPC is not in a position to fight back)? If the action (goal and approach) can be adjudicated by the DM, the DM should do so. Just because a PC pulls out a weapon, it doesn't mean that the DM immediately has to pull out the combat rules.

As I mentioned upthread, many DMs in my experience jump to the mechanics before they give much consideration to the play loop and adjudication process which comes first. If someone draws a blade - initiative! If someone tells a lie - deception! But this is skipping an important part of the DM's role and, frankly, it shows in their resulting play experience.

MarkB · Jun 27, 2019

robus said:
I'd adjudicate it just like any other action a PC might take. I think @<a href="https://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=97077" target="_blank">iserith</a> and others have summed up my point of view well in that this is really just a case of action resolution. The player wants their character to take out the unsuspecting guard with a single arrow shot. As they have time to take the perfect shot and an arrow to the head seems likely to kill an orc outright I can see that the action is achievable but has a cost (if the ranger misses the camp will be alerted). In my OP I was setting the DC to simply be the AC of the orc (because again the ranger has all the time in the world) - but other factors might complicate the ability check (perhaps there's a strong crosswind, or it's raining, or its dark). In that case I might set a separate DC.

And sometimes, no matter the odds, luck just isn't on your side.

[video=youtube;QicFJz4qcQ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QicFJz4qcQ4[/video]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Umbran · Jun 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Combat is, as I said previously, the odd case in D&D, because NPCs appear to take actions independently and leverage the same mechanics.

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?"