D&D 5E Paralyzation rules tweak

[FormerlyHemlock]

When you are paralyzed/stunned/unconscious/petrified, attack rolls against you have advantage, and you automatically fail Str and Dex saving throws. In some cases, attacks that hit you will be auto-crits.

However, you still get your Dexterity bonus to AC, and you can still make Str and Dex ability checks. Opponents still have to overcome your normal Str (Athletics) score in order to grapple you even after you have been turned to stone. That's goofy and unacceptable.

So here's my ruling: in all of the cases where the PHB says you "automatically fail Str and Dex saves," you also auto-fail Str and Dex ability checks. Additionally, your Dex drops to 0 for as long as the condition lasts. This is in addition to the effects listed in the PHB (attackers have advantage, etc.).

Yes, this does mean that lightly-armored Dex-y guys will be severely hampered by a stunning blow or paralyzation. They'll lose up to 11 points of AC in addition to attackers getting advantage and auto-crits. Don't get paralyzed.

 

[iserith]

The need for the ruling seems to suggest that your players ask or declare they are making ability checks to do something. Is that how you play at your table?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The need for the ruling seems to suggest that your players ask or declare they are making ability checks to do something. Is that how you play at your table?

What? No! I don't, and that's not what this thread is about.

 

[iserith]

What? No! I don't, and that's not what this thread is about.

Why would you need to make a rule that they automatically fail at these ability checks if the DM is the one calling for ability checks? Just don't call for them if the fictional action is inappropriate or impossible.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why would you need to make a rule that they automatically fail at these ability checks if the DM is the one calling for ability checks? Just don't call for them if the fictional action is inappropriate or impossible.

Because I think it is stupid that a monster trying to grapple an (N)PC who's been turned to stone can still lose to the (N)PC in the Athletics contest, that's why. Apparently you disagree.

 

[iserith]

Because I think it is stupid that a monster trying to grapple an (N)PC who's been turned to stone can still lose to the (N)PC in the Athletics contest, that's why. Apparently you disagree.

I disagree that the petrified PC or NPC gets a Strength (Athletics) check to resist the grapple in the first place. There is no contest here because the petrified PC or NPC is not capable of preventing the grapple.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So here's my ruling: in all of the cases where the PHB says you "automatically fail Str and Dex saves," you also auto-fail Str and Dex ability checks. Additionally, your Dex drops to 0 for as long as the condition lasts. This is in addition to the effects listed in the PHB (attackers have advantage, etc.).

A Strength- or Dex- check functions sufficiently like a save in many situations, that extending auto-failure under those conditions seems like a reasonable interpretation. It's not what the rules literally say, but it is what the rules imply based on the narrative which they reflect.

The other thing is impossible, though. Changing your ability scores is beyond the complexity allowed by the language that the system uses. When you gain advantage on attack rolls, that is the established mechanic for representing that your target can't get out of the way; it's equivalent to a bonus between +1 and +5, which is comparable to the bonus they would gain from Dex, and so they effectively negate each other in such circumstances.

There's nothing stopping you from making that house rule, of course, but it clearly makes incapacitation much more powerful and complicated than it was intended to be. It would be akin to saying that your enemies don't know where your Warlock is hiding inside of a Darkness field, even if you just attack every round and never actually hide, so suddenly they have to guess which square to attack into in addition to making the attack with disadvantage. Circumstances already grant disadvantage; adding further penalties would be punitive and spiteful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A Strength- or Dex- check functions sufficiently like a save in many situations, that extending auto-failure under those conditions seems like a reasonable interpretation. It's not what the rules literally say, but it is what the rules imply based on the narrative which they reflect.

The other thing is impossible, though. Changing your ability scores is beyond the complexity allowed by the language that the system uses. When you gain advantage on attack rolls, that is the established mechanic for representing that your target can't get out of the way; it's equivalent to a bonus between +1 and +5, which is comparable to the bonus they would gain from Dex, and so they effectively negate each other in such circumstances.

There's nothing stopping you from making that house rule, of course, but it clearly makes incapacitation much more powerful and complicated than it was intended to be. It would be akin to saying that your enemies don't know where your Warlock is hiding inside of a Darkness field, even if you just attack every round and never actually hide, so suddenly they have to guess which square to attack into in addition to making the attack with disadvantage. Circumstances already grant disadvantage; adding further penalties would be punitive and spiteful.

And yet, there are spells and monsters (shadows, intellect devourers, Feeblemind, Greater Restoration) which do just that: alter your ability scores. 5E doesn't assume that your ability scores are immutable--they can change.

I acknowledge that this rule tweak is a pretty large one. I think your comparison to revamping the Stealth rules is apt: it is about the same level of complexity. (I do actually have a tweak for exactly the Warlock scenario you mention; essentially, you get to keep track of one enemy at a time for "free" even in the dark, but any other enemies trigger a Stealth contest. I have not implemented this tweak in my actual game because it's never been an issue, but I have it ready in case any player ever wants more realism than 'everybody has perfect perception even in the dark.')

Note however that this rule does not affect incapacitation at all. It just affects stunning, unconsciousness, petrification, and paralyzation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And yet, there are spells and monsters (shadows, intellect devourers, Feeblemind, Greater Restoration) which do just that: alter your ability scores. 5E doesn't assume that your ability scores are immutable--they can change.

Those are very rare abilities on specific monsters which last all day, though. They are two degrees more permanent than a condition which can be inflicted by many different creatures (PCs included) and which often only lasts a round.

I mean, if you're comfortable making conditions that much more powerful and complicated than they already are, and your players are on board with it, then go ahead. Personally, I don't see how that marginal increase in verisimilitude could justify changes of that magnitude, but I'm not at your table, so I don't get to vote.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

You don't auto-fail Strength and Dexterity checks while paralyzed--you can't make them at all. If you're paralyzed you're incapacitated as well. If you're incapacitated you can't take actions. If you can't take actions you can't make checks. It's as simple as that. You can't contest a grapple while paralyzed or petrified since you can't make a check to do so.

Removing the Dexterity modifier to AC while paralyzed or similar is certainly more realistic. It's obviously up to you and your table to determine if the added realism is worth the extra effort and calculations to do so. Flat-footed, touch AC and such were removed for the sake of speed and simplicity. Given the grand abstraction that is D&D combat I don't miss them, but I can understand your point of view. It also gives armor wearers a slight advantage, which is nice.