D&D 5E Paralyzation rules tweak

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

The bold line is the error. Contests can be triggered by the actions of others. For example, under DMG Disarm rules, you can attempt to disarm another creature of its weapon. You make an attack roll, opposed by the other creature's Str (Athletics) or (IIRC) Dex (Acrobatics). The other creature does not have to spend an action or reaction to resist, it is built in to the Disarm attempt. I agree that the other creature should auto-fail this check if paralyzed, hence the ruling in the OP.

 

[iserith]

I think what is being overlooked is that it's not "If grapple, then opposed checks." Rather, it's "If grapple, then opposed checks if there is uncertainty as to the outcome." A grapple check is a contest and contests only happen if one creature is acting upon another that is opposing. There is no uncertainty in the outcome of grappling a statue and therefore no check. The DM just narrates the result without reference to dice.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think what is being overlooked is that it's not "If grapple, then opposed checks." Rather, it's "If grapple, then opposed checks if there is uncertainty as to the outcome." A grapple check is a contest and contests only happen if one creature is acting upon another that is opposing. There is no uncertainty in the outcome of grappling a statue and therefore no check. The DM just narrates the result without reference to dice.

I think you're agreeing with [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION], just using different language to say it.

 

[iserith]

I think you're agreeing with @Hemlock, just using different language to say it.

The end result is the same - the petrified character fails in a fictional action that might call for an ability check in other circumstances - but the thought process revealed by the original post and subsequent grapple example looks to be meaningfully different. There appears to be a belief by @Hemlock that certain action declarations demand mechanical resolution because there is a rule for them and that the rules must therefore be modified to take into account particular situations. Whereas I believe the rules only come into play to resolve uncertainty that the DM establishes. If I understand him correctly, Hemlock says that because there is a grapple attempt, there must be an opposed check which the petrified character must fail. I am saying there is no check at all because of the circumstances at play suggest no uncertainty as to the outcome of the attempt to grapple.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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

I was wondering about this recently, actually. I wrote a monster, an owlmoth, that incapacitates people with a hypnotic pattern-like effect on its wings, picks them up, ascends to a height of a hundred feet or so with ominous slowness, and then drops them to create a delicious juicy mess. I couldn't decide whether it made sense to allow its victims Athletics checks to resist the grapple or not. (In the end I allowed it, giving the PCs the benefit of the doubt.)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If I understand him correctly, Hemlock says that because there is a grapple attempt, there must be an opposed check which the petrified character must fail. I am saying there is no check at all because of the circumstances at play suggest no uncertainty as to the outcome of the attempt to grapple.

And them's fightin' words? I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 

[iserith]

And them's fightin' words? I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Who's fighting? And I think it's an important distinction underlying how people think about the game differently.

 

[Satyrn]

And them's fightin' words? I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

No. Iserith is simply providing feedback on Hemlock's rule, saying it's simply not needed because a different sort of adjudication of the rules creates the same desired result. A benefit of Iserith's method over Hemlock's, to my mind, is that it will cover lots of disparities that Hemlock will find in the future, and he will already have a simple way of handling all these eventualities.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No. Iserith is simply providing feedback on Hemlock's rule, saying it's simply not needed because a different sort of adjudication of the rules creates the same desired result. A benefit of Iserith's method over Hemlock's, to my mind, is that it will cover lots of disparities that Hemlock will find in the future, and he will already have a simple way of handling all these eventualities.

Whereas the benefit to making a rule instead of an hoc ruling is that it enhances player agency.

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

 

[Satyrn]

Whereas the benefit to making a rule instead of an hoc ruling is that it enhances player agency.

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

Certainly.

But if you are consistently ruling in those obvious situations that things just automatically succeed or fail without bothering to roll, your players will see this, and know that when they set themselves up in situations that they can't help but succeed, you won't force them to roll a check that could cause them to fail. This, too, enhances player agency.

If you and your players are not used to doing it this way, it will take adjustment. Your players may need to point out to you that they think they've put themselves in an automatic success position to keep you from demanding a roll. You'll need to rule this way in favour of the players more than their opponents so that you can show you're ruling fairly. But you'll likely be better off in the long run because your players will be able to see that their planning that puts them in advantageous positions really, actually pays off.

In all those other situations where they're "grappling statues" they will know they will not fail. Is this not the outcome you actually want?