D&D 5E Paralyzation rules tweak

[Rod Staffwand]

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.

No error.

Ability Checks, PH p174.
"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. 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."

Contests, PH p174.
"Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts."

When you're paralyzed, petrified or unconscious you can't take actions or reactions, move or speak. That makes making or resisting Strength and Dexterity checks pretty much impossible.

Both RAW and RAI are clear in this instance.

Interestingly, just being incapacitated means that you can move and speak but not take actions or reactions. I can't remember if any spells or effects cause the incapacitated condition on its own but it would seem to be a groggy, dazed state in which you might mumble a few words and draw your sword. I'd let such an individual contest a grapple, albeit at disadvantage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

That seems like a pointlessly roundabout way of inventing a "stealth" houserule. Why not just tell your players what the rule is instead of making them infer it from the pattern of your ad hoc rulings? Are you so afraid of giving up "control"?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Ability Checks, PH p174.
"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. 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."

Contests, PH p174.
"Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts."

When you're paralyzed, petrified or unconscious you can't take actions or reactions, move or speak. That makes making or resisting Strength and Dexterity checks pretty much impossible.

Both RAW and RAI are clear in this instance.

I'm not sure what you think you're showing here. The DM calls for an ability check when a character attempts an action, but it doesn't follow that that's the only time you ever make an ability check, and the contest rules are a demonstration of this. When you're a participant in a contest, you make an ability check, even if you weren't the one who used your action to initiate the contest. It's not a reaction, either, because if it were it would say so.

 

[Satyrn]

Are you so afraid of giving up "control"?

I'm all for giving up control to the players. I even suggested that in my last post, where I told you that if you want to try this method, "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."

I guess I should have added that when your players point this out, that you go with it. That's giving up control, is it not?

The reason I'm not inclined to create rules is that my game is chock full of rulings already (I don't know how it couldn't be), and no number of extra rules on all these corner cases is gonna stop that. So I go with the idea that my rulings will wind up consistent enough that my players will accept them and have fun playing with me.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm not sure what you think you're showing here. The DM calls for an ability check when a character attempts an action, but it doesn't follow that that's the only time you ever make an ability check, and the contest rules bear that out. When you're a participant in a contest, you make an ability check, whether you're the one whose action initiated the contest or not.

He's showing that the need for that contest can be eliminated by a ruling of automatic success.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure what you think you're showing here. The DM calls for an ability check when a character attempts an action...

... that has a chance of failure. Is there a chance to fail at grappling a statue that is not resisting your attempt to grapple it? Probably not. Therefore, no check is necessary to determine the results of the action declaration. Neither the grappler nor the target need make an ability check.

 

[Satyrn]

I wonder if "Grappling a Statue" will become a lasting metaphor here.

 

[iserith]

I wonder if "Grappling a Statue" will become a lasting metaphor here.

Nah, grapple the statue too much and you'll go blind.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

... that has a chance of failure. Is there a chance to fail at grappling a statue that is not resisting your attempt to grapple it? Probably not. Therefore, no check is necessary to determine the results of the action declaration. Neither the grappler nor the target need make an ability check.

Okay, fair enough. I understand what you were getting at now.

Just to play devil's advocate, though, does grappling a statue have no chance of failure? Clearly the statue's (former) Strength and/or Dexterity don't contribute to that chance, but I can see a DM ruling that success is not guaranteed when you try to grab and secure a heavy, awkwardly shaped object quickly under combat pressure.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Nah, grapple the statue too much and you'll go blind.

I'd say that's a myth, but D&D is supposed to replicate myths, so...