D&D 5E Player angry about enemies climbing rope with Rope Trick

[ECMO3]

A fight was not going well for the party but they would have won probably without any deaths.

A Ranger cast Rope trick in the middle of combat with the intent of evacuating the party and taking a short rest. It is not the first time he did this. The Ranger cast it and climbed up the Rope (taking an AOO). Two Orogs and 3 Orcs followed the Ranger up the rope. The last Orc pulled up the rope behind him and they attacked the Ranger 5 to 1 inside the extra dimensional space and followed that with a short rest themselves. Meanwhile the rest of the party beat the remaining guys on the ground and beat the Orogs and Orcs when the spell ended.

In the end the Ranger who cast it died.

The Ranger cried foul and claims I cheated, but I think that was RAW. The player tried a metagaming power move and was taken to the woodshed.

Am I wrong?

 

[GMMichael]

Wrong is in the eye of the beholder?

I wonder how the conversation went with the PCs waiting for the orogs/orcs to finish their rest.

 

[beancounter]

I've found that players are often surprised when the monsters are smart and tactical, and not just a big bag of dumb hit points.

I personally see no issue with the monsters climbing up the rope unless the spell's description specifies that only the Ranger's named friends can use the rope.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure why this is seen as a "metagaming power move" and not just "a valid tactic someone uses sometimes." Just like it's a valid tactic someone uses sometimes to follow the ranger into the space and beat him down.

Sounds like a conversation to get back on the same page about these sorts of things is in order.

 

[overgeeked]

Nothing in the description of the spell indicates the rope becomes invisible or that only those the caster designates can climb the rope.

Ranger made a bad call and paid for it. Intelligent monsters aren’t stupid. Mostly. Strategy and tactics and cunning are all possible.

It might have been a misalignment of expectations. He might have thought it was more limited or invisible. In a perfect world verifying what he thinks the spell does before pulling the trigger is a good idea.

 

[Irlo]

I wouldn't cast rope trick in combat but, if I did, I'd expect enemies to react accordingly.

I wouldn't expect orcs and orogs to know the ins and outs of the spell, though, and would be surprised if they knew that they'd be safe there for an hour. That's pretty questionable, but the smack-down was certainly appropriate.

 

[jgsugden]

Mechanically, the orcs and orogs could do as you state. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the orcs and orogs going up the rope as a natural part of the encounter - so long as it makes sense given the knowledge of the orcs and orogs. If, for example, the ranger cast the spell out of sight of the orcs and orogs and climbed it without being seen, and the orcs and orogs have no knowledge of the spell, then having them climb the rope would be pushing contrivance.

Regardless, your word choice invokes a tone that would be concerning for me to hear as a player in your game.

...The Ranger cried foul and claims I cheated, but I think that was RAW. The player tried a metagaming power move and was taken to the woodshed.

Am I wrong?

Taking a player to the woodshed is clearly a reference to punitive action. Kids taken to the woodshed, once upon a time, were spanked for misbehavior. You're essentially indicating that you did this to punish the player.

Further, you're doing it as a response to a 'metagaming power move'. This confuses me as there is nothing in the tale you told that seems to reference metagaming by the player (what outside knowledge did the player use?) Regardless of whether metagaming was the right description for the transgression you see, you are punishing the player for what you deem to be bad action.

As a DM you should never punish a player or their character because you are displeased. You have all the power. The game world is shaped by your whim. Players trust their DMs to use that power fairly - and using it to punish them, when they have not power and you have all the power is an overxtension of the power dynamic. In fact, you should be very careful to avoid even the appearance of misuing power. DMs should always show their players respect and reinforce the player's trust in the DM.

That is not to say that the DM has no place in shaping the actions of the players at the table. If you consider a player's actions to be inappropriate, you should take some action. If it is offensive, then that action may need to be immediate (such as when a player makes another player uncomfortable), but if not offensive (as in the case where a PC pushes a rule boundary or fails to follow play dynamics that the rest of the group shares), it can usually wait until between sessions where you can talk about it in private.

This is also not to say that an NPC / bad guy can't punish a PC as part of the story you're telling. Good villians would create emotional responses from the PCs. However, it should not be a response to your perceptions, as a DM, of the game, but instead be part of the natural story of the game and something that grows organically out of the story being told - and even then it needs to be done within the comfort levels of the players at the table.

 

[Shiroiken]

While not a "metagaming power move," there's absolutely no reason why even semi-intelligent enemies wouldn't follow the "fleeing" ranger. Perhaps it's odd one orc was smart enough to pull the rope out behind him, but not necessarily a crazy idea. Unless they understood magic (Arcana check), I'd probably have had them get dumped out when the spell ends, taking 1d6 falling damage and starting the combat prone.

 

[Fifth Element]

The ranger didn't make the call, the player did. The ranger, being part of the world and familiar with the workings of the spell, would understand the possibility even if the player didn't think of it, since the spell is just words on a page to the player. So I can understand the player being upset.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm curious how the non-Rangers feel. A player ditched the party in combat. It sounds like it might be a wonderful story for everyone else, and if so, that's a win.

I have characters make tactical (or untactical) moves I would never do myself, because (well), it's a game! And it's fun. And I live with the consequences (or not).

This actually sounds like a very memorable combat for the other players too.