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

[James Gasik]

Unfortunately? That’s been one of its major benefits since at least 1e!

Unfortunately in this case, at least. How useful it was in older editions I really can't say, because it's an item I can't say I have any personal experience with. Pearls of Power? Wands/Staves/Rods? A Ring of Wizardry? Heck, even the Book of Infinite Spells, I have more experience with.

Whether or not the Ring of Spell Storing presented problems in those days is beyond my kenning to grok.

I will say though, my main beef with the item comes with how public play treated it.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Maybe a Mercer thing? He tends to run beefy solo monsters, mostly because he has 7+ players.

I don't know, I seem to recall quite a few horde battles, and I think those have typically been the ones where he's downed or killed PCs. Percy's death was for sure that way. Molly's too IIRC. Grog vs. the Goliaths definitely was.

He definitely does beefy solos with multiple actions too, but not sure it's so much that it's a signature move or anything. I mean, I think one of the things he likes doing the most is building battle maps, and that gets kinda silly if all you're ever doing is throwing solos at the party.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't know where this quote is from, but DND Beyond cannot find it in not just the DMG, but in any 5e D&D book in it's database.

DMG, Chapter 9: Dungeon Master's Workshop. Creating A Monster. Creating Quick Monster Stats. Step 1. Second and third paragraph.

Now maybe this was subject to errata and you never picked up the errata? I don't know. I just know none of that paragraph appears in the current official rules on DND Beyond.

I wouldn't know. I won't buy access to digital text that can be taken away or altered. I have physical books to look at. And yep, those paragraphs are still there. Good luck when D&D Beyond loses the license.

Why would an animal not try to kill the thing it just knocked down that was hurting it?

Depends on what its goals are. Is it trying to drive the enemy away? Is it looking for food? Is it trying to eat the target? Some animals will try to drag off a downed target, others will simply move on to the next one. It all depends on the context.

Why would the foe have to be more intelligent to kill its prey? I was using as an example Tomb of Annihilation and that adventure has lots of undead and dinosaurs. Both tend to want to kill the things they knock down, either because the description says they want to snuff out life (undead) or they are carnivores attacking prey (a T-Rex).

For the undead, sure. But can they detect life? That's not listed in their stat block. A zombie's INT is 3. A skeleton's INT is 6. Down means dead is probably an easy assumption to make for them. Living enemies though? Especially with those of even average INT, not likely.

For the T-Rex...how much does it eat in a day? Once it's sated, will it still try to eat everything? Or is it just "it's a monster, therefore it attacks and fights to the bitter end always and forever"?

In either case, their opponent being knocked unconscious

That's a distinction they are not aware of. You as the DM are. The NPCs are not. Unless they take the time to check. Or unless you've decided as the DM that every monster always and forever just double taps...for reasons.

It sounds like your DM is just trying to spare your PCs?

Quite the opposite. Again, I'm talking about the default of the rules. Not how I run the game or how the DMs I've played with run the game. I run deadly games because I want to and do to so I've had to house rule 5E a lot and homebrew all the monsters...because the default 5E is so utterly unchallenging. The DMs I most frequently play with run modules and they tend to roughly double the amount of enemies to make the fights something vaguely approaching a challenge. So a goblin ambush with 4 goblins becomes an ambush with 8. Etc. And even with that change...the fights are still cakewalks. In the almost ten years of playing with that group...2 character deaths because of metagame reasons. This is also a DM who gets giddy and laughs when the monsters crit and deal huge hits. He's not pulling punches.

I get that nothing I ever say will convince you, but it is what it is. Sorry it's so different from your uber-challenging game play that you cannot accept someone else has such a different experience from yours.

 

[Redwizard007]

Yes but they don't get back up and resume fighting even if you tracked their negative hit point totals. That's a 5% chance on a death save. I'll take those odds and worry about the fallen foe possibly coming back with 1 crummy hit point after I've dealt with everything else I'm currently fighting.

Plausible in-game reasons to double tap:
Finishing the hunt (anything attacking to eat)
Training (soldiers)
Savagery (monsterous humanoids)
Experience (liches, giants & dragons)
It's still alive (undead)
Screwing with the players (drow)

 

[Gammadoodler]

DMG, Chapter 9: Dungeon Master's Workshop. Creating A Monster. Creating Quick Monster Stats. Step 1. Second and third paragraph.

I wouldn't know. I won't buy access to digital text that can be taken away or altered. I have physical books to look at. And yep, those paragraphs are still there. Good luck when D&D Beyond loses the license.

Depends on what its goals are. Is it trying to drive the enemy away? Is it looking for food? Is it trying to eat the target? Some animals will try to drag off a downed target, others will simply move on to the next one. It all depends on the context.

For the undead, sure. But can they detect life? That's not listed in their stat block. A zombie's INT is 3. A skeleton's INT is 6. Down means dead is probably an easy assumption to make for them. Living enemies though? Especially with those of even average INT, not likely.

For the T-Rex...how much does it eat in a day? Once it's sated, will it still try to eat everything? Or is it just "it's a monster, therefore it attacks and fights to the bitter end always and forever"?

That's a distinction they are not aware of. You as the DM are. The NPCs are not. Unless they take the time to check. Or unless you've decided as the DM that every monster always and forever just double taps...for reasons.

Quite the opposite. Again, I'm talking about the default of the rules. Not how I run the game or how the DMs I've played with run the game. I run deadly games because I want to and do to so I've had to house rule 5E a lot and homebrew all the monsters...because the default 5E is so utterly unchallenging. The DMs I most frequently play with run modules and they tend to roughly double the amount of enemies to make the fights something vaguely approaching a challenge. So a goblin ambush with 4 goblins becomes an ambush with 8. Etc. And even with that change...the fights are still cakewalks. In the almost ten years of playing with that group...2 character deaths because of metagame reasons. This is also a DM who gets giddy and laughs when the monsters crit and deal huge hits. He's not pulling punches.

I get that nothing I ever say will convince you, but it is what it is. Sorry it's so different from your uber-challenging game play that you cannot accept someone else has such a different experience from yours.

It seems strange to take as as the default rules for encounter design, material that is not included in the section devoted to encounter design.. It does explain why you would conclude that the default assumption for 5E is solo monsters, when the section you are referring to is explicitly about creating monsters.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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?

I think there’s a few layers to this to consider, first when you say ‘without any deaths’ would that of been ‘downs’ or ‘capital D deaths’?

The fact the Orcs/Orogs actually followed the ranger is up the rope Trick is fair in my book, they were giving chase to an opponent who was turning and fleeing in a middle of a fight, the question of ‘is following this enemy up this spell they just cast actually a secret murder trap’ isn’t something they’d consider 1) because they’re in the heat of battle and 2) that’s specifically something players thinking in a meta perspective are more likely to expect or encounter IMO or if it was in the world then it’s more likely to be found pre set up in a dungeon or somesuch rather than spontaneously cast in an unexpected battle in a cave or field or wherever.

You say this wasn’t the first time they used this tactic, Were the player/s taking for granted that they could use the Rope trick spell as an answer to escape any increasing threatening encounter, the first time they think of doing so is clever, the fifth time not so much, taking to the woodshed might be a bit much but reinforcing that they can’t become complacent repeating the same cheap tactics is another matter.

Letting the enemies get a rest is a bit eh in my book but seeing as they ended up getting killed anyway I can’t say it seemed to of mattered in the grand scheme of things.

And finally was the ranger actually trapped in the rope trick space by the orcs or narratively otherwise, or was the possibility of jumping out actually an option even with the fall damage as a factor, and staying in the space fighting 5-to-1 was a choice rather than an inescapable encounter for them.

All boiled down I think the core response to answer your question is did you take steps to intentionally punish/kill the ranger for using this tactic or was it just the unfortunate result of playing the enemies as they logically/naturally would in a battle?

 

[James Gasik]

Plausible in-game reasons to double tap:
Finishing the hunt (anything attacking to eat)
Training (soldiers)
Savagery (monsterous humanoids)
Experience (liches, giants & dragons)
It's still alive (undead)
Screwing with the players (drow)

Is it really reasonable to have a meal when you're being attacked?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to end the fight and then "double tap"? I mean, I'm not a soldier on an ancient battlefield, but every example of a battle I've seen, people are usually a little busy dealing with the mobile opponents.

There are a few monsters capable of getting back up, but it's such a small handful that I really doubt another monster would bother. While every adventuring company seems able to find a wandering Bard/Priest/Druid or what have you to cast healing spells, it seems a lot rarer for enemies to have such abilities in D&D.

Imagine a fight breaking out between rival tribes of hobgoblins. Are they going to stop and make sure anyone that goes down is really dead?

I get people all the time insisting that D&D is not high magic, and that casters are rare, and that the PC's are not indicative of the setting. So if we accept this logic, then an effect like Healing Word is so rare that I can't imagine a non-adventurer expecting it.

 

[Redwizard007]

Is it really reasonable to have a meal when you're being attacked?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to end the fight and then "double tap"? I mean, I'm not a soldier on an ancient battlefield, but every example of a battle I've seen, people are usually a little busy dealing with the mobile opponents.

There are a few monsters capable of getting back up, but it's such a small handful that I really doubt another monster would bother. While every adventuring company seems able to find a wandering Bard/Priest/Druid or what have you to cast healing spells, it seems a lot rarer for enemies to have such abilities in D&D.

Imagine a fight breaking out between rival tribes of hobgoblins. Are they going to stop and make sure anyone goes down is really dead?

I get people all the time insisting that D&D is not high magic, and that casters are rare, and that the PC's are not indicative of the setting. So if we accept this logic, then an effect like Healing Word is so rare that I can't imagine a non-adventurer expecting it.

Ever watch an animal kill its prey? It's freaking metal. Believe me, they know when it's dead. Like, really, really dead.

I can't speak to ancient RW combat, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that every combat instructor in the USMC is very clear about making sure no enemy is left combat capable behind your advancing force.

 

[James Gasik]

I have also seen predators flee from their kill when other predators show up.

EDIT: hit save too soon. Um. Look I'm not trying to be adversarial, but how is a guy who is unconscious and bleeding out "combat capable?".

And couldn't you, you know, as I suggest, do that after all the people who are shooting at you are down?

 

[Redwizard007]

I have also seen predators flee from their kill when other predators show up.

EDIT: hit save too soon. Um. Look I'm not trying to be adversarial, but how is a guy who is unconscious and bleeding out "combat capable?".

And couldn't you, you know, as I suggest, do that after all the people who are shooting at you are down?

Watch a dog take a rabbit or squirl. They snap the poor things neck pretty single-mindedly. On the other hand, cats will bail on a hunt anytime there is a surprise. Maybe it's the difference between pack and ambush hunters. Could be neat to see what predators are more apt to abort a hunt.

If they are armed and conscience, they are a threat. Doubly so in a world of magic, but depends on the distribution of magical healing in your game. Could be a ton. Could be non-existent.

I suppose that would depend on your priorities, training, team, adversaries, armament, feasability of taking prisoners, and about a million other things. What it boils down to is esentially threat assessment and convenience. If you aren't being actively threatened by a capable foe then a couple de gras is a pretty simple thing. If you are flanked by 3 other people trying to stab you, probably not.