D&D 5E Paralyzation rules tweak

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

You could claim the same thing about saving throws. If the PHB didn't explicitly call out auto-fail on Str/Dex saving throws I'd be closer to seeing your point; but if you're going to have a rule for the effects of a condition like Paralyzed it had better cover all three types of rolls (attacks/saves/checks) in order to not be misleading. Especially given the way an attack roll against a naked, paralyzed target is not an auto-success, despite the difficulty of explaining a failure. How could a player possibly know in advance that the DM isn't going to apply attack roll-ish logic to a grapple attempt, instead of saving throw-ish logic?

I see value in making my ruling/rule up front so that players know about it, just iike they know about the other PHB rules, and can plan their actions accordingly without having to guess.

Thanks, [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], for expressing what might be the only substantive feedback in this entire thread.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Attacking a naked, paralyzed individual ought to have no chance of failure, and yet it does. By RAW, grappling a paralyzed individual works the same way and can also fail, especially if the paralyzed individual is very strong and/or agile when non-paralyzed. But RAW is dumb here, so I propose to change it.

 

[Croesus]

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.

This is my concern. Say I’m picking up a washing machine to move it into the moving van. My first couple attempts fail because I don’t have leverage. Finally I figure out how to do it and succeed. Doing this in the middle of combat, when a million other things are going on? Yeah, I can see where the grapple attempt could fail. I’d be more inclined to give the attacker advantage on the grapple check, and if it seems really likely he would succeed, give the defender disadvantage.

Attacking a naked, paralyzed individual ought to have no chance of failure, and yet it does. By RAW, grappling a paralyzed individual works the same way and can also fail, especially if the paralyzed individual is very strong and/or agile when non-paralyzed. But RAW is dumb here, so I propose to change it.

Except we’re talking about the middle of a battle (typically) and there are a ton of distractions. Could you easily kill the paralyzed person if you’re just calmly standing in your living room, with nothing else going on? Most likely. In the middle of a firefight? That’s much iffier. So give the attacker advantage and if he still fails, it’s because he was distracted or in too much of a hurry.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Contests are only contests if contestants are contesting. Ability checks, including those used for contests, require action or effort on the part of the PC. If you're contesting a grapple, you're actively trying to resist it. The section on ability checks is explicit on when ability checks should be made: "When a character attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." Contests and Passive Checks fall under this same intention of an active character. Passive Checks aren't even used for when a character does nothing. They're called out for secret checks and average results over time.

The exception is saving throws which are tellingly placed in their own section and not under Ability Checks. You are entitled to make a saving throw whenever you are subjected to an effect that calls for one, though some conditions (like paralyzed) and circumstances may alter or prevent this and are distinctly note the change.

The chance of failure for attacking a naked, paralyzed target is a result of 5E's simplifications and abstractions. The roll is assumed to be taking place in a tense combat situation in which the attacker has to worry about multiple combatants, defending themselves, positioning, errant missile fire and assorted other chaos. Maybe they misjudge their swing. Maybe their arrow goes wide. Anything might happen in the tumult when you're making split-second decisions. The game gives DMs leeway to give out an auto-hit, an auto-crit or even an auto-kill if they think the situation is advantageous enough to warrant it.

 

[iserith]

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.

I mean, one could probably say that any given action has a chance of failure, however small. The DMG says that a roll is probably called for if the action isn't inappropriate or impossible and isn't so easy and stress free that success is a given. I would say grabbing the statue is just a given and narrate success (no ability check at all) absent some kind of conflict that may prevent it from happening.

The grapple rules are specifically a contest though and the rules for a contest require that someone be opposing the character that is acting. So even if you did call for an ability check to get a hold of the statue for some reason, it would still likely not be a contest unless someone other than the petrified character was opposing the creature trying to grab the statue. (But that's not the example under discussion.)

 

[iserith]

Contests are only contests if contestants are contesting. Ability checks, including those used for contests, require action or effort on the part of the PC. If you're contesting a grapple, you're actively trying to resist it. The section on ability checks is explicit on when ability checks should be made: "When a character attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." Contests and Passive Checks fall under this same intention of an active character. Passive Checks aren't even used for when a character does nothing. They're called out for secret checks and average results over time.

The exception is saving throws which are tellingly placed in their own section and not under Ability Checks. You are entitled to make a saving throw whenever you are subjected to an effect that calls for one, though some conditions (like paralyzed) and circumstances may alter or prevent this and are distinctly note the change.

The chance of failure for attacking a naked, paralyzed target is a result of 5E's simplifications and abstractions. The roll is assumed to be taking place in a tense combat situation in which the attacker has to worry about multiple combatants, defending themselves, positioning, errant missile fire and assorted other chaos. Maybe they misjudge their swing. Maybe their arrow goes wide. Anything might happen in the tumult when you're making split-second decisions. The game gives DMs leeway to give out an auto-hit, an auto-crit or even an auto-kill if they think the situation is advantageous enough to warrant it.

Right, and in a circumstance where attacking the paralyzed target is easy, stress-free, or lacking in conflict, the DM may simply narrate the result as per the basic conversation of the game (Basic Rules, page 3) which applies to every kind of action declaration in the game.

 

[iserith]

This is my concern. Say I’m picking up a washing machine to move it into the moving van. My first couple attempts fail because I don’t have leverage. Finally I figure out how to do it and succeed. Doing this in the middle of combat, when a million other things are going on? Yeah, I can see where the grapple attempt could fail. I’d be more inclined to give the attacker advantage on the grapple check, and if it seems really likely he would succeed, give the defender disadvantage.

You're not grappling the washing machine though. You're just carrying it. If there is an ability check to be made, it's not a contest. The DM just sets the DC.

Except we’re talking about the middle of a battle (typically) and there are a ton of distractions. Could you easily kill the paralyzed person if you’re just calmly standing in your living room, with nothing else going on? Most likely. In the middle of a firefight? That’s much iffier. So give the attacker advantage and if he still fails, it’s because he was distracted or in too much of a hurry.

Right.

 

[Illithidbix]

I think it's a fair ruling.

Automatically failing contested STR and DEX ability checks - sure, in fact I think I assumed they already did.

I agree that paralyzed/unconscious characters still getting their DEX bonus to AC is a bit weird... personally I don't think it's a massive *problem* since such attacks already occur with Advantage (roughly equal to +4/+5) and bounded accuracy and capped Ability scores *mostly* compensates for it.

Personally I am very happy there is only one value for AC, and the rules are "It's an attack if you're trying to hit AC", it makes playing the game vastly simpler for a little loss of verisimilitude.
I prefer this to having to bother working out "Touch AC" and "Flatfooted AC" for characters and monsters.

If it irks you enough to fix it (as it does for Hemlock), then I suppose having incapacitated impose a penalty to AC equal to "5+DEX bonus" would work.
More complexity than I care to add myself, but bearable.

Thinking about it, I think my fix would mostly be allowing players to autohit if the target is incapacitated, which means auto-crit if within 5'. Probably still fine having monsters roll against unmodified AC (with advantage). But I'm a carebear like that.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Attacking a naked, paralyzed individual ought to have no chance of failure, and yet it does. By RAW, grappling a paralyzed individual works the same way and can also fail, especially if the paralyzed individual is very strong and/or agile when non-paralyzed. But RAW is dumb here, so I propose to change it.

It only has a chance of failure if you call for an attack roll. Personally, I would rule an auto hit, just like I allow auto slaying sleeping foes after the other combatants are taken out. Makes sense.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It only has a chance of failure if you call for an attack roll. Personally, I would rule an auto hit, just like I allow auto slaying sleeping foes after the other combatants are taken out. Makes sense.

Great. So instead of criticizing me for writing down a ruling extending the PHB condition rules for paralyzing, we now know that you guys (not just Psikerlord, the ones who have made this a four-page thread about a semantic argument about the difference vel none between "creature auto-fails checks" and "DM never call for checks") should really be writing WotC to criticize them for writing any rules for paralyzation in the first place. In fact, you should probably be criticizing them for writing the PHB. Who needs rules when you've got a DM? Who needs dice either?