Surprise round question

[ThunderDM]

>everyone pops out from behind the sofa
SURPRISE!
>they all get advantage on their attacks against you and you are paralyzed

 

[Maxperson]

None of the six ability scores measures an ability to stay asleep, so no.

I disagree with that. Constitution could easily be used to represent depth of sleep, and wisdom could be used to see how perceptive you are while asleep. The game doesn't back up your statement.

 

[Hriston]

I disagree with that. Constitution could easily be used to represent depth of sleep, and wisdom could be used to see how perceptive you are while asleep. The game doesn't back up your statement.

"The game" (meaning, the rule book) gives "Go without sleep" as an example of an attempted action for which the DM may call for a CON check. If rolling well on a CON check allows you to stay awake when you haven't had adequate sleep (which it does), I don't see the reasoning behind the same roll giving you the opposite ability to stay asleep in the presence of a disturbance. Also, I have a difficult time accepting that the DM is going to tell the player of a sleeping PC about the disturbance that will awaken his or her PC unless the check is successful, information the PC couldn't possibly know.

WIS and specifically your WIS (Perception) check "measures your general awareness of your surroundings". When asleep, according to "the game", you are actually unaware of your surroundings no matter what your WIS check says. Rolling it is a waste of time because it measures something that doesn't exist. And again, the metagame problem exists in which the DM is asking the player for an ability check for a task the PC itself is unaware it is undertaking. In my games, ability checks are for tasks the PCs and monsters are consciously trying to do. This avoids the following type of exchange:

DM: Roll a Wisdom (Perception) check.

Player of a sleeping PC: Why? What happens if I succeed or fail?

DM: You don't know. You're asleep and so unaware of what's going on around you.

Player: Um... okay. I rolled a 2.

DM: You die in your sleep and never find out why. Roll up a new character.

I'm not saying that you or anyone else does it this way, and I'd be happy to receive clarification of how you handle asking for ability checks for actions of which a character is unconscious, but the way I imagine it, this doesn't seem fun to me.

 

[Maxperson]

"The game" (meaning, the rule book) gives "Go without sleep" as an example of an attempted action for which the DM may call for a CON check. If rolling well on a CON check allows you to stay awake when you haven't had adequate sleep (which it does), I don't see the reasoning behind the same roll giving you the opposite ability to stay asleep in the presence of a disturbance.

If a high con represents the ability to stay awake, a low con can represent the ability to not wake up easily.

Also, I have a difficult time accepting that the DM is going to tell the player of a sleeping PC about the disturbance that will awaken his or her PC unless the check is successful, information the PC couldn't possibly know.

You've never been woken up by a disturbance before and known that something happened to wake you up? I have. I have also had disturbances break into my dreams and let me know what is happening while I am asleep. An example would be a dog barking in my dream shortly before waking up to a dog barking.

Stretch your imagination a bit.

WIS and specifically your WIS (Perception) check "measures your general awareness of your surroundings". When asleep, according to "the game", you are actually unaware of your surroundings no matter what your WIS check says. Rolling it is a waste of time because it measures something that doesn't exist. And again, the metagame problem exists in which the DM is asking the player for an ability check for a task the PC itself is unaware it is undertaking. In my games, ability checks are for tasks the PCs and monsters are consciously trying to do. This avoids the following type of exchange:

Again, if you were truly unaware, you could not wake up at all. You have to be aware of a sound before it can wake you up. You have to be aware of someone shaking you before it can wake you up. You may not be as aware as if you are awake, but you cannot be completely unaware.

 

[Arial Black]

The text absolutely does limit ability checks to such situations!

Your lack of understanding of what the sentence refers to is the issue.

Here's the full text (with the relevant part in boldface): "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge." That emphasized phrase limits when a creature's talent and training are measured by an ability check.

The 'effort to overcome a challenge' is not being consciously taken by the creature! The 'effort' is being made by the creature's 'innate talent and training'.

Only "in an effort to overcome a challenge" is the result of an ability check applicable to the outcome of the situation in question. The corresponding, also true statement is that an ability check does not test a character's or monster's innate talent and training in the absence of an effort to overcome a challenge.

The 'test' is of the creatures 'innate talent and training', which exist whether or not the creature is consciously trying to use them.

A creature's senses are constantly making an effort to notice threats! They don't stop trying when you sleep! They don't switch off! Even closing your eyes fails to keep out all visual stimuli; you can still see the difference between brightness and darkness, and the change from dark to bright can indeed wake you up!

A Perception check represents a creature's innate talent (how sharp its senses are) and training (if the 'effort' to notice threats has moved from the conscious to the sub-conscious mind) with regards to reacting to stimuli.

The correct 'corresponding statement' would be that 'an ability check does not test things that are not part of a creature's innate talent and training'.

So when considering whether to call for an ability check to determine if a sleeping creature notices an approaching attacker, the DM should take into account whether the sleeping creature is making an effort to do so. Considering that the last action declared by the creature's player was for the creature to go to sleep, an action that is actually the opposite of staying alert and aware of one's surroundings, the answer is that no ability check is warranted in making that determination.

The answer is that the creature's SENSES are 'making an effort' to notice an approaching attacker! It's those senses, that innate talent and training, that is being tested, not the creature itself.

You even quoted the part which says so! It doesn't say "An ability check tests a character or monster", it says "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training".

 

[Caliban]

"The game" (meaning, the rule book) gives "Go without sleep" as an example of an attempted action for which the DM may call for a CON check. If rolling well on a CON check allows you to stay awake when you haven't had adequate sleep (which it does), I don't see the reasoning behind the same roll giving you the opposite ability to stay asleep in the presence of a disturbance. Also, I have a difficult time accepting that the DM is going to tell the player of a sleeping PC about the disturbance that will awaken his or her PC unless the check is successful, information the PC couldn't possibly know.

In the specific case of an assassin sneaking up on a lone PC, I most likely wouldn't kill them outright either. The PC's are the focus of the story and protagonists don't die "off-screen". But they may start the fight with a dagger in their stomach and be fighting at a disadvantage if they fail to wake up in time. Or I may do as you suggest, and they wake up just as the assassin begins to strike - will they react before or after they are stabbed? Roll initiative to find out!

Which ever makes the better story. Also depends on how annoying the player has been.

"C'mon, he's stabbed me three times, surely I'm awake now!"

"Sorry, we've already determined that your barbarian is a heavy sleeper. Roll perception again."

"Dick."

"Who ate the last slice of pizza again?"

"Oh my god."

"And who killed the kings guards because 'they weren't being respectful' enough?"

"You're never going to get over that are you?"

"I will. Your barbarian may not. Roll perception again."

The "assassin vs. sleeping PC" is a rather rare situation though. (or should be!)

I'm thinking more of the "PC's are traveling and camping outdoors, then get attacked in the middle of the night" type of situation. The PC's on watch fail their perception, and the orcs are in the camp. Combat ensues - do the people in the tents wake up and join the combat? Disadvantage on Perception checks (made every round) to find out!

 

[Hriston]

If a high con represents the ability to stay awake, a low con can represent the ability to not wake up easily.

Do you propose resolving a player's action declaration to have his or her PC go to sleep by calling for a CON check in which s/he has to roll under the DC in order to stay asleep successfully in the case of a disturbance? I don't see how this has anything to do with CON as a measure of endurance or health, or why a character's CON score would have anything to do with how deeply they sleep. The reasoning behind resolving an action declaration to go without sleep with a CON check is that the character is resisting fatigue and the urge to sleep through his or her physical endurance. Once asleep, I think CON ceases to play a roll. A low CON doesn't keep you asleep.

You've never been woken up by a disturbance before and known that something happened to wake you up? I have. I have also had disturbances break into my dreams and let me know what is happening while I am asleep. An example would be a dog barking in my dream shortly before waking up to a dog barking.

That's if you wake up. If you hadn't woken up, you wouldn't have known about the barking dog, yet you're asking a player to roll an ability check to see if the barking dog wakes his or her PC up. That's very clunky if you ask me.

Again, if you were truly unaware, you could not wake up at all. You have to be aware of a sound before it can wake you up. You have to be aware of someone shaking you before it can wake you up. You may not be as aware as if you are awake, but you cannot be completely unaware.

Then the only way to wake up in the game is by DM fiat, which is how I do it. (Excepting, of course, the ways of awakening someone given in the sleep spell.)

 

[Caliban]

Then the only way to wake up in the game is by DM fiat, which is how I do it. (Excepting, of course, the ways of awakening someone given in the sleep spell.)

Exactly. And sometimes DM Fiat is "Make a perceptions roll. At disadvantage"

 

[Hriston]

Exactly. And sometimes DM Fiat is "Make a perceptions roll. At disadvantage"

Right, but this is an ability check in form only and actually has more in common with other methods of random generation at the DM's disposal such as wandering monster checks, social reaction checks, or sleeping dragons awaken on a roll of 6 on a d6 (although in 1e they also awaken if attacked). I probably haven't yet stated clearly that I hold that view.

 

[Caliban]

Right, but this is an ability check in form only and actually has more in common with other methods of random generation at the DM's disposal such as wandering monster checks, social reaction checks, or sleeping dragons awaken on a roll of 6 on a d6 (although in 1e they also awaken if attacked). I probably haven't yet stated clearly that I hold that view.

If the DM is choosing to use Perception, then it actually is a skill/ability check. In fact, not in form. In this case, to see if your sleeping mind notices the noise/smell and wakes up.