D&D 5E Toll the Chest

[Xetheral]

The OP describes the room as 30' by 30' with the mimic in its center. I take that to mean the party is only 15' away which is just one move for the mimic, so it can move in and attack a party member on its first turn in combat. The cleric starts combat by declaring they target the "chest", and the entire party is surprised because no one has noticed a threat. I'd say the cunning hunter would know it's time to spring the trap.

If the cleric is casting a spell to test whether or not it is a mimic, then I think the cleric has noticed a threat, by definition.

As a player, if my character is sufficiently aware of a specific threat to be taking specific precautions, I would not consider it to be a fair use of the surprise mechanics if the DM ruled I was nevertheless surprised by the same threat I taking specific precautions against.

 

[Hriston]

If the cleric is casting a spell to test whether or not it is a mimic, then I think the cleric has noticed a threat, by definition.

As a player, if my character is sufficiently aware of a specific threat to be taking specific precautions, I would not consider it to be a fair use of the surprise mechanics if the DM ruled I was nevertheless surprised by the same threat I taking specific precautions against.

If the cleric had noticed it was a mimic, they wouldn't need to test whether it was a creature or not,

But the cleric has no such knowledge. As far as they know, it's just an ordinary chest.

This a like a player saying their character can never be surprised because they're in a dungeon and expect danger around every corner. You can't possibly be serious.

 

[el-remmen]

Maybe someone else asked this, but are all mimics evil or threatening? I vaguely remember in 1E days that there was a percentage chance or something of an intelligent and potentially friendly mimic?

It sure would suck to let your paranoia ruin your chance to negotiate with the mimic for information about the dungeon or the location of a different treasure or some other coming to accord. . .

 

[Xetheral]

If the cleric had noticed it was a mimic, they wouldn't need to test whether it was a creature or not,

But the cleric has no such knowledge. As far as they know, it's just an ordinary chest.

The cleric noticed the threat that it might be a mimic, and are taking action accordingly. If they thought it was just an ordinary chest they wouldn't be casting Toll the Dead on it.

This a like a player saying their character can never be surprised because they're in a dungeon and expect danger around every corner. You can't possibly be serious.

That's not at all what I said. I focused on specific threats and specific precautions for a reason. If, while the cleric is focused on the threat posed by chest, the door they're standing next to turns out to be a mimic and attacks them, I'd be totally fine with the cleric being surprised.

 

[Hriston]

The cleric noticed the threat that it might be a mimic, and are taking action accordingly. If they thought it was just an ordinary chest they wouldn't be casting Toll the Dead on it.

Every object in a dungeon might be a mimic. That doesn't make you immune to surprise!

That's not at all what I said. I focused on specific threats and specific precautions for a reason. If, while the cleric is focused on the threat posed by chest, the door they're standing next to turns out to be a mimic and attacks them, I'd be totally fine with the cleric being surprised.

That's not how Surprise works. If you notice a threat, you're not surprised. In the example described in the OP, however, no threat was detected, thus the cleric's attempt to verify their suspicions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Every object in a dungeon might be a mimic. That doesn't make you immune to surprise!


That's not how Surprise works. If you notice a threat, you're not surprised. In the example described in the OP, however, no threat was detected, thus the cleric's attempt to verify their suspicions.

This is just silly. The cleric suspects that the chest is a mimic, and takes an action to check. Of course they won't be surprised if it turns out their suspicions were correct!

 

[Maxperson]

If the cleric had noticed it was a mimic, they wouldn't need to test whether it was a creature or not,

But the cleric has no such knowledge. As far as they know, it's just an ordinary chest.

It doesn't matter if the cleric knows or not, the cleric was suspicious of it and was aware that it could be a danger. There's no way for that chest to get surprise on the cleric while the cleric is suspicious and testing it like that.

This a like a player saying their character can never be surprised because they're in a dungeon and expect danger around every corner. You can't possibly be serious.

This is a False Equivalence. Seeing a chest and being explicitly suspicious of it isn't the same as being unaware that something is around the corner. Even if being alert, something sneaking up on you can surprise you. The two situations are not the same.

 

[Xetheral]

Every object in a dungeon might be a mimic. That doesn't make you immune to surprise!

Of course general awareness that any object might be a mimic doesn't make you immune to surprise (even from mimics!). But taking unusual precautions against a specific object being a mimic shows that the character must be aware of the threat posed by that object.

That's not how Surprise works. If you notice a threat, you're not surprised. In the example described in the OP, however, no threat was detected, thus the cleric's attempt to verify their suspicions.

The rules are written that way so that a character who notices one or more (but not all) of the members of an attacking force still gets their action on the first round of combat. They noticed (some of) the threat and so they can act against the threat they noticed, even if they didn't see all the sources of that threat.

In my opinion, however, there is no reason to extend that rule to mean that characters who are wrong about the source of a threat are immune to surprise from completely separate threats. For example, I wouldn't extend the rule to mean that guards escorting a hostile prisoner are immune to surprise from an outside threat that they failed to perceive. Similarly, the PCs can not render themselves immune to surprise by capturing a monster and making it go first down the hallway, even though they are immune to surprise from the threat posed by that monster.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course general awareness that any object might be a mimic doesn't make you immune to surprise (even from mimics!). But taking unusual precautions against a specific object being a mimic shows that the character must be aware of the threat posed by that object.

This language is too strong. It's not that the cleric is aware of the threat, because he can't be. He doesn't know it's a mimic. It does show that he's suspicious that it could be a threat, which is enough to make him aware enough to avoid surprise. Let's say the cleric walked into the next room and there was another chest(this one normal) and he became suspicious again. Is he aware of a threat even though it's a normal chest? No.

You and I are on the same page, but I think you're a bit too far along.

In my opinion, however, there is no reason to extend that rule to mean that characters who are wrong about the source of a threat are immune to surprise from completely separate threats. For example, I wouldn't extend the rule to mean that guards escorting a hostile prisoner are immune to surprise from an outside threat that they failed to perceive.

I agree with this.

 

[Xetheral]

This language is too strong. It's not that the cleric is aware of the threat, because he can't be. He doesn't know it's a mimic. It does show that he's suspicious that it could be a threat, which is enough to make him aware enough to avoid surprise. Let's say the cleric walked into the next room and there was another chest(this one normal) and he became suspicious again. Is he aware of a threat even though it's a normal chest? No.

You and I are on the same page, but I think you're a bit too far along.

Interesting! I think we may just have different conceptions of what it means to be "aware of a threat". From my standpoint, if one is sufficiently aware of a specific threat to be taking particularized precautions against that specific threat, that's enough to qualify as "aware" of that threat (even if it turns out later that they were wrong and the threat they were aware of wasn't realized). It sounds like you require more certainty and/or objective accuracy before you're willing to categorize someone as "aware" of a threat.

But yeah, since we'd run the situation the same way the differences in how we'd describe the situation are academic.