D&D 5E Toll the Chest

[Hriston]

Sure it plausible. Plausible =/= likely. It's plausible that the ground will open up into a sinkhole swallowing the party, that doesn't make the ground a threat.

It does if you count potential threats.

This is a true dichotomy. Either the noticed creature in question is a threat before combat or it isn't. If entering combat is what determines if it's a threat, then it's impossible to fail to be surprised unless threat = potential threat. If it's a "threat" before hand, then it needs to meet the threshold of "likely" since that's the definition you provided or it's not a threat and you again have the above problem of automatically being surprised if combat happens.

It's 100% certain to be a threat because it is a participant in the first round of combat.

The simplest and most accurate reading is that threat = potential threat. Then it doesn't matter if the creature is likely to attack or not, it's still noticed and an attack won't cause surprise.

If noticing every potential threat prevented surprise, then no one would ever be surprised. I don't believe this is actually how you run the game.

The cleric was still on guard for danger from the chest and was impossible to surprise by RAW. If I were in your game and I was surprised after being on my guard specifically for the chest to be trapped or a mimic, I'd get up and walk out. Invalidating my agency isn't something that I tolerate.

There's nothing in the rules that says expecting danger from something makes you impossible to surprise.

Sure.

His choice is entirely irrelevant to this one situation. The mimic has a special ability that is stronger than a low level cleric, even one trained in perception. People trained in perception and with a good wisdom are fairly common. The mimic species would have been wiped out long ago if it relied on a +5 stealth for survival. They're already a rare creature.

I think you're trying to make the ability stronger than it is as presented in both the stat-block and the lore.

That just shows another way that the designers screwed up CR. The ability makes them more challenging, so it increases the challenge whether they've typed in a number or not. CR is I think the single biggest challenge to WotC. They've yet to get it anywhere close to right.

And yet they designed this game, not you.

And the cleric was aware of a "threat" or was at least treating the chest as a threat. Treating the chest as a threat = noticing a threat. You can't, as in it's impossible, to treat something as a threat that could kill you at any moment, and then be surprised when it does.

As I said above, if a DM negated my agency like that, I'd walk out of the game and wouldn't return. It's utter nonsense to surprise the cleric under those circumstances.

Adventurers are constantly treating everything as if it was a threat. This is not a good reason to not use the rules for surprise.

 

[Maxperson]

It does if you count potential threats.

This is false. A potential threat can be very unlikely to result in any sort of attack. For you to be right, you have to accept that unlikely = likely and we know that's wrong.

It's 100% certain to be a threat because it is a participant in the first round of combat.

This is wrong. The troll doesn't retroactively become a threat before combat just because you attack it.

If noticing every potential threat prevented surprise, then no one would ever be surprised. I don't believe this is actually how you run the game.

If they notice the potential threat before combat, they will almost never be surprised. Exceptions do exist, but are rare and don't include looking at a chest, reading for anything and being surprised when the chest moves.

There's nothing in the rules that says expecting danger from something makes you impossible to surprise.

No. That's just logic and common sense. The rules are silent on it, so I have logic and common sense win out.

And yet they designed this game, not you.

And that makes them perfect?

 

[Hriston]

This is false. A potential threat can be very unlikely to result in any sort of attack. For you to be right, you have to accept that unlikely = likely and we know that's wrong.

Thus the word if. I'm not the one advocating for noticing potential threats having anything to do with determining surprise.

This is wrong. The troll doesn't retroactively become a threat before combat just because you attack it.

You don't determine surprise before combat.

If they notice the potential threat before combat, they will almost never be surprised. Exceptions do exist, but are rare and don't include looking at a chest, reading for anything and being surprised when the chest moves.

Right, so if I notice the ground, then I can't be surprised because it might open up and swallow the party. Right?

No. That's just logic and common sense. The rules are silent on it, so I have logic and common sense win out.

Your claim was that the cleric "was impossible to surprise by RAW" due to being "still on guard for danger from the chest". You're correct that this claim was false and that the rules are silent on such a factor being useful for determining surprise. The only factors listed in the rules are:

(1) Was either side trying to be stealthy? and, if so,​

(2) Did any participant not notice a participant on the opposing side?​

If so, then that participant is surprised. We disagree about whether (1) pertains to the scenario. You have yet to show how, if the mimic was not trying to be stealthy, the party is not aware that a creature is less than 15 feet away from them. Keep in mind the DM hasn't told the players they have any such awareness. It's hidden information. Why?

And that makes them perfect?

No. We're discussing the game they designed, not the game you would like for them to have designed.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't determine surprise before combat.

Correct. You only determine if you noticed the threat before combat. The first step is to figure out surprise and you can only do that if you have ALREADY noticed the threat.

Right, so if I notice the ground, then I can't be surprised because it might open up and swallow the party. Right?

If you are expecting the ground to open up, you are correct.

Your claim was that the cleric "was impossible to surprise by RAW" due to being "still on guard for danger from the chest".

He is on guard against the chest specifically, which by RAW makes him impossible to surprise by the chest. Similar to the example above where if the cleric was on guard for the ground to open up under him, such an opening would not surprise him.

You are also confusing what you said which was, "There's nothing in the rules that says expecting danger from something makes you impossible to surprise." with what I said which was, "If you are on guard against danger from a specific thing, that thing cannot surprise you." What I said is different from what you said. You have repeatedly tried to Strawman my position into some general "Always alert to danger" thing and been rebuffed by me every time.

No. We're discussing the game they designed, not the game you would like for them to have designed.

And my statement holds true regardless of the game they designed. If you trivialize the mimic's ability the way you want it to be trivialized, you are making it an easier encounter. A significant part of the mimic's challenge comes from that ability. That's a fact regardless of what the CR guidelines say. The challenge difference is reality and reality doesn't change because of words on paper saying that it ain't so.

 

[Hriston]

Correct. You only determine if you noticed the threat before combat. The first step is to figure out surprise and you can only do that if you have ALREADY noticed the threat.

Yes, that's correct. So what? In the example, the DM describes that the party notices a troll. Then the players declare an action to attack the troll. The DM then decides the troll will fight back, so the combat rules are used, and the DM first determines if anyone is surprised. Since the party had already noticed the troll, then no, they are not surprised when combat starts. Simple.

If you are expecting the ground to open up, you are correct.

Okay, serious question then. Assuming this is how you actually play, why wouldn't everyone who plays with you always state their characters are expecting some specific thing in the environment to prove dangerous in some specific way? Is there some cost involved?

He is on guard against the chest specifically, which by RAW makes him impossible to surprise by the chest. Similar to the example above where if the cleric was on guard for the ground to open up under him, such an opening would not surprise him.

You are also confusing what you said which was, "There's nothing in the rules that says expecting danger from something makes you impossible to surprise." with what I said which was, "If you are on guard against danger from a specific thing, that thing cannot surprise you." What I said is different from what you said. You have repeatedly tried to Strawman my position into some general "Always alert to danger" thing and been rebuffed by me every time.

Seriously? You're taking issue with the difference between something and a specific thing? Okay, I'll repeat what I said using your approved word choice to avoid any misunderstanding about what I actually mean. There's nothing in the rules that says expecting danger from a specific thing makes you impossible to surprise. Nothing.

And my statement holds true regardless of the game they designed. If you trivialize the mimic's ability the way you want it to be trivialized, you are making it an easier encounter. A significant part of the mimic's challenge comes from that ability. That's a fact regardless of what the CR guidelines say. The challenge difference is reality and reality doesn't change because of words on paper saying that it ain't so.

I'll let the statements of the game designers in the core rulebooks inform me of the realities of the game, thank you.

 

[Maxperson]

In the example, the DM describes that the party notices a troll. Then the players declare an action to attack the troll. The DM then decides the troll will fight back, so the combat rules are used, and the DM first determines if anyone is surprised.

Let's unpack that.

1. The party notices a peaceful troll. It is not a threat since it is not likely to cause harm to the party.
2. The party declares an action to attack the troll, forcing it to become a threat in that moment that combat begins.
3. The DM has to determine surprise. Per the rules, the party has to have already noticed a threat in order to not be surprised surprised by it. There was no threat to notice prior to the beginning of combat, so the party is surprised by the now threatening troll.

This is what happens if we follow your set-up and only use threat as the criteria for surprise. In order for the surprise rules to function, threat has to include potential threats like the peaceful troll above.

Okay, serious question then. Assuming this is how you actually play, why wouldn't everyone who plays with you always state their characters are expecting some specific thing in the environment to prove dangerous in some specific way? Is there some cost involved?

Because it doesn't work. I run my games so that a threat you don't notice can surprise you, like RAW states. Even if you are expecting the wall to attack you, the cloaker on the ceiling that you didn't notice will surprise you.

In addition to RAW, I also allow a threat you don't notice when combat begins to surprise you, even if there are other threats that you do notice.

Seriously? You're taking issue with the difference between something and a specific thing?

How could I not take an issue with someone conflating everything with one specific thing? They are vastly different things.

There's nothing in the rules that says expecting danger from a specific thing makes you impossible to surprise. Nothing.

Yes there is. It's called being aware of the threat or potential threat.

What isn't in the rules is the requirement you are adding to know exactly what the threat is. You have yet to show that you have to know that the chest is a mimic in order to not be surprised by your awareness of the potential threat that a chest poses.

I'll let the statements of the game designers in the core rulebooks inform me of the realities of the game, thank you.

That's silly. They get things wrong all the time. It's indisputable that a mimic that is unnoticed and gains surprise is a greater challenge than one you know about well before you get to it due to a successful perception check. You should look at reality yourself and make your own determinations of what reality is, not rely on game designers to tell you what it is.

 

[iserith]

I think that, per the rules, the DM determines who might be surprised. Normally, this is because one side and/or the other is trying to be stealthy. The False Appearance trait creates an exception to this in that you can be staring right at the mimic in chest form and it can still surprise you. When the outcome of trying to surprise something is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, then the DM calls for or makes an ability check to resolve it.

The question then becomes whether the cleric in the original example can be surprised, given that they suspect the the chest is a mimic. That is for an individual DM to decide, per the rules, and reasonable people can disagree whether it's appropriate to rule they are surprised, aren't surprised, or whether an ability check is called for. One would hope that, whatever is decided, it is reasonably consistent in the context of that particular game so the players can make informed decisions.

 

[Imaculata]

The question then becomes whether the cleric in the original example can be surprised, given that they suspect the the chest is a mimic. That is for an individual DM to decide, per the rules, and reasonable people can disagree whether it's appropriate to rule they are surprised, aren't surprised, or whether an ability check is called for. One would hope that, whatever is decided, it is reasonably consistent in the context of that particular game so the players can make informed decisions.

Towards what ruling would you yourself lean?

 

[iserith]

Towards what ruling would you yourself lean?

Given that I know the context of this situation exactly, I would say no chance at surprise for anyone as nobody was engaged in any activities other than staying alert to danger and we - filthy metagamers all - suspected that the chest was a mimic. That's effectively what the DM did in play.

As a player, I would be okay with the DM still rolling to determine surprise, particularly if the mimic made its saving throw against the spell and we subsequently just treated it as a chest. To me that's a fine ruling of the False Appearance trait.

 

[Hussar]

Okay, serious question then. Assuming this is how you actually play, why wouldn't everyone who plays with you always state their characters are expecting some specific thing in the environment to prove dangerous in some specific way? Is there some cost involved?

Serious answer.

"I'm on the lookout for danger" should make you harder to surprise. If someone is deliberately being careful and cautious, then, sure, they shouldn't be surprised as easily. But, D&D doesn't really have rules for that. It's like a lot of things in the game, all or nothing. So, the party is surprised, or they aren't. So, a cautious party, proceeding cautiously, in a dangerous situation, should very rarely be surprised unless the bad guys are being particularly stealthy and setting up the ambush.

Standing in the middle of an empty room, pretending to be a box is not particularly stealthy.