D&D 5E Unarmored Defense and Surprise

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks for the input, folks.

I'm going with my gut, nonetheless: Rulings, not rules, and as such AC derived from Unarmored Defense (and ability scores/similar sources) is dependent upon one's ability to use their reaction as a part of self-defense.

Natural Armor and worn armor do not require one to use their reaction as a part of self-defense.

Advantage still applies to surprise attacks.

This goes for the goose as well as the gander.

Official 5E may have done away with flat-footed but that was a mistake, in my view.

This goes beyond the scope of a ruling since the rules are pretty clear on the matter. It's a house rule, which is the kind of thing that ought to be stated before a campaign starts (because it does change the balance of certain classes). For example, it basically makes Alert a feat tax for classes like the monk, unless the monk player likes the idea of getting annihilated during a surprise round.

The monk is a supernatural class. It isn't hard to imagine that even when they can't see an attack coming they can still perceive the attack at the last moment via sixth sense and try to twist out of the way. That's a staple of the martial arts movies the monk is based on.

 

[Yunru]

Fine by me. If a player wants to be a rules pedant rather than a flexible player, well...that's a style of game play I can do without.

Sounds to me it's more like a DM that's pedantic and not flexible, rather than the player. That's a style of DMing that any player can do without.

The rules are a guide to how things work in most situations, most of the time. Common sense has a place, too, thus the need for DM adjudication. Rulings, not rules...suspension of disbelief, not total disregard for disbelief.

And your rules fails on all counts.
The Barbarian's Unarmored Defense, for example, comes from being just that tough. That's not something that just goes away. Common sense test? Failed.
The Monk's Unarmored Defense works off of their mystical nature. Disregard for disbelief test? Failed.

Against the sleeping person case, you're right, but not the way you think you are. Unconscious means auto-hit, and sleeping people are unconscious.
Ignoring that, you call for dice rolls when an outcome is uncertain, and hitting a sleeping person isn't uncertain.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fanaelialae]

Against the sleeping person case, you're right, but not the way you think you are. Unconscious means auto-hit, and sleeping people are unconscious.
Ignoring that, you call for dice rolls when an outcome is uncertain, and hitting a sleeping person isn't uncertain.

Sorry to nit pick, but that's technically incorrect.

While a sleeping target is unconscious, unconsciousness grants advantage to hit and auto-crit on hit.

I would allow an auto-hit under the right circumstances, such as an assassin murdering a sleeping victim, but it probably shouldn't work that way in combat (where his efforts to slit an unconscious character's throat might be somewhat hampered by that character's barbarian ally swinging a giant axe at the assassin's head).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Maybe add a Coup De Grace action that auto-hits an incapacitated target but provokes opportunity attacks from both melee and ranged attackers (because you're lowering your defenses to take the time to carefully finish off the opponent rather than just taking a quick stab).

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yeah being paralysed or unconscious is not an auto-hit automatically for attack at least. Anyway i was just saying that the rules handle bonus denial differently than it used to, by instead advantaging the attacker that's all.

I'm going with my gut, nonetheless: Rulings, not rules, and as such AC derived from Unarmored Defense (and ability scores/similar sources) is dependent upon one's ability to use their reaction as a part of self-defense.

Contrary to what you may think, Unarmed Defense is not dependant upon one's ability to use its reaction. When such ability does, it specifically say so.

As a DM you can always deny it but it's not a ruling in this case, it's a houserule, and an unpopular one at that.

 

[canucksaram]

My term "common sense" is meant as "rulings, not rules...suspension of disbelief, not total disregard for disbelief."

Another example: A Ranger's 11th level class feature Volley: If the player were using a crossbow and wanted to use this ability, I'd say no. A combat round isn't long enough to do this, notwithstanding the fact that it's a game with magic and fairies and dragons and such. Suspension of disbelief, not total disregard for it. Thrown knives? Sure. Arrows from a bow? Sure. I'd go further re: arrows and limit the number of targets to the character's Proficiency Bonus (in this case, 4).

As for one's mystical nature or inherent toughness being the basis for Unarmored Defense, I disagree with sourcing them so. There was a need to model the ability of a Conan-esque "barbarian" to wear little to no armor in a fight and still be effective (ditto for a monk or "martial artist"), thus the class feature of Unarmored Defense. It allows for a character to have little to no armor and maintain unimpeded stealth and athleticism because of that lack of encumbrance, along with combat effectiveness in spite of not wearing armor. The class feature was never intended to be a super-defense--and if it was, that was a mistake from the get-go.

 

[Yunru]

As for one's mystical nature or inherent toughness being the basis for Unarmored Defense, I disagree with sourcing them so. There was a need to model the ability of a Conan-esque "barbarian" to wear little to no armor in a fight and still be effective (ditto for a monk or "martial artist"), thus the class feature of Unarmored Defense. It allows for a character to have little to no armor and maintain unimpeded stealth and athleticism because of that lack of encumbrance, along with combat effectiveness in spite of not wearing armor. The class feature was never intended to be a super-defense--and if it was, that was a mistake from the get-go.

Your sure it's the player that's being a pendant rather than flexible, and that the group is better off without?

 

[The_Hanged_Man]

Fine by me. If a player wants to be a rules pedant rather than a flexible player, well...that's a style of game play I can do without.

Well, your player (and the majority of posters here) thinks otherwise. My suggestion is to have a conversation at the table on how they want to roll with the rule. If your table prefers to keep Dex RAW and you overrule them, then they are not the ones being inflexible.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*