D&D 5E Unarmored Defense and Surprise

[Redbadge]

Does the removal of Dexterity during a surprise round apply to all classes and creatures, say an allied wizard or enemy mage (unarmored and whose only defense comes from say a 14 Dexterity)? In that case your rule change will not just effect those with Unarmored Defense and similar, but everyone with a positive Dex modifier wearing less than heavy armor.

That is unless your position is that characters that have the training and expertise represented by Unarmored Defenses are somehow at a disadvantage in a surprise situation compared to those without such training and expertise.

 

[Cernor]

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).

Wait, really? At the same point the Wizard can Disintegrate people, or Chain Lightning, or the Druid can Wind Walk, and you have problems with the Ranger (already one of the weaker classes) losing their only standout ability? That seems... Harsh. Incredibly so if you don't provide alternate benefits. Not to mention that an 11th-level Fighter can already fire three attacks per round, so limiting the Ranger's Volley makes them essentially a Fighter-lite.

With those rules in place, I'd expect the party would consist of one martial (fighter or rogue), and the rest casters: since martials are prone to nerfing to the ground at any moment whereas casters seem to be left mostly untouched.

 

[Yunru]

With those rules in place, I'd expect the party would consist of one martial (fighter or rogue), and the rest casters: since martials are prone to nerfing to the ground at any moment whereas casters seem to be left mostly untouched.

The former will be a Paladin because of the latter. More likely though is the party will consist of a tumbleweed.

 

[jasper]

The Barbarian and the Monk both have Unarmored Defense. The inclusion of DEX in the formula to calculate Unarmored Defense strongly implies to me that the word "defense" is meant in the active sense, as in "I am taking steps to evade an attack that I am aware of."

Were a character with Unarmored Defense to be the subject of a surprise attack, would their AC still benefit from the class feature?

I have a player that says "Yes," while my own instinct is to say, "No." It brings to mind the idea of being flat-footed, from previous editions of the game.

Unarmored Defense is not the same as Natural Armor. Its very name implies to me that the beneficiary of the class feature is defending him- or herself.

You have to remember 'Defense' can mean many things. Like the dictionary definition. The legal definition. Or the game jargon definition. Change Unarmed defense to Unnatural armour. But if you go with your other rule changes, I would demand they be prewritten down before I started gaming with you as dm.

 

[Cernor]

The former will be a Paladin because of the latter. More likely though is the party will consist of a tumbleweed.

Unless the Paladins are held too strictly to their oaths, or regularly put in situations where they have no choice but to Fall. Considering (seemingly) reasonable players were called "pedantic", I'd be inclined to believe that would be the case.

"You didn't give money to that beggar, enjoy the Fall."
"You didn't slaughter that devil on sight, enjoy the Fall."
"You didn't stop the Rogue from stealing that item, enjoy the Fall."
"You said a no-no word, enjoy the Fall."
... And so on.

 

[Sage Genesis]

It seems to me there's some conflicting priorities going around.

On the one hand, a desire for realism. Or verisimilitude or whatever it's called this week. People, in a surprise situation, ought not to be able to dodge as well as in normal situations. Then again there's something to be said for the Monk and the Barbarian being both at least quasi-supernatural, so even though the desire is understandable, in this particular instance its applicability is a little weak.

Then there's game balance. This is not an untested UA article we're talking about or a simple ruling about an open norm, it's a houserule that nerfs a class feature. Those features were designed, put in, and worded as they are for a reason. Simply brushing their design aside as a "mistake" (as opposed to simply not being to your liking) is quite a claim.

There's also security to consider. For all the insistence that a player ought to be "flexible", it's difficult to maintain enthusiasm for a game where class abilities get nerfed with houserules after the game has already begun. Especially when the justification isn't game balance or official errata, but simply the DM's whims for realism... when that realism is somewhat questionable, as mentioned earlier. (And as an aside, I bet that Wizards never ever have to deal with a nerf like this at the OP's table. Wizard-magic is immune to common sense, whereas Monk-magic somehow isn't.)



Canucksaram, I don't know you or your players. But given that someone is going to dislike this issue, no matter the outcome, why not make your case to the player and let them decide? Why do they have to be flexible to accommodate you, when it could also be the other way around?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Advantage still applies to surprise attacks.

Just noticed this.

It's a common misconception, but surprise does not grant advantage per the rules. It simply denies surprised creatures the ability to act on their first turn, and the ability to use reactions until after their first turn.

Surprise is not so much catching an opponent unaware, as it is catching them momentarily unprepared to act.

Hidden is the status which grants advantage on attacks (and indicates that your enemy is unaware of your current position).

Of course, hidden creatures are likely to surprise anyone who doesn't expect their presence, so it is possible to get the benefits of both.

 

[canucksaram]

Canucksaram, I don't know you or your players. But given that someone is going to dislike this issue, no matter the outcome, who not make your case to the player and let them decide? Why do they have to be flexible to accommodate you, when it could also be the other way around?

Versimiltude is a good word. I've also used the term suspension of disbelief, rather than a wholesale breaking of it. I've addressed the flavor origin of an unarmored defense. I've also stated that inasmuch as it's a game of magic and adventure, some folks like a more grounded playstyle. Obviously, I'm one of them. Does all of that seem like whim?

I also stated what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rulings like this cut all ways, which should not have to be stated. Why some folks resort to being asinine is lamentable.

As for having to be informed of a lawyer's list of house rules before you play a game...no. If you want to play a pure vanilla D&D game, go ahead. I like to use the game's rules as a starting point with the understanding that rulings favoring suspension of disbelief (i.e., versimilitude) precede any rules that break disbelief. Who decides when a break occurs? The DM.

 

[Blue]

Yes.

As funny as it sound, a creature retain his AC bonus (including Dexterity) even while unconscious! Like pukuni said 5E instead grant advantage on the attack roll against you.

While true, if you have the unconscious condition not only to they have advantage but it's an auto-crit, and you auto-fail dex and str saves. It's not minimal.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Funny where is the versimilitude when creatures is hit by a axe repeatedly and continue moving as fast and wake up the next morning as if nothing?


D&D is not the best game for realism emulation if you ask me.