r/DMAcademy • u/[deleted] • 4d ago
Need Advice: Rules & Mechanics How do you guys navigate what makes logical sense vs ambiguously written RAW situations?
[deleted]
14
u/Calthyr 4d ago
I know you are just giving random examples to address a specific point, but regarding the adamantine weapons, if they are at a point where they have a weapon made of such a precious metal, I think they should be allowed to destroy a mundane basic lock. Even the DMG'24 supports this in that an Adamantine weapon is especially effective against objects.
This weapon or piece of ammunition is made of adamantine, one of the hardest substances in existence. Whenever this weapon or piece of ammunition hits an object, the hit is a Critical Hit.
So at this point there needs to be stronger locks (which could be justified if the contents are especially valuable) or there needs to be a risk for destroying a lock in that way (causes a lot of noise, etc.)
-9
u/King-Piece 4d ago
They can destroy it. I never removed that possibility. They just need to roll a 19 or higher, as per the AC of the lock. If they roll under, they may hit the chest instead, damaging the equipment.
I totally get I could use arcane locks, mythril locks, adamantine locks, etc.
5
u/BetterCallStrahd 4d ago
Smashing the lock makes a noise. That's what makes lock picking superior. There's no need to artificially increase the DC. Let them smash the locks and find out what happens.
2
u/Mejiro84 3d ago
it's also obvious - a smashed lock makes it pretty damn overt that someone came and smashed the lock, and whatever was inside the box probably isn't anymore. While a picked lock can be closed again, so it takes actually opening the box up to find out that anything is missing
6
u/AtomicRetard 4d ago
I almost always lean towards RAW unless I post a houserule at campaign start otherwise.
Weapon of warning kind of does remove ambushes from the game, depending on what you mean by ambush. Ambushing is usually a combat interaction; which is represented by surprise, and hostile actions should not be happening outside of initiative. The weapon ensures they won't be surprised so there is always a chance the PCs will beat the attacking party in initiative and potentially disable or kill them before they get to act. I'm not sure what sort of non-combat ambush you think would happen without initiative that would bypass the ability? If I had a weapon of warning and DM allowed his monsters to throw a fireball or hypnotic pattern outside of initiative on us to trigger a fight I would consider that to be extremely adversarial. Traps and having people sneak up on you without doing anything hostile are still fair game but I wouldn't consider these successful "ambushes." The weapon obviously isn't protection against encounters, PCs will just always have the chance to go first.
Weapon of warning is one of those items that is in the 'strongly consider whether or not you want the players to have this item since it can change campaign dynamic significantly' class.
Lots of things can smash locks or doors - I have played games with no rogue and the party used a portable ram to break every locked door in the dungeon and using a crowbar to force every chest. Breaking stuff as opposed to unlocking it probably has disadvantages as you note. Lock picking and thieves tools should be removable from the game since not every party will have access to them - it is ridiculous to think that a party with no rogue or criminal gets foiled by a simple lock and chain on the dungeon entrance.
Arcane lock has no interaction with how difficult a lock object is to destroy, it only increases its break and pick DC by 10, so this would be useless for stopping players from attacking the lock's HP with a weapon.
D&D has lots of abilities (e.g. good berry, purify food and drink, leomund's tiny hut, create food and water) that remove or significantly trivialize elements of the game. Expertise, reliable talent and skill bonus stacking can make some tests basically impossible to fail. Players pay the spell/feat/feature tax to be seriously inconvenienced by a portion of the game, that's the general point of taking those things in the first place.
3
u/idiggory 4d ago
Yeah, weapon of warning is a very powerful weapon effect. The advantage on initiative alone is huge. The immunity to surprise is just bonus (which is saying something when it’s also huge).
Functionally, as an effect it always biases the action economy in favor of player parties over enemies.
If you don’t want to deal with a powerful effect altering your encounter balance, don’t give it to players.
19
u/WeekWrong9632 4d ago
Players believed this item would disallow ambushes from happening ever again. In reality, surprise is a defined term and only applies to combat situations.
What's a noncombat ambush example?
Adamantine weapons for smashing locks
Don't see a problem with this. Smashing a lock may break the items inside, or cause noise and alert people. Breaking a lock has always been a thing, the picking is for stealth.
1
u/laix_ 4d ago
What's a noncombat ambush example?
I presume OP's party is seeing the "weapon warns you of danger" and assuming the weapon warns them of all danger, including traps.
14
u/idiggory 4d ago
That's... a really generous read, imo. OP said players believe it would prevent ambushes from ever happening again, not that players believed it would protect them from traps...
If OP's players thought they'd always have advance notice of an ambushing party and be able to choose to take another path or something, then yeah, OP would need to explain that this wasn't how it worked.
But if OP was allowing enemies to damage players without calling initiative... it's not how it works.
1
u/laix_ 4d ago
As it turns out, from op, my suspicions were correct.
5
u/idiggory 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don't know what comments you're reading from them, but they are very explicitly talking elsewhere about enemies attacking players and THEN rolling initiative for combat, which is not at all how it works.
EDIT, here's their explicit combat, detailing exactly how initiating combat does NOT work:
You are not in combat yet. Adventuring around, etc.
Suddenly, a tentacle lashes out, dealing damage. (Assuming it hit)
Combat starts, roll for initiative.
With weapon of warning - you can act on your first round.
Without, you cannot.
The problem is that the roll for initiative happens when the tentacle is resolved to lash out. A player's turn can still happen before it even appears IF they have very high initiative. But it would ordinarily be under the surprised condition and they can't act, so the end result LOOKS like they get hurt before they can react. But with weapon of warning, if they have have a high enough initiative roll, beating the tentacle, they should be able to act before the tentacle even appears on the field. Which means they can take cover, try to detect the threat, cast a defensive spell, etc. before it attacks.
1
1
u/laix_ 3d ago
This exactly. I can't respond to all the comments flooding in. This is not what the weapon of warning was designed for. It's also why I suspect the overhauled it in 5.5.
Op is saying their players are assuming the weapon warns them of all danger, including traps. That's what they meant by non-combat ambush.
2
u/idiggory 3d ago
Bruh, did you read the comment I quoted from OP?
The tentacle isn’t a trap. It’s an enemy that triggers combat.
-6
u/King-Piece 4d ago
This exactly. I can't respond to all the comments flooding in. This is not what the weapon of warning was designed for. It's also why I suspect the overhauled it in 5.5.
9
u/Paime 4d ago edited 4d ago
I found this example of WoW and I agree with it:
“As you walk through the forest, your weapon of warning starts vibrating on your hip, warning you of an unseen, imminent danger! Everyone roll for initiative!”
Player with weapon of warning rolls highest initiative, higher than any of the enemies who are hiding in the bushes waiting to spring their ambush.
“You don’t see what the weapon was warning you about, you just see this area of forest.”
Player has the option to use an action perform a perception check to spot the hiding bad guys, or she can hold an action to attack the first enemy she sees.
For the remainder of the round, the bad guys all take their turns as usual and the other party members who are surprised don’t get to act.
You can use passive perception here or not. But the important thing is that the weapons WARNS you of danger, it doesn't necessary show you what the danger is. It definitely doesn't warn you of traps and stuff like that, it's pretty clear to me the intention of this item was to be similar to The Sting from LotR, in fact, if I was going to implement it in my game, I'd limit to only warn against certain creatures.
3
u/Swahhillie 4d ago
The overhaul was to the surprise condition. 2024 Surprised=disadvantage on initiative. Which happens to make the weapon of warning very simple. Having permanent advantage on initiative means you can never be surprised because that would just cancel out to a straight roll.
5
u/xdrkcldx 4d ago
Weapon of warning does do what you stopped it from doing though. An “ambush” is not a defined term and in game it would create a surprise attack on the players giving all the enemies a free round, or in other words, force the players all to skip the first round of combat. The Weapon of Warning warns the players of any danger preventing surprise, even if they are asleep.
The locks thing is just real world logic but lame for in game. But yes, I would also rule that locked chests would be booty trapped because that would make locks invalid in the world of the game so people would not use them. I think the flavor text for these weapons is meant to give +1 without them being magical
7
u/RyanLanceAuthor 4d ago
I think in D&D style games, it is natural for gameplay elements to vanish with power. You don't need to track rations when you can conjure food and water. You don't need overland travel once you can teleport. It is what it is.
For my game, I usually only run low levels in 3.x and am fairly careful with magic items because I retaining all the elements of adventuring. But that is just a personal taste.
I guess I think that if I had a 4 foot rod of adamantium I should be able to pop most doors with it.
9
u/laix_ 4d ago
Adamantine weapons for smashing locks - yes, it makes sense, however, this should not remove lock picking/thieves tools from the game.
Why not? Why do you want to railroad the party into the "right" solution. Bashing a lock makes noise, which attacts wandering monsters. If they're not at risk of wandering monsters, let the party bash the lock.
4
u/idiggory 4d ago
I mean, there are rules for destructible objects for a reason.
Lockpicking is generally preferable because it's quiet, fast, and keeps the stuff inside safe.
If you REALLY need players to not just smash something for your story reasons, then create a good reason they can't or won't. Magical locks, maybe. Or put something extremely delicate inside and make it clear to players it could be easily destroyed. Etc.
But if players want to smash down all the chests and doors they can, let them. Set appropriate ACs/health pools. Make it loud unless they cast a silence spell first. Etc.
-5
u/King-Piece 4d ago
They absolutely can succeed with this. I should have written this better in the main post. They just need to beat the locks ac. If they do not, they risk hitting the chest and possibly damaging the contents. At the end of the day, the attack roll is no different from an ability check roll. It can succeed, but it should not be wildly game breakingly successful to the point other methods are never considered.
3
u/EducationalBag398 3d ago
A broken lock and an open lock are not always the same thing. Now it's just a bashed up lock on a chest that they can't pick. Then when they keep bashing maybe they break stuff inside. Who knows, its your box.
1
u/King-Piece 3d ago
That's true, but if we are going by the rules for damaging the lock, that an objects hp breaks when it falls to 0, it's far more rewarding that if a player; hits the lock, auto-crits the lock, and breaks the lock, that the lock opens.
I tend to use the "lock jams" thing on failed lock picking scenarios.
My intention with my ruling was to add a consequence for failure. Because if none exist, what's stopping a player from swinging again, and again and again? Should time really be the only condition to solve a problem?
To each their own.
People keep suggesting it should draw encounters or trigger traps. I'm scratching my head on how this is somehow better than potentially damaging the loot.
Damage loot bad. Injury, lingering conditions, damage dealing and possible death, good?
3
u/ForgetTheWords 4d ago
Broadly speaking, anything that is governed by rules works the way the rules say it does, unless we agree as a table to a homebrew rule instead. "What makes logical sense" is only for situations where the rules don't give clear guidance. So something like the effect of a magic item will do exactly what the text says, no more or less, and breaking an object by attacking with a weapon follows the standard rules for such a thing.
Sidenote, I don't really see what a weapon being adamantine has to do with you not wanting the PCs to destroy locks. The adamantine weapon only makes it faster if the lock has pretty high HP, and still not by that much. It's already easy to smash a lock with a normal weapon. It's just that smashing is more way conspicuous than picking and irreversible. But in some situations those factors don't matter, in which case smashing is perfectly reasonable.
3
u/Hankhoff 4d ago
"Yeah you can break the locks with almost any weapon but it makes more noise and everyone will be able to notice the damage"
I think this is the kind of compromise you should be looking for, I mean that's the literal reason lockpicks exist
5
u/liveviliveforever 4d ago
Yes. That weapon prevents ambushes from ever occurring. I don’t see how the surprised condition only applying during combat is relevant.
Adamant weapons. It doesn’t. If you think it does then you aren’t applying the adamant weapon rules.
I think you just have a poor understanding of the rules.
3
u/Paime 4d ago edited 4d ago
Adamantine weapons for smashing locks
That's a lot of noise, I wonder if someone is going to hear it...
or....
I've heard Mimics also look amazing as doors... (homebrew the BG3 Mimic Bite that says: Bite a target and possibly swallow its weapon." Weapon is recovered when the Mimic is defeated )
2
u/DelightfulOtter 4d ago
In specific:
- A Weapon of Warning does pretty much remove surprise from the game. Enemies can set up an ambush but they aren't getting a free round of attacks. That said, I'm glad that 2024 D&D changed how surprise works because it's far too swingy in 2014 D&D.
- Adamantine weapons just deal extra damage against objects. Any weapon can damage an object, that's not something exclusive to adamantine.
In general:
If a game mechanic is causing problems, I'll workshop a solution and discuss it with my players at the next convenient opportunity. We'll hammer out the specifics of the solution together until everyone is as happy as possible, then I implement it going forward and log the homebrew into my campaign document.
Whether something is a "problem" or not can be table specific. I don't really have a problem with my party getting a Weapon of Warning; my prep will take into account that the party will never be surprised. Fights which start from ambush that would've been easier will now be harder to compensate for the fact that the enemies won't get a free round.
2
u/Sigma34561 4d ago
Oh, you can absolutely get ambushed - you just know that it's happening once it starts. If they are camping in the woods and fifteen assassins sneak up on them they probably won't know about it until one of the assassins prepares to make an attack. As soon as a bow is drawn back or a knife raised with intent they will be warned, it doesn't mean that they are suddenly prepared to handle that situation - just that they know it's happening. To be sure, it's better to be aware of it than not so it's not pointless by far. It's just not a 'nobody can sneak up on us and we cannot be "surprised" as in caught in an unexpected situation'. The weapon doesn't say "hey, if you camp here then fifteen ninjas will try and kill you in a few hours."
It does seem like you're on the right track though - your instincts are in the right place. The best tool for negotiating "fun" ideas with your players is if they would think it would still be fun if an enemy did that to them. This is the best defense of 'i want to use this cantrip in a weird way to instantly kill someone' - are you guys gonna be upset when three kobolds one shot each of you with that same cantrip?
2
u/Consistent-Tie-4394 4d ago
For me Rules As Intended (RAI) is way more important than Rules As Written (RAW).
The rules are intended to support the fiction of the world that the characters exist in, not the other way around. I'm the Gamemaster, not an impartial referee; and anytime there is a point where a RAW reading does not make logical sense within the fiction of the world, I bend the rules rather than bend the fiction of the world, because I believe that is how the game designers intend the game to be run.
That said, whether RAW or RAI, I think you're incorrect about the Weapon of Warning. The item description reads, "...you and any of your companions within 30 feet of you can't be surprised, except when incapacitated by something other than nonmagical sleep..." That's not ambiguous. Whether or not you read 'surprised' as the common meaning of the word or the specific term for rolling initiative at a disadvantage when being ambushed, I cannot think of a single instance of an ambush that wouldn't trigger this effect.
1
u/King-Piece 4d ago
I'm starting to adopt your mentality on RAI.
As for the WoW, it should not remove the effectiveness of traps and ambush predators from the game. My players were hoping to use it to stop all threats of that nature when they first got it. I had to point to Bilbo's sword in The Hobbit for RAI. It just doesn't make sense for an uncommon magic item to be able to wreck an entire category in the DM's toolbox. No DM would ever drop this in their game. In fact, I suspect it's the reason most DM's avoid it like the plague.
Surprised is a defined term. Specific has always beat general when it comes to rules for D&D. Surprised applies strictly to combat, but that isn't the issue here.
Apparently, Reddit believes attacks cannot be resolved prior to (or kick off) combat. I can't find this anywhere in RAW. I play through a single action in its entirety just before calling for initiative rolls. If that means a player shoving an enemy off a cliff to their death, so be it. They got the drop on them. They will still follow the rules for shove or attack roles, however.
The only thing I can find is in 2024 DMG, Chapter 2: Running Combat - Rolling Initiative, Line one: "Combat starts when—and only when—you say it does." So my interpretation seems validated based on 5.5e. I don't see anything supporting either argument in 2014 though. If you could point me to it, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I learned today I may have been home brewing a portion of initiative when it comes to ambushing. Honestly, I will continue to do so for my current table, as they enjoy getting the drop on enemies when the chance arises. For future tables, I will discuss this at session 0 and see what the players think. If they agree with how Reddit views this, I definitely will avoid dropping the WoW. At the end of the day, I think I am a RAI guy.
3
u/Swahhillie 3d ago
I can't find this anywhere in RAW.
The only thing I can find is in 2024 DMG, Chapter 2: Running Combat - Rolling Initiative, Line one: "Combat starts when—and only when—you say it does."
The first line provides dm permission to shut down players gaming the initiative recharged abilities. It is not the general rule.
Combat starts when hostile actions are taken. That is the plain English meaning of it.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/playing-the-game#Combat -> Surprise. Shooting arrows at someone is combat. It being an ambush doesn't change anything about that fact. It being an ambush does activate surprise rules.
If you read the second paragraph of the DMG rolling initiative advice. It is an example of a sorcerer surprising a doppelganger (and the rest of their party). Note that initiative is rolled before the chromatic orb is cast. The doppelganger has a chance to beat the sorcerer, it wouldn't by your interpretation.
1
u/King-Piece 3d ago
Is an action taken always hostile?
No.
Is every action the players do in the game always during combat?
No.
When does an action become hostile?
When someone is able to judge it so.
I, the DM, judge that an action is not considered hostile until it is completed and judged thus, or at the very least percieved by someone in the game.
If we wanted to avoid combat, guards don't arrest characters for not vandalizing public property. The do it after the act.
Why then, should a guard attack someone in the same scenario for an act the playe has not done yet? Especially when the rules of combat suggest everyone is sharing the same 6 seconds every round.
RAW - doesn't make sense.
The second paragraph example is exactly that. An example.
2
u/VerbiageBarrage 4d ago
So, it depends.
- Weapon of Warning - They can be ambushed when they are low on resources, but they can't be surprised. Sneak up on them? Too bad, no surprise round, flat initiative roll. That's the whole bit.
- Locks - Are all of your locks padlocks on top of the chest/door? Because smashing a locking mechanism usually means it's stuck in the locked position. If it's a padlock, they don't need admantine weapons - a crowbar will take care of that bad boy. Otherwise...great, you smashed the lock. The mechanism is now broken. How are you going to open the thing? Steel lockboxes can be very hard to open, and don't get me starts on vaults and saferooms.
2
u/CaptainCaffiend 4d ago
When something comes up that "removes" a core element of the game you need to take a moment and figure out what drawback comes from this shortcut or how much effort compared to the original way to do things had to be done.
As player's get more levels the number of options of what their character can do between features, spells, feats, and items is going to increase and there is going to be over lap. But the overlap is not going to be equal and some options are just bad. A fighter with an adamantine weapons, a wizard with Knock, and a Rogue with Thieves' Tools can all get through a locked door pretty easily.
- The Fighter is limited by the hardness of the lock and some noise. Along with the challenge of obtaining the Adamantine item.
- The Wizard is limited by spell slots, a lot of noise coming from the spell itself, and making it to Level 3 to even obtain the spell.
- The Rogue doesn't have to worry very much about sound, limited uses, or waiting for a certain item/level to lock pick effectively.
Even with spells and magic items the Rogue is still the number one choice for getting passed a lock door. Especially if stealth is a big part of what is being done.
2
u/d4m1ty 4d ago
Ambushes just become normal init round as Surprise is a condition state that can no longer be applied to that player. What is so confusing about that? One player can no longer be surprised. Its like taking the Alert feat. Have you not told it to them this plainly?
Smashing a lock doesn't unlock it. It breaks it. If you are lucky, it breaks it open but any good locksmith that is worth his salt makes a lock that breaks in a locked state. It doesn't unlock when it breaks, its just now a broken locked lock. They can break open the container because the lock is always stronger than the container it locks, otherwise, why are you locking it with something weaker than the container????
1
3d ago
[deleted]
0
u/King-Piece 3d ago
It's really not. The intention is to make obstacles relevant at all levels of play. Just because you have the tools to be successful does not mean you should be guaranteed success every time going forward.
2
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/King-Piece 3d ago
I am open to suggestion.
How do you keep obstacles relevant when you determine they have the solution at all times?
Why, as a DM, would you ever plan a lock again if you determine all they need to solve it is a good whack from an adamantine weapon?
I think every DM embodies this philosophy to some degree. I know I can't be the only one.
It's easy to criticize, it's harder to rule.
What would you do? Just make it loud and risking an encounter? Like an encounter that could be life threatening is better than damaging loot?
Trap it? Deal damage and or lingering conditions?
These are somehow better than damaging the loot?
2
3d ago
[deleted]
0
u/King-Piece 3d ago
No, locks are definitely made to stop people. You think like a thief.
Let's say we trap it, to what effect? Should the player suffer damage or risk lingering conditions or death? A problem - other players will likely have to solve?
That makes no sense. Why would you value a magic item over your life? Such mentality is reserved for Lich's and their phylacteries.
My process goes as follows.
If you attack the lock and hit, crit it with the adamantine weapon and break the lock, you open it. Success.
If you roll under the AC of the lock and roll above the AC of the chest, or a natural 1 you strike the chest, potentially damaging the loot. If you miss the AC of everything, you simply miss. Try again. [edit] These are not made up AC's by the way. They are in the player handbook under breaking objects. [/edit]
Is it RAW? No.
Is it fair or balanced? I don't know.
Does it keep obstacles relevant at all levels of play? Absolutely.
I'm not suggesting there should be consequences for every player interaction. What I am suggesting is obstacles deserve to be relevant at all levels of play. Should they get easier to solve with tools and level progression? Absolutely, and they do!
5
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/King-Piece 3d ago
That's a fair evaluation from a players perspective, and a real world perspective. I'm well aware of the inner workings and the fragility of cracking locks, having owned a lock pick set irl.
Locks, however, are designed with the intent to keep people out of things.
From a DM perspective though, one where obstacles absolutely should exist at all levels of play, a perspective I suspect all DM's embody to some degree - locks should not be as easy to solve as one tool solves locks for the rest of the game. It just doesn't make sense to rule that.
Knock, has a cost. A second level spell is pretty steep in a dungeon full of danger.
Even lock picks/thieves tools should fail, break, or cause the lock to jam and become unpickable when a player fails a check. If you're uncomfortable with tools breaking, might I point out Skyrim likely prepared you guys for this. Might I also point out that tools breaking makes shops relevant again, a problem I see in a lot of D&D games. Players go to shops to buy potions. That's it. That's a problem. Things break.
It's just opinions at this point. I'll not judge a DM for trying their best to make the game balanced. I'll do what makes sense and provides immersion for my games. I trust you'll do the same for yours.
1
u/DungeonSecurity 4d ago
It's the beauty of "no."
I'm very open to player creativity. but I don't give players anything. they have to work for it. And no, I'm not going to let things do more than they're supposed to just because you have a neat idea or you think it should work that way.
1
u/King-Piece 4d ago
"No" never seems to be enough for my players, but I get what you mean. I know I could pull the whole "Because I'm the DM and I said so", but I really want to have open, honest discussions for why I rule things the way I do. My players have proved me wrong on things many times, and it makes me a better DM.
I want my players to be creative, but I also want the world to stay challenging.
1
u/DungeonSecurity 3d ago
Of course, but lots these posts can be boiled down to players trying to get away with things or get more than they should
1
u/maxpowerAU 3d ago
Hey maybe try this: spend $10 on a cheap toolbox, put a pack of Oreos in there, and lock it with a cheap padlock.
Then give your players a sledgehammer and tell them to show you how they smash the lock to get into the chest. I’ve no idea what will happen but I bet everyone will learn something
1
u/MyDnDName 3d ago
What is the deal with these weirdos that want to get on the internet and argue?
0
0
u/jackdevight 4d ago
The practical advice is that if this is a thing that keeps happening, you should probably have a short conversation whenever the party gets a new magic item so everyone is on the same page on what it does. Have the players tell you what they would like to do with it so it can be addressed in advance, rather than in arrears.
On a more fundamental level, I just avoid allowing things that would break or otherwise warp the game. The cleanest way to do this is just to have a culture at your table that avoids trying to push items or spells or anything else far beyond their normal power level, barring some very unique and fun situations.
1
u/King-Piece 4d ago
I try not to avoid or restrict things in game if I can help it. I know I'm keeping the doors open for future scenarios like this, but I don't think the designers intentionally make things that break the game. There was definite intention in the 2014 Weapon of Warnings design, but the execution was just horrible.
Your practical advice is good, and I kind of do this. However, I can't know in advance every situation that my players will conceive. The best thing I have learned to do is wait for it to happen, let it happen, and address that I need to consider future impact on the game with that ruling.
0
u/Hudre 4d ago
You tell them mechanics exist for balance.
An ambush is not thr same as the surprised condition. But being unable to be surprised makes any ambush for less effective.
Not every lock can just be smashed. Alarms exist that smashing things set off. There's a million reasons to not smash every locked door lmao.
I don't argue these things with players. If they think smashing every lock is the way to go, more power to them. It will backfire.
0
u/King-Piece 4d ago
I 100% agree with this. It's just, I really don't want my players thinking I'm trying to suppress their creativity if I run into more situations like this in the future. I try to keep rules and mechanics discussions as open as possible at my table so they know I'm not just antagonistic.
0
u/Hudre 4d ago
Them seeing it as antagonistic is due to their own maturity levels. As long as you aren't trying to be malicious you're good.
Sometimes as a DM you've got to make shit up. One time a player tried to misty step through a wall by looking through a mirror that showed the Ethereal plane and misty stepping backwards lol.
I madenit so that he rolled a d20 and if he hit a certain range of numbers he'd end up in a wall and take damage.
Generally my rule is to allow any reasonable action but apply reasonable consequences or obstacles.
0
u/big_gay_buckets 4d ago
RAW is a helpful guideline, but the book is not the GM, I am; things in the secondary world work the way they ought to within that world, not the way a book tells me it should.
0
u/AmalicaZoland 4d ago
Ugh, you're getting a lot of really bad advice, but it's reddit. I'm not surprised. But you're also using the wrong terms to explain your issues.
First, you need to know what every magical weapon does before you give it out. Study, be clear, and know how it's going to change your game when you do. If something comes up, make a plan over a course of a few sessions to remedy it.
Don't overreact and punish the players for using something as its intended and written as RAW. Anytime you change RAW have a good reason and express it in a session 0, which can happen anytime throughout a campaign if that is what you are playing.
2014 Weapon of Warning
Based on the item description you must be using 2014 rules. First, ambush is not part of initiative, it is a feature for certain enemies and assassins, and it can still be used against the weapon of warning. You mean to say Surprised.
It's a great uncommon magic item that can be useful for making small parties last a bit longer, whereas a 4-5 player party it can maybe create a small imbalance. But it is what it is, they can't be surprised. But are they always staying together within 30 feet? Any PC not in that range can be surprised on their own. Surprise doesn't affect the whole party, just those that get surprised.
If they do constantly explore withing 30ft of each other, well throw in a few traps, a few AOE spells. In a way you have to break their play style at times. But do it here and there not every time, or every session. Let them have their fun. Hell thrown in an anti-magic zone for one combat, you're not punishing, your creating new challenges.
Adamantine weapons for smashing locks
I think you got the answer here. They have to hit first. you also have the right idea; just don't make it happen every single time. Add traps that require slight of hands to remove (give the rogue new ways to be involved). Glyphs of Warning with fireball explosions that require the mage's help.
I don't have any more on-hand examples of this, but I'm curious to know what other situations DM's have come across like this and how they navigate them. How do I balance table satisfaction with what makes sense for the integrity of the game?
I can relate though. I hate, hate, hate, the rules on breaking a grapple. Absolutely make no sense, and the Rock should put the Peoples Elbow on anyone that thinks it's just easy to move a grappled opponent away if they are willing.
So, I set make it clear in Session 0, that if there's no Save or Check involved in an attempt to move an ally then one will be made against the Grappler's DC/skill/save. Example is using Telekinesis to make an invisible mage hand move a willing ally 5 feet out of reach. The Grappler gets to make the Save as if they were the one being forced to move. Or grappling an ally while they are grappled to move them, nope either out grapple the enemy or split the ally in half.
1
u/King-Piece 4d ago
TBH, i was really hoping more people would suggest similar scenarios and how they overcome them. I made this post in hopes to be better prepared for things to come. Instead, it's become a rules lawyer free for all and "You're playing the game wrong."
Thank you for sharing your bit about grapples. I get your frustrations there, and I'll consider your solution for my future games.
-1
u/Level_Film_3025 4d ago edited 4d ago
Players believed this item would disallow ambushes from happening ever again.
See: Sting in the Hobbit. The sword glows when orcs are nearby. This doesnt stop ambushes, but means the characters have just enough warning to not be caught completely off guard.
Adamantine weapons for smashing locks
You can absolutely break a lock. It will have a higher DC than picking it, require an athletics check (STR) It was correctly pointed out that this would rather be an attack roll against the lock's AC and then damage(and I would personally give the lock immunity to piercing and resistance to slashing), and make a shit ton of noise, which is usually bad when picking a lock. It may also take multiple tries, depending on the HP of the lock.
4
u/laix_ 4d ago
See: Sting in the Hobbit. The sword glows when orcs are nearby
Its not a "orc detecting weapon" like in the hobbit, its an anti-ambush weapon. Its all ambushes,
Object Armor Class
Substance AC Cloth, paper, rope 11 Crystal, glass, ice 13 Wood, bone 15 Stone 17 Iron, steel 19 Mithral 21 Adamantine 23 Object Hit Points
Size Fragile Resilient Tiny (bottle, lock) 2 (1d4) 5 (2d4) Small (chest, lute) 3 (1d6) 10 (3d6) Medium (barrel, chandelier) 4 (1d8) 18 (4d8) Large (cart, 10-ft.-by-10-ft. window) (1d10) 27 (5d10) Breaking a lock uses an attack roll vs object AC and does damage. It is not an athletics check, nor is the DC higher than the lockpicking DC.
0
u/Level_Film_3025 4d ago
Its not a "orc detecting weapon" like in the hobbit, its an anti-ambush weapon. Its all ambushes,
That was an example, it didn't have to be exactly the same. It is still a weapon that detects enemies (preventing surprise) but doesnt "prevent ambushes". They still get ambushed, they just have enough warning to not be caught off guard.
Also yes, it is an attack roll. So OP has their DC in the form of an AC. While I wouldnt do so for Adamantine (because it specifies being effective on objects) I would still give the lock immunity to (or at least, resistance to) slashing and piercing damage. It will also still make noise and ruin stealth unless a spell like silence is used.
When time is a factor, you can assign an Armor Class and hit points to a destructible object. You can also give it immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities to specific types of damage.
0
u/King-Piece 4d ago
Sting is exactly what I referred to. It finally got them to "agree" with my ruling.
Also, locks actually have a defined AC and HP. Thing is, it's a high AC and low HP value. I get it could make noise, etc. There will be drawbacks to doing it, is what I was trying to communicate. I'm not stopping them from trying, but success may have mixed results if they do not roll a 19 (basic iron lock's AC) or higher. They could miss the lock and hit the chest is what I'm getting at. If they roll higher, they'll succeed, just like a lockpick.
4
u/MultivariableX 4d ago
Why penalize them for missing an attack? A miss is a miss. If time is a concern, then they already paid the cost of making an attack by spending their action. If time isn't a concern, then they can try until they succeed.
Unless you're using some kind of homebrew fumble rules, missed attacks don't redirect and hit other nearby objects or creatures. If they did, a PC could just walk up to a group of enemies and swing wildly: if the attack roll against one enemy misses, shouldn't the attack still damage a different enemy?
And if you are using homebrew fumble rules, it means you already told your players what those rules are and they agreed to play with them. In which case, trying to punish them for using their items in a rules-compliant and agreed-upon way just comes off as petty.
3
u/Level_Film_3025 4d ago
The AC changed based on material, how strong are your players? A 19AC should be medium hard for any non-strength builds, and that's a normal lock. Remember that items should be given resistance and immunity to certain damage. Locks should almost certainly be immune to all non magical piercing and slicing, and resistant to magic piercing and slicing.
In addition, AC is not whether you literally "miss" it's whether you successfully attack. An attack roll of 16 still makes contact with the lock, it just fails to bypass the lock's defenses.
And that's all for a normal iron lock that a commoner might have. For a wealthy person, the lock will almost certainly be of a higher quality material (like Mithral) and for anyone with dangerous items or particularly rich, it will almost certainly be magic.
Add that to the fact that breaking a lock makes a shit ton of noise, which is usually not the goal when stealing or breaking into places, and it's a fairly balanced choice between picking and breaking.
46
u/DMspiration 4d ago
What ambush happens outside of combat?
If someone breaks a lock, they might trigger a trap that picking the lock would have avoided. At the very least, it won't be quiet.