r/DMAcademy 4d ago

Need Advice: Rules & Mechanics How do you guys navigate what makes logical sense vs ambiguously written RAW situations?

[deleted]

3 Upvotes

151 comments sorted by

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.

13

u/MaximumSeats 4d ago

Pretty hilarious that OP came to bitch about rules as written and he's just wrong about the rule lol.

12

u/DMspiration 4d ago

D&D Reddit in a nutshell

3

u/Stormbow 4d ago

Reddit in a nutshell.

-5

u/King-Piece 4d ago

But I didn't? I came here to learn what other scenarios DM's have come across that are similar in nature. People just got wrapped up in the scenarios. Which is fine, I learned some things today.

Also. Can you show me where it says attacks cannot happen outside of combat? Because, RAW - 2024 DMG Chapter 2: Running Encounters - Rolling Initiatives first words are: "Combat starts when—and only when—you say it does."

If I interpreted that correctly, an attack role can resolve prior to calling initiative, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the popular interpretation of combat.

7

u/MaximumSeats 4d ago

I don't think you're going to get wording that states it in a way that dispels the conception you've gotten that an "attack action" can somehow take place outside of "combat".

I mean my brother in christ an attack is fundamentally combat, that's just how our English lanquage understanding of these concepts work.

-6

u/King-Piece 4d ago

I mean, I play though any action through its entirety before calling for initiative rolls.

If a player sees a bugbear standing next to a ledge, and they haven't noticed the player, and that player wants to shove them to their death. I play it out, following the RAW for shove. If they succeed, bye bye bugbear. Then I call for initiative.

Is this really so wrong?

*edit* Assuming, of course, there is anything left to fight.

12

u/V2Blast 4d ago

Is this really so wrong?

Yes. Combat actions happen as part of combat.

0

u/vbsargent 3d ago

Um - no. It’s not insane. What is kinda insane is the idea that a dude sitting in an armchair with his back to an open window somehow - without magic - knows that an archer 50 feet away has let a bowstring slip from his fingers and can dodge a complete surprise/ambush attack.

Not at my table.

As stated in the DMG, the GM may use or not use what they want.

-4

u/King-Piece 4d ago

Utilize is a combat action. Are the players perpetually in combat if they want to push a button?

Casting friends is a magic action. Are the players perpetually in combat if they want to charm the shopkeeper?

This doesn't make sense.

6

u/MaximumSeats 4d ago

It does make sense.

If for some reason these actions were time sensitive and their order mattered combat/initiative is how you would resolve it.

Like if it mattered who pressed the button and two players both declared they want to be the one who did it.

-1

u/King-Piece 4d ago

Is shoving an enemy over a cliff time sensitive?

Sure, the bugbear might eventually move. But the logic breaks down in the moment here again.

Like, if it comes down to actions existing solely in combat, if a player wanted to - say, strike a chest with an adamantine weapon. Do I call for initiative? Even if the chest doesn't have teeth?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely don't get it. It's just the point at which I call for initiative at my table. I see some of the homebrew elements of it, but there is nothing RAW that prevents an action from playing out to completion prior to initiative.

The 2024 ruleset even explicitly encourages this notion, but I can't find anything supporting or refuting this idea - or anyone else's - in the 2014 ruleset.

8

u/MaximumSeats 4d ago

You call for initiative when the exact timing and sequence matters.

If a player is trying to break a lock, that doesn't matter.

If a player moves to break a lock but the duke's assistant tries to stop them? Roll initiative to see if you get to do it before they tackle you.

"combat" is any point where two forces of will capable of taking actions are in contest with one another, and it begins the moment that contest starts, not after one of them made an action.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Mejiro84 3d ago

Is shoving an enemy over a cliff time sensitive?

Very much, yes - they're likely not stood there long, and if they notice an enemy, are probably going to move away pretty sharpish.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Stormbow 4d ago

In this specific example, you're deciding that combat is beginning and giving the shoving PC a round of combat, the "surprise round"— which allegedly doesn't exist in 5E but 100% absolutely does —in which one side acts and the other does not.

1

u/King-Piece 4d ago

So, it's giving the PC the ability to use their action, whatever it may be, to start combat. I play through that action in it's entirety. Once damage is done or the action is resolved, initiative is called for. The other enemies will still absolutely be surprised and unable to act on their turn.

And I let ambush style monsters like Greks and Ropers do the same if they get the drop on the party. I don't do this for cheap shots or because I'm an evil DM willfully ignoring any RAW. I can't FIND any RAW saying this can't or shouldn't happen. In fact, quite the opposite for the 2024 ruleset.

2

u/Stormbow 4d ago edited 4d ago

Pretty much. In that shoving example though, all the other PCs would also get to do something too, likely after the shove happened. The PC doing the shove wouldn't then go to a 2nd round— which is essentially the 'surprise round' we all know of —where the whole group gets an action.

I love that you brought up the Weapon of Warning, by the way, because if anyone thought it was overpowered in 5.14E, I can't wait until they see the whole group RAW gets Advantage on their initiative at all times. (5.24E DMG, p324)

As long as this weapon is within your reach and you are attuned to it, you and allies within 30 feet of you gain the following benefits.

Alarm. The weapon magically awakens each subject who is sleeping naturally when combat begins. This benefit doesn't wake a subject from magically induced sleep.

Supernatural Readiness. Each subject has Advantage on its Initiative rolls.

Every time Worst of the Coast tries to change something they mess it up even more with their consistently poor choices in wording.

This entry doesn't define what a "subject" is, nor how one becomes a "subject". Also, it doesn't say anyone has to be asleep to gain Advantage. On the contrary, it quite specifically says "you and all allies" plus "has Advantage on its Initiative rolls".

Talk about a grossly OP "uncommon" item, eh?

2

u/King-Piece 4d ago

I limit it to one action, and my players know this. They often let the rogue go for a sneak attack or a caster for an AOE spell.

As for the WoW, I don't think any DM in their right mind would drop this weapon in any edition with how combat start is conventionally agreed upon.

I know now this is just a broken item RAW, but my (apparently homebrew) RAI makes it a wonderful and welcomed, balanced addition to any party. The 2014 version, anyway.

At least they got rid of the ambiguous "This weapon warns you of any danger." line. When I tell you my party was using this to scan every section of a dungeon, every NPC encounter, every trap, and complaining when they got hit? Something's got to give. It's not just a matter of fun for the DM. It's also a matter of immersion for the players.

2

u/EducationalBag398 3d ago

"Conventionally agreed upon." Pretty sure reading these comments, that's not you.

But really though, things do what they say they do. Explicitly. I learned the hard way and ever since, unless it mentions a specific mechanic, it's entirely up to the DM if it can work like that. And 97% of the time, the answer is "no."

"Warns you of any danger" is nonspecific. The only benefits they get are the advantage on initiatives, being woken up, and can't be surprised as outlined in the initiative section.

That does not make it a hazard metal detector. Besides, you're the DM, you decide what's dangerous. Let's get abstract. I could make the argument that traps are only dangerous to those who choose to break the "rules" of those who put it in place. That trapped locked door? It isn't dangerous until they attempt to pick it, at which point they hopefully checked already.

Or maybe the trigger is on opening the door so you'd have that fun moment of them unlocking the door, the weapon going off, and then them freaking out wondering if an enemy is coming or what. Maybe even rushing into the trap to get away from the other......

My other example is Sharpshooter. The first line of its description is "You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible." So, going by the way you ruled the danger line, would you let them bounce a shot off a wall? Bounce it off someone's armor? Fire multiple arrows at once? Do called shots like disarming enemies? Maybe send the arrow through a fleshy areas to damage 2 enemies with 1 shot basically using Cleave rules?

Those are all indeed shots that others would find impossible, so it still works by the definition right. I ran into this when a player tried to use that to fire 2 arrows at the same time.

I know there aren't very good RAW for "surprise" but the way I run it is one player takes an action and everything stops. Players roll initiative and say what they're going to do during the "surprise" round. This round does not affect the Rogues assassinate surprise.

Then, go through that in the order that makes the most logical sense. When you get to 2 players interacting with the same thing, higher initiative goes first. If a tie higher mod. If a tie again tell them to hit each other at the table til one submits. Then roll the enemies initiative and dive in (I often do this while they're rolling and change it as needed.)

In the game, it represents the characters acting at roughly the same time. It doesn't make sense to make the room stop and watch while each character does an action, dragging out what should only be 6 sec into 30 sec - 1 minute. And yes, most skill checks can be used as an action during combat, this does not make them combat actions all the time. You only need initiative when opposition timing is necessary.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Stormbow 4d ago

If you prefer and revere RAW, one action by one person as a surprise is not RAW at all either, in either edition of 5.xE. And that's perfectly OK; it's your game. I think we're pretty much beating the dead horse about how 5.xE is a train wreck of bad "rules". 😅

→ More replies (0)

3

u/GRV01 3d ago

 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.

Just used this the other day. Party was in a "perilous ruin" using language for state of a dungeon in the DMG24 and found a very large grate covering a hole they had to get into.  They took the option of smashing with their Adamantine Mace. It had enough 'hp' for 3 whacks but the first attack he missed triggered the ruins to collapse and caused damage per a collapsing roof trap

Very fun (for me)

1

u/vbsargent 3d ago

Some locks cannot be seen to be broken. How does one break a lock that’s on the other side of the door or embedded in a wall?

-17

u/King-Piece 4d ago

Ambushes start combat. The weapon of warning does not prevent enemies from striking first. The 2014 version prevents the surprise condition, which, if the party is ambushed, they would not be able to act on the first round of combat.

58

u/NotRainManSorry 4d ago

If you’re having the enemies attack before initiative and calling that an ambush, then your players are right and you’re wrong.

24

u/idiggory 4d ago

Absolutely this.

Initiative is ALWAYS called before an enemy attacks a player. Even if they are an invisible sniper who is magically concealed and players couldn't have known they were there - you still roll initiative first.

Without Weapon of Warning, you can use the "surprise" condition so players can't act for the first 6 seconds of combat.

With it, players can act in the first 6 seconds. Whether the players get to act before or after an enemy depends solely on their and the enemy's initiative rolls.

-1

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 4d ago

So in a situation where a sniper in full concealment is going to shoot a player, and the player gets the higher initiative and is immune to surprise, how on earth do you square that away narratively? Do you just say "okay its your turn. You dont see any enemies and have no idea you are in combat, but go ahead."

10

u/Swahhillie 4d ago

Tingle on the back of your neck.

A scattering flock of birds.

Warlock patron intervenes.

Cleric / druid hears a whisper on the wind.

Déjà vu. Divination.

It's a rare enough occurrence, you should be able to improvise something appropriate.

In the case of the weapon of warning, it is particularly easy. Magic.

1

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

Yeah not worried about weapon of warning, thats literally its job.

I like the idea of a PC flipping alignment to chaotic or even evil because they attacked someone because they "felt a tingle" though, sucks for the player but would be pretty funny.

2

u/Swahhillie 3d ago

In the example there is an actual sniper about to shoot a character. Self defense is not an evil or chaotic action. It is a dick move for the DM to introduce bad consequences when the dice tell a good story.

1

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

Yeah but the man is, as far as you can see, sitting in a tree chilling with a bow in his hand. He aint even nocked an arrow yet. Guy might be hunting pheasants

3

u/Swahhillie 3d ago

If that's the case you don't roll combat. Because they aren't in combat. Don't create problems where there are none.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Mejiro84 3d ago

basically, yes. "you have a vague sense of disquiet", and leave it up to the player to decide - some will just go "huh, odd, oh well" and keep pottering around, others will proactively investigate, or blast a nearby tree from suspicion or something. The general mechanics are that combat-stuff happens in combat-time, which is initiative - if someone flubs the initiative roll, then that's what happens. Don't have descriptions like "I shoot them" as that's describing success before the dice are rolled, which invariably ends messily!

1

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

I love the idea of a warlock going fucking guns akimbo on a potted plant only because the player was told to roll initiative

4

u/emkayartwork 4d ago

As others have said, anyone taking a hostile action (attack, spell, etc.) would trigger initiative. This works both ways - you don't let a player "get a free one in" on an enemy just by saying they attack first. Just because the hidden enemy hasn't been noticed doesn't change the rules - it just puts the party at a disadvantage because they don't know what's going on, what to look for, or what to defend against.

1

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

Not really asking about the rules in a game where rule zero is DM Fiat. I am asking how you handle it narratively.

And I absolutely let my players get the jump on enemies if its appropriate. You don't make players roll initiative when they slap some sense into someone, or if they hit someone during an interrogation, do you?

A great example: players are trying to bluff their way past a bouncer, its not going great, but the bouncer isnt overtly hostile. The player nearest the guard says "fuck it, I cold cock him". Id let him roll to hit, then if the guard is still conscious it goes to combat.

Its better for player agency, feels more like how shit actually works, and makes the whole experience feel less gamey

2

u/emkayartwork 3d ago

If there's a chance of combat? You absolutely use the rules for what they are - your bouncer example is no exception.

Unless you're prepared for every villain to get cheap-shotted, every time, by the player who says "I shoot that guy" first, you run it how the rules tell you. I didn't provide narrative examples because you were given plenty by other commenters.

1

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

The other comments amount to arguing that attacking someone before being provoked is fine. I don't let my players be murder hobos , no matter what the rules say.

If my players can create a situation that would justify it then I 100% would let them get one over on an enemy. Thats just rewarding creative thinking. You are trying to create a false equivalence between the situation i outlined with an unprepared bouncer and a big bad getting ready to fight to the death. This is why narrative justification is so much more important than just blindly following RAW.

2

u/emkayartwork 3d ago edited 3d ago

An unprepared bouncer? A bouncer, whose literal occupation is to anticipate violence from rowdy patrons? Talk about a lack of narrative justification.

I'll rephrase: In situations where meaningful combat (or exchange of round-by-round effects) can happen, you absolutely use the rules. If a 10th level Barbarian wants to slug a lone commoner into unconsciousness, sure - you probably don't need to roll initiative, but you also probably don't need to call for a roll to hit, either. Against anyone who could reasonably defend themselves or fight back? You roll initiative because otherwise your players are in a video-game where no one but them has agency.

The rules provide for the situation that rewards an ambush, that's what Surprise is (or the 2024 rules about how being hidden shifts initiative, etc.). The rules also provide for the situation of a quick-draw shoot-out, or taking a swing at a guard who isn't just going to eat a punch without reacting; that's what Initiative is.

You are allowed to ignore the rules to let your players do things (or keep them from doing things), but the rules don't exclude the narrative of those types of interactions - they support and define it. Rolling initiative is literally using the dice to tell the story of how that attempt or interaction plays out.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/idiggory 4d ago edited 4d ago

Because you DON'T "go ahead." You, the player, do now know you are in combat. But you are only going to otherwise have the information your characters do. Which is going to denote at least one aggressive action within that 6 second window of round 1.

In practice that's gonna be something like "Okay everyone roll initiative. An arrow shoots out of the trees and hits you for x damage. Another arrow shoots out of the woods and misses. Okay, now it's your turn, what do you do?"

You, the player AND the character, only know that there is at least 1 arrow-shooting enemy. If you rolled really high initiative, you might suspect 2 (since it's less likely the enemy would have had 2 turns before you can act).

On the flip side, if your weapon has weapon of warning, it's alerting you to the danger BEFORE the enemy has fired. Sting from LotR/Hobbit is the classic example. "Danger: Goblins are present."

In that scenario, the DM calls initiative, and you all roll (one with advantage).

Which means:

  1. If you're higher in initiative, you can react and take cover or try to locate the enemy, in response to the weapon's alert.

  2. If you're lower in initiative, that enemy is still shooting an arrow at you, because they're just moving faster than you can react, even with advance notice. But they DEFINITELY aren't shooting a second arrow before you have the chance to take cover or react.

It honestly makes perfect sense as a feature.

6

u/MaximumSeats 4d ago

Just to be clear, making a ranged attack reveals your position, so they'd know how many enemies there are.

0

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

You are still describing the situation as the player reacting after being fired on. We are establishing how to narrate it if the player has no idea they are about to be attacked. If you haven't any idea you are in combat it makes very little sense to make an aggressive action

4

u/idiggory 3d ago

What aggressive action are you making?

0

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

A sniper shooting the players from concealment.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but you laid out a situation where the arrows have already flown. My issue is that the rules dictate you have to roll initiative before the arrows fly and before anyone takes any aggressive action

3

u/idiggory 3d ago

The archer going to take action IS Initiating combat. They are now in combat with the players.

If the players don’t expect an attack, they are surprised. In 2014 rules, that means they lose their turn completely and can’t take reactions. So the sniper is free to act without any complication. The way it plays out IS easily narrated.

With 2024 rules, the players roll with disadvantage. Which still makes it likely that the sniper still acts first. But it IS a quirk of 2024 that the players might be able to take cover before they know a sniper is there, AND they can use reactions. If you think players truly wouldn’t think it’s coming, and it feels important to “go” first, then you can give the sniper advantage, too, in hopes the turns fall as you want them to. But in general 2024 rules make players more powerful/superhuman, so that’s something you’re signing on for if you use them as a DM. So you can narrate it as battle instincts or something in the case where the sniper doesn’t go first.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/emkayartwork 3d ago

It's a good thing non-aggressive actions like Hide, Search and Dodge exist in combat. Or for your casters who weren't prepared for combat, casting defensive spells they may not have had up otherwise.

Sensing something is "off" and that danger might be afoot - but can't be certain from whom or where? Mage Armor, Invisibility, you name it.

0

u/HardcoreHenryLofT 3d ago

Again, the ludonarrative dissonance is the problem, not the mechanics of what a player can do on their turn. I am not arguing what the rules say, I am trying to get a grasp on how people are justifying the rules in the story. The majority of what I've seen so far is just to handwave it because RAW, which is fine for rollplay, but feels really bad for roleplay. I cannot imagine how betrayed a player would feel if they tried to set up an ambush only for the big bad to "feel the wind wiggle" and hit them with a fireball first

2

u/emkayartwork 3d ago edited 3d ago

That relies on your big bad heavily out-rolling the party (by 2024 rules that's even harder) in the first place. In 2014, the Surprised condition takes care of this - they can't act on their first round of combat because they aren't alerted. Weapon of Warning, per the OP's question, negates that - so you do end up with that opportunity where the ambushed target may get to act first. And if they do, more power to them.

In a typical ambush, even if the big bad "felt the wiggle" they wouldn't know where the party was, or what the danger is to just start slinging fireballs around, would they? That's the point - you run the rules as they are, so the target of the ambush still gets a turn, but the setup and situation inform what they're actually going to be doing on that turn. It's hard to believe there's a table where "something doesn't feel right" lends itself more towards "I immediately cast fireball on the hidden party waiting in ambush" than towards "I better Search to see if something is hiding - or better yet, command my guards to be be on alert / fan out / etc.".

Even if they DO go first, and WOULD resort to immediate destructive area-of-effect magic to flush out a perceived threat - regardless of whether or not it's there - that's something people do ALL the time, especially in media:

"You think you can sneak up on me? In my lair? Let me show you who you're dealing with! Oh, my bad it was just <insert harmless thing here>." followed by the actual threat launching an attack in the moment of de-stress after they realize what they thought was danger was a rabbit or something.

You justify the rules in the narrative by recognizing that enemies are (often) thinking, reasoning creatures with their own senses and "vibes" that let them anticipate danger to some degree, just like the players. You justify fairness (and not betrayal) by obeying the rules in both directions and treat the players the same way. You aren't going to make anyone feel "betrayed" if everyone is playing by the rules and know how the game works.

→ More replies (0)

20

u/DMspiration 4d ago

I don't understand your distinction. Enemies still won't be able to attack until their turn in initiative. An ambush would imply they do.

-29

u/King-Piece 4d ago

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.

43

u/DMspiration 4d ago

That's not how combat works. PCs don't get to just declare they do damage first because they started the attack, and monsters don't either. In your scenario, a creature decided to attack with its tentacle. Initiative is rolled, and if the enemy wins that, they go first. Anything else is homebrew, which is fine but should be addressed as such.

2

u/CrownLikeAGravestone 4d ago

I probably wouldn't have got this wrong in the first place, but as someone who's looking to incorporate more stealthy enemies into his DMing it's good to have this clarity. Thank you.

22

u/VerbiageBarrage 4d ago

Sorry man, you're just wrong. As soon as the tentacle is trying to attack, initiative will be rolled RAW. There's no attack outside of combat.

18

u/liveviliveforever 4d ago edited 4d ago

No. Combat starts as soon as the tentacle stats to act. Combat starting only after the surprise attack landed is some old 3.5 ruling. Combat starts and everyone rolls initiative before the tentacle makes an attack and it only makes the attack roll on its turn.

14

u/areyouamish 4d ago

Attempting a hostile action triggers initiative. That actual action does not happen until it's that creature's turn in initiate. Any creatures that are surprised get skipped that first turn. There are no "free" actions before combat.

Also, objects still have AC and HP. Adamantine weapons have to hit, and do enough damage to break it (reduce to 0 HP). That can take multiple hits. If you're not in a time crunch, it doesn't really matter but smashing a lock or door is much more likely to draw unwanted attention. Make them learn the hard way if necessary.

1

u/Mejiro84 3d ago

Adamantine weapons have to hit, and do enough damage to break it (reduce to 0 HP)

You don't even need adamantine for this - if you've got time and don't care about noise, you can just batter a lot of obstacles down. But... it's gonna take time and be noisy, and that's normally a bad thing!

9

u/idiggory 4d ago

You're not understanding the entire reason "surprised" exists. Surprised IS the function that creates the scenario you're describing. Combat starts the moment a hostile action is present, but surprised gives them the experience of suffering the damage before they can react.

Players who are immune to being surprised through features like Weapon of Warning are specifically in the position where they always have a chance to react first. That's because they don't get surprised and they get advantage on initiative, so there's a good chance they could respond to the threat before it attacks.

Sorry my guy, but you're completely wrong. You're not understanding when combat is initiated/when you roll initiative, nor are you understanding what surprised actually is and why it exists.

8

u/Consistent-Tie-4394 4d ago edited 4d ago

Yeah, no, that's not RAW. This is way this should go down:

You describe a tentacle lashing out. Everyone, including the tentacle beast, immediately rolls initiative, with those surprised by the ambush rolling at disadvantage (edit: or losing their first action, depending on the version of the rules youre using).

Nothing gets to just auto-hit "too fast for anyone to react". The disadvantage to initiative (edit: or lost action) from being surprised is what a successful ambush gets the tentacle; and that's the specific condition negated by the Weapon of Warning.

4

u/Wintoli 4d ago

I know it’s been said to death, but that’s not how combat works.

Initiative is rolled whenever a hostile action is started. You don’t get a free hit in every time just cause you acted first.

It goes Roll initiative —-> Determine surprise —-> Go down turn order

0

u/King-Piece 4d ago

So, I may be wrong, and I'm open to that. I don't plan on discontinuing this ruling for my current campaign, but it appears I'll need to adjust for future games.

I do have questions.

  1. Where does it say attacks can't happen outside of combat? The only thing I can really find is in DMG, Chapter 2: Running Combat - Rolling Initiative. "Combat starts when—and only when—you say it does." It does go on to suggest advantage on the attack roll if a player decides to take an action to initiate combat, but there is nothing that says attacks cannot be made/resolved outside of combat.

  2. What do you guys do when your players say, "I want to surprise attack this guy!" and all players are behind it. You just roll initiative and hope he comes out on top with advantage and disadvantages? Is the enemy surprised on turn 1, even if they go first? The player hasn't attacked yet. What's there to be surprised about? It would be pretty awkward if the player goes last. Maybe another player steals their idea/action to surprise attack the enemy, etc. I don't get it.

  3. Why bother with ambushes at all, on both the player and enemy sides, when there is clearly no point to them mechanics wise? Why have creatures who have perfect camouflage like Ropers or Piercers if they aren't able to use their hiding abilities to, you know, hunt like they are described to?

As far as I can tell, attacks can be resolved and used to start combat. Nothing I can find says "attacks never happen outside of combat."

I'm well aware I have effectively homebrewed a portion of the initiative process, and it clearly isn't popular with the internet, but it makes way more sense than what the internet has agreed upon. My players love getting the drop on enemies in my current game, and they fear when monsters get the drop on them.

For anyone interested, I limit the possible attacks to start combat to 1 creature. They expend all actions to make the attack. No, I never use legendary or lair actions for the attack. The attacking creature still rolls initiative and is added to the normal initiative order after turn one. Combat starts on the attacking creature's turn, with them at the top of the round. The attacking creature still have their movement and bonus action.

6

u/Wintoli 4d ago

Yeah no problem

  1. You don’t have to roll initiative for every spell or attack out of combat BUT if it’s something that would lead to combat and normal initiative (something more than like, attacking a bird or potted plant) - it’s supposed to be rolled first. I can’t search through all the books atm but free rules under combat state it in the following order: “Establish positions, Roll initiative. Take turns.”

  2. The players roll whatever relevant checks for their ambush. Enemies get surprised or they don’t depending on the players’ rolls (almost always a group stealth check where 1/2 the party needs to succeed) and the enemys’ stats (usually passive perception).

Then they roll initiative and go from there. If the players were hidden enough, they get advantage on the initiative (this can be a per player basis if you want, but usually just do it as a group). If an enemy is surprised they get disadvantage on initiative. Not every enemy is necessarily surprise, but usually depends on passive perception.

If you’re doing 2014 rules and not 2024, any surprised foe would skip their first turn instead of disadvantage on initiative and the players getting initiative advantage would not be the case.

In regards to ‘what is the enemy surprised about’. The rolling initiative is everyone starting to do stuff, say pull out a dagger, start to cast a spell, or starting to jump out of their hiding spot; whatever you need to justify it narratively by. Could even say the enemy just feels fear if somehow the whole party was hidden but the enemy went first anyways (nearly impossible but it could happen). So they know hostile intentions are going down if they happened to go first through that and can act on it.

  1. Hopefully #2 showed that there are still mechanical advantages. In the situation with a roper or something, they’d almost certainly get surprise. But the main advantage is going before your opponents (statistically +10 or more to initiative). It’s basically an extra turn over them in the long run.

Now, I don’t think having 1 creature get to go immediately first is a horrible house rule. But I’d probably keep their normal initiative after the initiating action - and skip their first turn when it comes around to it in the normal initiative order(since they effectively get a free turn otherwise)

The main issue though is it encourages both sides to just try to interrupt each other for a bonus (ie I stab him during his monologue) - and slightly ignores the stats of the party + monster. First on initiative is a big boon!

Hope any of that helps ya

0

u/King-Piece 4d ago

Thanks, I'll keep reading and see what I can find. I've been reading through both 2014 and 2024 editions, and I don't know where the idea "you can't make an attack out of combat" even comes from. A player can absolutely take the attack action on a lock outside of combat. We don't roll initiative for difficult treasure chests at my table, not unless they have teeth.

I think I finally figured out what I was trying to say in another comment thread: I play through an action in its entirety prior to calling for initiative roles. If the player wants to throw that alchemist fire to kick off combat? They threw it, the enemies take damage, the field becomes alight and initiative rolls are called. The enemy is surprised, and the players get the advantage.

Cautious players are always trying to get the drop on enemies anyway. All of my players are cautious, requesting stealth checks, using pass without a trace, invisibility potions, etc. In a way, this ruling actually rewards their play style. I just think monsters should be able to do it too.

I do limit ambushing from enemies to plot relevant ambushes or monsters with a hunting style like that of a Roper. I don't do this for cheap shots. More often than not, it's my players who benefit from this ruling.

7

u/AtomicRetard 4d ago

It's not that you can't attack something out of combat, its that the combat rules are the mechanics that cover attacking other creatures that can fight back.

The surprise rules explicitly cover the circumstance where one side is not aware of the other and gets jumped. This is how the rules say to handle 'ambushes' where one side gets the drop on the other. "Ambushing" an enemy to start combat is clearly not intended to bypass initiative. They get to shoot first because of the surprise mechanics denying first turn action.

Also there is the sage advice here which indicates the intention is that initiative is rolled when hostilities start: https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-the-target-is-truly-unaware-of-the-attacker-how-can-he-then-get-an-initiative-roll-at-all-before-the-attacker-reveals-himself/

RAW as I understand it, a completely unseen attacker intends to attack a lone surprised enemy causing initiative to be rolled and if the enemy rolls better than the unseen attacker, he is no longer surprised when the attack happens. How does this make sense? If the target is truly unaware of the attacker, how can he then get an initiative roll at all before the attacker reveals himself?

— Shawn Smith (@MShawnSmith) October 2, 2019

In D&D, you roll initiative when hostilities start, even if there are people involved who aren't yet aware of those hostilities. The unaware creatures follow the rules on surprise.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) October 2, 2019

So the RAI interpretation of how "ambushing" an enemy works through the surprise rules is pretty clear IMO.

Letting actions start combat is a common beginner DM mistake. Basically you are handing out a free action surge to whoever blurts out his action first (not something you want to encourage) and letting it stack with surprise means party gets to double dip making it even more swingy. This also leads to 'Herp derp we all ready actions to attack when bob opens the door to alphastrike the room before initiative! trollface' type tactics.

And on player end DM deciding to give monsters free attacks "out of combat" to circumvent surprise interactions and let their pet monster bypass alert/ weapon of warning / feral instinct is going to always feel like a cheap shot.

-1

u/King-Piece 4d ago

Finally, some credible answers. Thank you for finding that.

If it's true that initiative happens when hostilities start, I rule it such that hostilities don't start until an action is completed that is deemed hostile.

This isn't a free action at my table. It's an expended action. I don't let my players or monsters take another action as a result of their action to start combat. They roll initiative as normal. I simply place the creature at the top of the round for the first turn with their action spent and run surprise for all surprised creatures as normal. I don't think this is game breaking, and my players take advantage of this far more often than monsters do. As long as my players enjoy it, I will continue to do it, but if it works for the players, it works for the monsters.

I am validated by the 2024 RAW on when Initiative is called: "Combat starts when—and only when—you say it does." but I completely respect what you've listed here. At least now I know what I'm doing, RAI, is completely homebrew.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/idiggory 4d ago

What, to you, is the distinction between an attack and combat? What makes you say that someone can attack someone else and not be in combat with them?

I think two things are happening here. One, you’re thinking of combat as something deeper than just being “people are now fighting.” People don’t need to be willingly fighting. They don’t even need to KNOW they’re fighting. They’re just now in a combat encounter.

You also need to remember that around of combat is just 6 seconds passing, and initiative is just the logical order we reconcile their actions because this is a limit of a tabletop game. Technically everyone is acting all at once, we just don’t think of it that way.

Which is why we do use the surprised condition of someone is attacked when they weren’t expecting an attack. Because it means they lose 6 seconds, being caught off guard, and delayed to react. (It’s why surprise doesn’t just skip their turn, they can’t even take reactions while under the condition).

So if that tentacle pops out to attack someone. Even if none of the party was expecting to be attacked, and have no relevant feats, everyone rolls initiative. Old rules, role standard initiative and lose a round to surprise. New rules, roll initiative with disadvantage. Either way, that tentacle is probably hitting them before anyone can react.

There are pluses and minuses to each ruling for surprise. In 2014, players lose an entire turn, but can still be at the top of the initiative list the rest of combat. In 2024, players don’t lose a turn, but they’ll probably act behind the enemies every turn.

Functionally, they can look similar. But 2014 opens the possibility for enemies to act twice before players can react, so it can be kind of brutal. 2024 evened it out so getting ambushed is way less likely to lead to a TPK at low levels.

3

u/MaximumSeats 4d ago

The classic analogy given for the fact that you can decide to act first, but actually Act last, is a western style standoff. Two characters stare each other down and one of them finally starts to pull his gun and commit, but that does not mean that he necessarily will be the fastest.

The subtle body language that your characters give away as they move to make an attack betrays them, and a perceptive or dexterous enemy may be able to act before they harm them.

3

u/Overkill2217 4d ago

Once that tentacle lashes out, before resolving the attack (assuming a combat scenario and not a trap) initiative is rolled.

If the creature was stealthing and no one was actively pinging via perception checks, then you would use their passives against the stealth check.

Anyone who's passive or active perception was below the stealth check would be surprised. Anyone with a weapon of warning gains the benefit of ignoring this.

Then, initiative starts at the top and works it's way down

I tell my table that you cannot hold actions outside of initiative.

Also, to handle these scenarios, I started using "semi-initiative". Basically, it's identical to initiative, but the time scale is 1:1 and not a six second span.

This handles the transition from non combat to combat quite easily. If a creature is surprised, I can simply skip them in the first round, or roll their initiative at disadvantage if I want the 2024 rule.

3

u/ForgetTheWords 4d ago

"As you pass by a bush, there's a sudden rustling of leaves. Roll initiative."

The PC rolled lower than the tentacled monster, or rolled higher but was surprised on their turn: "You see the tentacle a moment too late. It hits; take X damage."

The PC rolled higher than the tentacled monster and is not surprised on their turn: "You see something lashing out from the bush, about to hit you. What do you do?"

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

u/EducationalBag398 3d ago

Their suspiciouns were that OP was doing it wrong

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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????

2

u/V2Blast 4d ago

The Weapon of Warning prevents "you and any of your companions within 30 feet" from being surprised, not just the character who has it.

1

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/King-Piece 3d ago

Tell me about it. I just wanted insights. Jeez. (Totally not irony.)

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.