I'm wondering how to interpret complicated player actions that may involve two or more moves. Say that an archer is standing on a dining hall table as a group of goblins runs in. The archer player says he wants to run 10', cartwheel off the table, land and then throw his dagger at a goblin. How would a DM handle each part of this sequence?
----------------------
How do you handle stealth? Using the example from above, as the ranger is engaging the goblins, the rogue says he want to get behind the goblins to do a sneak attack. What is a good way to handle this? I get conservative on stealth moves b/c rogue players tend to want to surprise, hide and backstab everything, as if they could hit and run without taking damage.
Well before any of this hapens, you roll for initiative when the goblins rush in.
The ranger move can happen before his attack action and he wants to carwheel off a table as part of that move. That's fine. I would have them roll for acrobatics. It's not too hard to do a cartwheel but it's off a table and only the DM knows how much stuff/people are in the way during that. So the DM sets the DC. If they fail, maybe they land prone and then make their attack with disadvantage. They then take the attack action to throw a dagger.
The rogue may go before or after the ranger depending on their initiative. Only the DM can say if the goblins notice the rogue with passive perception unless the rogue wants to break line of sight to cunning action hide first to be more stealthy. The goblins still might notice the rogue depending on the roll. Also, rogues can hit and run with cunning action and other subclass abilitites. It's normal for them to want to do that, but they need to do it in combat order and in the context of action economy.
I agree with Lathius, except I probably wouldn't require a roll for the cartwheel. If it's just a bit of descriptive flourish, I'd let him do it. If he was trying to get some kind of mechanical advantage from doing it, like cartwheeling over something, or doing something unusual, I'd call for the roll. But something like a cartwheel off a table, I'd let him do that, if only to encourage more interesting things like that in the future, instead of just, I jump down.
Also, you might ask the rogue to review the rules on sneak attacking, as they no longer require you to be behind someone. Actually, "behind" doesn't really exist, since facing doesn't really exist.
If you have advantaged and there is no enemy within 5 feet of them, it can work, and if the target has another enemy within five feet of them you don't need advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
"The archer player says he wants to run 10', cartwheel off the table, land and then throw his dagger at a goblin. How would a DM handle each part of this sequence?"
I wholeheartedly recommend encouraging descriptive playing. It only gives your game depth. As Xalthy said, if it doesn't grant them some benefits or allow them to avoid something negative, don't ask for a roll.
In your example there is only the Attack that calls for a mandatory check. You don't need a check or even Dashing to move 10ft. You are not making a long or high jump, so you technically don't have any prerequisite movement. Landing from the table... Maybe, if you think a chance to fail adds value to the situation.
After a couple of failed acrobatics checks just for trying to spice up the whole game, the person will just end up playing it safe and says "I move 10ft and make a ranged attack with my dagger" - in which case everyone loses.
In this case you could rule that jumping down from the table under combat pressure equires a check or some extra movement or nothing at all. Regardless, the cartwheel is optional flourish and shouldn't affect the check.
Unless! Say the archer is a rogue who wants to gain advantage or just their rogue bonus for their attack, you could allow them to make an Acrobatics check. If they succeed, they get the bonus/advantage. If they fail, the risk becomes reality.
Either way, I encourage proactive and creative playing, especially if the flavor matches their stats/character. DnD combat easily turns into "I hit with my weapon".
Maybe giving disadvantage on a failed roll is too damaging for the situation. I get that. It was a quick example.
I do like making people roll for stuff like that because it gives the DM a chance to describe how cool a character was able to pull off an action. Roll a nat 20, everyone in the room is impressed and maybe get DM inspiration. Roll a 1, you do the cartwheel but look like a drunk toddler. It's more fun to let the dice decide how something plays out sometimes and giving small rewards even if there's a chance for a small punishment still encourages people to be descriptive. I don't do this with every descrptive flourish, but throwing it in on occasion is just fun.
I prefer to use these kinds of rolls to embellish the scene without any mechanical benefit. On a high acrobatics check, I describe how cool they look. On a low check, I describe how silly they look. But either way there's a little more color as they move to X position and make an attack.
If your players don't go for this kind of thing often, have your monsters do it. It gives them more personality and invites your players to try it.
Now if a player wants a particular benefit tied to a skill check, I'll allow it if they can persuade me that it makes sense (in our example here, a cartwheel is not going to provide any obvious advantage), but I'll also let them know that a failed roll will result in a penalty. For example, if a rogue wanted to swing on a chandelier to gain an extra 10 feet of movement so they could stab something they would otherwise not be able to stab, they could roll acrobatics against an easy-mid DC for that. But if they fail they fall prone short of their goal.
I'm wondering how to interpret complicated player actions that may involve two or more moves. Say that an archer is standing on a dining hall table as a group of goblins runs in. The archer player says he wants to run 10', cartwheel off the table, land and then throw his dagger at a goblin. How would a DM handle each part of this sequence?
The archer would use 10 feet of movement, make a Dexterity (Acrobatic) check to cartwheel off the table and use the Attack action to make a ranged weapon attack with the dagger, granting it an Inspiration for the prowess if successful ;)
How do you handle stealth? Using the example from above, as the ranger is engaging the goblins, the rogue says he want to get behind the goblins to do a sneak attack. What is a good way to handle this? I get conservative on stealth moves b/c rogue players tend to want to surprise, hide and backstab everything, as if they could hit and run without taking damage.
The rogue doesn't need to hide to use Sneak Attack if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it or if it has advantage somehow. Depending if the rogue use melee or ranged attacks and if there's a way to not be seen clearly, it could make Dexterity (Stealth) check to attempt to hide as a bonus action using Cunning Action and take the Attack action to pop out and make range weapon attacks.
Coming out of hiding to go attack goblins in melee is more difficult to keep the advantage as an unseen attacker; in combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if the rogue come out of hiding and approach the goblins, they will see him. However, under certain circumstances, as DM i might allow a character to stay hidden as it approach a creature that is distracted, retaining advantage on an attack roll before being seen. But such circumstances are rare and i tend to not let them happen repeatedly in a combat because enemies usually don't get fooled twice that way.
@lathius Thanks for the reply. Useful points about the rogue. I wouldn't have considered using skills before combat started.
@Xalthu No roll for the cartwheel is a good idea.
@AE Thanks for the link. Good info.
@scatter Interesting idea about levels of flourish.
@Ser Appreciate the reply! I want the group to use skills more and think of possibilities. One thing about this group is they're hesitant about combat or they overthink problems. At one point they wanted to get to a small island. I said they could easily cross a river to get there but they wanted to find a boat. I said that there was boatman nearby. Then they wanted to barter with the boatman for the travel cost. It's fine though. I learn more about their habits. They're a bit indecisive.
@Plague Useful explanation for the rogue. I'm DMing a newish group (high school). We've been playing since last year, short sessions (unfortunately), and they've improved. They understand more now but need a lot of practice. They have a loose interpretation of Skills and details, which is the next hurdle.
I'm wondering how to interpret complicated player actions that may involve two or more moves. Say that an archer is standing on a dining hall table as a group of goblins runs in. The archer player says he wants to run 10', cartwheel off the table, land and then throw his dagger at a goblin. How would a DM handle each part of this sequence?
----------------------
How do you handle stealth? Using the example from above, as the ranger is engaging the goblins, the rogue says he want to get behind the goblins to do a sneak attack. What is a good way to handle this? I get conservative on stealth moves b/c rogue players tend to want to surprise, hide and backstab everything, as if they could hit and run without taking damage.
Thanks for comments.
Well before any of this hapens, you roll for initiative when the goblins rush in.
The ranger move can happen before his attack action and he wants to carwheel off a table as part of that move. That's fine. I would have them roll for acrobatics. It's not too hard to do a cartwheel but it's off a table and only the DM knows how much stuff/people are in the way during that. So the DM sets the DC. If they fail, maybe they land prone and then make their attack with disadvantage. They then take the attack action to throw a dagger.
The rogue may go before or after the ranger depending on their initiative. Only the DM can say if the goblins notice the rogue with passive perception unless the rogue wants to break line of sight to cunning action hide first to be more stealthy. The goblins still might notice the rogue depending on the roll. Also, rogues can hit and run with cunning action and other subclass abilitites. It's normal for them to want to do that, but they need to do it in combat order and in the context of action economy.
I agree with Lathius, except I probably wouldn't require a roll for the cartwheel. If it's just a bit of descriptive flourish, I'd let him do it. If he was trying to get some kind of mechanical advantage from doing it, like cartwheeling over something, or doing something unusual, I'd call for the roll. But something like a cartwheel off a table, I'd let him do that, if only to encourage more interesting things like that in the future, instead of just, I jump down.
Also, you might ask the rogue to review the rules on sneak attacking, as they no longer require you to be behind someone. Actually, "behind" doesn't really exist, since facing doesn't really exist.
To follow up, sneak attacks have a specific set of requirements:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/classes#SneakAttack
If you have advantaged and there is no enemy within 5 feet of them, it can work, and if the target has another enemy within five feet of them you don't need advantage.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
"The archer player says he wants to run 10', cartwheel off the table, land and then throw his dagger at a goblin. How would a DM handle each part of this sequence?"
I wholeheartedly recommend encouraging descriptive playing. It only gives your game depth. As Xalthy said, if it doesn't grant them some benefits or allow them to avoid something negative, don't ask for a roll.
In your example there is only the Attack that calls for a mandatory check. You don't need a check or even Dashing to move 10ft. You are not making a long or high jump, so you technically don't have any prerequisite movement. Landing from the table... Maybe, if you think a chance to fail adds value to the situation.
After a couple of failed acrobatics checks just for trying to spice up the whole game, the person will just end up playing it safe and says "I move 10ft and make a ranged attack with my dagger" - in which case everyone loses.
In this case you could rule that jumping down from the table under combat pressure equires a check or some extra movement or nothing at all. Regardless, the cartwheel is optional flourish and shouldn't affect the check.
Unless! Say the archer is a rogue who wants to gain advantage or just their rogue bonus for their attack, you could allow them to make an Acrobatics check. If they succeed, they get the bonus/advantage. If they fail, the risk becomes reality.
Either way, I encourage proactive and creative playing, especially if the flavor matches their stats/character. DnD combat easily turns into "I hit with my weapon".
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Maybe giving disadvantage on a failed roll is too damaging for the situation. I get that. It was a quick example.
I do like making people roll for stuff like that because it gives the DM a chance to describe how cool a character was able to pull off an action. Roll a nat 20, everyone in the room is impressed and maybe get DM inspiration. Roll a 1, you do the cartwheel but look like a drunk toddler. It's more fun to let the dice decide how something plays out sometimes and giving small rewards even if there's a chance for a small punishment still encourages people to be descriptive. I don't do this with every descrptive flourish, but throwing it in on occasion is just fun.
I prefer to use these kinds of rolls to embellish the scene without any mechanical benefit. On a high acrobatics check, I describe how cool they look. On a low check, I describe how silly they look. But either way there's a little more color as they move to X position and make an attack.
If your players don't go for this kind of thing often, have your monsters do it. It gives them more personality and invites your players to try it.
Now if a player wants a particular benefit tied to a skill check, I'll allow it if they can persuade me that it makes sense (in our example here, a cartwheel is not going to provide any obvious advantage), but I'll also let them know that a failed roll will result in a penalty. For example, if a rogue wanted to swing on a chandelier to gain an extra 10 feet of movement so they could stab something they would otherwise not be able to stab, they could roll acrobatics against an easy-mid DC for that. But if they fail they fall prone short of their goal.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The archer would use 10 feet of movement, make a Dexterity (Acrobatic) check to cartwheel off the table and use the Attack action to make a ranged weapon attack with the dagger, granting it an Inspiration for the prowess if successful ;)
The rogue doesn't need to hide to use Sneak Attack if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it or if it has advantage somehow. Depending if the rogue use melee or ranged attacks and if there's a way to not be seen clearly, it could make Dexterity (Stealth) check to attempt to hide as a bonus action using Cunning Action and take the Attack action to pop out and make range weapon attacks.
Coming out of hiding to go attack goblins in melee is more difficult to keep the advantage as an unseen attacker; in combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if the rogue come out of hiding and approach the goblins, they will see him. However, under certain circumstances, as DM i might allow a character to stay hidden as it approach a creature that is distracted, retaining advantage on an attack roll before being seen. But such circumstances are rare and i tend to not let them happen repeatedly in a combat because enemies usually don't get fooled twice that way.
@lathius Thanks for the reply. Useful points about the rogue. I wouldn't have considered using skills before combat started.
@Xalthu No roll for the cartwheel is a good idea.
@AE Thanks for the link. Good info.
@scatter Interesting idea about levels of flourish.
@Ser Appreciate the reply! I want the group to use skills more and think of possibilities. One thing about this group is they're hesitant about combat or they overthink problems. At one point they wanted to get to a small island. I said they could easily cross a river to get there but they wanted to find a boat. I said that there was boatman nearby. Then they wanted to barter with the boatman for the travel cost. It's fine though. I learn more about their habits. They're a bit indecisive.
@Plague Useful explanation for the rogue. I'm DMing a newish group (high school). We've been playing since last year, short sessions (unfortunately), and they've improved. They understand more now but need a lot of practice. They have a loose interpretation of Skills and details, which is the next hurdle.