Hi I'm a new dm. This is my second campaign I am running. My first campaign I made up all on my own. But I messed that up so I figured I would go a little easier this time and start a premade campaign. Problem is that my group had just finished one hell of a night. The NPC gave Two of my group some healing potions. My warlock was at 1HP, and so was my monk. My monk got one and so did the warlock. Problem is, is that my monk stole the potion that my warlock had. My warlock FLIP out. Now to be fare, my monk has a flaw. The flaw is "it's not stealing if you need it more " of course I made her roll slight of hand. And she got 17. While he and the NPC got a 3 and a 9. So I let it go. Now my warlock had RAGED quit. And the rest of my group is upset. There over it. But my friend still raged quit. There argument is that the potion was out in the open in his hand. There's no way she could of done that. BUT, I say yes cause it's like a street magician making a card disappear in front of u. It's not magic, it's skill. Faster than the eye can see. That's why I allowed it. She rolled. Two characters rolled against her. And she still won. Plus it is apart of her flaw, And she was at 1HP. So it made perfect sense charecter wise.
There seem to be two elements at play: 1) how you handled the situation, and 2) whether to allow PvP type interactions.
2) is easier to talk about. This is the kind of thing that needs to be talked about initially with the group as to whether this is acceptable or not, because not everyone is going to allow this type of shenanigans, or, if these shenanigans are allowed, to not let them go unpunished.
Now, to your situation. There’s some things you did that I would not have done. Now, some depends on just how the transaction occurred. Here are some of my thoughts:
- you don’t make anyone roll. Everyone can see that the monk just swiped two potions instead of one (or whatever number there were). Everyone gets annoyed at the monk.
- everyone can still tell the warlock got no potions, so the NPC scratches head and casts Cure Wounds or just gets another potion.
- even if you did allow the Sleight roll, there are only maybe the npc, monk, and warlock, and the options of what happened to the potions are extremely few. A perception roll will notice it happening, but it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to know that something happened. Everyone is going to get angry and suspicious with the monk.
- why was there a gap between acquiring potions and drinking them such that they could be stolen?
The warlock had a potion and so did the monk. The fighter was next to them but wasnt paying attention. So I didn't have him roll. An the cleric was trying to talk to the NPC. So I didn't have him roll either. So she took it out of the warlocks hand. As for them drinking it....she took the potion away from the warlock seconds after getting it. Like around 5 or 6. A standard combat round if u will.
Also about we're did it go. We didn't get that far. The warlock got pissed and flipped out after it happened. And left the game. He was in my last campaign. He was already questioning everything, an arguing Over every little thing with me. So when he left i was relieved. But I could tell by the look on my players faces that they weren't happy etheir. An that is why I'm afraid I messed up. There good players. Never arguing, always roleplaying. I don't wanna upset them.
The first, and most important, is that you should have a conversation with your players about how much player vs. player action will be allowed, what types of player vs. player actions are not going to be allowed (it is one thing to allow a player character to steal from another player character, and another to allow a player character to attack another player character, for example), and exactly how any allowed player vs. player action will be handle rules-wise. Basically, I advice making it so that PVP at your table is 100% opt-in, as that is the only way to prevent one player from deliberately "griefing" other players.
The second piece of advice is this: I don't care if you are a world-class sleight of hand artist, if you take my drink out of my hand right before I plan on drinking it I am going to notice it is gone - and if I can't see exactly where it went, I am sure going to suspect the person next to me that also wanted a drink of being the one that took it. You really shouldn't have allowed a roll for sleight of hand given the situation at hand because what you did was insist that the player character robbed of their potion couldn't tell what happened to an object that they were both holding in their hand [i]and[/i] were moving towards their mouth, which is presumably located on the front of their face along with their eyes.
In the previous edition: Organized Play did not allow PVP unless both sides agreed. Many DM's incorporated this concept into all their games, since it solved a lot of problems.
So just announce that you are adopting this concept. The next time the monk tries to steal, ask the target player if they are cool with that. If the player enjoys the concept of a thieving monk, they can opt in . If they don't, the monk won't be able to steal from them.
The warlock would have noticed they had no potion but the slight of hand would have made it so they didn't know who stole it or whether it was dropped etc.
They should have gotten a chance to contest where the potion had gone wither to the NPC or to the group.
I'll second the comments of the folks above but add a bit.
1) PvP interactions are something you have to talk about and you need to figure out these from both a character and a player perspective. The monk may feel that it isn't stealing if you need it more ... but that may not apply to people that they know or interact with. Is it different stealing from a stranger or a party member? Second, after the monk consumes their own potion then the warlock clearly needs their potion more than the monk (the monk knows this before they even consume their own potion if they are both at 1hp). As a result, even with their own loose definition of morals they are clearly stealing since they did not need it more than the warlock and that leaves out the fact that presumably the warlock was a friend, acquaintance or at least associate of the monk if they are fighting together in the first place. In all likelihood, unless the monk is an asocial kleptomaniac, it was probably way out of character to steal the healing potion from the party member warlock in the first place (if they are chaotic evil then this wouldn't apply ... but you have to wonder what the character motivations are for working with the party in the first place might be).
2) Sleight of hand can't magically take something you are holding without being noticed. Have you ever seen a trick like that? Sleight of hand distracts the eye and attention so that the performer makes things appear to disappear ... it isn't magic ... and it doesn't work on something you are holding and planning to swallow shortly. If the monk had bumped into the warlock, jostled them, bumped their hand and swiped the potion then they might be able to get their hand on it ... but the warlock would likely notice the instant it was gone and the only person that could have taken it was the monk that bumped into him. Basically, the entire swiping the potion out of someone's hand scenario using sleight of hand (without magic and being noticed) does NOT work. This is the likely basis of the problem and why the players are upset.
You allowed one player to take something from another player that they needed using a completely unrealistic and unbelievable action ... and then just said it worked because they rolled higher (maybe you personally thought it was cool or funny so thought why not allow it if they roll high enough?) ... the problem is that it is unrealistic to be able to physically take an item from someone's hand.
This also opens up the mechanics question. Sleight of hand or pickpocketing is not an opposed check. Noticing whether you have been pick pocketed might require a perception roll but the DC for actually being successful is set by the circumstances.
For example ...
- steal an item stored loosely in a pocket
- steal an item in a buttoned pocket
- steal an item in a money belt under clothing
- steal an item from a worn belt pouch
- steal an item from inside a backpack
- steal an item being held
These ALL have a different level of difficulty depending on circumstance and how the thief (monk) plans to steal it. They also might well have different difficulties for being noticed. Stealing an item from a money pouch under clothes is both difficult to do AND likely to be noticed. Stealing an item from inside a backpack worn on the back is also difficult but less likely to be noticed. Stealing a held item might be easier but will be almost impossible to go unnoticed.
None of these should be resolved by an opposed roll between players since the rolls do not take into account the circumstances ... if it was opposed rolls the easy and impossible tasks end up with the same difficulty.
In your case, trying to steal something from someones hand might have a difficulty of 15 to 20 to succeed depending on how hard they are holding on. However, the DC to notice the item being taken is probably in the 2 to 5 range (meaning it will almost always be immediately noticed unless there is some circumstance to make that less likely).
This is why your opposed roll is causing so much grief. It isn't fair to the character being robbed .. the consequences aren't falling on the thief the way they should (keep in mind that thieves might end up with a hand cut off for a first offence in some cultures) .. and you are relying on a mechanism that doesn't properly reflect the difficulty of the task. In some ways it isn't surprising that the affected player would rage-quit since from their perspective the DM probably appears pretty biased in favour of the monk ... which is one other important point ... the DM needs to adjudicate without showing any favoritism to specific players (especially those with ideas that negatively impact the experience of other players at the table).
I never thought of it being pvp before. That's a good way of looking at it. Still got allot of stuff to learn about this dm thing. Thanks guys. I appreciate it
Always ask "How are they going to obtain it and is it actually possible?" There can be situations where you can steal something from someone else when it's around them but you should have them roll at a disadvantage and the person who is on the opposite end at an advantage especially if it's right in front of them (I.E. swapping out a healing potion for a vial of red dyed water if it's on the counter).
Also, it helps to know how your group melds. It's difficult to gauge your group unless you all have been friends for awhile and they might not mind a little shenanigans here and there but if you have random people get together, haven't been friends for very long, or some are quick to temper. Then it might not be the best idea to allow actions against another PC. Just remember you are the DM and you set the rules. In the end you can allow things or not allow them and if you are playing 5e, a natural 20 doesn't mean crap unless it's combat (just sayin <(^.^<)) they are just fun to incorporate but never required.
I'm really curious how they got to the vendor with only 1 hp each...
Spare the Dying? It's happened to groups when I have been DM before.
That stabilises the target at 0 HPs, not 1. Any healing potion is going to heal more than 1 HP, and if the cleric has healed you for only 1 HP I am really worried about his stat distribution.
Edit: It's more likely archetype or racial features that allow you to drop to 1 HP rather than 0 (monk's Way of the Long Death, Half Orc's Relentless Endurance etc) - or just really lucky finishing an encounter on 1 HP
Firstly a Sleight of Hand check is opposed to Passive Perception, not a perception roll, and even if rolling for perception you cannot get a score lower than passive perception.
The Sleight of Hand check would have had disadvantage from circumstances which means the Passive Perception would be +5. If the Warlock had a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception proficiency their minimum passive perception, in this case, is 15 for the sleight of hand check. If they had proficiency it would have been 17.
However, there is a limit to what any ability check can accomplish. Taking something right out of somebody's hand while they are about to use it is not Sleight of Hand - there is no conceivable to not notice this. This would be more about if the Monk can swipe it before the Warlock can react and stop them. Perhaps that would be resolved by calling initiative between the two or perhaps it's a Grapple check. Either way the Warlock is going to know.
I would agree that you made a mistake and the player controlling the Warlock had a right to be upset with that, especially with you defending it with "character".
"It's what my character would do" should NEVER trump "it's what a player should do".
You as the DM should have only allowed this if both players accepted it. If the Warlock did not accept then you would say the Monk's attempt fails. Or perhaps the NPC just so happened to have another.
Fairness goes to players first and characters second. It is more important for the players to have fun than to adhere to the game's rules.
I would recommend you resolve by retconning this and say it did not happen, and speaking with the players to discuss limits on PvP interactions and when it will need a DM call to ask the players to agree before the proposed PvP takes place. I would also urge you to apologise to the player behind the Warlock and have a talk with them since it seemed they had more problems with your DMing than just this one instance (in which his upset was entirely justified).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I wouldn't worry to much about it. Take it as a learning experience. You got the bonus of that 1 annoying player that left. Now talk with the others about how you want situations like that to be handled as a group in the future. As a group you'll gradually develop the playstyle and custom rules. Which will lead to more fun over time as the experience gets more fine tuned and tailored to your group. This is just a little bump. In the future just make a call as best as you can. Then talk about it afterwards on how to deal with it better in the future.
Tips/tricks mentioned in the other posts can come in handy when trying to find out what lesson to take from it all.
ps in 5e dissadvantage/advantage rolls are not a -5/+5, unlike the older editions where this was the case. You just roll 2 dice and take the lowest/highest number.
Nor can it be assumed the Warlock had a passive perception of 15. Don't know the level of the characters in question nor the Wisdom modifier. At lvl 1 Passive Perception is just 10 + wis modifier + possible proficiency. If the warlock only had Wis 10, even with proficiency at lvl 1 he would be at 10+0 mod+2 prof=12 Passive Perception. If the warlock was higher level he could have more proficiency, he might also have a higher wisdom modifier. However we do not know untill the OP mentions it. You can't get a bonus on passive perception, that is just odd...that would automatically make an active perception for which should be roled. Then you could call the Perception to have advantage and thus apply the two dice roll and take the highest.
There could, and should, be a disadvantage on the roll for Sleight of Hand however due to obvious reasons. Which takes the lower of 2 dice rolls. Then again Sleight of Hand could've been also have been a straight up Dex check between both players or a deception. Many ways to go.
Did you roll for them to choke.... shoving stuff down unconscious people's throats is not a logical thing to do...
But it's standard procedure in D&D. DMG p.39 (& PHB p.153) says "Drinking or administering a potion to another character requires an action" (it's assumed that the other player is unconscious, as administering a potion to them while they are conscious and fighting would be silly). This has been confirmed by Sage posts. Similarly, the Sage has also said that Goodberries can be administered to unconscious characters. There is also precedence for this in fantasy literature and myths. It's magical healing. The aspiration of liquids or food into the lungs is evidently not an issue, so the magic probably takes effect just by being placed in the mouth. It certainly doesn't need to be digested (as that could take awhile).
I wouldn't worry to much about it. Take it as a learning experience. You got the bonus of that 1 annoying player that left. Now talk with the others about how you want situations like that to be handled as a group in the future. As a group you'll gradually develop the playstyle and custom rules. Which will lead to more fun over time as the experience gets more fine tuned and tailored to your group. This is just a little bump. In the future just make a call as best as you can. Then talk about it afterwards on how to deal with it better in the future.
Tips/tricks mentioned in the other posts can come in handy when trying to find out what lesson to take from it all.
ps in 5e dissadvantage/advantage rolls are not a -5/+5, unlike the older editions where this was the case. You just roll 2 dice and take the lowest/highest number.
Nor can it be assumed the Warlock had a passive perception of 15. Don't know the level of the characters in question nor the Wisdom modifier. At lvl 1 Passive Perception is just 10 + wis modifier + possible proficiency. If the warlock only had Wis 10, even with proficiency at lvl 1 he would be at 10+0 mod+2 prof=12 Passive Perception. If the warlock was higher level he could have more proficiency, he might also have a higher wisdom modifier. However we do not know untill the OP mentions it. You can't get a bonus on passive perception, that is just odd...that would automatically make an active perception for which should be roled. Then you could call the Perception to have advantage and thus apply the two dice roll and take the highest.
There could, and should, be a disadvantage on the roll for Sleight of Hand however due to obvious reasons. Which takes the lower of 2 dice rolls. Then again Sleight of Hand could've been also have been a straight up Dex check between both players or a deception. Many ways to go.
You do not roll for passive perception, that's why it is passive. If you would normally have advantage you add 5 to the passive score, if you would normally have disadvantage you subtract 5 from the score.
In my example I was using this as a means of determining a DC for the Sleight of Hand check. I would argue that if you were going to allow it at all the Sleight of Hand check would be disadvantage (rolled) and Passive Perception (not rolled) with advantage (+5).
For more about passives and applying advantage or disadvantage bonuses read the rules, I will quote it here for you.
Passive Checks
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14. The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules.
I highighted the relevant part for you. You can read more here.
I would note that the general concensus is that you roll for perception if you are actively looking for something and if you are not then you use the passive. Since the warlock does not know the Monk is going to try and steal the potion or suspect it they would not be actively searching and looking out for it, so you use passive perception instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
If a street magician makes a card disappear, everyone is entertained. If a street magician makes your hundred dollar bill disappear, you call the cops and he gets strip searched.
The monk broke the cardinal rule of adventure parties. Don’t steal from the group. No one will trust the monk anymore. It isn’t metagaming for the PC’s to at least suspect that the monk did it. So unless they are going to forgive and forget, the monk player should just roll up a new character. Maybe describe seeing the monk in the stocks (or worse). Medieval justice was cruel and unusual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi I'm a new dm. This is my second campaign I am running. My first campaign I made up all on my own. But I messed that up so I figured I would go a little easier this time and start a premade campaign. Problem is that my group had just finished one hell of a night. The NPC gave Two of my group some healing potions. My warlock was at 1HP, and so was my monk. My monk got one and so did the warlock. Problem is, is that my monk stole the potion that my warlock had. My warlock FLIP out. Now to be fare, my monk has a flaw. The flaw is "it's not stealing if you need it more " of course I made her roll slight of hand. And she got 17. While he and the NPC got a 3 and a 9. So I let it go. Now my warlock had RAGED quit. And the rest of my group is upset. There over it. But my friend still raged quit. There argument is that the potion was out in the open in his hand. There's no way she could of done that. BUT, I say yes cause it's like a street magician making a card disappear in front of u. It's not magic, it's skill. Faster than the eye can see. That's why I allowed it. She rolled. Two characters rolled against her. And she still won. Plus it is apart of her flaw, And she was at 1HP. So it made perfect sense charecter wise.
There seem to be two elements at play: 1) how you handled the situation, and 2) whether to allow PvP type interactions.
2) is easier to talk about. This is the kind of thing that needs to be talked about initially with the group as to whether this is acceptable or not, because not everyone is going to allow this type of shenanigans, or, if these shenanigans are allowed, to not let them go unpunished.
Now, to your situation. There’s some things you did that I would not have done. Now, some depends on just how the transaction occurred. Here are some of my thoughts:
- you don’t make anyone roll. Everyone can see that the monk just swiped two potions instead of one (or whatever number there were). Everyone gets annoyed at the monk.
- everyone can still tell the warlock got no potions, so the NPC scratches head and casts Cure Wounds or just gets another potion.
- even if you did allow the Sleight roll, there are only maybe the npc, monk, and warlock, and the options of what happened to the potions are extremely few. A perception roll will notice it happening, but it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to know that something happened. Everyone is going to get angry and suspicious with the monk.
- why was there a gap between acquiring potions and drinking them such that they could be stolen?
The warlock had a potion and so did the monk. The fighter was next to them but wasnt paying attention. So I didn't have him roll. An the cleric was trying to talk to the NPC. So I didn't have him roll either. So she took it out of the warlocks hand. As for them drinking it....she took the potion away from the warlock seconds after getting it. Like around 5 or 6. A standard combat round if u will.
Also about we're did it go. We didn't get that far. The warlock got pissed and flipped out after it happened. And left the game. He was in my last campaign. He was already questioning everything, an arguing Over every little thing with me. So when he left i was relieved. But I could tell by the look on my players faces that they weren't happy etheir. An that is why I'm afraid I messed up. There good players. Never arguing, always roleplaying. I don't wanna upset them.
I have two pieces of advice.
The first, and most important, is that you should have a conversation with your players about how much player vs. player action will be allowed, what types of player vs. player actions are not going to be allowed (it is one thing to allow a player character to steal from another player character, and another to allow a player character to attack another player character, for example), and exactly how any allowed player vs. player action will be handle rules-wise. Basically, I advice making it so that PVP at your table is 100% opt-in, as that is the only way to prevent one player from deliberately "griefing" other players.
The second piece of advice is this: I don't care if you are a world-class sleight of hand artist, if you take my drink out of my hand right before I plan on drinking it I am going to notice it is gone - and if I can't see exactly where it went, I am sure going to suspect the person next to me that also wanted a drink of being the one that took it. You really shouldn't have allowed a roll for sleight of hand given the situation at hand because what you did was insist that the player character robbed of their potion couldn't tell what happened to an object that they were both holding in their hand [i]and[/i] were moving towards their mouth, which is presumably located on the front of their face along with their eyes.
In the previous edition: Organized Play did not allow PVP unless both sides agreed. Many DM's incorporated this concept into all their games, since it solved a lot of problems.
So just announce that you are adopting this concept. The next time the monk tries to steal, ask the target player if they are cool with that. If the player enjoys the concept of a thieving monk, they can opt in . If they don't, the monk won't be able to steal from them.
The warlock would have noticed they had no potion but the slight of hand would have made it so they didn't know who stole it or whether it was dropped etc.
They should have gotten a chance to contest where the potion had gone wither to the NPC or to the group.
I'll second the comments of the folks above but add a bit.
1) PvP interactions are something you have to talk about and you need to figure out these from both a character and a player perspective. The monk may feel that it isn't stealing if you need it more ... but that may not apply to people that they know or interact with. Is it different stealing from a stranger or a party member? Second, after the monk consumes their own potion then the warlock clearly needs their potion more than the monk (the monk knows this before they even consume their own potion if they are both at 1hp). As a result, even with their own loose definition of morals they are clearly stealing since they did not need it more than the warlock and that leaves out the fact that presumably the warlock was a friend, acquaintance or at least associate of the monk if they are fighting together in the first place. In all likelihood, unless the monk is an asocial kleptomaniac, it was probably way out of character to steal the healing potion from the party member warlock in the first place (if they are chaotic evil then this wouldn't apply ... but you have to wonder what the character motivations are for working with the party in the first place might be).
2) Sleight of hand can't magically take something you are holding without being noticed. Have you ever seen a trick like that? Sleight of hand distracts the eye and attention so that the performer makes things appear to disappear ... it isn't magic ... and it doesn't work on something you are holding and planning to swallow shortly. If the monk had bumped into the warlock, jostled them, bumped their hand and swiped the potion then they might be able to get their hand on it ... but the warlock would likely notice the instant it was gone and the only person that could have taken it was the monk that bumped into him. Basically, the entire swiping the potion out of someone's hand scenario using sleight of hand (without magic and being noticed) does NOT work. This is the likely basis of the problem and why the players are upset.
You allowed one player to take something from another player that they needed using a completely unrealistic and unbelievable action ... and then just said it worked because they rolled higher (maybe you personally thought it was cool or funny so thought why not allow it if they roll high enough?) ... the problem is that it is unrealistic to be able to physically take an item from someone's hand.
This also opens up the mechanics question. Sleight of hand or pickpocketing is not an opposed check. Noticing whether you have been pick pocketed might require a perception roll but the DC for actually being successful is set by the circumstances.
For example ...
- steal an item stored loosely in a pocket
- steal an item in a buttoned pocket
- steal an item in a money belt under clothing
- steal an item from a worn belt pouch
- steal an item from inside a backpack
- steal an item being held
These ALL have a different level of difficulty depending on circumstance and how the thief (monk) plans to steal it. They also might well have different difficulties for being noticed. Stealing an item from a money pouch under clothes is both difficult to do AND likely to be noticed. Stealing an item from inside a backpack worn on the back is also difficult but less likely to be noticed. Stealing a held item might be easier but will be almost impossible to go unnoticed.
None of these should be resolved by an opposed roll between players since the rolls do not take into account the circumstances ... if it was opposed rolls the easy and impossible tasks end up with the same difficulty.
In your case, trying to steal something from someones hand might have a difficulty of 15 to 20 to succeed depending on how hard they are holding on. However, the DC to notice the item being taken is probably in the 2 to 5 range (meaning it will almost always be immediately noticed unless there is some circumstance to make that less likely).
This is why your opposed roll is causing so much grief. It isn't fair to the character being robbed .. the consequences aren't falling on the thief the way they should (keep in mind that thieves might end up with a hand cut off for a first offence in some cultures) .. and you are relying on a mechanism that doesn't properly reflect the difficulty of the task. In some ways it isn't surprising that the affected player would rage-quit since from their perspective the DM probably appears pretty biased in favour of the monk ... which is one other important point ... the DM needs to adjudicate without showing any favoritism to specific players (especially those with ideas that negatively impact the experience of other players at the table).
I never thought of it being pvp before. That's a good way of looking at it. Still got allot of stuff to learn about this dm thing. Thanks guys. I appreciate it
Always ask "How are they going to obtain it and is it actually possible?" There can be situations where you can steal something from someone else when it's around them but you should have them roll at a disadvantage and the person who is on the opposite end at an advantage especially if it's right in front of them (I.E. swapping out a healing potion for a vial of red dyed water if it's on the counter).
Also, it helps to know how your group melds. It's difficult to gauge your group unless you all have been friends for awhile and they might not mind a little shenanigans here and there but if you have random people get together, haven't been friends for very long, or some are quick to temper. Then it might not be the best idea to allow actions against another PC. Just remember you are the DM and you set the rules. In the end you can allow things or not allow them and if you are playing 5e, a natural 20 doesn't mean crap unless it's combat (just sayin <(^.^<)) they are just fun to incorporate but never required.
Self Righteous Paladin: "That much power corrupts a man."
Random Bard: "Power is just a tool. How you use it doesn't change that fact. It just shows the purest form of your desires."
I'm really curious how they got to the vendor with only 1 hp each...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersSpare the Dying? It's happened to groups when I have been DM before.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
That stabilises the target at 0 HPs, not 1. Any healing potion is going to heal more than 1 HP, and if the cleric has healed you for only 1 HP I am really worried about his stat distribution.
Edit: It's more likely archetype or racial features that allow you to drop to 1 HP rather than 0 (monk's Way of the Long Death, Half Orc's Relentless Endurance etc) - or just really lucky finishing an encounter on 1 HP
How to add Tooltips
They were unconscious and got a good berrie shoved down there mouths
Did you roll for them to choke.... shoving stuff down unconscious people's throats is not a logical thing to do...
Firstly a Sleight of Hand check is opposed to Passive Perception, not a perception roll, and even if rolling for perception you cannot get a score lower than passive perception.
The Sleight of Hand check would have had disadvantage from circumstances which means the Passive Perception would be +5. If the Warlock had a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception proficiency their minimum passive perception, in this case, is 15 for the sleight of hand check. If they had proficiency it would have been 17.
However, there is a limit to what any ability check can accomplish. Taking something right out of somebody's hand while they are about to use it is not Sleight of Hand - there is no conceivable to not notice this. This would be more about if the Monk can swipe it before the Warlock can react and stop them. Perhaps that would be resolved by calling initiative between the two or perhaps it's a Grapple check. Either way the Warlock is going to know.
I would agree that you made a mistake and the player controlling the Warlock had a right to be upset with that, especially with you defending it with "character".
"It's what my character would do" should NEVER trump "it's what a player should do".
You as the DM should have only allowed this if both players accepted it. If the Warlock did not accept then you would say the Monk's attempt fails. Or perhaps the NPC just so happened to have another.
Fairness goes to players first and characters second. It is more important for the players to have fun than to adhere to the game's rules.
I would recommend you resolve by retconning this and say it did not happen, and speaking with the players to discuss limits on PvP interactions and when it will need a DM call to ask the players to agree before the proposed PvP takes place. I would also urge you to apologise to the player behind the Warlock and have a talk with them since it seemed they had more problems with your DMing than just this one instance (in which his upset was entirely justified).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I wouldn't worry to much about it. Take it as a learning experience. You got the bonus of that 1 annoying player that left. Now talk with the others about how you want situations like that to be handled as a group in the future. As a group you'll gradually develop the playstyle and custom rules. Which will lead to more fun over time as the experience gets more fine tuned and tailored to your group. This is just a little bump. In the future just make a call as best as you can. Then talk about it afterwards on how to deal with it better in the future.
Tips/tricks mentioned in the other posts can come in handy when trying to find out what lesson to take from it all.
ps in 5e dissadvantage/advantage rolls are not a -5/+5, unlike the older editions where this was the case. You just roll 2 dice and take the lowest/highest number.
Nor can it be assumed the Warlock had a passive perception of 15. Don't know the level of the characters in question nor the Wisdom modifier. At lvl 1 Passive Perception is just 10 + wis modifier + possible proficiency. If the warlock only had Wis 10, even with proficiency at lvl 1 he would be at 10+0 mod+2 prof=12 Passive Perception. If the warlock was higher level he could have more proficiency, he might also have a higher wisdom modifier. However we do not know untill the OP mentions it. You can't get a bonus on passive perception, that is just odd...that would automatically make an active perception for which should be roled. Then you could call the Perception to have advantage and thus apply the two dice roll and take the highest.
There could, and should, be a disadvantage on the roll for Sleight of Hand however due to obvious reasons. Which takes the lower of 2 dice rolls. Then again Sleight of Hand could've been also have been a straight up Dex check between both players or a deception. Many ways to go.
But it's standard procedure in D&D. DMG p.39 (& PHB p.153) says "Drinking or administering a potion to another character requires an action" (it's assumed that the other player is unconscious, as administering a potion to them while they are conscious and fighting would be silly). This has been confirmed by Sage posts. Similarly, the Sage has also said that Goodberries can be administered to unconscious characters. There is also precedence for this in fantasy literature and myths. It's magical healing. The aspiration of liquids or food into the lungs is evidently not an issue, so the magic probably takes effect just by being placed in the mouth. It certainly doesn't need to be digested (as that could take awhile).
You do not roll for passive perception, that's why it is passive. If you would normally have advantage you add 5 to the passive score, if you would normally have disadvantage you subtract 5 from the score.
In my example I was using this as a means of determining a DC for the Sleight of Hand check. I would argue that if you were going to allow it at all the Sleight of Hand check would be disadvantage (rolled) and Passive Perception (not rolled) with advantage (+5).
For more about passives and applying advantage or disadvantage bonuses read the rules, I will quote it here for you.
I highighted the relevant part for you. You can read more here.
I would note that the general concensus is that you roll for perception if you are actively looking for something and if you are not then you use the passive. Since the warlock does not know the Monk is going to try and steal the potion or suspect it they would not be actively searching and looking out for it, so you use passive perception instead.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
If a street magician makes a card disappear, everyone is entertained. If a street magician makes your hundred dollar bill disappear, you call the cops and he gets strip searched.
The monk broke the cardinal rule of adventure parties. Don’t steal from the group. No one will trust the monk anymore. It isn’t metagaming for the PC’s to at least suspect that the monk did it. So unless they are going to forgive and forget, the monk player should just roll up a new character. Maybe describe seeing the monk in the stocks (or worse). Medieval justice was cruel and unusual.