This is a stupid question (I know I'm full of them.) and I'm sure it is just a matter of other thinking and semantics.
The encounter has the following text.
During the fight, the cloud of abyssal energy above the cauldron lashes out at any non-demons in the area. On initiative count 1 each round, roll a die to randomly pick one character in the party who is touched by a roiling tendril of energy. That character must succeed on a DC 12 Intelligence saving throw or be stunned until the start of their next turn.
So at initiative order 1, the cauldron keeps on lashing out to the monk of the party and keeps getting stunned. Now the monk is at the top of the initiative order with 22.
So my question is "start of the next turn" meaning that the monk while stunned never really takes the condition because he is at the top of the initiative order or the monk is stunned on that new turn and has to wait until the round after to be able to take an action?
That may be the listed Encounter Text, but I would modify that to either a different Initiative Count (20 is used a lot) or modify the Encounter Text to the start of the NPCs turn instead of the character. Without knowing what else this "monster" is doing, or what else is involved in this encounter, it is hard to say definitely how I would handle it... but no PC or NPC should have abilities that basically never affect anything. And an Initiative Count 1 is a very strange thing to have on a monster...
Technically, something could ready an action to attack a stunned target (which would go off after the cauldron applied stun), but likely not worthwhile.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
The wording is pretty clear about what the intent is. On initiative count 1, the target makes a save or be stunned until the start of its next turn. I do agree with you that it doesn't seem like a great mechanic, but the wording doesn't leave any room for interpretation. If the intent were as you describe, it would be written differently.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
That's actually much worse than what it says. The way it works as written is that, until your initiative count comes up, you can't take reactions, auto-fail strength and dexterity saves, and attacks on you have advantage, but it never actually costs you an action, it just means you spend some time being a prime target. Your version can actually cost someone an action and is guaranteed to allow attacks. If I wanted to even it out, I would just change it to last until initiative count 1 of the next turn.
This part came from an Encounter of the Week: Idle Champions Presents Hit and Abyss (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/705-idle-champions-presents-hit-and-abyss) Over the past few days I've posted questions regarding to this Encounter of the Week and uniformly people have said how poorly worded or way too difficult for a trap (DM Close To TPK - Without Rolling The Dice). With all the good feedback regarding this encounter, it is learning to not take everything at face value that is may be worked out in play theory and not just what was written to paper.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
The wording is pretty clear about what the intent is. On initiative count 1, the target makes a save or be stunned until the start of its next turn. I do agree with you that it doesn't seem like a great mechanic, but the wording doesn't leave any room for interpretation. If the intent were as you describe, it would be written differently.
I disagree. People make mistakes. I'm not Pro RAW so, I don't defend everything as if it was stated correctly with the intent it seems to indicate.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
That's actually much worse than what it says. The way it works as written is that, until your initiative count comes up, you can't take reactions, auto-fail strength and dexterity saves, and attacks on you have advantage, but it never actually costs you an action, it just means you spend some time being a prime target. Your version can actually cost someone an action and is guaranteed to allow attacks. If I wanted to even it out, I would just change it to last until initiative count 1 of the next turn.
I don't know what you are talking about. It seems pretty clear to me at least, the intent is that the chosen target would either be stunned on their turn and suffer all it's consequences until it's next turn or be unaffected.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
The wording is pretty clear about what the intent is. On initiative count 1, the target makes a save or be stunned until the start of its next turn. I do agree with you that it doesn't seem like a great mechanic, but the wording doesn't leave any room for interpretation. If the intent were as you describe, it would be written differently.
I disagree. People make mistakes. I'm not Pro RAW so, I don't defend everything as if it was stated correctly with the intent it seems to indicate.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
That's actually much worse than what it says. The way it works as written is that, until your initiative count comes up, you can't take reactions, auto-fail strength and dexterity saves, and attacks on you have advantage, but it never actually costs you an action, it just means you spend some time being a prime target. Your version can actually cost someone an action and is guaranteed to allow attacks. If I wanted to even it out, I would just change it to last until initiative count 1 of the next turn.
I don't know what you are talking about. It seems pretty clear to me at least, the intent is that the chosen target would either be stunned on their turn and suffer all it's consequences until it's next turn or be unaffected.
No, the intent is that the chosen target is stunned until their turn -- it never costs the target their action. If the intent was to cost the target its turn, the stunned state would last until the end of the target's turn.
You can think whatever you like. As this is in the DM forum, I stated how I would run it and why. My choice was to do so in a way that would equally affect any PC the same, regardless of their order in initiative.
You can think whatever you like. As this is in the DM forum, I stated how I would run it and why. My choice was to do so in a way that would equally affect any PC the same, regardless of their order in initiative.
Nobody's telling you not to run it the way you want. You're making an unsubstantiated claim that the intent of the rule is something entirely different from the unambiguous text of the rule, and people are pointing that out. Let's chill.
It seemed to me that BKThomsonwanted opinions on how to run the scenario they described, not necessarily a RAW translation of rules you find unambiguous. I found that the unambiguous rules had bias depending on initiative order and didn't like them hence, I called them poorly worded. If you have a different opinion, why argue with mine? Just post your own opinion and how you think it should work.
It seemed to me that BKThomsonwanted opinions on how to run the scenario they described, not necessarily a RAW translation of rules you find unambiguous. I found that the unambiguous rules had bias depending on initiative order and didn't like them hence, I called them poorly worded.
"Poorly worded" implies that you are going to come up with an alternate wording that is clearer but has the same mechanical effect. Your variant has a completely different (and generally stronger) mechanical effect.
Hey, I really appreciate everyone's input into this question. I hate to see people getting into an argument over something this trivial as the wording of 'next turn'. Different opinions are good and it helps me see the different sides of the question that I may not have thought of before. So again, that you all for the input.
The idea behind the intended effect in this case appears to be to make a character randomly vulnerable to attacks for part of the turn. How vulnerable they are depends on their initiative. Someone who was slow or low on the initiative order is more vulnerable than someone who reacted quickly at the start of combat. It appears to be intended to be a relatively weak effect since it does not force the character to lose their action.
Any DM can feel free to modify any content if they don't like how it is worded. However, the wording in this case appears fairly specific in its intent, limited scope and varying effect on characters depending on their position in the initiative order.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a stupid question (I know I'm full of them.) and I'm sure it is just a matter of other thinking and semantics.
The encounter has the following text.
So at initiative order 1, the cauldron keeps on lashing out to the monk of the party and keeps getting stunned. Now the monk is at the top of the initiative order with 22.
So my question is "start of the next turn" meaning that the monk while stunned never really takes the condition because he is at the top of the initiative order or the monk is stunned on that new turn and has to wait until the round after to be able to take an action?
The former. If the stun occurs at the bottom of the initiative order and it affects the character at the top, the stun is effectively non-existent.
Thank you!
That may be the listed Encounter Text, but I would modify that to either a different Initiative Count (20 is used a lot) or modify the Encounter Text to the start of the NPCs turn instead of the character. Without knowing what else this "monster" is doing, or what else is involved in this encounter, it is hard to say definitely how I would handle it... but no PC or NPC should have abilities that basically never affect anything. And an Initiative Count 1 is a very strange thing to have on a monster...
Technically, something could ready an action to attack a stunned target (which would go off after the cauldron applied stun), but likely not worthwhile.
The wording is terrible. I believe the actual intent is that on initiative count 1, a target is selected. The target needs to make a save when it's turn comes up or be stunned until it's next turn. Just my opinion as the mechanics would be too harsh or lenient depending on where you stand in the initiative order.
The wording is pretty clear about what the intent is. On initiative count 1, the target makes a save or be stunned until the start of its next turn. I do agree with you that it doesn't seem like a great mechanic, but the wording doesn't leave any room for interpretation. If the intent were as you describe, it would be written differently.
That's actually much worse than what it says. The way it works as written is that, until your initiative count comes up, you can't take reactions, auto-fail strength and dexterity saves, and attacks on you have advantage, but it never actually costs you an action, it just means you spend some time being a prime target. Your version can actually cost someone an action and is guaranteed to allow attacks. If I wanted to even it out, I would just change it to last until initiative count 1 of the next turn.
This part came from an Encounter of the Week: Idle Champions Presents Hit and Abyss (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/705-idle-champions-presents-hit-and-abyss) Over the past few days I've posted questions regarding to this Encounter of the Week and uniformly people have said how poorly worded or way too difficult for a trap (DM Close To TPK - Without Rolling The Dice). With all the good feedback regarding this encounter, it is learning to not take everything at face value that is may be worked out in play theory and not just what was written to paper.
I disagree. People make mistakes. I'm not Pro RAW so, I don't defend everything as if it was stated correctly with the intent it seems to indicate.
I don't know what you are talking about. It seems pretty clear to me at least, the intent is that the chosen target would either be stunned on their turn and suffer all it's consequences until it's next turn or be unaffected.
No, the intent is that the chosen target is stunned until their turn -- it never costs the target their action. If the intent was to cost the target its turn, the stunned state would last until the end of the target's turn.
You can think whatever you like. As this is in the DM forum, I stated how I would run it and why. My choice was to do so in a way that would equally affect any PC the same, regardless of their order in initiative.
Nobody's telling you not to run it the way you want. You're making an unsubstantiated claim that the intent of the rule is something entirely different from the unambiguous text of the rule, and people are pointing that out. Let's chill.
It seemed to me that BKThomson wanted opinions on how to run the scenario they described, not necessarily a RAW translation of rules you find unambiguous. I found that the unambiguous rules had bias depending on initiative order and didn't like them hence, I called them poorly worded. If you have a different opinion, why argue with mine? Just post your own opinion and how you think it should work.
"Poorly worded" implies that you are going to come up with an alternate wording that is clearer but has the same mechanical effect. Your variant has a completely different (and generally stronger) mechanical effect.
Hey, I really appreciate everyone's input into this question. I hate to see people getting into an argument over something this trivial as the wording of 'next turn'. Different opinions are good and it helps me see the different sides of the question that I may not have thought of before. So again, that you all for the input.
If your question helps 1 person learn (including you) then it’s not stupid.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The idea behind the intended effect in this case appears to be to make a character randomly vulnerable to attacks for part of the turn. How vulnerable they are depends on their initiative. Someone who was slow or low on the initiative order is more vulnerable than someone who reacted quickly at the start of combat. It appears to be intended to be a relatively weak effect since it does not force the character to lose their action.
Any DM can feel free to modify any content if they don't like how it is worded. However, the wording in this case appears fairly specific in its intent, limited scope and varying effect on characters depending on their position in the initiative order.