Zero Rule Not in the search engine. What page number is zero 0 on? Most people understand RAW means ignore the mythical rule and supply the answer in the books. Doing this way does not confuse the causal players/DMS.
But if the DM is always right is RAW and there the DM goes against RAW then the universe folds in on itself and we all die.
Yeah, it was a bad call with made up mechanics that have no basis on anything RAW. Dropping out of wildshape as the result of dropping to 0 hp in wildshape does not knock you prone nor did the attacker use an attack (like a battlemaster) to knock the character prone and even if the attacker did so you can still make an opportunity attack as reverting from wildshape does not use up your reaction. Yup, bad call.
It is the DMs game. They can choose to run it however they like. If players don't like how it is run then the players can decide not to play. That is fundamental to the entire concept of role playing games and is not unique to D&D. The DM is free to change/add/modify or otherwise create new content or rules as they wish. However, none of those changes constitute "Rules as Written".
PHB p6:
"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."
It is best if house rules are defined BEFORE they come up in play and they should not be made up on the spur of the moment just because the DM thinks it might be more cool. "Rule of Cool" is typically better applied to player actions to enhance their experience than to DM NPC actions to let them get away with things.
---
However, in terms of D&D 5e, in the DMG section on rules:
"RULES DISCUSSIONS You might need to set a policy on rules discussions at the table. Some groups don't mind putting the game on hold while they hash out different interpretations of a rule. Others prefer to let the DM make a call and continue with the action. If you gloss over a rules issue in play, make a note of it (a good task to delegate to a player) and return to the issue later."
This clearly implies that there is ONE set of rules that may be open to interpretation - a set of rules that is mutually agreed to by both the players and the DM. For any particular game that set of rules would include DM house rules. A group can choose to discuss rules questions when they come up or they can let the DM make a call and then decide later how they want to play it.
RAW (as used in these forums) is RULES AS WRITTEN. There are lots of sections of the rules that have multiple valid and conflicting opinions. That is just the nature of them.
If a DM makes a decision during play that is not consistent with the Rules As Written ... this does NOT become a new Rules As Written (since it is obviously not written in an official source) it becomes a house rule applicable to that DMs table ONLY.
In the example of the OP, there is NOTHING in the rules that would prevent the druid from taking an op attack when the attacker moves out of their reach. This is a clear change to the Rules As Written by this DM and constitutes a house rule. It is NOT new Rules as Written since the term Rules as Written has a specific meaning referring to the text written in officially published sources from Wizards of the Coast.
In the OP example, if the druid was prone after the shape change ends, they should make an op attack at disadvantage for being prone.
---
In the case of the druid being prone - this is something NOT explicitly covered in the rules. The rules do not say one way or another if the druid transforms from a 4 legged creature to a two legged one whether they would be prone or not. The rules do not distinguish between whether this is a voluntary change due to the druid ending wild shape or an involuntary one due to the druid losing wild shape due to damage. Since the rules don't say, the easiest interpretation is that there is no change of state associated with the shape change.
If the druid was prone when they transform they remain prone but the shape changing itself does not impose the prone condition since it does not say it does. (In the OP example, the DM could rule that the foot stomp also knocked the rat prone as it does the damage .. the condition then carries over as the druid reverts from their wild shape - this would be a specific, completely valid, circumstance based ruling by the DM - that is their job).
However, more generally, a perfectly valid house rule could be that when involuntarily transforming from a four legged to two legged form - the druid starts off prone (on hands and knees). However, again this is very clearly a house rule and not Rules as Written since the rules don't say this anywhere.
But if the DM is always right is RAW and there the DM goes against RAW then the universe folds in on itself and we all die.
No we don't, at least not those of us who know which question we are trying to answer. I believe that I have answered both:
It is not a bad call, it's a DM's ruling and therefore is according to RAW as "rule 0" supersedes the rest of the RAW. It is absolutely alright for a DM to decide in his campaign that the stomp of mouse by a booted soldier is powerful enough to knock it to the ground and deprive it of its reaction just because of the shock.
As for the compliance of that specific ruling with the rest of the RAW, lots of people inclusing myself have pointed out that it contradicts a number of other RAW, and explained why.
It's called a joke lol
But yes, it is a bad call and if the DM wants to go against RAW then so be it, but it's against RAW. Saying I'm the DM and therefore right is kind of a crappy thing to do and way to play and if it was a regular thing for a DM to ignore RAW then I would for sure leave the table. Now going against RAW for ROF for everyone to have more fun is fine, but this obviously isn't the case here as the OP was not happy about the decision and has a good argument about the DM going against RAW. If there isn't a clear ruling in the rules as there are a million different ways things can happen in D&D that there is not rule for then the DM has final say. Technically the DM has final say in overruling RAW as well, but it's not good form to upset a player and ignore RAW just because. It was a bad call, but totally within the DM's power to do so.
That's all well and good but this is a forum for discussing rules and if every question that starts with "was my DM right to make this call about a rule" is going to be answered with "yes because according to the books DM is always right" then there is no valuable discussion about mechanics to be had.
Please see here, the forum is about all the rules, and I am clearly answering the question shouted by OP, as per the RAW, there is can be no bad ruling. There can be rulings which are not in line with the some of the RAW, see here where I agree with you, but it is also a question of RAW that the DM's ruling should be respected
Of course there can be bad rulings. The fact that DM has the last word doesn't mean that the verdict can't be bad.
It is a DM's job to adjudicate in a fair and responsible manner all situations at the table and in that context being unfair to a player and gimping that player's ability, denying them action when other rules that are not "Rule 0" don't call for it, can be subjected to evaluation as "bad ruling".
Just as laws can be subjected to evaluation of fairness (despite their legality) so can DM's decisions.
It is the DMs game. They can choose to run it however they like. If players don't like how it is run then the players can decide not to play. That is fundamental to the entire concept of role playing games and is not unique to D&D. The DM is free to change/add/modify or otherwise create new content or rules as they wish. However, none of those changes constitute "Rules as Written".
I'd say you're only half-right. The game everyone sits down at the table to play is a shared experience. It belongs to everyone, both the DM and the other players. You're right about the player's ability to "get up" from the table, or otherwise revolt, but you're putting too much power in the hands of one person. It's not a lop-sided relationship. It's a social contract.
Going back to the shared experience, the player's handbook includes all the rules necessary to run the game and is intended for the players to have. This means any player with access to it is going to have certain expectations about how the game is to be played. And any DM who deviates from this is going to have to explain themselves to the other players.
I don't think it's reasonable for the DM to say the druid was prone after reverting back. The mouse isn't prone when moving about because, despite moving on all fours, it wasn't crawling. That's a specific mode of movement which costs 1 foot of additional movement speed for every 1 foot traveled. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the druid was using rat statistics to represent the mouse form. They get their full 20 feet of movement unless they're crawling. So unless the druid was explicitly crawling, they weren't prone. And the default guard is armed with a spear, which lacks the reach property. If the guard didn't roll their attack with advantage, then the DM is admitting the druid wasn't prone in advance of the attack. And no attack of the guard has a rider that knocks the target prone, either.
And the druid didn't lose their reaction, either. Even if they somehow were prone, they still get to attempt an opportunity attack with disadvantage so long as the guard is within reach. Odds are pretty good the guard was within striking distance, so that shouldn't be an issue. Now, maybe the druid didn't revert back with a weapon in their hand and couldn't draw one as part of their reaction. Maybe they tanked strength and their unarmed strike cancels it out to zero damage, which would make an opportunity attack a non-starter. We just don't know enough there. There may be other calculations at work, but the explanation given in the OP isn't just weaksauce. It violates the RAW, and as such violates the social contract.
The DM's word is final, but we do know the DM made at least one bad call. And bad calls are going to happen. We're human, we're going to make mistakes. Professional referees get it wrong all the time, and every last one of us is an amateur. What's important is addressing our errors after-the-fact. The DM did something which changed the player's expectation, and the player does not feel it was adequately justified. That's a communication issue which needs to be resolved pronto.
Players shouldn't argue with DM at the table. However, they can be unhappy about it.
DM should acknowledge their mistake after the section when the player resent with the RAW rule.
Just because the RAW rule says DM has the right to overwrite the rule, it doesn't mean the homebrew-rule/house-rule is good or correct.
DM shouldn't deviate from the official rule especially if there isn't a section zero. It is because it is the only thing both sides agree upon. Both sides should follow the official rule and only break it when both sides agree. A player breaking the game by not following rule isn't fun; DM denying the player's right to do something isn't fun. The 1st rule of this game: everyone should have fun.
DM needs to make a call when the rule isn't clear. For example, I try to drag my teammate out of the water and ask my DM about the ruling. He decided to use the "Moving a Grappled Creature" rule and let the dragging be a free action as part of the movement action. If he rules the dragging as a "Use an Object", I am fine with it too since it is unclear in the book.
Thank you everyone for your replies. The comment was made that we shouldn't take this to the internet and I want to clarify. We did discuss this situation the DM and quite frankly I agree with the call in THAT specific situation. RAW provide us with a great framework in which to adjudicate rules. However, I believe in certain situations a DM has agency to make a call based on the the situation and thematic elements of what is occurring in order to make something make sense...e.g. "the rogue dodges through the stinking cloud" might be RAW but I mean really? If a druid wildshapes to a mouse and is stopped on causeing one to revert back, I would think that traumatic event might cause a person to have to take at least a split second to pop back into shape and gather themselves and realistically (i use this term loosely) would they have the wherewithal or piece of mind in that moment to strike back? I don't know...i lean toward no. I think the bad guy gets away in this case.
Nevertheless, the call was made we all moved on and the situation was resolved. I thought this thread would make a great discussion, which is why I originally posted it. I appreciate everyone's point of view and perspectives. I find it interesting to see how others would handle a situation like this and I think healthy discussions like this make us all better players and DMs. It definitely gave me some things to think about!
As someone on the autism spectrum - a DM randomly deciding that RAW doesn't apply whenever they feel like it is really difficult for me to deal with - so I would say it was a bad call absolutely. Having it described above doesn't change my mind on that. There's nothing in the Wild Shape rules to say changing back is difficult or disorienting - and they were attacked by an Unarmed Strike which likewise doesn't say the target goes prone. There doesn't seem to be any precedence for it for me.
I know DM's can make calls like this - but I rarely like them - even if they're in my favour. Breaking rules always feels like cheating to me. (Yea - I'm an absolute pleasure to play with. /sarcasm)
So I've been mulling around in my mind why this particular ruling seems like an unfun/bad one... I think, in my mind, it's because it's doesn't make any sense with how Wildshape works.
It is perfectly normal for Wildshape to end due to the Druid falling down to 0 hp. That's routine - if this had some other penalty, it would be specified in the rules.
It's completely normal for players to fight monsters of different size classes. PCs fight giants and dragons and so on. The size disparities don't add in additional penalties - being hit by a creature a size category larger doesn't have any additional rules, though if I remember right grappling does.
So why on earth would a druid in mouse shape being hit by a human have all this random other stuff - prone, losing reactions? Doesn't make any sense to me. This seems like an entirely well-described situation in a fight. Wildshaped druid being knocked out of wildshapeby a monster 2 size categories larger.
It seems like a frustrating disconnect between action and consequence. This is an action where the player would think they know the risks perfectly well - they might get hit and knocked out of wildshape - but suddenly find out that there's a bunch of other random stuff they had no way of predicting.
Hey, it's not as bad as it could have been. DM could have ruled that the Druid comes back with the Poisoned condition, that would have been worse than Prone. Or maybe Fatigued! Or Stunned! Sky's the limit for what the DM can do.
So why on earth would a druid in mouse shape being hit by a human have all this random other stuff - prone, losing reactions? Doesn't make any sense to me. This seems like an entirely well-described situation in a fight. Wildshaped druid being knocked out of wildshapeby a monster 2 size categories larger.
It seems like a frustrating disconnect between action and consequence. This is an action where the player would think they know the risks perfectly well - they might get hit and knocked out of wildshape - but suddenly find out that there's a bunch of other random stuff they had no way of predicting.
OK, for me it seems the druid had no idea what he was doing, actually. Why change shape to a mouse (very, very small, 20g, OK ?) in the middle of the fight and run across the floor in plain sight ? Any other shape would have been better. Also, since some people are sticking to RAW, a mouse is not an allowed animal, there are no stats for it.
~snip~
In the end, for me, the main issue here is about players doing things which look silly and absurd on the basis that they think that they are protected by RAW. After that, YMMV and different tables will have different rulings, but in our games, without falling into the trap of "realism", we still try to at least visualise what is happening and not to mindlessly apply the RAW in unusual situations where they are obviously insufficient.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the mouse decision being illogical. If you're trying to get through a room full of fighting people, becoming an animal small enough to dart between their legs seems like a fairly logical idea. Further, I'd say it's more reasonable from a realistic perspective than a rules perspective: it should be difficult to try to swipe at a tiny mouse (or rat, if you want to stick to published creatures) while you're fighting actual people, but, by the RAW, a mouse would still proc AoO's unless it took the Disengage action (which would mean it's not taking the Dash action.)
Whether combat had begun or didn't is irrelevant. Whether the mouse was an optimal form for combat is also irrelevant. This was what the player chose to do, and the DM should be consistent with applying the rules. The guard entered the mouse's space to step on it (a reasonable assumption, as no one can end their movement in another creature's space). The guard then gets shunted out of the space as the druid changes back because the guard is the "invader". And as much as we'd like the relative size difference to affect attack roles, the rules just don't support it.
But combat did begin, so it's not like the druid wasn't prepared for a fight. The druid shouldn't have been knocked prone, as unarmed strikes cannot do that and no feature of the guard forces it. And the druid should have gotten an Opportunity Attack so long as they can make a meaningful one. (No melee weapon at the ready and a negative strength modifier result in 0 damage.) This isn't hard to grasp.
Seems there is a lot of discussion about the scene. I was attempting to keep this purely on the mechanics of the situation however, it seems there are several unanswered questions. I hope this helps to frame up the scene with additional details.
The Scene: Investigating a new Thieves Guild (possible cult) that has moved into a warehouse near the docks in the free city of Greyhawk (Playing 5e)
Inside the warehouse the Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter and Barbarian find secret passage, they open it and it leads down a set of stairs. Following the stairs the Fighter stays at the top to act as a look out. The group finds at the bottom of the stairs a small room and a door. They open it and find a long room with three jail cells on the left and two on the right with a long path to in the middle of the room leading to another door on the other side of the room.
The group finds the first cell has a crazy person in it muttering nonsense to himself. the second cell on the left has no one in it and the third cell has yet another person that seems traumatized. The first cell on the right has two men in it who are pacing around and asking for help and the last cell on the right has nothing in it.
The rogue flicks the lock open on the first cell on the left and the bard, rogue and barbarian try to help the Male NPC who appears crazy and they try to speak to him once they enter the cell with him. The Sorcerer and the Druid go to the last cell on the left, the Rogue comes down to open the cell and lets them in, they go in and talk to the female NPC. The rogue then goes to the first cell on the right and opens it for the the two Male NPCs , they thank her and follow her out of the cell and one follows her back to the first cell on the left side where he pushes her into the cell and locks the door. Now the first cell on the left contains the Rogue the Bard the Barbarian and a crazy NPC. The other Male NPC in question approaches the last cell on the left and slams the door shut at the same time. Now the Sorcerer, Druid and Traumatized Female are locked inside.
ROLL INITIATIVE...
at the start of initiative, The Sorcerer immediate casts hold person once she realizes whats occurred and the NPC who locked her in the cell fails the save and is now frozen by hold person spell. The Bard runs to the bars and cast suggestion on the other NPC who locked the first cell on them. The NPC passes the save. The Druid then wildshapes into a mouse and heads out of the last cell on the left and scurries down toward the first cell containing the rest of his party but only gets about half way down the corridor . That is when the other NPC who passed his save on suggestion, stepped up and stomped on the little mouse. He then ran out of the room through the door at the end of the corridor.
The fighter finally gets a turn and runs down stairs just as the rogue is able to pick the lock and open the door...and then the DM says that's where we will end for the night.
This is not about how the DM should or shouldn't have dealt with the table dynamics players or otherwise but more about the application of the mechanics. I though this would be a great discussion because there are several things here that are abstracted or assumed by the rules. My question is how do you adjudicate this situation. Is there an AoO or based on this specific instance given all the thematic qualities of the situation does it make sense? The DM chose to apply the prone condition based on the fact he was a mouse who just got squished. He also chose to not allow AoO because he felt it didn't apply in that specific situation. I am not attempting to gain an overwhelming answer one way or another on who is right or wrong. I have my own mind made up on how this should go. I witnessed the entire scene...I'm the bard. I'm simply interested in how others might interpret this scene and the application of the game mechanics.
I think everyone has provided various points of view and made some valid points. Great Discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Zero Rule Not in the search engine. What page number is zero 0 on? Most people understand RAW means ignore the mythical rule and supply the answer in the books. Doing this way does not confuse the causal players/DMS.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
But if the DM is always right is RAW and there the DM goes against RAW then the universe folds in on itself and we all die.
Yeah, it was a bad call with made up mechanics that have no basis on anything RAW. Dropping out of wildshape as the result of dropping to 0 hp in wildshape does not knock you prone nor did the attacker use an attack (like a battlemaster) to knock the character prone and even if the attacker did so you can still make an opportunity attack as reverting from wildshape does not use up your reaction. Yup, bad call.
It is the DMs game. They can choose to run it however they like. If players don't like how it is run then the players can decide not to play. That is fundamental to the entire concept of role playing games and is not unique to D&D. The DM is free to change/add/modify or otherwise create new content or rules as they wish. However, none of those changes constitute "Rules as Written".
PHB p6:
"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."
It is best if house rules are defined BEFORE they come up in play and they should not be made up on the spur of the moment just because the DM thinks it might be more cool. "Rule of Cool" is typically better applied to player actions to enhance their experience than to DM NPC actions to let them get away with things.
---
However, in terms of D&D 5e, in the DMG section on rules:
"RULES DISCUSSIONS
You might need to set a policy on rules discussions at the table. Some groups don't mind putting the game on hold while they hash out different interpretations of a rule. Others prefer to let the DM make a call and continue with the action. If you gloss over a rules issue in play, make a note of it (a good task to delegate to a player) and return to the issue later."
This clearly implies that there is ONE set of rules that may be open to interpretation - a set of rules that is mutually agreed to by both the players and the DM. For any particular game that set of rules would include DM house rules. A group can choose to discuss rules questions when they come up or they can let the DM make a call and then decide later how they want to play it.
RAW (as used in these forums) is RULES AS WRITTEN. There are lots of sections of the rules that have multiple valid and conflicting opinions. That is just the nature of them.
If a DM makes a decision during play that is not consistent with the Rules As Written ... this does NOT become a new Rules As Written (since it is obviously not written in an official source) it becomes a house rule applicable to that DMs table ONLY.
In the example of the OP, there is NOTHING in the rules that would prevent the druid from taking an op attack when the attacker moves out of their reach. This is a clear change to the Rules As Written by this DM and constitutes a house rule. It is NOT new Rules as Written since the term Rules as Written has a specific meaning referring to the text written in officially published sources from Wizards of the Coast.
In the OP example, if the druid was prone after the shape change ends, they should make an op attack at disadvantage for being prone.
---
In the case of the druid being prone - this is something NOT explicitly covered in the rules. The rules do not say one way or another if the druid transforms from a 4 legged creature to a two legged one whether they would be prone or not. The rules do not distinguish between whether this is a voluntary change due to the druid ending wild shape or an involuntary one due to the druid losing wild shape due to damage. Since the rules don't say, the easiest interpretation is that there is no change of state associated with the shape change.
If the druid was prone when they transform they remain prone but the shape changing itself does not impose the prone condition since it does not say it does. (In the OP example, the DM could rule that the foot stomp also knocked the rat prone as it does the damage .. the condition then carries over as the druid reverts from their wild shape - this would be a specific, completely valid, circumstance based ruling by the DM - that is their job).
However, more generally, a perfectly valid house rule could be that when involuntarily transforming from a four legged to two legged form - the druid starts off prone (on hands and knees). However, again this is very clearly a house rule and not Rules as Written since the rules don't say this anywhere.
It's called a joke lol
But yes, it is a bad call and if the DM wants to go against RAW then so be it, but it's against RAW. Saying I'm the DM and therefore right is kind of a crappy thing to do and way to play and if it was a regular thing for a DM to ignore RAW then I would for sure leave the table. Now going against RAW for ROF for everyone to have more fun is fine, but this obviously isn't the case here as the OP was not happy about the decision and has a good argument about the DM going against RAW. If there isn't a clear ruling in the rules as there are a million different ways things can happen in D&D that there is not rule for then the DM has final say. Technically the DM has final say in overruling RAW as well, but it's not good form to upset a player and ignore RAW just because. It was a bad call, but totally within the DM's power to do so.
I'd say you're only half-right. The game everyone sits down at the table to play is a shared experience. It belongs to everyone, both the DM and the other players. You're right about the player's ability to "get up" from the table, or otherwise revolt, but you're putting too much power in the hands of one person. It's not a lop-sided relationship. It's a social contract.
Going back to the shared experience, the player's handbook includes all the rules necessary to run the game and is intended for the players to have. This means any player with access to it is going to have certain expectations about how the game is to be played. And any DM who deviates from this is going to have to explain themselves to the other players.
I don't think it's reasonable for the DM to say the druid was prone after reverting back. The mouse isn't prone when moving about because, despite moving on all fours, it wasn't crawling. That's a specific mode of movement which costs 1 foot of additional movement speed for every 1 foot traveled. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the druid was using rat statistics to represent the mouse form. They get their full 20 feet of movement unless they're crawling. So unless the druid was explicitly crawling, they weren't prone. And the default guard is armed with a spear, which lacks the reach property. If the guard didn't roll their attack with advantage, then the DM is admitting the druid wasn't prone in advance of the attack. And no attack of the guard has a rider that knocks the target prone, either.
And the druid didn't lose their reaction, either. Even if they somehow were prone, they still get to attempt an opportunity attack with disadvantage so long as the guard is within reach. Odds are pretty good the guard was within striking distance, so that shouldn't be an issue. Now, maybe the druid didn't revert back with a weapon in their hand and couldn't draw one as part of their reaction. Maybe they tanked strength and their unarmed strike cancels it out to zero damage, which would make an opportunity attack a non-starter. We just don't know enough there. There may be other calculations at work, but the explanation given in the OP isn't just weaksauce. It violates the RAW, and as such violates the social contract.
The DM's word is final, but we do know the DM made at least one bad call. And bad calls are going to happen. We're human, we're going to make mistakes. Professional referees get it wrong all the time, and every last one of us is an amateur. What's important is addressing our errors after-the-fact. The DM did something which changed the player's expectation, and the player does not feel it was adequately justified. That's a communication issue which needs to be resolved pronto.
Thank you everyone for your replies. The comment was made that we shouldn't take this to the internet and I want to clarify. We did discuss this situation the DM and quite frankly I agree with the call in THAT specific situation. RAW provide us with a great framework in which to adjudicate rules. However, I believe in certain situations a DM has agency to make a call based on the the situation and thematic elements of what is occurring in order to make something make sense...e.g. "the rogue dodges through the stinking cloud" might be RAW but I mean really? If a druid wildshapes to a mouse and is stopped on causeing one to revert back, I would think that traumatic event might cause a person to have to take at least a split second to pop back into shape and gather themselves and realistically (i use this term loosely) would they have the wherewithal or piece of mind in that moment to strike back? I don't know...i lean toward no. I think the bad guy gets away in this case.
Nevertheless, the call was made we all moved on and the situation was resolved. I thought this thread would make a great discussion, which is why I originally posted it. I appreciate everyone's point of view and perspectives. I find it interesting to see how others would handle a situation like this and I think healthy discussions like this make us all better players and DMs. It definitely gave me some things to think about!
Thanks for the thoughts!
As someone on the autism spectrum - a DM randomly deciding that RAW doesn't apply whenever they feel like it is really difficult for me to deal with - so I would say it was a bad call absolutely. Having it described above doesn't change my mind on that. There's nothing in the Wild Shape rules to say changing back is difficult or disorienting - and they were attacked by an Unarmed Strike which likewise doesn't say the target goes prone. There doesn't seem to be any precedence for it for me.
I know DM's can make calls like this - but I rarely like them - even if they're in my favour. Breaking rules always feels like cheating to me.
(Yea - I'm an absolute pleasure to play with. /sarcasm)
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
So I've been mulling around in my mind why this particular ruling seems like an unfun/bad one... I think, in my mind, it's because it's doesn't make any sense with how Wildshape works.
It is perfectly normal for Wildshape to end due to the Druid falling down to 0 hp. That's routine - if this had some other penalty, it would be specified in the rules.
It's completely normal for players to fight monsters of different size classes. PCs fight giants and dragons and so on. The size disparities don't add in additional penalties - being hit by a creature a size category larger doesn't have any additional rules, though if I remember right grappling does.
So why on earth would a druid in mouse shape being hit by a human have all this random other stuff - prone, losing reactions? Doesn't make any sense to me. This seems like an entirely well-described situation in a fight. Wildshaped druid being knocked out of wildshapeby a monster 2 size categories larger.
It seems like a frustrating disconnect between action and consequence. This is an action where the player would think they know the risks perfectly well - they might get hit and knocked out of wildshape - but suddenly find out that there's a bunch of other random stuff they had no way of predicting.
Hey, it's not as bad as it could have been. DM could have ruled that the Druid comes back with the Poisoned condition, that would have been worse than Prone. Or maybe Fatigued! Or Stunned! Sky's the limit for what the DM can do.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the mouse decision being illogical. If you're trying to get through a room full of fighting people, becoming an animal small enough to dart between their legs seems like a fairly logical idea. Further, I'd say it's more reasonable from a realistic perspective than a rules perspective: it should be difficult to try to swipe at a tiny mouse (or rat, if you want to stick to published creatures) while you're fighting actual people, but, by the RAW, a mouse would still proc AoO's unless it took the Disengage action (which would mean it's not taking the Dash action.)
Whether combat had begun or didn't is irrelevant. Whether the mouse was an optimal form for combat is also irrelevant. This was what the player chose to do, and the DM should be consistent with applying the rules. The guard entered the mouse's space to step on it (a reasonable assumption, as no one can end their movement in another creature's space). The guard then gets shunted out of the space as the druid changes back because the guard is the "invader". And as much as we'd like the relative size difference to affect attack roles, the rules just don't support it.
But combat did begin, so it's not like the druid wasn't prepared for a fight. The druid shouldn't have been knocked prone, as unarmed strikes cannot do that and no feature of the guard forces it. And the druid should have gotten an Opportunity Attack so long as they can make a meaningful one. (No melee weapon at the ready and a negative strength modifier result in 0 damage.) This isn't hard to grasp.
Seems there is a lot of discussion about the scene. I was attempting to keep this purely on the mechanics of the situation however, it seems there are several unanswered questions. I hope this helps to frame up the scene with additional details.
The Scene: Investigating a new Thieves Guild (possible cult) that has moved into a warehouse near the docks in the free city of Greyhawk (Playing 5e)
Inside the warehouse the Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter and Barbarian find secret passage, they open it and it leads down a set of stairs. Following the stairs the Fighter stays at the top to act as a look out. The group finds at the bottom of the stairs a small room and a door. They open it and find a long room with three jail cells on the left and two on the right with a long path to in the middle of the room leading to another door on the other side of the room.
The group finds the first cell has a crazy person in it muttering nonsense to himself. the second cell on the left has no one in it and the third cell has yet another person that seems traumatized. The first cell on the right has two men in it who are pacing around and asking for help and the last cell on the right has nothing in it.
The rogue flicks the lock open on the first cell on the left and the bard, rogue and barbarian try to help the Male NPC who appears crazy and they try to speak to him once they enter the cell with him. The Sorcerer and the Druid go to the last cell on the left, the Rogue comes down to open the cell and lets them in, they go in and talk to the female NPC. The rogue then goes to the first cell on the right and opens it for the the two Male NPCs , they thank her and follow her out of the cell and one follows her back to the first cell on the left side where he pushes her into the cell and locks the door. Now the first cell on the left contains the Rogue the Bard the Barbarian and a crazy NPC. The other Male NPC in question approaches the last cell on the left and slams the door shut at the same time. Now the Sorcerer, Druid and Traumatized Female are locked inside.
ROLL INITIATIVE...
at the start of initiative, The Sorcerer immediate casts hold person once she realizes whats occurred and the NPC who locked her in the cell fails the save and is now frozen by hold person spell. The Bard runs to the bars and cast suggestion on the other NPC who locked the first cell on them. The NPC passes the save. The Druid then wildshapes into a mouse and heads out of the last cell on the left and scurries down toward the first cell containing the rest of his party but only gets about half way down the corridor . That is when the other NPC who passed his save on suggestion, stepped up and stomped on the little mouse. He then ran out of the room through the door at the end of the corridor.
The fighter finally gets a turn and runs down stairs just as the rogue is able to pick the lock and open the door...and then the DM says that's where we will end for the night.
This is not about how the DM should or shouldn't have dealt with the table dynamics players or otherwise but more about the application of the mechanics. I though this would be a great discussion because there are several things here that are abstracted or assumed by the rules. My question is how do you adjudicate this situation. Is there an AoO or based on this specific instance given all the thematic qualities of the situation does it make sense? The DM chose to apply the prone condition based on the fact he was a mouse who just got squished. He also chose to not allow AoO because he felt it didn't apply in that specific situation. I am not attempting to gain an overwhelming answer one way or another on who is right or wrong. I have my own mind made up on how this should go. I witnessed the entire scene...I'm the bard. I'm simply interested in how others might interpret this scene and the application of the game mechanics.
I think everyone has provided various points of view and made some valid points. Great Discussion.