Hey folks, I had a friendly discussion with a few players the other day that evolved from a discussion of mechanics to overall DMing style. The setting:
Suppose a PC and an enemy creature are adjacent to a giant pit. PC wants to toss the creature into the pit. How does this play out?
We identified a series of options, and I focused on two that don't require spells (and there are certainly plenty more based on class abilities). The PC could either shove the creature over the edge as an action or grapple the enemy as an action, move them over the edge, and let go (no action). Let's assume the PC has a free hand, and the size discrepancy isn't an issue.
Both situations require a single roll. I am fine with this, but the others were not. Both of my friends argued that they would allow the creature an extra roll to grab onto something, in effect granting a special sort of reaction.
My general philosophy on the matter is that actions in combat that can have consequences deserve a roll, but I don't like to create extra rolls where they aren't needed. In effect, if the creature fails an opposed grapple check, or is successfully shoved, well... that was their chance.
Now I could see some exceptions being made for a BBEG or PC that you'd rather not see unceremoniously plummet to their death, but for an average monster? I personally don't like to place too many obstacles in front of a PC that wants to do something awesome.
What's your take/general opinion on ad hoc combat shenanigans?
(TL;DR: How many rolls did Vader have to make to shaft the Emperor?)
I would say that you made the correct ruling, as would the rules. My philosophy is that if there's a massive height discrepancy in the middle of the battlefield, it's there so people can be backed up against it or shoved off it, as appropriate.
On the other hand, there could be handholds at the edge of the pit/cliff/hole/portal/whatever that allow a Dex save or an Athletics or Acrobatics check to hang on to them instead of falling. On further contemplation, I believe that to generally be the best choice for lethal hazards; it just opens up so many possibilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Generally "one failed roll - > you're dead" should have some kind of saving throw. Just imagine the monster doing it to your PCs. It feels generally kind of shitty to die because of one single roll. It's very anticlimactic as well.
This is not supported by any rules though! Your interpretation is completely correct RAW, I think.
I would say that you made the correct ruling, as would the rules. My philosophy is that if there's a massive height discrepancy in the middle of the battlefield, it's there so people can be backed up against it or shoved off it, as appropriate.
On the other hand, there could be handholds at the edge of the pit/cliff/hole/portal/whatever that allow a Dex save or an Athletics or Acrobatics check to hang on to them instead of falling. On further contemplation, I believe that to generally be the best choice for lethal hazards; it just opens up so many possibilities.
That's sorta the heart of the matter. My general feeling is that it'd be annoying (and unrealistic) for everyday mooks to be able to even exploit handholds etc... although I would get a kick out of a PC throwing an enemy over a cliff and hanging off the ledge to do the equivalent of a SSB edge-guard.
Generally "one failed roll - > you're dead" should have some kind of saving throw. Just imagine the monster doing it to your PCs. It feels generally kind of shitty to die because of one single roll. It's very anticlimactic as well.
This is not supported by any rules though! Your interpretation is completely correct RAW, I think.
I might have buried it in the wall of text, but as I mentioned, I certainly wouldn't use the same level of strictness with a PC or BBEG. And for lower-level parties, I would hesitate to put a truly giant pit o' death in an encounter to start (as falling damage really adds up).
I also agree that your take on the situation is correct, it is 1 roll each and may the gods have mercy on your dice.
The thing about this that I've learned after years of DMing is that there's a trick you can use to stay within raw and still give some really amazing "almost success" or "almost fail" moment. That trick is the sliding scale and we'll use your example of Leonidus kicking Picard into the Sarlacc:
Leonidus rolls a 16 Str (athletics/shove) vs Picard rolling a 12 Dex (acrobatics/avoid)
In this instance Picard would manage to grab the plank, however it's low enough that you get the finger slip cinematic. Leonidus tosses some teriyaki sauce down to flavor Picard before the Sarlacc finishes the meal.
Leonidus 16 Str vs Picard 17 Dex
Leonidus blasts Picard in the solar plexus, Picard pulls a Luke and grabs the plank as he looses his footing, and manages to pull himself up. The Sarlacc goes hungry.
Leonidus 16 Str vs Picard 5 Dex
Picard does a double reverse somersault into a belly flop down the throat of the Sarlacc.
Leonidus 16 vs Picard 21 Dex
Leonidus looses his balance, landing hard on his kicking foot as Picard seems to have vanished, only to see Picard has slipped the kick and is now doing the Crane Position yoga stance on the guard rail of the plank. The Sarlacc rates it a 10.
my friends argued that they would allow the creature an extra roll to grab onto something, in effect granting a special sort of reaction.
This is actually a common debate:
4e allowed a saving throw when pushed over a ledge: on a success you were instead prone by the ledge (of course: 4e had more push effects, and ledges). 5e does not have this mechanic (just like 3e), but now players expect it.
For my own games, I compromise: if it's a significant fall, I allow a climbing roll to catch hold of something (maybe even part way down, for half-damage), leaving you dangling over the precipice. Literal cliff-hangers are a welcome addition to any encounter. None of this "prone by the edge" stuff though (because that's not nearly as cool)... even though this is not much different mechanically.
my friends argued that they would allow the creature an extra roll to grab onto something, in effect granting a special sort of reaction.
This is actually a common debate:
4e allowed a saving throw when pushed over a ledge: on a success you were instead prone by the ledge (of course: 4e had more push effects, and ledges). 5e does not have this mechanic (just like 3e), but now players expect it.
For my own games, I compromise: if it's a significant fall, I allow a climbing roll to catch hold of something (maybe even part way down, for half-damage), leaving you dangling over the precipice. Literal cliff-hangers are a welcome addition to any encounter. None of this "prone by the edge" stuff though (because that's not nearly as cool)... even though this is not much different mechanically.
I may be one of the only people out there who had respect for 4e on the grounds that it really emphasized positioning, movement, and battlefield control. Although I do prefer narrative combat to grids, if we're going to have a system like 5e that allows for both, we should get it right. I'm tired of encounters that amount to a front-line soldier and a rogue engaging with hordes of enemies from a single space for 20 rounds of combat, locked in place by the threat of opportunity attacks, while an archer and caster sit stationary 20 feet behind. At least 5e has the decency to only threaten opportunity attacks when a creature leaves a threatened area altogether (rather than during each square of movement). In 4e many many powers forced movement and allowed shifting and teleportation, which resulted in some dynamic encounters where you normally might not expect them. Of course, the dynamism of an encounter ultimately comes down to the skill of the DM who built it...
Anyway, as I've been saying, I think an extra roll is warranted in very few cases, as each extra roll imposes a cost in terms of time and cognitive effort. Usually the exceptions will be if there's a PC or BBEG at stake, or if I have a compelling reason to believe that a creature would have the extraordinary reflexes to catch a ledge. Unlike my peers, I would not afford such a luxury to a mindless horde of zombies or warband of unnamed orcs camping by a ravine. Indeed, I think it would be a great RPG experience if they were to find a way to bypass such an encounter by rigging some hazard to throw the entire group off of a cliff or into a volcano or something.
Personally for me I use a sliding success on things like this, typically looking at the overall result, if the result has 5 or more difference ('cause simple maths) then it fully works out.
For example: the PC tries and shoves the NPC(enemy) into the giant pit. If the PC succeeds by less than 5, the NPC goes into the pit but will typically get some kind of save to help them out (grabbing the edge of the pit or something similar) If the PC succeeds by more than 5, well the poor NPC is off into the void of the pit with little chance to recover ("This Is Sparter")
Now if the PC fails, the NPC has resisted and aint going into the pit for now but hasn't really gotten much other benefit. The PC better hope they can move away before the NPC tries that themselves.
If the PC fails by more than 5, the trixy NPC pulled out some deft maneuver to put them in a great position (like the PC being closer to the pit than the NPC). It will take the PC a bit more work to try that again.
Personally, I grant all creatures the following additional option for the use of their reaction: You may take 1 action or move as a reaction, however if you do so, you skip your next turn.
This helps avoid the feeling of helplessness I find players often have as a result of not being able to react whatsoever to events which are supposedly occurring simultaneously to their turns around them, without having to do weird things like "ok now player X is floating in the air above that pit, having been released from the grapple, and they'll start to fall at the beginning of their turn". It also provides a meaningful tactical choice- you can actively react to the events around you (all scattering when a fireball rolls in, for example) but then you're sitting ducks, without any reactions, or movement, or actions for the foreseeable future.
Having used it in play, I've found it provides drama and engagement, it keeps players much more focused on what's going on because they can actually DO something when it's not their turn, if it matters enough, it feels much more fluid, and it completely avoids any issues with situations such as the one you're describing. Just my 2cp.
If you are NOT using that rule, I personally would highly recommend keeping in mind that combat is meant to be simultaneous. This is not a turn based CRPG, where it makes sense to fully resolve something before moving on, and not letting anyone do anything about someone falling to their death because "it's not your turn yet", as though they're all paralyzed and just watching on someone else's turn and only get unfrozen when it's their turn, is not what the combat system is supposed to represent. How you choose to cross that hurdle is up to you, but I definitely think at minimum the principle of that is worth keeping in mind.
Full disclosure, I'm not a DM, though my rotation in our group is slowly approaching. I like to try and draw comparisons to other situations when questions like this come up, and if I were to strip away the specifics of your question I could rephrase it as such, "A player did Action X, which entitled Enemy Y to make a roll to thwart said action. Y failed to thwart X and the consequence resolved. Should Y get another opportunity to thwart X since he's going to die otherwise?"
When spells are cast that allow for saving throws, the target doesn't get to make another one just because it failed (obviously I'm not referring here to the plethora of spells that in fact do allow for more saving throws, though even those aren't allowed immediately).
Or how about this tweak to your scenario...suppose an orc is standing 3 feet in front of the edge of your giant pit, and a wizard is directly facing him. The wizard casts Thunderwave and the orc is pushed 10 feet away, effectively dumping him into the pit. His death resulted from a roll in both scenarios.
Hey folks, I had a friendly discussion with a few players the other day that evolved from a discussion of mechanics to overall DMing style. The setting:
Suppose a PC and an enemy creature are adjacent to a giant pit. PC wants to toss the creature into the pit. How does this play out?
We identified a series of options, and I focused on two that don't require spells (and there are certainly plenty more based on class abilities). The PC could either shove the creature over the edge as an action or grapple the enemy as an action, move them over the edge, and let go (no action). Let's assume the PC has a free hand, and the size discrepancy isn't an issue.
Both situations require a single roll. I am fine with this, but the others were not. Both of my friends argued that they would allow the creature an extra roll to grab onto something, in effect granting a special sort of reaction.
My general philosophy on the matter is that actions in combat that can have consequences deserve a roll, but I don't like to create extra rolls where they aren't needed. In effect, if the creature fails an opposed grapple check, or is successfully shoved, well... that was their chance.
Now I could see some exceptions being made for a BBEG or PC that you'd rather not see unceremoniously plummet to their death, but for an average monster? I personally don't like to place too many obstacles in front of a PC that wants to do something awesome.
What's your take/general opinion on ad hoc combat shenanigans?
(TL;DR: How many rolls did Vader have to make to shaft the Emperor?)
I would say that you made the correct ruling, as would the rules. My philosophy is that if there's a massive height discrepancy in the middle of the battlefield, it's there so people can be backed up against it or shoved off it, as appropriate.
On the other hand, there could be handholds at the edge of the pit/cliff/hole/portal/whatever that allow a Dex save or an Athletics or Acrobatics check to hang on to them instead of falling. On further contemplation, I believe that to generally be the best choice for lethal hazards; it just opens up so many possibilities.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Generally "one failed roll - > you're dead" should have some kind of saving throw. Just imagine the monster doing it to your PCs. It feels generally kind of shitty to die because of one single roll. It's very anticlimactic as well.
This is not supported by any rules though! Your interpretation is completely correct RAW, I think.
I also agree that your take on the situation is correct, it is 1 roll each and may the gods have mercy on your dice.
The thing about this that I've learned after years of DMing is that there's a trick you can use to stay within raw and still give some really amazing "almost success" or "almost fail" moment. That trick is the sliding scale and we'll use your example of Leonidus kicking Picard into the Sarlacc:
Leonidus rolls a 16 Str (athletics/shove) vs Picard rolling a 12 Dex (acrobatics/avoid)
Leonidus 16 Str vs Picard 17 Dex
Leonidus 16 Str vs Picard 5 Dex
Leonidus 16 vs Picard 21 Dex
Have the monster roll a charisma save to see if Doc Brown catches them on the roof of his delorian... but its a monster, there's no need to save it.
Extended Signature
Great Scott!
Anyway, as I've been saying, I think an extra roll is warranted in very few cases, as each extra roll imposes a cost in terms of time and cognitive effort. Usually the exceptions will be if there's a PC or BBEG at stake, or if I have a compelling reason to believe that a creature would have the extraordinary reflexes to catch a ledge. Unlike my peers, I would not afford such a luxury to a mindless horde of zombies or warband of unnamed orcs camping by a ravine. Indeed, I think it would be a great RPG experience if they were to find a way to bypass such an encounter by rigging some hazard to throw the entire group off of a cliff or into a volcano or something.
Personally for me I use a sliding success on things like this, typically looking at the overall result, if the result has 5 or more difference ('cause simple maths) then it fully works out.
For example: the PC tries and shoves the NPC(enemy) into the giant pit.
If the PC succeeds by less than 5, the NPC goes into the pit but will typically get some kind of save to help them out (grabbing the edge of the pit or something similar)
If the PC succeeds by more than 5, well the poor NPC is off into the void of the pit with little chance to recover ("This Is Sparter")
Now if the PC fails, the NPC has resisted and aint going into the pit for now but hasn't really gotten much other benefit. The PC better hope they can move away before the NPC tries that themselves.
If the PC fails by more than 5, the trixy NPC pulled out some deft maneuver to put them in a great position (like the PC being closer to the pit than the NPC). It will take the PC a bit more work to try that again.
- Loswaith
Warning: What follows is strictly homebrew
Personally, I grant all creatures the following additional option for the use of their reaction: You may take 1 action or move as a reaction, however if you do so, you skip your next turn.
This helps avoid the feeling of helplessness I find players often have as a result of not being able to react whatsoever to events which are supposedly occurring simultaneously to their turns around them, without having to do weird things like "ok now player X is floating in the air above that pit, having been released from the grapple, and they'll start to fall at the beginning of their turn". It also provides a meaningful tactical choice- you can actively react to the events around you (all scattering when a fireball rolls in, for example) but then you're sitting ducks, without any reactions, or movement, or actions for the foreseeable future.
Having used it in play, I've found it provides drama and engagement, it keeps players much more focused on what's going on because they can actually DO something when it's not their turn, if it matters enough, it feels much more fluid, and it completely avoids any issues with situations such as the one you're describing. Just my 2cp.
If you are NOT using that rule, I personally would highly recommend keeping in mind that combat is meant to be simultaneous. This is not a turn based CRPG, where it makes sense to fully resolve something before moving on, and not letting anyone do anything about someone falling to their death because "it's not your turn yet", as though they're all paralyzed and just watching on someone else's turn and only get unfrozen when it's their turn, is not what the combat system is supposed to represent. How you choose to cross that hurdle is up to you, but I definitely think at minimum the principle of that is worth keeping in mind.
Full disclosure, I'm not a DM, though my rotation in our group is slowly approaching. I like to try and draw comparisons to other situations when questions like this come up, and if I were to strip away the specifics of your question I could rephrase it as such, "A player did Action X, which entitled Enemy Y to make a roll to thwart said action. Y failed to thwart X and the consequence resolved. Should Y get another opportunity to thwart X since he's going to die otherwise?"
When spells are cast that allow for saving throws, the target doesn't get to make another one just because it failed (obviously I'm not referring here to the plethora of spells that in fact do allow for more saving throws, though even those aren't allowed immediately).
Or how about this tweak to your scenario...suppose an orc is standing 3 feet in front of the edge of your giant pit, and a wizard is directly facing him. The wizard casts Thunderwave and the orc is pushed 10 feet away, effectively dumping him into the pit. His death resulted from a roll in both scenarios.
Hope that helps!
Bingo, you said it better than I did.