[OOC] Heart of Darkness (Part II)

[secretID]

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Since you didn't say anything about the mortality topic, is that something you would frown upon or more something where you would say "if you find players who want to do that stuff, do your thing"?

Well, I don’t frown on anything if the players like it. I don’t get involved in that kind of thing because for a few reasons I don’t like having relatively fine (though important) things left to my discretion. Obviously I’m responsible for putting a dragon in the room. I’m responsible for choosing the dragon’s actions, but I have what I consider decently consistent ways to make that decision. I want to minimize my discretion over the effect of those actions on the PCs. For related reasons, I don’t want my DM making those decisions…at least not in D&D. I might be open to a rule-less RPG with the right GM, but I would be very wary. I think in different discussions we’ve had disputes that amounted to you emphasizing that GMs have full discretion, and me emphasizing that rules are there for a reason.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Also, are you good with the further points that I raised about invisible mounts and flour vs. magical invisibility? I'm not trying to turn you around on your ruling, but I am curious if we will be handling this unequally in the future.

I don’t have any issue with someone ruling that way re the invisible mount, but I think I would rule as I said.

Re the flour…yeah, that’s just not my way of thinking at all. I oppose any consideration of what “should” be, independent of RAI, except to resolve oversights.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Are the unconscious creature and the assassin actually in combat? Why should we resolve the actions mechanically through an attack action which is designed for opposed combat?

Because IMO the Unconscious description makes the intent perfectly clear, Unconscious applies in or out of combat. You have to attack a sleeping character in combat time, but not the moment it’s over? Note that if the character could not awaken, I might rule differently, because now we’re in the realm of taking a month to chop through a door.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

If both bandits were affected by Sleep? What's stopping the PC from achieving the intended outcome?

The rules. I mean…we’re in ogre shoving territory, right? You really hate this rule – and BTW, I dislike it much more than Shove – but I don’t see a decent argument that it’s not RAI, and pretty much RAW.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Is there any RAW wording which describes why an attack action has to be used to resolve the scenario which we're discussing?

I think the Unconscious text makes RAI at least abundantly clear. If you disagree about RAI, OK, but I don’t think it’s worth much discussion.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

And if you were worried, outside of such combat as well I will be very careful what I'll make my NPCs do to my PCs.

Nooooope. You know that’s not my thing. I just want to stick to the rules.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I would go so far as to claim that making the cultist perform attack rolls would be a pretty big oversight

It’s not about “would be” to me; the question is whether it was an oversight, whether the designers failed to consider this situation. I see no indication of that. To the contrary, a completely disabled victim is a very common occurrence in a fantasy RPG, so it’s hard to believe that it didn’t occur to them, and it clearly did occur to them in the context of unconsciousness.

I think you find it troubling that I’m OK allowing some stupidity while applying the rules. I don’t recall encountering as a player or DM anything stupider than some of the stuff in the merrow fight, but I have no problem at all with that in the interest of predictability and efficiency – the efficiency of not writing new rules all the time. And it’s equally important to me to take the DM’s judgment out of it, especially when the DM is me.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

In regards to the difference between using a crowbar and swinging an axe, I am surprised that you're putting them down as the same. Breaking something with strength isn't an attack. Breaking something with attacks is an attack.

Given infinite time with axe or crowbar, I wouldn’t require a roll at all; that’s the only way in which they’re the same to me.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I don't think that I want to say that an axe swing isn't an attack.

I thought you just agreed that chipping away for months is not an attack. Anyway, to me it’s just about alacrity, and therefore of course power, as I said.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I don't really think we are far apart.

I think we’re further than ever. I thought we got close, but in the last few exchanges we seem to have completely different analyses. *shrug*

[Mindsiege]

 

Originally Posted by secretID

I think we’re further than ever. I thought we got close, but in the last few exchanges we seem to have completely different analyses. *shrug*

I was only talking about agreements on the topic of "what is an attack". The whole assassin/cultist debate is a new topic for me. I think regarding attacks, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only disagreement left is about the mystery box. I think on all other points we agreed, no?

Originally Posted by secretID

I don’t want my DM making those decisions…at least not in D&D. I might be open to a rule-less RPG with the right GM, but I would be very wary. I think in different discussions we’ve had disputes that amounted to you emphasizing that GMs have full discretion, and me emphasizing that rules are there for a reason.

I mean, I get that you don't want GMs to make judgment calls, but the ability to make them is given to the GM by the rules of 5th edition DnD, and I'll try to explain that in this case the GM is forced to wield their discretion too. I'm not sure if you read through it beneath the TT, but the rules text for actions in combat reads very clearly: "When you describe an Action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the GM tells you whether that Action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure." So how this plays out in our example then is that the player tells you that they want to slit a throat, and then you tell them if it's possible or not. If I understood you correctly, you're saying the only RAW/RAI application of the rules is to decide that in DnD 5th edition killing a foe with a blade in a single strike is flat-out impossible if the foe has more than an attack's worth of HP. Looking at it from my POV, this isn't backed up by any rule (see below about unconsciousness). Given the rules text, we know that there are attack actions, but they aren't introduced to us as the sole action that can be taken by directing a weapon at an enemy. Just like we wouldn't mandate an attack roll to cut the rope, there's no rule mandating us to resolve the attempt of slitting an unopposing creature's throat through an attack action.

So again, the rules text reads to me that "players can take actions that aren't detailed elsewhere in the rules". So now I'm debating with myself whether there isn't some kind of "Murder" action which would apply to the players attempt of slitting an unopposing enemy's throat. And no, I'm not inventing that action, this is not about being novel. If a player describes to me that they go up to someone and kill them, then it's my job as the GM to tell them if that's possible, and if it isn't possible I also need to tell them why it isn't possible. It's not that I'm overeagerly using my GM discretion, at least not this time, it's that as the GM I am forced to wield discretion due to the action which the player is describing their character to take. They aren't describing to me "I go and attack to wound them", they're describing "I go up to them and kill them". Now I need to tell them decisively that it's impossible to "just kill them". Except, why is it impossible to just kill them? I can't say "that's not an action that exists", because as you've seen above, the rules specifically allow players to describe any action they like, and it falls to the GM to use their discretion to decide what's possible. So if I am to decide that there is no "Murder" action in the game, I'd better have some sort of reasoning to argue why not. After all, fictionally it's very much possible to just end a life in six seconds. So I feel like I need to have some kind of proper answer prepared to decide why ending that life as an action is impossible.

Originally Posted by secretID

Because IMO the Unconscious description makes the intent perfectly clear, Unconscious applies in or out of combat. You have to attack a sleeping character in combat time, but not the moment it’s over? Note that if the character could not awaken, I might rule differently, because now we’re in the realm of taking a month to chop through a door.

I am very confused by this paragraph. Let me try to reword what I'm posing. Unconscious says "attack rolls against the creature have advantage". Unconscious doesn't say "all hostile actions against a creature are represented through an attack action". So how then does the rule text for the Unconscious condition mandate the GM to resolve the character's description of "I kneel down and slit their throat" through an attack roll?

Originally Posted by secretID

The rules.

I really struggle to follow. Please quote me the rule in question so that we're on the same page. Above I found a rule that says it is possible if the GM decides it is. I have not found a rule that says to resolve this particular description that the player uses for their character's actions through an attack and corresponding damage roll. Is that then your personal rule? No player can take Actions which are not detailed in the rules? Above I explained how the RAW reads that it's your discretion as the GM to follow any such personal rule. But I wouldn't say that following such a personal rule is either the RAI, nor pretty much RAW. The RAW says, use your discretion, not use your discretion this particular way. By my sincere understanding of the RAW, it sounds to me that the decision that it's impossible to kill an unconscious creature in a single stroke will be your decision, because whether it is or not is not detailed in the rules. That simply murdering as an action is impossible may even be a fair ruling, and I wouldn't mind if a GM ruled that way. But I do mind when you pose that I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly on this. If I am interpreting them incorrectly, I need you to explain to me which rule exactly my interpretation breaks.

By the way, in the ogre shove example it was a similar struggle for me. When I asked why I shouldn't apply disadvantage to the shove, the reply (as I've understood it, so sorry ahead of time if I misunderstood) was "don't use discretion if avoidable, it might upset player expectations". So while I see that as your personal rule rather than what the rules dictate, I decided that your recommendation is sound advice. The shove rules are so terribly written that the assumption of "weight doesn't apply to shove attempts" could easily happen. Using discretion to create difficulty for players seems like it can lead to player dissatisfaction. So handwaving the ogre's weight is probably the better choice for the sake of providing the players with a smooth play experience. Which leads me back to the current struggle where we're wondering if my player can kill an unconscious, helpless creature in six seconds. If a player tells me that they want to do that, then I'm left wondering what rules justification I have to tell them no.

Reverse to the ogre shove, in this case you're asking me to rule against the player's favour by telling them that they can't do something which in their expectation a character could achieve. The problem I have isn't that I hate the idea of attacking something and being unable to kill it despite a lack of opposition (which in fact I do dislike because it violently breaks immersion), but the actual problem is that I can't find it in the rules to refute a player who is looking to me to tell them why their character is failing to accomplish what they ought to be able to. I'm sure that I can tell the player something like "I can't allow you to kill them, but you can attack them if you want", and I'm sure most players will accept that. But what if they don't? That's the reason why I'd like to find a concrete answer in the rules. What's the reasoning that you would give them? The Unconscious condition says nothing about when or how to attack an unconscious creature, it only says what happens if an attack is made against the unconscious creature. So that's not something I can use to justify myself for telling the player no.

Originally Posted by secretID

You know that’s not my thing. I just want to stick to the rules.

I mean, I can't change that you deem that I'm not sticking to the rules, but I'm doing my best pointing at the rules that I'm using, which all seem to be telling me that I'm not wrong. This was a similar concern for me during the discussion about the ogre shove, and may be the reason why it has left me a bit unsatisfied. I think it's totally fair of you to say that you highly prefer to use minimal discretion. I think it is not fair to say that I'm using the rules incorrectly if I were to decide on adjudicating it differently.

I should probably mention that especially in this case, I've never allowed someone to murder a creature in a single action, unconscious or otherwise. As for allowing/disallowing it in the future, right now I'm trying to find whatever rules I can base my decision on when the time comes. I'm really past the initial discussion about invisibility on that matter. I think we both agreed that whether it's a "murder" action or an attack, trying to assassinate an unconscious creature counts as an attack.

Originally Posted by secretID

I think you find it troubling that I’m OK allowing some stupidity while applying the rules.

I don't think that I'm troubled by your choice to take discretion out of it as much as possible, even if it creates silliness. If anything, taking discretion out of the game will necessarily create some silliness, so I think we can both respect that choice for what it is. What I find troubling is probably more that you're telling me that I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly when I can't find any mistake that I'm making myself. No matter what I rule about "murder" actions in the future, I want it established that I'm basing all of my adjudications on the actual rules of the game. And then of course it is troubling to hear that my game may not be able to satisfy you if I were to ever rely on my personal discretion.

Originally Posted by secretID

Re the flour…yeah, that’s just not my way of thinking at all. I oppose any consideration of what “should” be, independent of RAI, except to resolve oversights.

Well that's fine, but you're definitely using your discretion as the GM when you decide that getting poured over with flour does not count as "wearing or carrying" the flour. How do you reconcile then that through your discretion you're ruling flour to become the perfect counter for the Invisibility spell in combat? If every PC and NPC carried a pouch of flour, expending a 1st level spellslot to become invisible has almost the same worth as taking a disengage action, because on the next enemy action the flour will get you and the spell is countered. Another question that I wonder about, what if you pour flour on top of a creature and cast Invisibility on them thereafter? Is the flour carried or worn then? I think the GM needs to find a solution there. I don't mind if you make that decision by using the least amount of discretion possible, but I think discussing together what the legitimate adjudication of this would be is more likely to improve both of our GMing. Or at least that's how I feel about it. So what do you think is the best way to adjudicate using flour on invisible enemies?

Originally Posted by secretID

Given infinite time with axe or crowbar, I wouldn’t require a roll at all; that’s the only way in which they’re the same to me.

I thought you just agreed that chipping away for months is not an attack. Anyway, to me it’s just about alacrity, and therefore of course power, as I said.

Well yeah, whittling away on the door with the axe is not swinging the axe. Maybe we're miscommunicating here because I'm misusing some semantics? What you call using the axe with alacrity and power is what I mean by swinging the axe. If it's a swing, it's an attack. If you do something else with the axe other than swinging it at the door, it's probably not an attack. My point was that I might be inclined to believe that chopping wood has enough alacrity and power to always be considered as an attack. Are we agreeing?

[secretID]

 

Yeah, I do think this is becoming more and more like the ogre shove dispute, which is why I'm pulling back. (Of course, it looks like I’ve written a huge pile again.)

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

What I find troubling is probably more that you're telling me that I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly when I can't find any mistake that I'm making myself....I think it is not fair to say that I'm using the rules incorrectly if I were to decide on adjudicating it differently.

I don't think that's fair phrasing. I'm stating my interpretation and why; obviously that has implications for your interpretation, but I don't believe I've made a point of saying that you're doing something wrong any more than you have toward me. I think there are lots of different reasonable approaches here.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

And then of course it is troubling to hear that my game may not be able to satisfy you if I were to ever rely on my personal discretion.

I think that's a pretty big overstatement. I found the ogre shove annoying for a collection of reasons; that didn't make the game dissatisfying. It sounds like the grapple stuff in Half the Fun spoiled immersion for you; I'm optimistic that it didn't ruin your opinion of my DMing. (:


When I said "that's not my thing," I was responding to your assurances that you wouldn't slaughter the PCs, etc. What I was saying was that while your often argue to ultimate outcomes like that, specifically that you would prevent some interpretation from having very bad results, I keep pointing out that that's not part of my analysis. I'm only interested in RAW, RAI, and the rare case of actual oversight by the designers. I don't think it's ever RAI to require the DM to guard against the natural consequences of the mechanics, so that kind of discussion is never meaningful to me. It's in that area of "this is what works best," which you know doesn't interest me independent of RAI.

Most of your last post reads to me exactly like what I noted: you keep emphasizing discretion while I keep emphasizing the I probably should have noted the "other" earlier. Sorry if that caused confusion.(other) rules. I know that DM discretion is allowed. I know that there are multiple statements, general and specific, to that effect. When you point out that discretion is in the rules, that gets us nowhere; I don't dispute that. My perspective is that the discretion is intended to fill in small gaps. I think the ogre shove dispute showed that we disagree on that point. We seem to be exactly there again. That's fine; I don't think that either of us thinks the other is being a bad DM as a result, and certainly not that either is doing something morally wrong or even dumb. ( :

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I think regarding attacks, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only disagreement left is about the mystery box. I think on all other points we agreed, no?

I'm not sure, but that one disagreement indicates a huge separation IMO. In that example, you require neither what I would call a dramatic action nor even harmful/violent intent. Based on that example, I assume you still hold your opinion about intentionally lighting the bomb fuses; I'm on the other side.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Unconscious doesn't say "all hostile actions against a creature are represented through an attack action". So how then does the rule text for the Unconscious condition mandate the GM to resolve the character's description of "I kneel down and slit their throat" through an attack roll?

I just wanted to highlight this because I think this is a more specific type of difference in perspective that also occurred in Ogre Shove, IIRC. My perspective is that if they went out of their way to discuss the impact on that mechanic, the implication is that they intend that to be the mechanic used. It not credible to me that they would say all that about attacks, completely ignoring an intended ability to instantly kill the same individual by multiple other obvious means.

I don't think that the failure to explicitly prohibit something specific implies the ability to do it, even with DM discretion. E.g., were a DM to give clerics lots of powers from their deities outside of those explicitly noted, because after all their gods realistically want them to be successful, I would call that against the designers' intent, even though it's not prohibited and DMs have discretion. I think of the rules like a recipe. Following a recipe for a very basic chocolate cake, you can use your discretion to cook the cake longer, and you can use it to put jalapenos in the cake (possibly even making it better), but in the latter case you're not following the recipe even though it didn't explicitly forbid jalapenos.

FWIW, since you expressed concern about justifying it to your players, from my search, everyone seems to agree with me that ADV attacks are the only way to kill the sleeping.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

The shove rules are so terribly written

Tiny point, but I disagree. I think it wisely uses a reasonable proxy for a collection of very complicated and indeterminate factors, creating a system that can be easily understood and consistently applied without outrageously unrealistic results. The (purported) rule against murdering sleeping targets is by contrast very ugly; I think they just wanted to prevent what would otherwise be pretty common deaths, and they were willing to do it in a brutish way.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

you're definitely using your discretion as the GM when you decide that getting poured over with flour does not count as "wearing or carrying" the flour.

Discretion? I just call that resolution of an ambiguity.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

How do you reconcile then that through your discretion you're ruling flour to become the perfect counter for the Invisibility spell in combat?

As always, that's not my analysis, unless it indicates to me that the designers overlooked something. The impact of an interpretation is only relevant to me if it is so bad that it convinces me that the designers must have intended something different. This would not be such a case, especially because it seems clear to me that Invisibility is not intended to be used in combat.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

If every PC and NPC carried a pouch of flour, expending a 1st level spellslot to become invisible has almost the same worth as taking a disengage action, because on the next enemy action the flour will get you and the spell is countered.

I don’t get it. You already already lose your invisibility after your first attack. Invis. is much better than disengage because you need not spend an action, and the one throwing the flour must – and must hit. Most importantly, that’s all about combat, and Invisibility isn't for combat – that’s the basis of this whole discussion.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Another question that I wonder about, what if you pour flour on top of a creature and cast Invisibility on them thereafter? Is the flour carried or worn then?

I think the spell is supposed to turn the target effectively and usefully visible, and so it encompasses things clothing and gear (and yes, any substance on the target) at the time of casting as well. The spell would stink if you had to strip and even go shoeless, leaving your valuables in a heap behind you. I don’t think it’s meant to encompass things picked up, or things thrown onto one, after casting. I like Crawford’s ruling on this.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Well yeah, whittling away on the door with the axe is not swinging the axe. Maybe we're miscommunicating here because I'm misusing some semantics? What you call using the axe with alacrity and power is what I mean by swinging the axe.

Ah; then I think we agree.

[Mindsiege]

I'll have a reply on the other stuff (I think we're close to agreeing on where to differ and where to agree) when I catch a break from work, but in the meantime let's consider the game.

First, I did some triangulations and to stay in telepathy range with Tink, Jimmy would stay about 15' to 30' within range of the bend. Sharing the familiar's senses has no impact on putting them into a pocket dimension, so Jimmy can follow along with Tink's excursion from his position with the party.

I think that's all I needed to clarify before my next post, which might take me a bit because I'm behind on my IC games currently. But let me know if the above checks out, then I'll know that I'm ready to post in theory at least.

[secretID]

I forgot the tunnel winds so much. Jimmy wants the longest straightaway that will leave him in range of Tink. IIRC, there's one about 40' long close to the opening that should work, the area where Jimmy placed the cantrips.

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

I forgot the tunnel winds so much. Jimmy wants the longest straightaway that will leave him in range of Tink. IIRC, there's one about 40' long close to the opening that should work, the area where Jimmy placed the cantrips.

Right, I remember that I said you're close enough then, but that was before I had the map. As I said, the map didn't come out perfectly for what I had in mind originally, so let me correct that in the background. In summary, Jimmy should be able to hold the same position that he had with the caltrops. For now I'm just going to theatre of the mind anything that happens in the tunnel and we'll say everything checks out exactly how you imagined it.

[Mindsiege]

 

So, for this post (mainly the second spoilerbutton) I think that there'll be a few long passages which will probably not meet your interest. Which is absolutely fine. If possible, I would like to have your opinion on those parts where you still feel comfortable giving me input.

Originally Posted by secretID

Yeah, I do think this is becoming more and more like the ogre shove dispute, which is why I'm pulling back. (Of course, it looks like I’ve written a huge pile again.)

I don't really concern myself with what either our stance will be at the end of the conversation. I think either way my perspective will be broader.

Originally Posted by secretID

I don't think that's fair phrasing. I'm stating my interpretation and why; obviously that has implications for your interpretation, but I don't believe I've made a point of saying that you're doing something wrong any more than you have toward me. I think there are lots of different reasonable approaches here.

That's fair. I couldn't tell you exactly why I feel like I'm being judged unfavorably, maybe that's just some sort of low self-confidence. I'll try to reign it in.

Originally Posted by secretID

It sounds like the grapple stuff in Half the Fun spoiled immersion for you

I wouldn't put it as harshly either. I know immersion is a great buzzword that many roleplayers are very passionate about and I think it's certainly something I think that's good to aspire to, but I also don't think it's a good thing to get hung up about. I think the grappling bit managed to spoil my immersion about as much as almost every second movie script does. I rolled my eyes maybe once and then enjoyed it. I remember only a few times in my RPG experience that my immersion was broken in a way that bothered me, and this definitely didn't even come close.

Originally Posted by secretID

I'm optimistic that it didn't ruin your opinion of my DMing. (:

Yep. If someone would ask me I'd say that it was an entirely reasonable adjudication.

 

Originally Posted by secretID

When I said "that's not my thing," I was responding to your assurances that you wouldn't slaughter the PCs, etc. What I was saying was that while your often argue to ultimate outcomes like that, specifically that you would prevent some interpretation from having very bad results, I keep pointing out that that's not part of my analysis. I'm only interested in RAW, RAI, and the rare case of actual oversight by the designers. I don't think it's ever RAI to require the DM to guard against the natural consequences of the mechanics, so that kind of discussion is never meaningful to me. It's in that area of "this is what works best," which you know doesn't interest me independent of RAI.

I think that I'm starting to understand this. More about that below.

Originally Posted by secretID

Most of your last post reads to me exactly like what I noted: you keep emphasizing discretion while I keep emphasizing the I probably should have noted the "other" earlier. Sorry if that caused confusion.(other) rules. I know that DM discretion is allowed. I know that there are multiple statements, general and specific, to that effect. When you point out that discretion is in the rules, that gets us nowhere; I don't dispute that. My perspective is that the discretion is intended to fill in small gaps. I think the ogre shove dispute showed that we disagree on that point. We seem to be exactly there again. That's fine; I don't think that either of us thinks the other is being a bad DM as a result, and certainly not that either is doing something morally wrong or even dumb. ( :

I agree with this paragraph, meaning that I'm starting to understand the difference in our perspectives. In Germany we have an idiom that basically translates to 'daring the gap', meaning that I've always taken Rule 0 and all the in-built discretion within the 5th edition rules as an admittance by the design team that it's impossible for them to do the intent behind DnD justice without leaving gaps in the design which then the GM is supposed to fill for them. This goes back to what the DnD rules are in my POV, a rules engine to create and tell stories. If the designed part of the rules doesn't give us the material to tell the story of an assassin climbing into the bad guy's tower and cutting their throat in their sleep, then I believe the intent behind DnD's acknowledgement of their incomplete design is for the GM to make up the gap with anything they can find that lets them tell the story, or in this case the player character's story who attempts an assassination.

Now the difference is probably, that you're viewing DnD in a different way, more like a board game with hard limits that don't leave the room to replicate everything that wasn't initially designed. Which certainly is a rational approach at the end of the day, though in that way you'll always run into the borders of the design which will keep you from following the fiction to its natural conclusion. That said, this is all a question of scope. A game of DnD doesn't have to allow for the infinite possibilities of fiction in order to be complete and satisfying. If possible though, I would like to tell/play every story possibly imagined by using the game engine of DnD as the stage. I think 5e is already fairly close to accomplishing that, but it only works by wielding more discretion and going beyond the initial design. I don't mind at all that you don't aspire towards that. I think neither way of playing DnD is wrong, and in the future I'll try to be more mindful and notice the moments when I'm trying to extend the design through the discretion parts of the rules.

Originally Posted by secretID

I just wanted to highlight this because I think this is a more specific type of difference in perspective that also occurred in Ogre Shove, IIRC. My perspective is that if they went out of their way to discuss the impact on that mechanic, the implication is that they intend that to be the mechanic used. It not credible to me that they would say all that about attacks, completely ignoring an intended ability to instantly kill the same individual by multiple other obvious means.

Yeah, this is definitely where our perspective differs. I figure the rules were only designed up to the point of situations they wanted to commonly occur in the game. That is though, I don't think the designers intended for the effects of the Unconscious condition to be a complete list of interactions that could happen to the unconscious creature. I would say they left out the possibility of killing an unconscious creature because it doesn't need any rules to adjudicate, it's something that the GM will either allow or not. I wouldn't necessarily take the absence of acknowledgement that it's possible to just kill an unconscious creature as an intent for it to be impossible to kill an unconscious creature. It's just an option that would have been too bulky to put into the rules because at that point you'd have to cover every imaginable interaction with an unconscious creature, which definitely isn't 5e's design philosophy of keeping their rules lean. I think the decision to completely disallow characters from attempting feats which aren't mentioned as part of the designed rules is just that, GM discretion. As you know, I respect that you're making that choice. Though I do feel that in making that choice you are creating a gap between the rules and the fiction that is bigger than small. I don't at all think that PCs should always be able to get away with simply killing a creature in one go, but circumstantially, I think it creates a big gap with the fiction of the game when they are fundamentally incapable of doing so, big enough for me to count it as an oversight that would motivate me to patch it with what available GM discretion that exists in the rules.

Originally Posted by secretID

I don't think that the failure to explicitly prohibit something specific implies the ability to do it, even with DM discretion. E.g., were a DM to give clerics lots of powers from their deities outside of those explicitly noted, because after all their gods realistically want them to be successful, I would call that against the designers' intent, even though it's not prohibited and DMs have discretion. I think of the rules like a recipe. Following a recipe for a very basic chocolate cake, you can use your discretion to cook the cake longer, and you can use it to put jalapenos in the cake (possibly even making it better), but in the latter case you're not following the recipe even though it didn't explicitly forbid jalapenos.

You might think that I'm not on the same page at all, but I absolutely agree that it's much better to stay as close to the design as possible. Your example with the clerics is perfect for that. My take is that the 5e rules give us some assumptions about the game world which we as the GMs should include and enforce within the fiction of the game. Meaning, the GM should limit a cleric's divine gifts to remain with the rule's design (by the way, I play in a single game where we use the piety rules, which is actually pretty fun and makes RPing a religious character a lot more meaningful). That said, because of the whole 'daring the gap' lean design of 5e, I think they have put the burden on the GMs to keep checking whenever the rule's assumptions about the fiction are wrong. If I understood correctly you want to approach this very carefully, and only gross oversights in the design are what you would correct. The problem is, what measure do you use to decide what's a gross oversight by the design? I think the assumption that an ogre howdah can be toppled with the same reliability as a lion is a wrong assumption, but it might not be critical enough for me to disadvantage my players over, because that sort of discretion might create OOC issues. Now we move to the other examples. You've decided for yourself that a creature with blindsight/truesight suffering from disadvantage against an invisible creature is a wrong assumption and thus an oversight of the rules. Well, I agree. I think we both view the impossibility of mortally wounding an unconscious creature as a wrong assumption as well. Now I'm really wondering why that's not an oversight by the rules. I think you have already given your reasoning that the inability to kill unconscious creatures can't have been an oversight, the designers must have intended that it's impossible. I'm not convinced that this is true, though I do agree that the designers certainly intended that simply killing an unconscious creature isn't commonly possible. That said, either of those are very ambiguous interpretations. If the designers really had intended either way, they would have said you can/cannot simply kill an unconscious creature. Instead, they simply left it open and thus to the GM's discretion. I would take this design choice as a clear intent of completely leaving it to the GM's judgment what is possible to do to an unconscious creature and in what circumstances. So if it's meant to be adjudicated at discretion, why are you reluctant to correct the wrong assumption that the game would be making if you ruled murder to be an impossibility?

Originally Posted by secretID

FWIW, since you expressed concern about justifying it to your players, from my search, everyone seems to agree with me that ADV attacks are the only way to kill the sleeping.

I mean, obviously I'm not surprised by that, after all allowing the PC to simply murder the NPC should never be the go-to option. I think if you want a healthy game, it should only be possible in niche circumstances. Still, did the answers that you researched provide any reasoning as to why attacking is the only option that the character can take? I think, and I hope I got it across above, that the design assumes that it's commonly not possible to immediately kill an unconscious character and that it's much more likely that there exists some sort of combat situation which forces the PC to make attacks instead. I said before that I want to stay close to the design as well, so I would definitely agree with that assumption and try to enforce it as best I can. Meaning, whenever a PC approaches an unconscious creature to kill it I would try to come up with fictional reasons why it would be impossible to straight-up murder the unconscious creature. The only difference is however that I do not see any justification to decide that it's impossible in all imaginable circumstances.

I've gathered that the next point isn't going to interest you very much, but please bear with me. In terms of combat balance, the Sleep spell (as one of the few options to apply the unconscious condition) effectively 'overcomes' the creature which it affects, unless there is an allied creature nearby to shake them awake. I think as long as there's an ally nearby to oppose a character's attempt to dispatch the unconscious creature through a single action, I would also rule that it's impossible to take any sort of Murder action. However, if there is no opposing force within proximity of the unconscious creature, aren't I fictionally lacking any justification to disallow the murder from taking place? I do not think that you'll find much advice on the net which would state that it's possible to murder an unconscious creature because doing so would create a lot of issues with rookie GMs failing to consider when/how it should be possible to murder an unconscious creature, in particular from a game balance perspective (bear with me). So I take this as the reason why public opinion would disagree with the possibility of Murder actions, because that's better in terms of preventing the game's balance from getting broken. Given the investment of a spellslot and how creating the opportunity for a Murder action would come at quite the opportunity cost and possibly further investment, I would say that allowing a murder would not impact the game's balance negatively. I know, I know, you don't really want to have anything to do with any Murder actions because they aren't considered in the designed parts of the rules, but the way I see it they are the only way to overcome the great oversight created by limiting a character's options to an attack action. The rules expect an attack action rather than straight-up murder, which is what I think should commonly happen, but I am reluctant to rule something as impossible when I cannot fictionally explain why it's impossible. You know, fiction first and all that.

 

Originally Posted by secretID

Tiny point, but I disagree. I think it wisely uses a reasonable proxy for a collection of very complicated and indeterminate factors, creating a system that can be easily understood and consistently applied without outrageously unrealistic results. The (purported) rule against murdering sleeping targets is by contrast very ugly; I think they just wanted to prevent what would otherwise be pretty common deaths, and they were willing to do it in a brutish way.

Fair point and I retract that I called the Shove rules terrible. The situation with large super-heavyweight creatures is a very small oversight for an otherwise elegant design.

Originally Posted by secretID

I'm not sure, but that one disagreement indicates a huge separation IMO. In that example, you require neither what I would call a dramatic action nor even harmful/violent intent. Based on that example, I assume you still hold your opinion about intentionally lighting the bomb fuses; I'm on the other side.

I still don't see a big difference, or rather I feel like we're already saying the same thing, at least about how to determine what an attack is. The point we're disagreeing on is only the analysis of the example.

I think setting a bomb next to a granny is a very dramatic action, and I think having that artificer get the bard to commit to indiscriminate murder is definitely harmful/violent intent. That is meaning the intent of the players, which I would count more than the character's intent since it's the player who is playing the game and navigating its mechanics. But where do you sit on that?

Originally Posted by secretID

Discretion? I just call that resolution of an ambiguity.

That might be a language barrier thing then. I suppose using discretion and resolving ambiguity aren't the same thing and I see the difference. But they are basically both judgment calls by the GM, which is why I confused them here.

Originally Posted by secretID

As always, that's not my analysis, unless it indicates to me that the designers overlooked something. The impact of an interpretation is only relevant to me if it is so bad that it convinces me that the designers must have intended something different. This would not be such a case, especially because it seems clear to me that Invisibility is not intended to be used in combat.

I don’t get it. You already already lose your invisibility after your first attack. Invis. is much better than disengage because you need not spend an action, and the one throwing the flour must – and must hit. Most importantly, that’s all about combat, and Invisibility isn't for combat – that’s the basis of this whole discussion.

I think the spell is supposed to turn the target effectively and usefully visible, and so it encompasses things clothing and gear (and yes, any substance on the target) at the time of casting as well. The spell would stink if you had to strip and even go shoeless, leaving your valuables in a heap behind you. I don’t think it’s meant to encompass things picked up, or things thrown onto one, after casting. I like Crawford’s ruling on this.

I see your point where Invisibility is a lot more of a utility spell that shines more outside of combat than within it. When I brought it up my mind was still stuck on the attack/murder topics. The issue with your and Crawford's rulings though is Greater Invisibility. I would consider that a desirable combat option, but only as long as it isn't fully negated by a single Use Flour action, which by your ruling it would be, right?

But aside from that concern, I wouldn't mind if a GM handled it like Crawford, since the rules text is incredibly ambiguous with "anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target’s person". I feel like if they had meant "at the start of casting the spell" they would have just put that. I'm almost inclined to believe that Crawford and his design team disagreed about this, it looks like quite the oversight not to clarify the timing of the invisibility otherwise. Still, Greater Invisibility is still more of a concern for me than picking up stuff after the spell was cast. That just seems like a bonus which I wouldn't mind if it wasn't available and also rectified by Crawford's idea of putting stuff physically behind the invisible gear which is already bearing worn or carried.

[Mindsiege]

I wasn't as far behind on posting as I thought. Yay! The update is up.

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Behind her the group of smaller darklings had thinned out about by half

Is the one (presumably) manning the trap release still there?

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

She certainly was looking in their direction, but she wasn't looking at them at all, slightly wavering instead. At once the two of them realized. Due to his invisibility, Glynn wasn't able to discern the familiar by sight.

OK...Here Tink was invisible, and she knew his general location at a minimum. I know that the darklings noticed him by sight. From Jimmy and Tink's perception at the time, is there some chance she didn't personally locate Tink? - or maybe tracked him by sound or something?

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

Is the one (presumably) manning the trap release still there?

I'm assuming that you are talking about the one whom Glynn appeared to signal before. The answer is yes, they're in the same position.

Originally Posted by secretID

OK...Here Tink was invisible, and she knew his general location at a minimum. I know that the darklings noticed him by sight. From Jimmy and Tink's perception at the time, is there some chance she didn't personally locate Tink? - or maybe tracked him by sound or something?

Difficult to say. It didn't really stick out to either Tink or Jimmy at the time, but what Jimmy does remember is that nobody specifically told Glynn about Tink's location before she called out to Tink. At the time of the dialogue, there was no line of sight between Glynn and Tink. It's reasonable to assume that everybody would have been able to hear Tink fly by before disappearing behind the tarp and the darklings did react to his presence with looks before that.

[secretID]

After all that talk, I just realized that no one in the party has a dagger or knife! The best we can do is one of Boanagh's short swords, which doesn't seem workable. I got excited that I could call Tink back and reequip him, but I guess we're sticking with the tail.

[Mindsiege]

Unfortunate about the knife. I'm sure the darklings at the outpost would have handed you a sharp one, but a short sword is probably not workable. I could probably let Tink swing it with the same disadvantage at which a halfling would swing a greatsword (also with no proficiency), but at that point the stinger is just a much better option.

[secretID]

Did Tink already lose initiative v. Glynn & assistant, or did you consider this surprise or...?

Dice Jimmy initiative:

1d20+2

(6)+2

Total = 8

Jimmy just wants to recall Tink, but I'll wait to hear whether I should bother posting anything, given the rolls.

[Mindsiege]

At this point there's no surprise. You can make your post trying to recall Tink in time, I'll let you know with my next update if it works. About everybody else's initiative, Jimmy doesn't know.

[Mindsiege]

Could you please note your initiative in your next post as well as link it? Thanks.