5e Players Surrounded by spears and combat breaks out!

[nakedonmyfoldin]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

[Laserlight]

Roll initiative and proceed normally.

[Genoin]

I would let combat begin as normal, and here is why.

In general, the whole spears forming a circle around a group of people thing is done as a method of confinement, not preparation for an imminent attack. When the spears are extended like this, to make an effective attack with them, the wielder would have to withdraw the spear to give them enough room for a powerful enough thrust. Its like if twelve people were surrounding you with their fists and arms extended toward you. In order to actually attack, they would have to first pull their fists back, then punch. The point is, this formation is used as a method of confinement, not of preparing an attack. I would say to have "readied an action" to attack with a spear, the spear would have to be in a position that is "ready" to attack, aka not already extended.

My 2 copper.

[BruceLeeroy]

It's a narrative decision, not a mechanical one.

For the above poster who says pointed spears aren't ready to make an attack... dude, they're spears. You don't need to do some kind of kung fu wind up shot. You push the pointy end into the other man.

Anyhow - if you, as the DM, want your players to respect the dangers of your world, they need to be appropriately dangerous. If a person is surrounded by enemies with weapons drawn, that person is at a deadly disadvantage. Otherwise why would the enemies use that formation? The rules don't take into account things like flanking and readied actions outside of combat (outside of variants) because those things are left up to the DM to decide.

Now, if the game is narratively at a point where the characters can sweep aside a dozen spears, dodge the other dozen attacks, and strike out at the enemies around them without being instantly slain, then great, let them do that.

However, if the story would NOT be served by the player characters being able to fight their way out of any situation, no matter how dire, then maybe the enemies have readied actions, or advantage on initiative, or advantage on their attacks, or whatever you decide is enough to give them an overwhelming edge. Maybe all of the above. It's your world.

[Nhorianscum]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

Initiative is rolled as normal as that's pretty much how we handle reaction speed in game.

There is no ready action out if combat but as a DM you can give the guards some perk for being in position already. I'd suggest advantage on initiative for them.

[Zman]

That is narration. You do not get to ready an attack outside of initiative combat. When someone declares an action that triggers initiative, roll initiative. If that character rolls high enough and gets to go first, they will indeed have caught them off-guard.

[Hail Tempus]

DMs and players trying to ready actions outside of combat is one of my biggest pet peeves in D&D. It’s up there with people playing 5e and talking about “surprise rounds.”

The guards in that scenario shouldn’t even have advantage on their initiative rolls. The players are just as ready for coming at as their enemies.

[greenstone]

DMs and players trying to ready actions outside of combat is one of my biggest pet peeves in D&D.
I explain it as:

"Your foes are also readying stuff outside combat, so we need a way to work out whose readied actions go first. For this, we'll use a Dexterity check."

[Kane0]

RAW, roll init normally and proceed as usual.

But if you as DM don't think that is appropriate, throw out RAW and do what works for your table.

[Zhorn]

Taking the perspective of a player, I'd say it depends on how you narrated it before hand.

If you made mention of "The guards surround you, spears pointed towards you at the ready in case you try anything" in some form, it sounds fair that the guards were holding a single ready attack to spend on the "surprise round" (quotation marks since if they were truly readied for an attack, they wouldn't be surprised).
Roll initiative
"surprise round", with the initiating player making some check to be ahead, in the middle of, or after the readied spear attacks
Enter proper turn over from there.

[Magicspook]

DMs and players trying to ready actions outside of combat is one of my biggest pet peeves in D&D. It’s up there with people playing 5e and talking about “surprise rounds.”

The guards in that scenario shouldn’t even have advantage on their initiative rolls. The players are just as ready for coming at as their enemies.

This ^ for my upcoming campaign, I've explicitly banned the ready action outside of combat. If you are aware enough to be 'ready' for combat, great, that means you're not surprised. Initiative is meant to represent how fast each character can react to the outbreak of hostilities, and by trying to ready an action you are essentially asking to break the initiative system and give yourself a free round.

[Dark.Revenant]

If you're in a situation where you can "ready" an action to be used when combat starts, it's better served mechanically by using the surprise mechanic.

If it's not logically feasible to use surprise, well, you couldn't have really "readied" an action in the first place. The act of doing so would, itself, have triggered the initiative roll.

[returnToThePast]

Were the players incapacitated the entire time they were being surrounded by guys with spears? They probably would have tried to escape or attack their potential captors sooner if given the opportunity. Initiative is often used for combat, but it's appropriate for any tense situation where the order in which people act is important.

In this case, I think it would've been reasonable to call for initiative the moment the PCs were spotted by the spear wielders. On their turns, the enemies would then proceed to move into their spot of the formation and Ready to attack if the party moves to escape or takes hostile action. If the players chose to do nothing when given the option to act, then readied attacks from the enemies are totally fair.

However, if the players found themselves quickly surrounded in a bout of cutscene incompetence, then I think playing out the fight as normal would be the way to go. Both sides obviously recognize the other as potentially hostile, so no surprise. Initiative order is sufficient to model whether the character managed to quick draw and strike before the spear guys or other party members have time to act.

[Bjarkmundur]

Roll Initiative!

...And hope they are Commoners with spears and not Knights xD

[Cybren]

“They shouldn’t even get advantage on the initiative check” is so absurd I refuse to believe someone actually wrote that in good faith. At the very least the fictional positioning of “complete surrounded by weapons which are, in the literal definitional sense, ready” not qualifying for some kind of mechanical benefit in a subsequent violent encounter is DM malfeasance

[Contrast]

I explain it as:

"Your foes are also readying stuff outside combat, so we need a way to work out whose readied actions go first. For this, we'll use a Dexterity check."

...as a reminder, rolling Initiative is just a dexterity check. :smalltongue:

[MasterTempest]

An interesting question.
What Bruce LeeRoy said is almost on point, though I think he was too harsh with the guy above him. The guy above also had a point. But that would be required for a proper attack with the spear. Still they can simply push it a little more and deal damage, (maybe less, or with disadvantage or both? your choice, I would not get into such detail though)

But Bruce was on point saying it is a narrative decision.
The more dnd high fantasy etc... thing would be to roll for initiative.
The more realistic it would be for the guards to have a readied action.
What make me more curious is how the guards ended up around them without initiative being triggered beforehand, but I can think of a few ways.
Since it came to that, here's how I would do it.

All in all it depends on how ready you think the guards are.
Most guards would have readied action. By having them surrounded, and with their weapons out and already aiming the guards need to have some more advantages than they would have if they had started combat 20 feet away, with their weapons sheathed for example.
By rolling initiative normally I would make those two occasions very similar while they clearly are not.

The moment they would see the PC going for his weapon I think they would make their attack.
Still the PC who tries to catch by surprise would get a chance to do so, for one reason! See the guards most likely were not expecting someone would act in such a suicidal manner.
So there would be an initiative check involved, just between that PC and the guards! Not the whole party, since I'd think he surprised his teammates as much.
Only that PC and the guards would act for the "first" round, the guards using their readied action only and nothing else, while the PC has a full round no matter who is first.
Then they would keep these initiatives and the rest of the party would roll as well, and we would go from top of initiative to standard combat.

(Now if PC, before lashing out with his sword had some way to warn the party about his following action without alerting the guards, like telepathy for example, that would change, I could very well go into normal initiative especially if he counted out to three before they would strike to synchronize them all together etc...)

[darknite]

When I run situations like this the opposition usually gets a readied attack and advantage on the ensuing Initiative.

[Solunaris]

By RAW? You ask the party to roll initiative and roll for the guards. They may be "surprised" by the actions and the PCs might be surrounded but none of them are unaware of each other so surprise rules don't come into effect.

Now, if the other PCs actually draw their weapons or not is a different story.

[Corsair14]

I would say roll for initiative but allow all the spears to go first for that round and give them flanking. This is a situation you have to look outside the rules and run it on the fly. If the PCs are dumb enough to not surrender or strong enough to shrug off the damage then battle will continue as normal after that, however they will still be surrounded and flanked unless they get lucky and break out in their movement.

[Scripten]

One solution would be to give the guards an NPC version of PAM (where entering their range allows them to use their reactions to make an attack), then set up the field with the guards at a distance that requires the players to enter their range on that first turn. Consider it to be a reflection of the guards' tactical training.

Otherwise, if you just use normal guard stats, they would not have any special abilities to "surround and capture" a party of armed, trained, and readied player characters at all.

[stoutstien]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

How did the party get surrounded by the guards without them having an ablity to potentially prevent it in the first place? Did they pop out of thin air or was the party sleeping? The encounter should have started prior to this in most any case I can think of.

[Cizak]

“They shouldn’t even get advantage on the initiative check” is so absurd I refuse to believe someone actually wrote that in good faith. At the very least the fictional positioning of “complete surrounded by weapons which are, in the literal definitional sense, ready” not qualifying for some kind of mechanical benefit in a subsequent violent encounter is DM malfeasance

Nah.

If everyone is conscious and ready for a battle to start, Initiative is rolled as usual. It's the most basic combat scenario in the game.

The guards are ready in case their prisoner tries anything. The prisoner takes the initiative to start a fight. At that point, it's just a matter of who's faster. To determine that, everyone rolls a Dexterity Check. No mods to the rolls needed whatsoever.

Player characters are heroes of extraordinary, superhuman strength and speed. If they win an Initiative roll against 12 enemies, that's just a showcasing of those abilities.

[Keravath]

How did the party get surrounded by the guards without them having an ablity to potentially prevent it in the first place? Did they pop out of thin air or was the party sleeping? The encounter should have started prior to this in most any case I can think of.

Presumably it was a "social" encounter that became a combat encounter when one of the PC's decided to pull their weapon and attack the folks surrounding them.

As for how to treat the situation mechanically ...

RAW, just roll initiative and resolve it from there. No one is surprised. You can't have readied actions out of combat. No one gets advantage on initiative.

However, actual treatment depends on the details of the situation that we don't have ...

- were all the spears pulled back ready to thrust them into the surrounded characters with the surrounding creatures in an appropriate stance to make an attack? If yes, then perhaps the folks surrounding the characters should have some mechanical advantage. However, if the attackers looked that ready to attack the PCs it is unlikely the PCs would have meekly allowed themselves to be surrounded since it would be obvious that they were about to be attacked and that the creatures surrounding them were aggressive.

- if the creatures surrounding were standing with their spears pointed at the PCs then there is no "readied" attack .. they have their spears pointed. They are watching the PCs. The PCs are watching them. However, if both the creatures surrounding and the players are watching each other very carefully then why would there be any advantage on initiative? The players may or may not already be holding weapons. In any case, their weapons are readily accessible. One character pulls a weapon or makes an aggressive move, however, the reaction times of both the people surrounding and the characters are determined by the initiative rolls. Perhaps a bad initiative roll means that someone blinked at the wrong time and missed seeing whatever movement initiated the combat. In this case, just roll initiative and start combat.

- If one side or the other has a mechanical disadvantage, like they are clearly not paying attention or are paying attention to something other than the other creatures THEN you might award either advantage on initiative or advantage on the first attack against targets that haven't had their turn in combat. If one side is completely distracted or unaware of the other group then this could be a surprise round.

Anyway, the situation as described doesn't need any special treatment unless there were other circumstances not mentioned.

[darknite]

Nah.

If everyone is conscious and ready for a battle to start, Initiative is rolled as usual. It's the most basic combat scenario in the game.

The guards are ready in case their prisoner tries anything. The prisoner takes the initiative to start a fight. At that point, it's just a matter of who's faster. To determine that, everyone rolls a Dexterity Check. No mods to the rolls needed whatsoever.

Player characters are heroes of extraordinary, superhuman strength and speed. If they win an Initiative roll against 12 enemies, that's just a showcasing of those abilities.

So they suffer no consequences for being caught with their pants down? Sure, they're extraordinary. That's why they'll win the fight. But it shouldn't start out well for them.

[Scripten]

So they suffer no consequences for being caught with their pants down? Sure, they're extraordinary. That's why they'll win the fight. But it shouldn't start out well for them.

If they were surprised, then combat starts with them having the Surprised condition. If they were not, then it does not.

If they were "caught with their pants down", then they are probably not holding weapons or wearing armor. If none of that applies, then they aren't really caught with their pants down so much as surrounded while armed and ready.

[darknite]

If they were surprised, then combat starts with them having the Surprised condition. If they were not, then it does not.

If they were "caught with their pants down", then they are probably not holding weapons or wearing armor. If none of that applies, then they aren't really caught with their pants down so much as surrounded while armed and ready.

That could be the situation. But the OP has a circumstance that says the PCs are surrounded and about to be taken prisoner and init hasn't been rolled yet. That sounds like a disadvantaged position to me. As a DM I would assess a penalty to my players for that circumstance because otherwise I set a precedent for not having consequences for poor circumstances. Believe it or not, no matter how much they whine, lots of players like to fight their way out dire situations like this and don't want it sugar coated.

[Cizak]

So they suffer no consequences for being caught with their pants down? Sure, they're extraordinary. That's why they'll win the fight. But it shouldn't start out well for them.

If everyone is conscious and ready for a battle to start, Initiative is rolled as usual. If the guards are simply surrounding them and giving them the option to surrender, then they aren't caught with their pants down. The guards have given them the opportunity to retaliate. That was the guards' mistake. They suffer the consequences for that.

[Doug Lampert]

“They shouldn’t even get advantage on the initiative check” is so absurd I refuse to believe someone actually wrote that in good faith. At the very least the fictional positioning of “complete surrounded by weapons which are, in the literal definitional sense, ready” not qualifying for some kind of mechanical benefit in a subsequent violent encounter is DM malfeasance

Why in the world should either side get an advantage on the initiative check?

Seriously. Both sides are ready for combat. If anyone has advantage it should be the side that DOES something, not the side standing around waiting for someone to do something.


So they suffer no consequences for being caught with their pants down? Sure, they're extraordinary. That's why they'll win the fight. But it shouldn't start out well for them.

Yep, they suffer the consequence of being outnumbered and surrounded. That's the situation as stated.

I'm still not clear on how the PCs, who are the ones ACTING, should be slower than the guys standing around looking decorative and waiting for someone to surrender.

Let's try a different description of the EXACT SAME SITUATION.

There are a bunch of guys with weapons, there are another bunch of guys with weapons. One group attacks. Which group acts first?

We've got MULTIPLE people insisting for some reason that the bunch that's NOT DOING ANYTHING should act first. That the reaction comes prior to there being anything to react to, there isn't even combat prior to the PCs acting.

Just roll initiative. This is what the rule is for.

[stoutstien]

Presumably it was a "social" encounter that became a combat encounter when one of the PC's decided to pull their weapon and attack the folks surrounding them.

As for how to treat the situation mechanically ...

RAW, just roll initiative and resolve it from there. No one is surprised. You can't have readied actions out of combat. No one gets advantage on initiative.

However, actual treatment depends on the details of the situation that we don't have ...

- were all the spears pulled back ready to thrust them into the surrounded characters with the surrounding creatures in an appropriate stance to make an attack? If yes, then perhaps the folks surrounding the characters should have some mechanical advantage. However, if the attackers looked that ready to attack the PCs it is unlikely the PCs would have meekly allowed themselves to be surrounded since it would be obvious that they were about to be attacked and that the creatures surrounding them were aggressive.

- if the creatures surrounding were standing with their spears pointed at the PCs then there is no "readied" attack .. they have their spears pointed. They are watching the PCs. The PCs are watching them. However, if both the creatures surrounding and the players are watching each other very carefully then why would there be any advantage on initiative? The players may or may not already be holding weapons. In any case, their weapons are readily accessible. One character pulls a weapon or makes an aggressive move, however, the reaction times of both the people surrounding and the characters are determined by the initiative rolls. Perhaps a bad initiative roll means that someone blinked at the wrong time and missed seeing whatever movement initiated the combat. In this case, just roll initiative and start combat.

- If one side or the other has a mechanical disadvantage, like they are clearly not paying attention or are paying attention to something other than the other creatures THEN you might award either advantage on initiative or advantage on the first attack against targets that haven't had their turn in combat. If one side is completely distracted or unaware of the other group then this could be a surprise round.

Anyway, the situation as described doesn't need any special treatment unless there were other circumstances not mentioned.

Why would it matter if wasn't an intentional combat encounter or not? The question was why didn't the party have options prior to being surrounded.

[Pelle]

...as a reminder, rolling Initiative is just a dexterity check. :smalltongue:

I think that was the point...

[Mikal]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

Chiming in that RAW Initiative would be rolled on all sides. Readied actions are in combat time/space, not narrative. As soon as the DM decides that he wants them to have ready actions, he should announce initiative to be rolled. You can still easily "talk it out" during combat time, but it preserves the actual mechanics of the guards "readying actions".

And I'd run it the same way. As a DM I don't pull "gotcha's!" like that on my players and as a player think it's a stupid move by DMs.

If you want them to be surprised, then use the surprise mechanic. But just because some level 1 yokel with a pitchfork decided to "get the drop" on a level 5 PC doesn't mean they actually succeed at it.

[nakedonmyfoldin]

How did the party get surrounded by the guards without them having an ablity to potentially prevent it in the first place? Did they pop out of thin air or was the party sleeping? The encounter should have started prior to this in most any case I can think of.

In this situation, Bullywugs are stalking through thick marshy forests encircling the low level party (a high enough perception could notice them creeping through the dark woods). The white noise sound of frogs was elevated to a din (to help mask any sound the Wugs might make - I figured this would give them a stealth advantage as they're effectively silent) and on a cue, the frogs stop chirping and the Wugs leap out with spears at the ready. They do not attack, because they want to bring these guys back to their fat frog master.

[Hail Tempus]

“They shouldn’t even get advantage on the initiative check” is so absurd I refuse to believe someone actually wrote that in good faith. At the very least the fictional positioning of “complete surrounded by weapons which are, in the literal definitional sense, ready” not qualifying for some kind of mechanical benefit in a subsequent violent encounter is DM malfeasance How did the spear guys surround the PCs without the PCs being a chance to act or take precautions? Unless the party was surprised, the narration would've involved them seeing a group of spearmen approaching them. Even if the DM unilaterally decided to surround the party without giving them a chance to respond, having your weapon out at the start of combat doesn't give you any initiative advantage in D&D, and drawing your weapon is just a part of your attack action.

Getting advantage on initiative isn't that easy, mechanically. There are only a handful of class features that allow it. Just giving some mooks advantage on initiative because they happen to have their weapons out is silly.


In this situation, Bullywugs are stalking through thick marshy forests encircling the low level party (a high enough perception could notice them creeping through the dark woods). The white noise sound of frogs was elevated to a din (to help mask any sound the Wugs might make - I figured this would give them a stealth advantage as they're effectively silent) and on a cue, the frogs stop chirping and the Wugs leap out with spears at the ready. They do not attack, because they want to bring these guys back to their fat frog master. So, was the party surprised or not? And, if they were and the Bullywugs had hostile intentions, then they should have rolled initiative and combat would have proceeded normally (with some or all of the PCs being surprised the first round).

If the Bullywugs wasted their surprise without turning hostile, then its's just a standard encounter between two groups that aren't surprised. Roll initiative and let the chips fall where they may.

Surprise isn't something that lasts beyond first contact.

[Sigreid]

Do what you feel is appropriate. Real life studies have show that someone who pulls a weapon and doesn't use it immediately assumes they are not going to have to. Generally it takes about 1.5 ti 2 seconds to adapt to the idea that the fight is on. This is why self defense training tends to go the route of instant and brutal counter attacks. Or rather why those counter attacks tend to work.

[Demonslayer666]

In my experience, players are frequently in the mindset that anything you put them up against is supposed to be fought, and designed as a challenge that the party is supposed to win. If you plan on putting them in over their heads, this needs to be covered in Session 0, and they need to have obvious clues when you do this. Blindsiding them with something too challenging is not cool. Set expectations up front.

The PCs are clearly at a disadvantage in this situation. First, you could just narrate what happens. "As soon as you move to attack, they quickly subdue all of you, and you wake up in a cell."

Secondly, you could also play it out, after discussing how suicidal the attempt would be, of course. I could see the party rolling initiative with disadvantage, or the guards rolling initiative with advantage, or the party's attacks are at disadvantage, or the guards have advantage, or any combination. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I would lean towards advantage on initiative for the guards and the their first attack, and disadvantage on the party's first attack and initiative.

Combat could have started as soon as the guard moved to lower their spears, but I think the encounter was designed to get the party to surrender, not attack them. The next move was up to the party, and combat was clearly intended as the poor choice.

[Keravath]

Why would it matter if wasn't an intentional combat encounter or not? The question was why didn't the party have options prior to being surrounded.

I'm not sure I understand. The OPs described situation was a case were the party was surrounded by a group armed with spears and combat breaks out as the party responds to the situation. What might or might not have happened earlier or what options they might or might not have had prior to being surrounded aren't relevant to the question posed by the OP.

The OP asked how the combat should be resolved both RAW and how you would resolve it as the DM.

RAW, you just roll initiative. In my opinion, as a DM, I would also just go with rolling initiative given the limited knowledge we have of the situation. No one is surprised that combat breaks out in this situation and if everyone still has weapons even if they are sheathed, the delay getting them out is minimal so it doesn't represent a significant advantage unless there is more detail the OP wanted to share.

[darknite]

There's a lot of discussion of RAW. But RAW doesn't run the game. The DM exists to adjudicate extraordinary situations not specified by RAW. Such nuance is the province of the DM to create a more exhilarating experience while remaining in the spirit of the game. So reactions will vary from table to table, which is fine.

[stoutstien]

I'm not sure I understand. The OPs described situation was a case were the party was surrounded by a group armed with spears and combat breaks out as the party responds to the situation. What might or might not have happened earlier or what options they might or might not have had prior to being surrounded aren't relevant to the question posed by the OP.

The OP asked how the combat should be resolved both RAW and how you would resolve it as the DM.

RAW, you just roll initiative. In my opinion, as a DM, I would also just go with rolling initiative given the limited knowledge we have of the situation. No one is surprised that combat breaks out in this situation and if everyone still has weapons even if they are sheathed, the delay getting them out is minimal so it doesn't represent a significant advantage unless there is more detail the OP wanted to share.

I bring up the set up for this scenario because it one of those problems caused by the set up. With the additional information of the bullywug jumping out and attempted to surprise the party, the encounter started as soon as they jump out.

The whole phase into combat is one of the clunky parts of DND that we just learn to deal with but the attempt to surround the party is hostile action so let the dice roll.

[Demonslayer666]

I bring up the set up for this scenario because it one of those problems caused by the set up. With the additional information of the bullywug jumping out and attempted to surprise the party, the encounter started as soon as they jump out.

The whole phase into combat is one of the clunky parts of DND that we just learn to deal with but the attempt to surround the party is hostile action so let the dice roll.

I disagree. Them jumping out was not to attack the party, it was to start a dialogue under the threat of violence, and trying to force them to comply.

[stoutstien]

I disagree. Them jumping out was not to attack the party, it was to start a dialogue under the threat of violence, and trying to force them to comply.
*Shrugs* not at my table. Of course I hate anything thst removes player agency just for the sake of holding a poorly executed encounter together.

I don't get to deside how the party feels about a bunch of NPCs jumping out the water wielding Spears. I do my best to make sure that most likely the bullywugs are looking at blocking them and not necessarily attacking them but then again the barbarian might just not take kindly to that and punt the nearest one into a tree.

[Brookshw]

Chiming in that RAW Initiative would be rolled on all sides. Readied actions are in combat time/space, not narrative. As soon as the DM decides that he wants them to have ready actions, he should announce initiative to be rolled. You can still easily "talk it out" during combat time, but it preserves the actual mechanics of the guards "readying actions".



I completely agree regarding readied actions take place within combat as a matter of RAW. However I also believe that there can be a certain administrative nature to such an encounter that might justify allowing the readied actions prior to rolling initiative if the players weren't immediately opting for combat at the guards approach. In my experience, calling for initiative by default puts most players in a combat mindset and reduces the likelihood of their opting to talk (or talking and then going "gotcha" trying to claim a surprise round). Choosing instead to allow the readied action but delaying the rolling of initiative won't break anything as long as the players aren't immediately opting to fight upon seeing the "enemy", effectively passing on their turns while rounds (or maybe "virtual rounds") pass and the guards ready actions.

[FilthyLucre]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

Roll initiative and proceed normally.

If the bullywugs intention was to get the drop on them they should have done so at the get out instead of trying to contain and encircle the PCs. Remember these aren't hapless ****s they're seasoned adventurers. Once you lose the element of surprise it's lost. Think about all the times in action movies where there is a stand off until someone makes the first move, (winning initiative and going first), even when guns are drawn point blank.

[Hail Tempus]

I completely agree regarding readied actions take place within combat as a matter of RAW. However I also believe that there can be a certain administrative nature to such an encounter that might justify allowing the readied actions prior to rolling initiative if the players weren't immediately opting for combat at the guards approach. In my experience, calling for initiative by default puts most players in a combat mindset and reduces the likelihood of their opting to talk (or talking and then going "gotcha" trying to claim a surprise round). Choosing instead to allow the readied action but delaying the rolling of initiative won't break anything as long as the players aren't immediately opting to fight upon seeing the "enemy", effectively passing on their turns while rounds (or maybe "virtual rounds") pass and the guards ready actions. None of this really makes sense. If the Bullywugs want to ready actions outside of combat, why can't the PCs do the same? One side can't unilaterally decide that it gets the first move if combat breaks out. D&D has pretty well-established mechanics who gets to go first if a fight starts.

One of the most important factors in determining initiative using RAW, is that it avoids players or the DM getting an advantage from shouting out something first. Neither the DM nor the players should get to go first just because they say so. Initiative needs to be determined among the PCs and the NPCs, based on the mechanics of the character in question. Some PCs and NPCs have mechanical advantages when it comes to initiative (such as advantage on initiative rolls for barbarians, Swashbucklers getting to add their Charisma modifier to their roll, Divination Wizards using a portent die to replace an initiative roll etc.). If the DM determines that some NPC gets to go first through readied actions, he's just shortchanging PC abilities.

[FilthyLucre]

None of this really makes sense. If the Bullywugs want to ready actions outside of combat, why can't the PCs do the same? One side can't unilaterally decide that it gets the first move if combat breaks out. D&D has pretty well-established mechanics who gets to go first if a fight starts.

One of the most important factors in determining initiative using RAW, is that it avoids players or the DM getting an advantage from shouting out something first. Neither the DM nor the players should get to go first just because they say so. Initiative needs to be determined among the PCs and the NPCs, based on the mechanics of the character in question. Some PCs and NPCs have mechanical advantages when it comes to initiative (such as advantage on initiative rolls for barbarians, Swashbucklers getting to add their Charisma modifier to their roll, Divination Wizards using a portent die to replace an initiative roll etc.). If the DM determines that some NPC gets to go first through readied actions, he's just shortchanging PC abilities.

Exactly this.

[DwarfFighter]

The heroes being outmatched and captured is a common adventure trope. Sometimes it's overwhelming force (surrounded by a dozen enemies), or debilitating trick (zapped by a stun ray, drugged by a seductress), or pressure (love-interest held hostage), etc. The means vary, but the end result is usually the same: The heroes are confined, the villain gloats, they figure out a way to escape and recover their gear, and they have a confrontation.

In D&D this offers the opportunity to test the players ability to play their characters without the tools normally available. Done right it is a rewarding and humbling experience that demonstrates that the characters are more than just their gear and resources.

If you want to run a session where the PCs need to escape confinement, how do you get them there? My best suggestion is this: Start the session as follow.

"You each wake up with a start, drawing breath of cold stale air. It is dark, and you find yourself lying on a hard wooden bench, a pile of hay and old furs, or ecen just the stone floor itself. It is dark, the room barely lit by a small candle. It takes a few moments to realize that you are in a cell and in chains. You see your friends, all accounted for. You have no recollection of how you got here."

[Slayn82]

How did the spear guys surround the PCs without the PCs being a chance to act or take precautions? Unless the party was surprised, the narration would've involved them seeing a group of spearmen approaching them. Even if the DM unilaterally decided to surround the party without giving them a chance to respond, having your weapon out at the start of combat doesn't give you any initiative advantage in D&D, and drawing your weapon is just a part of your attack action.

The spell Enthrall comes to mind. The perfect way to connect a social encounter into a combat encounter. Calm Emotions is a close second, and both are nice for an Eloquence Bard.

Otherwise, there´s the old trick of getting the players to infiltrate a room too dark, having to act with discrition to not alert anything - and suddenly discovering that behind each tapestry in the walls there were 6+ guards.

But of course, usually you have the players beat a bunch of enemies in the room, while your actual threat of a wall of spears surround the room and enters through secret doors. Then your villain gives them an ultimatum from somewhere, behind full cover.

[RifleAvenger]

In my experience, players are frequently in the mindset that anything you put them up against is supposed to be fought, and designed as a challenge that the party is supposed to win. If you plan on putting them in over their heads, this needs to be covered in Session 0, and they need to have obvious clues when you do this. Blindsiding them with something too challenging is not cool. Set expectations up front."Challenge" and a presupposition that the PC's are entitled to win every encounter are mutually exclusive. For something to be challenging, there needs to be some degree of failure possible. For a game where the PC's are expected to never be defeated in combat to be a challenge, the actual goal would have to be a speed run or some other variant the players can fail.

Essentially, Session 0 is a good example yeah, but I strenuously disagree that the default assumption of play should be that the game is on "Easy." This doesn't just apply to combat either; flub social encounters or make bad political/strategic decisions and expect consequences unless I made it clear there are none.


The PCs are clearly at a disadvantage in this situation. First, you could just narrate what happens. "As soon as you move to attack, they quickly subdue all of you, and you wake up in a cell.Do I hear a train whistle sounding? This is a terrible idea unless you've got an explicitly participationist group.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't the clear answer that the Bullywogs begin combat, rolling initiative, and then use their turns to surround the Surprised party and take readied actions to stab the PC's if they fight back or try to run? All while making free actions to communicate their demands for surrender? Maybe the leader using its action to make an actual Skill check in replace of the readied action?

So the combat begins, and the Bullywogs effectively STILL essentially get a readied action to begin.

[Tanarii]

Why didn't combat start when the bw's jumped out with the party surprise? At which point they ready an action to attack. That sounds like their first round action to me.

[opaopajr]

How are these NPCs appearing and successfully surrounding the party without the NPCs' own awareness of the PC party? Obviously they (the NPCs) are already in "Combat Rounds" because they: discovered the PC targets, drew their weapons, successfully formed a formation around them, and readied said weapons in a threatening manner. Unless teleportation (or another bizarre circumstance) occured, the NPCs are obviously Ready-ing for hostile action -- hence the hostile weapon posture. :smallcool: This is patently obvious from the description itself.

Not all parties to be involved need to be aware of 'Combat' for them to be in "Combat Rounds." It's embedded in the very nature of asymmetrical warfare. That's why Surprise is reserved for the GM to decide -- sometimes the PCs can be the target of an ambush! Your PCs' awareness or consent is not necessary for "Combat Rounds" to be active. :smallamused:

This OP descriptive scene reads: NPCs had a successful Surprise against the PCs; they use their round to Move into a surrounding formation and Ready their weapons, trigger being PC hostile action. Ta-dah! Easy-peasy. Flinch at your own PC regret! :smallwink:

[Aimeryan]

There is a cognitive dissonance here with:

being surrounded by people who know how to use spears who are holding them at the ready to use them at the first sign of needing to do so
being seasoned adventures ready if a fight break out (possibly with weapons lowered)
initiative system that has entities take turns each doing stuff that covers a six second span (including casting spells)


RAW, neither party is surprised, roll initiative. The DM can rule to give advantage to the guards(?) in order to simulate the advantage of their weapons in the situation they are in.

A real solution would be to have synchronous turns with different actions having different time costs - the guards with spears would attack before the casters used their somatic material spells, etc.

[darknite]

There is a cognitive dissonance here with:
...

A real solution would be to have synchronous turns with different actions having different time costs - the guards with spears would attack before the casters used their somatic material spells, etc.

A well DM'd situation would impose penalties on a disadvantaged group that would likely not be reflected in RAW because RAW can't handle every nuance and is indeed why a DM exists.

[Aimeryan]

A well DM'd situation would impose penalties on a disadvantaged group that would likely not be reflected in RAW because RAW can't handle every nuance and is indeed why a DM exists.

Indeed, however, it does require the DM stepping in each time similiar situations arise and is usually better for the group to have some agreed on rules beforehand. The synchronous turns comment is more about changing up the system altogether, rather than a comment of how to approach the situation as is.

[darknite]

Indeed, however, it does require the DM stepping in each time similiar situations arise and is usually better for the group to have some agreed on rules beforehand. The synchronous turns comment is more about changing up the system altogether, rather than a comment of how to approach the situation as is.

That's a good solution, too. Always good to be transparent and have players aware of how things might play out in given situations.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

Do the spear wielders have the Polearm Master feat or similar ability?

[Grey Watcher]

I would let combat begin as normal, and here is why.

In general, the whole spears forming a circle around a group of people thing is done as a method of confinement, not preparation for an imminent attack. When the spears are extended like this, to make an effective attack with them, the wielder would have to withdraw the spear to give them enough room for a powerful enough thrust. Its like if twelve people were surrounding you with their fists and arms extended toward you. In order to actually attack, they would have to first pull their fists back, then punch. The point is, this formation is used as a method of confinement, not of preparing an attack. I would say to have "readied an action" to attack with a spear, the spear would have to be in a position that is "ready" to attack, aka not already extended.

My 2 copper.

I dunno, the windup to the proverbial pitch is part of the attack action, though. Even in held action/reaction, your conditions might be broad enough (as soon as I see the bad guy, I attack), that even that reaction is assumed to include enough time to see where your attack is, aim (albeit not especially carefully), wind up, and attack.

Here's how I'd handle it (which is similar to what others have said):

When the player declares they're attacking, have everyone roll initiative. Any guards that beat the player(s) on initiative (which is probably all or none, since most people will roll a group check for somethina cohesive bunch of NPCs like this) use their turns to ready an attack. So with the right combination of a high bonus and luck with the dice, the player can pull it off (at least that first turn of activity, in subsequent rounds all bets are off). If initiative goes poorly for them, they get pincushioned for their trouble.

[MaXenzie]

I'd just go with RAW and roll initiative normally.

The guards already have a big advantage by restricting the players movement and being able to flank on all ends. That's the benefit of surrounding with spears.

[Tharkun]

In this situation, Bullywugs are stalking through thick marshy forests encircling the low level party (a high enough perception could notice them creeping through the dark woods). The white noise sound of frogs was elevated to a din (to help mask any sound the Wugs might make - I figured this would give them a stealth advantage as they're effectively silent) and on a cue, the frogs stop chirping and the Wugs leap out with spears at the ready. They do not attack, because they want to bring these guys back to their fat frog master.
Simply put in this case.

1- check each PC's passive Perception. Note who had high enough to detect bullys approaching.
2- roll initiative for party and wugs.
3- those who were surprised have the regular pass their action surprise effect on their turn.
4- resolve combat

Note that high passive perception may have given the PCs the option to warn their friends. It may not have gotten to this point.

If the wugs stop with spears out and speak, and that is the narrative you are going for, then I would just roll init as normal. You removed agency to get to that point, there is no need to punish them twice.

[Demonslayer666]

*Shrugs* not at my table. Of course I hate anything thst removes player agency just for the sake of holding a poorly executed encounter together.

I don't get to deside how the party feels about a bunch of NPCs jumping out the water wielding Spears. I do my best to make sure that most likely the bullywugs are looking at blocking them and not necessarily attacking them but then again the barbarian might just not take kindly to that and punt the nearest one into a tree.

I don't see this as a poorly executed encounter in the least. The party was caught off guard and given a chance to continue without having to fight and it was obvious that fighting was at a disadvantage. A passive ambush, if you will. Being outnumbered or out classed is not taking away player agency. Taking away player agency would be telling them they surrender. The party can choose to fight overwhelming odds or not and allows them to react differently to different situations. This pause gives the players the ability to access the situation, and handle it in another way besides fighting. I'm all for that.


"Challenge" and a presupposition that the PC's are entitled to win every encounter are mutually exclusive. For something to be challenging, there needs to be some degree of failure possible. For a game where the PC's are expected to never be defeated in combat to be a challenge, the actual goal would have to be a speed run or some other variant the players can fail.
...
Do I hear a train whistle sounding? This is a terrible idea unless you've got an explicitly participationist group.
...
No, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Designed to win and being a challenge can certainly both happen. Designed to win does not have to mean it must be a cake walk, and can most certainly be designed to win by a narrow margin. The party has a bad run of luck, while the creatures have a good run of luck, and a fight that should have been won by the party turns into a disaster.

If you hear a train whistle every time your DM narrates rather than having you roll, that's on you. I'm perfectly fine with my DM narrating events rather than rolling everything. If it's your preference to roll, that's fine, but it's part of the game by design to only have players roll when asked by the DM. No need to try and slap a railroading DM sticker on my forehead. Narrating is a viable option.

[RifleAvenger]

No, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Designed to win and being a challenge can certainly both happen. Designed to win does not have to mean it must be a cake walk, and can most certainly be designed to win by a narrow margin. The party has a bad run of luck, while the creatures have a good run of luck, and a fight that should have been won by the party turns into a disaster. Of course encounters are designed to be winnable, but they also should be designed to be lose-able. I design an encounter, or a game of political cloak and dagger, to be won if the players PLAY WELL. This includes minimizing the influence of luck in play as much as possible. They shouldn't expect victory, because they have to earn it, unless Session 0 established otherwise. Consequence free power fantasy shouldn't be the default assumption, and I wouldn't want to run a table for anyone who thinks otherwise.


If you hear a train whistle every time your DM narrates rather than having you roll, that's on you. I'm perfectly fine with my DM narrating events rather than rolling everything. If it's your preference to roll, that's fine, but it's part of the game by design to only have players roll when asked by the DM. No need to try and slap a railroading DM sticker on my forehead. Narrating is a viable option.I hear that whistle as a game master. You advised literally just saying "they capture you" without giving the party any ability to resist. That's not just narration; that is textbook railroading because there are innumerable things the party could do to stop that whether by role-play or roll-play. It's a major loss of player agency to just be defeated like that because the Game Master said so.

I narrate plenty as a GM - my games are very heavy on the social pillar regardless of system. I've had half sessions pass with no die rolls, but my players are never stripped of agency like you would have done with that arbitrary "you're all captured" decision. Even in a dice-less game, interactivity is important. There are few things less interactive than skipping an entire encounter to the GM's desired conclusion because their fragile plot can't stand up to alternative outcomes.

[stoutstien]

I don't see this as a poorly executed encounter in the least. The party was caught off guard and given a chance to continue without having to fight and it was obvious that fighting was at a disadvantage. A passive ambush, if you will. Being outnumbered or out classed is not taking away player agency. Taking away player agency would be telling them they surrender. The party can choose to fight overwhelming odds or not and allows them to react differently to different situations. This pause gives the players the ability to access the situation, and handle it in another way besides fighting. I'm all for that.


No, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Designed to win and being a challenge can certainly both happen. Designed to win does not have to mean it must be a cake walk, and can most certainly be designed to win by a narrow margin. The party has a bad run of luck, while the creatures have a good run of luck, and a fight that should have been won by the party turns into a disaster.

If you hear a train whistle every time your DM narrates rather than having you roll, that's on you. I'm perfectly fine with my DM narrating events rather than rolling everything. If it's your preference to roll, that's fine, but it's part of the game by design to only have players roll when asked by the DM. No need to try and slap a railroading DM sticker on my forehead. Narrating is a viable option.

question one: Are the players actually making any meaningful decision here yes or no?

Question two: is this narrative particularly meaningful?

To me it's very clearly no on both counts. It's a waste of space in the game because it's not really giving the players a chance to make a real choice. Surrender or kill them is not exactly a meaningful choice in my book. It sounds more like a DM trying to show that killing things isn't the only option which is fine but doing it at spear point isn't exactly doing it in good faith.

We are talking about bullywugs. In most settings they are cruel little bullies that are fair game to fireball the entire village without repercussions.

Most DM spend too much time trying to be story tellers when that is actually should be keep to a minimum. Let the players play the game. I'm not saying there's a 100% chance that DM's at focus on narrative are bad but most of the ones I've seen are overcompensating for the inability to run a good day.
The DM job is to describe the situation, then the players decide what they do, DM resolves and describes the results of the action. There other jobs like pacing, presenting challenging, and meaningful choices but it all goes back to basically describing the scenario and describing the resuts.

[RifleAvenger]

Most DM spend too much time trying to be story tellers when that is actually should be keep to a minimum. Let the players play the game. I'm not saying there's a 100% chance that DM's at focus on narrative are bad but most of the ones I've seen are overcompensating for the inability to run a good day.

The DM job is to describe the situation, then the players decide what they do, DM resolves and describes the results of the action. There other jobs like pacing, presenting challenging, and meaningful choices but it all goes back to basically describing the scenario and describing the resuts.I think it's fine for the GM to be a storyteller. They just have to remember that tabletop RPGs are interactive and collaborative stories, and the players control the main characters. The GM is still the "chief" storyteller in most systems, as they control the world and most of the people in it; however, they don't control the players (or their PC's) and should pay attention to what both players and PC's WANT OOC and IC respectively. At my table, that means working a player's desired character arc for their PC into the plot or at least allowing it as a side story.

It comes down to table too. Tables that want to focus on mechanics should have a GM more like a referee. Tables that want heavy story need a GM like a writer (and a good one too, since he/she needs robust plots and a lot of adaptability because he/she can't write the PC's! I only wish I were that good).

[Tanarii]

I'm still not clear why this wasn't just a normal surprise situation, with the bullywugs using their first turn to ready an action and talk on their turn demanding surrender.

This isn't even one of the quirky white room situations people sometimes devise to try and demonstrate why Ready before combat begins should be possible. It's a straight forward situation the rules as written could have easily handled.

Arguments over agency or narration or storytelling don't even need to enter the picture to respond to the situation outlined.

[Amechra]

Honestly, I'd go with the RAW here - roll initiative for both sides normally.

It'd be different if the bullywugs had hopped out of nowhere and started stabbin'. But they wasted their surprise advantage, and made the poor decision to try to surround a group of professional killers. Like, realistically speaking? The 'wugs probably aren't being paid enough (metaphorically speaking) to deal with PC's.

Seriously, player characters are the kind of people who make the conscious decision to put themselves in mortal danger on a daily basis. A dozen frog people with pointy sticks probably isn't even in their top ten.

...

I'm biased, though. I've had two DM's pull the similar "Guards automatically arrest you! You can't resist the power of law enforcement!" thing, and it infuriates me. At least give me a chance to choose to come quietly.

[col_impact]

If the spears are considered longspears and thus have the reach property, then the surrounded players will likely not be able to do much that won't cause a dozen opportunity attacks unless they have pole arms themselves.

[stoutstien]

If the spears are considered longspears and thus have the reach property, then the surrounded players will likely not be able to do much that won't cause a dozen opportunity attacks unless they have pole arms themselves.

With bullywugs' attack bonus? Eh dodge and just walk away lol.

[JackPhoenix]

With bullywugs' attack bonus? Eh dodge and just walk away lol.

Or disengage and ignore all OA's.

Also, there's no "longspear".

[stoutstien]

Or disengage and ignore all OA's.

Also, there's no "longspear".

I was thinking more of the demoralizing effect of just walking past the ambush without even taking obviously defensive actions. So the first player to go will eat all the AOO with dodge and the rest will walk on. Flavor choice but yes disengage would work also but everyone would have to do it.

In some languages the Reach property on weapons is called long. I hear it a lot from a few of my players. One of those lost in translation effects.

[Hail Tempus]

Honestly, I'd go with the RAW here - roll initiative for both sides normally.

It'd be different if the bullywugs had hopped out of nowhere and started stabbin'. But they wasted their surprise advantage, and made the poor decision to try to surround a group of professional killers. Like, realistically speaking? The 'wugs probably aren't being paid enough (metaphorically speaking) to deal with PC's.

Seriously, player characters are the kind of people who make the conscious decision to put themselves in mortal danger on a daily basis. A dozen frog people with pointy sticks probably isn't even in their top ten. Yeah, agreed. Bullywugs are a CR 1/4 monster. A dozen of them are a medium encounter for a level 3 party. They have multi-attack, but their bite does 3 damage and their spear does 4. Intimidating, they're not.

A level 1 party might be tempted to fight it out, rather than surrender. No self-respecting level 2 or higher group of adventurers is going to drop their weapons at the sight of a bunch of amphibians with sticks.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm still not clear why this wasn't just a normal surprise situation, with the bullywugs using their first turn to ready an action and talk on their turn demanding surrender.

This isn't even one of the quirky white room situations people sometimes devise to try and demonstrate why Ready before combat begins should be possible. It's a straight forward situation the rules as written could have easily handled.

Arguments over agency or narration or storytelling don't even need to enter the picture to respond to the situation outlined.

So all the bullywugs ready to attack if a PC moves or draws a weapon without anyone actually fighting. And then on their turns all the PCs ready for if a bullywug moves since you're allowing ready without anyone declaring a combat action and it's now their turn.

After standing around for 16 hours someone sneezes, who goes first?

Initiative rolls it is. I suppose you could avoid this by ruling that if everyone in both groups is ever at ready at the same time, then since no one is acting in combat everyone immediately goes off initiative and reverts to non-combat status. But that's back to the fact that the bullywogs have largely given up surprise when they pop out and yell for the PCs to surrender without actually attacking.

[Edited to add: In a real game, some PC decides to just go and eats 12 readied attacks, then the other PCs kill the bullywugs. So ready works fine and isn't a problem.]

[stoutstien]

So all the bullywugs ready to attack if a PC moves or draws a weapon without anyone actually fighting. And then on their turns all the PCs ready for if a bullywug moves since you're allowing ready without anyone declaring a combat action and it's now their turn.

After standing around for 16 hours someone sneezes, who goes first?

Initiative rolls it is. I suppose you could avoid this by ruling that if everyone in both groups is ever at ready at the same time, then since no one is acting in combat everyone immediately goes off initiative and reverts to non-combat status. But that's back to the fact that the bullywogs have largely given up surprise when they pop out and yell for the PCs to surrender without actually attacking.

[Edited to add: In a real game, some PC decides to just go and eats 12 readied attacks, then the other PCs kill the bullywugs. So ready works fine and isn't a problem.]

Until the party starts using the out of combat ready action on spells.....why ready an attack if you can ready a fireball?

[Sigreid]

Honestly, with my current group of mains at 3rd level my evoker would likely wipe half the frogs out with is first available turn. There may be some minor collateral damage to the party, but no one in my group expects my CN evoker to allow himself to be taken prisoner or put up with being threatened.

[Demonslayer666]

Of course encounters are designed to be winnable, but they also should be designed to be lose-able. I design an encounter, or a game of political cloak and dagger, to be won if the players PLAY WELL. This includes minimizing the influence of luck in play as much as possible. They shouldn't expect victory, because they have to earn it, unless Session 0 established otherwise. Consequence free power fantasy shouldn't be the default assumption, and I wouldn't want to run a table for anyone who thinks otherwise.

I hear that whistle as a game master. You advised literally just saying "they capture you" without giving the party any ability to resist. That's not just narration; that is textbook railroading because there are innumerable things the party could do to stop that whether by role-play or roll-play. It's a major loss of player agency to just be defeated like that because the Game Master said so.

I narrate plenty as a GM - my games are very heavy on the social pillar regardless of system. I've had half sessions pass with no die rolls, but my players are never stripped of agency like you would have done with that arbitrary "you're all captured" decision. Even in a dice-less game, interactivity is important. There are few things less interactive than skipping an entire encounter to the GM's desired conclusion because their fragile plot can't stand up to alternative outcomes.
We are in agreement that players should not act like they are supposed to fight everything you put them up against. Good. That was my point.

If you do narrate things, then you know that is not a sign that you are a railroading DM, except for that instance. It's still a viable option, especially when the players do something silly, like attacking overwhelming odds. Not bullywugs - but actual overwhelming odds.


I'm still not clear why this wasn't just a normal surprise situation, with the bullywugs using their first turn to ready an action and talk on their turn demanding surrender.

This isn't even one of the quirky white room situations people sometimes devise to try and demonstrate why Ready before combat begins should be possible. It's a straight forward situation the rules as written could have easily handled.

Arguments over agency or narration or storytelling don't even need to enter the picture to respond to the situation outlined.
I agree that this situation probably should have been handled like that. It's not overwhelming odds, and the party could likely handle it.

If it was against overwhelming odds, which is what I first pictured, then it would be to put the party in a situation where fighting was clearly not the best choice. The DM is basically saying, "they have the drop on you and you are in trouble, what do you do?" Running it that way could prove useful to tell the players there are other options. Especially my players! They love to ignore warnings and try to fight everything I put in front of them. If I ever say roll initiative, negotiations are off the table. I'm trying hard to get my players out of that habit, and I see that as another bash-them-over-the-head type of clue.


question one: Are the players actually making any meaningful decision here yes or no?

Question two: is this narrative particularly meaningful?

To me it's very clearly no on both counts. It's a waste of space in the game because it's not really giving the players a chance to make a real choice. Surrender or kill them is not exactly a meaningful choice in my book. It sounds more like a DM trying to show that killing things isn't the only option which is fine but doing it at spear point isn't exactly doing it in good faith.

We are talking about bullywugs. In most settings they are cruel little bullies that are fair game to fireball the entire village without repercussions.

Most DM spend too much time trying to be story tellers when that is actually should be keep to a minimum. Let the players play the game. I'm not saying there's a 100% chance that DM's at focus on narrative are bad but most of the ones I've seen are overcompensating for the inability to run a good day.
The DM job is to describe the situation, then the players decide what they do, DM resolves and describes the results of the action. There other jobs like pacing, presenting challenging, and meaningful choices but it all goes back to basically describing the scenario and describing the resuts.
It could be yes to both, and that's my point. Think in general instead of this specific example, as in not bullywugs, and the party is obviously in over their head.

You do not liking story telling, and that is fine for you, but doesn't make it a poor choice for others.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I would let combat begin as normal, and here is why.

In general, the whole spears forming a circle around a group of people thing is done as a method of confinement, not preparation for an imminent attack. When the spears are extended like this, to make an effective attack with them, the wielder would have to withdraw the spear to give them enough room for a powerful enough thrust. Its like if twelve people were surrounding you with their fists and arms extended toward you. In order to actually attack, they would have to first pull their fists back, then punch. The point is, this formation is used as a method of confinement, not of preparing an attack. I would say to have "readied an action" to attack with a spear, the spear would have to be in a position that is "ready" to attack, aka not already extended.

My 2 copper.


RAW aside, I have to take issue with this. I assume you've never actually held a spear or watched real soldiers any any form?

Yes, holding the spear fully extended would make it hard to do any type of real attack. That's not what any remotely competent guard would do, just like the 12 people with their fists ready wouldn't hold their arm outstretched.

If I'm standing in a threatening manner with a spear (or polearm in general) I have my offhand on the butt of the weapon, my dominant hand approximately 2 feet up the haft. My back hand is at my hip, my dominant hand extending out a bit past my stomach. The pole extends then 3.5 to 5.5 feet forward depending on the weapon. More than enough to keep them at range, still completely ready to thrust without any wind up or pull back.

[stoutstien]

We are in agreement that players should not act like they are supposed to fight everything you put them up against. Good. That was my point.

If you do narrate things, then you know that is not a sign that you are a railroading DM, except for that instance. It's still a viable option, especially when the players do something silly, like attacking overwhelming odds. Not bullywugs - but actual overwhelming odds.


I agree that this situation probably should have been handled like that. It's not overwhelming odds, and the party could likely handle it.

If it was against overwhelming odds, which is what I first pictured, then it would be to put the party in a situation where fighting was clearly not the best choice. The DM is basically saying, "they have the drop on you and you are in trouble, what do you do?" Running it that way could prove useful to tell the players there are other options. Especially my players! They love to ignore warnings and try to fight everything I put in front of them. If I ever say roll initiative, negotiations are off the table. I'm trying hard to get my players out of that habit, and I see that as another bash-them-over-the-head type of clue.


It could be yes to both, and that's my point. Think in general instead of this specific example, as in not bullywugs, and the party is obviously in over their head.

You do not liking story telling, and that is fine for you, but doesn't make it a poor choice for others.

I like telling stories, I just don't think my story should dictate the players' choices just for the sake of it. no matter how good of a plot you think you've written your players are probably to come up something 10 times cooler and 5 times as creative...or they will lick the proverbial window.

By the sound of it the DM here wanted to set up a social encounter with the party and the bullywugs. Don't think it will work out that way without some serious rail work. That's why I said THIS encounter just is off from the get go. Your almost better off using obviously weaker odds so the party isn't threaten but may be curious enough to still listen to them.

if you want the party to realize that there is possible encounters that they can't win by fighting you need to pull that stuff out really quickly not wait until they think they can kill everything.

one trick to get them to disconnect initiative from strictly combat is to set up an environmental encounter that uses it but there isn't an actual enemy for them to fight. A complex trap or something like a stampede can run very well with it where every second counts.

[BullyWog]

Honestly, with my current group of mains at 3rd level my evoker would likely wipe half the frogs out with is first available turn. There may be some minor collateral damage to the party, but no one in my group expects my CN evoker to allow himself to be taken prisoner or put up with being threatened.

That was my first thought(and a distraction from the discussion of what to do againt overwhelming odds.) Shatter probably wipes them out, Thunderwave at least destroys their offensive position, heck, Sleep may end the battle. BullyWug vs evoker ends badly for Bullywugs unless most of them attack the wizard first(which is good strategy, but in this scenario, unless the wizard is wearing a pointy hat with a flashing sign saying "squishy", is unlikely.)

[Kane0]

In this situation, Bullywugs are stalking through thick marshy forests encircling the low level party (a high enough perception could notice them creeping through the dark woods). The white noise sound of frogs was elevated to a din (to help mask any sound the Wugs might make - I figured this would give them a stealth advantage as they're effectively silent) and on a cue, the frogs stop chirping and the Wugs leap out with spears at the ready. They do not attack, because they want to bring these guys back to their fat frog master.

The PCs are surprised (they failed perception after all), all the Bullywugs used their first turn to leap and ready.

It's a pretty cut and dry roll initiative deal, but keep in mind that calling for initiative tends to flick a switch in players' heads that puts them into fight/flight mode and staring at their character sheets (protip: the vast majority of a character sheet is comprised of combat details) rather than entering negotiation mode. As a DM it often comes down to how you want to deal with that player reaction before you can get to the PC's reaction.

[Demonslayer666]

I like telling stories, I just don't think my story should dictate the players' choices just for the sake of it. no matter how good of a plot you think you've written your players are probably to come up something 10 times cooler and 5 times as creative...or they will lick the proverbial window.

By the sound of it the DM here wanted to set up a social encounter with the party and the bullywugs. Don't think it will work out that way without some serious rail work. That's why I said THIS encounter just is off from the get go. Your almost better off using obviously weaker odds so the party isn't threaten but may be curious enough to still listen to them.

if you want the party to realize that there is possible encounters that they can't win by fighting you need to pull that stuff out really quickly not wait until they think they can kill everything.

one trick to get them to disconnect initiative from strictly combat is to set up an environmental encounter that uses it but there isn't an actual enemy for them to fight. A complex trap or something like a stampede can run very well with it where every second counts.

I agree. The DM should not make the player's choices, but instead present them with different scenarios to deal with. I'm reminded of the scene in Return of the Jedi when the Ewoks had the party surrounded by spears. :smallsmile:

[stoutstien]

I agree. The DM should not make the player's choices, but instead present them with different scenarios to deal with. I'm reminded of the scene in Return of the Jedi when the Ewoks had the party surrounded by spears. :smallsmile:

Would probably work because they're cute lol. Turn those bullywugs into anamorphic bunnies and it would change it.


This is the basis of a good concept to make this encounter better. if the bullywugs were a third party with a greater threat like yuab-ti involved that would provide motivation for the party not to kill them.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm sure we've all been there. A party is surrounded by 12 spears, and will likely be taken prisoner. But somebody calls out, "I strike out swiftly and suddenly to catch them off guard!"

At that point, I guess we roll initiative. But couldn't each spear use their reaction to perform a "readied attack"? It seems reasonable, but at the same time, really harsh for something that probably happens with most parties.

I guess you could tell the person, if you do this, each of these spears will take a readied attack against you, are you sure you want to go through with it?

How is this handled RAW, and how would you handle this to be fair at the table?

My 2c on this, separate from the idea of an ambush, is that everybody would roll initiative normally. The party doesn't have the advantage of surprise, after all, the enemy is literally watching them, but the enemy doesn't either since they party are the ones taking the initiative and starting the fight. So it's a normal straight up fight.

All things considered, if the party is already in a compromised position, they're probably not going to succeed in overwhelming the guys who already beat them and have them surrounded.


I have had this scenario both ways, with the party taking prisoners and being taken prisoner. All times it's been resolved as a straight fight with no advantages, and all times the side doing the prisoner-taking still won. Usually, the party goes quietly when captured, since they're in no shape to keep fighting by the time they surrender, and they rarely give the foe the option to surrender [and given their usual reputations, the foe usually would rather fight to the death than surrender].