Did I rule this correctly? (Grapple tie)

[BurgerBeast]

Hi folks. Ghosts of Saltmarsh spoilers are contained in this thread.

Just finished an epic session on Fantasy Grounds. Playing Ghosts of Saltmarsh... first adventure Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, on the Sea Ghost. Had to stop mid battle, which is fortunate.

In our game, the moon druid was in bear form, and got gust of wind-ed onto the railing of the ship. Then, Foul Frithoff tried to grapple the bear over the edge... he made his grapple check... and they tied.

Situation: A medium NPC with advantage on grapple checks tries to grapple a druid in Brown Bear form (large). They make their checks and tie. My question is twofold:

1. RAW, what happens?

I decided that a grapple, being an ability check, is just like any other ability check in that a tie results in success. (i.e. if you make a Hide roll and you hit the Passive Perception number, that's a success. (Is that even right?) So the PC got shoved over the edge.

Fortunately, we had to end the session at midnight and that was right after this happened. I consulted the 5e SRD and found this:


If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.

-- so I reversed my ruling since I could.

2. Does this rule seem like a good rule to you?

- I have come to the realization, while thinking about this, that opposed rolls come in two varieties (actor versus opposer OR true contest). An escape attempt or a hide versus perception would be actor versus opposer. A running race or two people trying to grab a ring on the floor would be a true contest. I think the RAW are great for true contests... but not for actor vs. opposer. I prefer the idea that the opposer "sets the DC," and if you hit the DC (i.e. tie), you succeed. Otherwise it would seem that some consistency is lost between passive and active checks.

Thoughts and comments, please.

[Greywander]

One thing I'll say is that you don't necessarily need to reverse your ruling just because the rules contradict how you ruled. You can always allow the original ruling to stand, and resolve to do it correctly going forward. Remember, the rules are there to serve you and your players, not the other way around.

That said, since the reversal favors the players, this seems to have been the best move. There's a chance they might come to you later and point out that you ruled wrong, and depending on the consequences they could be pretty salty about it. Sometimes, though, you do have to double down and let a ruling stand. The idea is that you'll rule fairly by the rules that you know, but when you don't know the rules you still have to do something. The ruling you make in the moment supersedes the rules you didn't know, but you'll look up those rules after the session and use them in the future.

As for two types of contests, it might be that it isn't always clear who is the actor and who is the opposer. For example, is the creature trying to hide the actor, or is the creature trying to detect them the actor? If you treat every contested roll like a "true contest", it makes the rules more consistent.

[Galithar]

If you go by what you quoted from the rules it already works how you seem to want as far as passive checks go. If you are hiding and someone is trying to detect you them you make a stealth check against their perception (passive or otherwise) on a tie (IE "meeting the DC") the situation remains the same. You were hidden before, you stay hidden after the tied check because you "made the DC".

Or am I missing something?

[Tanarii]

It should have been a Shove, not a Grapple. But you are correct to reverse your ruling. In a Contest check you have to beat your opponent to win (or as the rule says, change the situation).

[BurgerBeast]

One thing I'll say is that you don't necessarily need to reverse your ruling just because the rules contradict how you ruled.

Totally agree. In this particular case, the opportunity just presented itself because the session ended mid-combat literally the next round.


As for two types of contests, it might be that it isn't always clear who is the actor and who is the opposer. For example, is the creature trying to hide the actor, or is the creature trying to detect them the actor? If you treat every contested roll like a "true contest", it makes the rules more consistent.

I think it’s pretty clear (but of course there may be cases I haven’t thought of). If you’re currently seen (meaning you moved from a position in which you couldn’t hide to a position in which you could hide), then you’re acting to hide... or in the other phraseology, you’re the one “trying to change the state of things.” But if you are already hidden, for example waiting in ambush or successfully having accomplished the Hide action in-combat, then the “searcher” is the actor and you must oppose the search. But I’m not saying it can’t be interpreted differently.


If you go by what you quoted from the rules it already works how you seem to want as far as passive checks go. If you are hiding and someone is trying to detect you them you make a stealth check against their perception (passive or otherwise) on a tie (IE "meeting the DC") the situation remains the same. You were hidden before, you stay hidden after the tied check because you "made the DC".

Or am I missing something?

I think so. Because what if you, the PC, are using your action in-combat to search for a hidden enemy? Then you’re acting against the DC set by Thursday initial hide check (I think that might even be RAW, actually - if it is, that’s the contradiction).


It should have been a Shove, not a Grapple. But you are correct to reverse your ruling. In a Contest check you have to beat your opponent to win (or as the rule says, change the situation).

Good point. I had it in my head from previous combats that in order to move someone you must grapple them and then move... so I didn’t even think about a plain old shove... D’oh.

[Chronos]

The rule for opposed checks isn't "a tie is a success". That would make no sense, because a success for whom? Did the player successfully resist the grapple, or did the monster succeed at grappling?

The actual rule in the books is that a tie on an opposed check maintains the status quo. If the character wasn't grappled before, they're still not grappled. If the guard didn't know that the sneaking rogue was there, then he still doesn't know. If I'm trying to hold a door shut against someone bashing it, it's still shut.

That said, when something comes up in play and you're not sure how to handle it right that moment, and you have to say "For now, we'll do X, but then I'll look it up", don't change your ruling once you look it up (maybe unless it's the very last thing that happens before the end of the session when you break for the week, or the like). Just remember it for the next time it comes up.

[stoutstien]

not RAW but i just re-roll all ties. good for tension.

[BurgerBeast]

The rule for opposed checks isn't "a tie is a success". That would make no sense, because a success for whom? Did the player successfully resist the grapple, or did the monster succeed at grappling?

The actual rule in the books is that a tie on an opposed check maintains the status quo. If the character wasn't grappled before, they're still not grappled. If the guard didn't know that the sneaking rogue was there, then he still doesn't know. If I'm trying to hold a door shut against someone bashing it, it's still shut.

Right. So, to summarize my misconception:

A goblin hides in the bushes and waits to ambush the PCs. He rolls his Hide check a gets a 14.

The PC with the highest Passive Perception score has a 14. He does not see the goblin. He will be surprised. (Until yesterday I mistakenly thought he would notice the goblin.)

Alternatively:

A goblin hides in the bushes and waits to ambush the PCs. He rolls his Hide check a gets a 14.

The PCs suspect an ambush based on the terrain, and they conduct a search. After the DM calls for a roll or rolls, the PCs get a 14. They do not see the goblin. (Until yesterday I mistakenly thought they would notice the goblin.)

[Boci]

Right. So, to summarize my misconception:

A goblin hides in the bushes and waits to ambush the PCs. He rolls his Hide check a gets a 14.

The PC with the highest Passive Perception score has a 14. He does not see the goblin. He will be surprised. (Until yesterday I mistakenly thought he would notice the goblin.)

Alternatively:

A goblin hides in the bushes and waits to ambush the PCs. He rolls his Hide check a gets a 14.

The PCs suspect an ambush based on the terrain, and they conduct a search. After the DM calls for a roll or rolls, the PCs get a 14. They do not see the goblin. (Until yesterday I mistakenly thought they would notice the goblin.)

That's understandable, since when you match the AC on an attack roll, you hit. Sure, attack rolls aren't opposed skill checks, but still it can be misleading. I've had player do the opposite and assume they need to beat the AC with an attack roll to hit.