Judge My Judgment Call

[Boci]

You're still talking like all of this was worked out before hand, the OP's post clearly shows that this wasn't a preplanned set of events and lack of rules knowledge let to a call that frustrated the player.

No I'm not. I'm just saying, when the DM demonstrates an NPC doing something, its up to the players to inquire if they can do that too. They shouldn't wait for the DM to tell them they can.

[BurgerBeast]

DMG 272 Tumble might be relevant, here, guys.

[Man_Over_Game]

No I'm not. I'm just saying, when the DM demonstrates an NPC doing something, its up to the players to inquire if they can do that too. They shouldn't wait for the DM to tell them they can.

The DM gave them information, players used that information in a way the DM didn't expect. That part's fine, DM can't always know how information is going to be used.

The DM then decided that information wasn't able to be used, requiring the players to resort to their default plan of attack.

That's the point of concern. The DM decided that, instead of rewarding players for using information he provided, the players were better off not using the DM's information and resorting to default tactics.


You're telling your players to ignore you and be boring, and that's how they'll be rewarded. Or, at least, assuming realism will provide more reward. If you want players to listen to you, take risks, do things other than attacking, then you'll need to make it more rewarding than doing what they'd do otherwise.

Obviously, this isn't a big deal, but it's a really important lesson. DM's aren't just a referee crossed with a story-teller. A bit of game design theory goes a long way, just like psychology and acting.

Game developers nerf and buff things to manipulate players to play the way the developers want them to. We are no different. And deciding that things need to be realistic will make your players act more realistic (that is, cautious and....well, boring).

That could be a good thing. Developers should only match the expectations of their targeted audience. In this case, that's your table.

Did your decision for more realism match the expectations of the whole table, not just this one player? And should the player have ignored the information you given him?

Those are the only things that you need to answer to determine if you made the right call.

[Boci]

That's the point of concern. The DM decided that, instead of rewarding players for using information he provided, the players were better off not using the DM's information and resorting to default tactics.

Not really, the DM was just being consistent. Afterall, if disengage helped, why wouldn't the kobald have disengaged to avoid the AoO? Disengage is not something special only the monk can do.

[Galithar]

My only point of contention if I were that player would be, did you allow them to retcon the use of disengage to do something actually useful? If they didn't LOSE anything there is no worry. If they did get locked into that choice I could see being upset. However there is a way around it in the future. As others have said, if you simply create a houserule about moving through another hostile creatures space that requires a Dex check and allows a reaction to attack (make it clear this is NOT an OA, but a separate reaction with a specific trigger of a hostile creature moving through your space)

[Boci]

My only point of contention if I were that player would be, did you allow them to retcon the use of disengage to do something actually useful? If they didn't LOSE anything there is no worry.

The Dm says that after finding out they couldn't bypass the AoO the player decided to just keep fighting instead, so it seems like they were allowed a redo.

[Lunali]

There is an optional rule (two actually) in the DMG that would cover this if you wanted to use them. One allows athletics to force your way past, the other allows acrobatics to slip past. Both cost an action or bonus action to perform the activity. Neither option gives an attack or affects opportunity attacks in any way. This means that if a character is willing to use both their action and bonus action and they win the contest, they can get through without being attacked.

[Boci]

There is an optional rule (two actually) in the DMG that would cover this if you wanted to use them. One allows athletics to force your way past, the other allows acrobatics to slip past. Both cost an action or bonus action to perform the activity. Neither option gives an attack or affects opportunity attacks in any way. This means that if a character is willing to use both their action and bonus action and they win the contest, they can get through without being attacked.

Only if the DM decides to use the optional rules as written. They could decide to tweak them to also giving a free reaction attack to the creature.

[Yakk]

1) Disengage lets you ignore OAs from moving.
2) By RAW, there is no way for a medium/small creature to cross a medium sized animated armor's space.

You permitted the Kobolds to take an action and acrobatics check to do this. By doing so, Kobolds are incapable of also doing an action to disengage.

If you also permitted a medium sized creature to do this, then note that Monks can spend a Ki to disengage as a bonus action. And then spend their action to do an acrobatics check. This is something a Kobold could not do (nor could most PCs).

If the Monk did that, I'd say that the monk gets through scot free. Monks have a special ability to be slippery ****s, and have to burn resources to do so. Rogues can do it as well without spending Ki.

Both Monks and Rogues are Skirmishers, and they have super-human ability to avoid being attacked when they move past enemies. Declaring that their "Disengage" ability only works when they are retreating is a significant reduction in one of their core class defining features.

OTOH, you could simply rule that the "go between legs with acrobatics check" is a small-creature only thing. But once you permit it, you should have let the Monk burn a Ki and Disengage as well, avoiding the OA.

One should be extra careful about nerfing things that your characters can do that are special and unique to the character.

[Jay R]

The discussion so far shows clearly that there is no agreement on how to rule this situation. Therefore it must be a judgment call from the DM.

The discussion also clearly shows that there will be no disagreement after the DM has made a ruling.

That's how D&D works. The DM's ruling won't always go the way you want.

DMs: your rulings won't always please all the players.
Players:the DM will sometimes rule against you.

Accept it, remember that you're here to have fun together, and move on.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not really, the DM was just being consistent. Afterall, if disengage helped, why wouldn't the kobald have disengaged to avoid the AoO? Disengage is not something special only the monk can do.

Because there isn't a "Curl into ball" action?

If what you're saying is that the Kobold was able to perform the maneuver just by moving, shouldn't the Monk have had more reason to be able to do so by spending a resource (an Action or Bonus Action+Ki point)?

[Boci]

If what you're saying is that the Kobold was able to perform the maneuver just by moving, shouldn't the Monk have had more reason to be able to do so by spending a resource (an Action or Bonus Action+Ki point)?

No. "You can pass through this statue's pass, but if you do it attacks you with its reaction". That's a perfectly valid ruling. As mentions, the DM's problem was being unclear, but there was nothing wrong with their ruling. It didn't have to interact with disengage.

[Man_Over_Game]

No. "You can pass through this statue's pass, but if you do it attacks you with its reaction". That's a perfectly valid ruling. As mentions, the DM's problem was being unclear, but there was nothing wrong with their ruling. It didn't have to interact with disengage.

It didn't, but that choice still had the impact of making the circumstance not worthwhile.

If I added a mechanic that said that if you dealt 100 force damage to this 150 HP creature, would it matter? Probably not. The benefit for the circumstance doesn't outweigh the cost. You have just as much incentive to be boring than it is to go for the cool mechanic. That's bad design.

You shouldn't make circumstances and improvised actions so lackluster that they're meaningless. Why add or allow them at all?

[Boci]

You shouldn't make circumstances and improvised actions so lackluster that they're meaningless.

Right, and the DM didn't. At least one other poster expressed some confusion as to why the monk chose to abandon the attempt when they could have presumably risked the AoO.

[Man_Over_Game]

Right, and the DM didn't. At least one other poster expressed some confusion as to why the monk chose to abandon the attempt when they could have presumably risked the AoO.

Because moving to the other side of the statue doesn't guarantee a tactical benefit. If a Monk was unable to squeeze through without avoiding an attack, then it would have been reasonable that the rest of the party would have had the same, if not more, of a problem.

Unless the entire party flees, the Monk is basically letting the statue get a free attack.

[Boci]

Because moving to the other side of the statue doesn't guarantee a tactical benefit.

It kinda does. The kobolds used this passage and presumably didn't fight the suit and animated sowrds every time they walked down it, so moving through seems like it would have allowed the group to continue onwards without finishing the fight.

[Keravath]

Because moving to the other side of the statue doesn't guarantee a tactical benefit. If a Monk was unable to squeeze through without avoiding an attack, then it would have been reasonable that the rest of the party would have had the same, if not more, of a problem.

Unless the entire party flees, the Monk is basically letting the statue get a free attack.

From the OPs description, it sounded like the animated armor was positioned at the entrance to a cave with no way past. The players asked the kobolds how they did it and a kobold rolled between its legs risking an attack while doing so which missed. The kobold was then on the other side of the armor. This would not be a standard way past the armor if it did anything but stand in the one spot. The armor clearly didn't chase folks into the cave or continue the combat if the characters moved away ... otherwise the encounter and the kobold actions make no sense.

The player's goal was to bypass the armor not to fight it. Fighting is an alternate choice where if the armor is defeated they can walk past without risking an attack. However, fighting the armor risks an attack or more every round from the armor. So, the players had a choice - fight or try the kobold approach. Fighting didn't turn out that well since the armor turned out to have a fairly high AC apparently. After a while the monk wanted to try to disengage through the square occupied by the armor. The DM says no this doesn't work, you can't usually move through a square occupied by a hostile creature. However, the kobolds showed you that it is possible with this particular creature if you risk an attack from it. (The DM also gave the kobolds an acrobatics check ... however, it wasn't clear to me whether this was to successfully get to the other side of the armor or to avoid the attack when going by ..)

If the goal is to bypass the creature then the party could just risk the single attacks as they move past it. Keep in mind that these are NOT opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks occur when a creature leaves your reach or are granted by other special abilities like PAM or Sentinel. A DM can have a custom creature that has an attack whenever a creature moves through its square. If this attack uses the creatures reaction then only the first creature moving through on a round would be subject to the attack ... but the DM in this case did not make it clear and from the sounds of it the armor could have an attack on every creature that tries to move through its square.

In addition ... the party could have earned bonus points by using the help action (one player distracts or engages the armor) to perhaps give the armor disadvantage on its attacks against someone moving through its square ... I would certainly allow that as a DM.

Complaining that disengage doesn't work against a custom attack that isn't even "an attack of opportunity" misses the point.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the DM could have communicated better about the scenario but from a rules point of view (considering that the attack when moving through the creatures square is entirely homebrewed and doesn't fit the definition of "attack of opportunity" in the first place), the DMs ruling seems fine to me.

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach."

Moving through a creatures square can provoke an attack at the DMs discretion (since the DM is making up this rule in the first place) but unless the DM decides it should be considered an "opportunity attack" in terms of the 5e rules, it is just an attack.

[Yakk]

The discussion so far shows clearly that there is no agreement on how to rule this situation. Therefore it must be a judgment call from the DM.

The discussion also clearly shows that there will be no disagreement after the DM has made a ruling.

That's how D&D works. The DM's ruling won't always go the way you want.

Yes, but there are good DM calls and bad DM calls.

In this particular case, the DM is asking if her call was a good one or not.

Please help the DM. Do you think it was a good call or a bad one? We already know it was a DM call, that adds nothing to the discussion.

[Man_Over_Game]

From the OPs description, it sounded like the animated armor was positioned at the entrance to a cave with no way past. The players asked the kobolds how they did it and a kobold rolled between its legs risking an attack while doing so which missed. The kobold was then on the other side of the armor. This would not be a standard way past the armor if it did anything but stand in the one spot. The armor clearly didn't chase folks into the cave or continue the combat if the characters moved away ... otherwise the encounter and the kobold actions make no sense.

The player's goal was to bypass the armor not to fight it. Fighting is an alternate choice where if the armor is defeated they can walk past without risking an attack. However, fighting the armor risks an attack or more every round from the armor. So, the players had a choice - fight or try the kobold approach. Fighting didn't turn out that well since the armor turned out to have a fairly high AC apparently. After a while the monk wanted to try to disengage through the square occupied by the armor. The DM says no this doesn't work, you can't usually move through a square occupied by a hostile creature. However, the kobolds showed you that it is possible with this particular creature if you risk an attack from it. (The DM also gave the kobolds an acrobatics check ... however, it wasn't clear to me whether this was to successfully get to the other side of the armor or to avoid the attack when going by ..)

If the goal is to bypass the creature then the party could just risk the single attacks as they move past it. Keep in mind that these are NOT opportunity attacks. Opportunity attacks occur when a creature leaves your reach or are granted by other special abilities like PAM or Sentinel. A DM can have a custom creature that has an attack whenever a creature moves through its square. If this attack uses the creatures reaction then only the first creature moving through on a round would be subject to the attack ... but the DM in this case did not make it clear and from the sounds of it the armor could have an attack on every creature that tries to move through its square.

In addition ... the party could have earned bonus points by using the help action (one player distracts or engages the armor) to perhaps give the armor disadvantage on its attacks against someone moving through its square ... I would certainly allow that as a DM.

Complaining that disengage doesn't work against a custom attack that isn't even "an attack of opportunity" misses the point.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the DM could have communicated better about the scenario but from a rules point of view (considering that the attack when moving through the creatures square is entirely homebrewed and doesn't fit the definition of "attack of opportunity" in the first place), the DMs ruling seems fine to me.

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach."

Moving through a creatures square can provoke an attack at the DMs discretion (since the DM is making up this rule in the first place) but unless the DM decides it should be considered an "opportunity attack" in terms of the 5e rules, it is just an attack.

That makes sense. I missed the part about I guess the only thing I can really complain about was that the Reaction appeared to be similar to an Opportunity Attack, without it being an Opportunity Attack, and without any information why it was so.

Sentinel, for example, adds an attack method that isn't an Opportunity Attack, because it relies on the enemy making an attack against your ally. Opportunity Attacks seem to only be caused by movement.

Since the statue's attack was triggered by movement, and otherwise appears similar to an OA, the DM should have been very clear about the fact that it wasn't an OA and so doesn't interact with mechanics related to OAs (like Disengage).

The DM could have considered offering the Dodge Action, which would have been a better way of accomplishing the task. But instead, the player gave up due to frustration and chose a different action because he still didn't understand the mechanics the DM was deciding.

It seems to boil down to just misunderstanding.

[Lupine]

Sounds to me that you might wish to take a look at the Action Options section of the DMG, particularly the "Overrun" and "Tumble" actions, as seen on page 273.

Particularly the "Tumble" action.

Spoiler: Raw Text of the action

Show

A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As am action, or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity(Acrobatics) contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity(Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.

Now, the Kobolds made a tumble check, and you fudged the rolls for them. That's perfectly fine. They move through the hostile space, and disengage to leave the armor's reach. This is RAW.

The problem is that you did not let the players perform the same action, with the same results. There is where you ruled wrong.

That's ok too. It happens. Just tell the players what happened, and move on. In addition, this give the players a new way to act in combat. Never a bad thing.

[Doug Lampert]

Sounds to me that you might wish to take a look at the Action Options section of the DMG, particularly the "Overrun" and "Tumble" actions, as seen on page 273.

Particularly the "Tumble" action.

Spoiler: Raw Text of the action

Show

A creature can try to tumble through a hostile creature's space, ducking and weaving past the opponent. As am action, or a bonus action, the tumbler makes a Dexterity(Acrobatics) contested by the hostile creature's Dexterity(Acrobatics) check. If the tumbler wins the contest, it can move through the hostile creature's space once this turn.

Now, the Kobolds made a tumble check, and you fudged the rolls for them. That's perfectly fine. They move through the hostile space, and disengage to leave the armor's reach. This is RAW.

The problem is that you did not let the players perform the same action, with the same results. There is where you ruled wrong.

That's ok too. It happens. Just tell the players what happened, and move on. In addition, this give the players a new way to act in combat. Never a bad thing.

Where does he not allow the player to take the same action, with the same results?

The kobold was described as tumbling past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

The player could tumble past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

No problem. The PLAYER rejected that option.

How is this a problem?

[Lupine]

Where does he not allow the player to take the same action, with the same results?

The kobold was described as tumbling past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

The player could tumble past, being attacked by the statue, and taking no other action.

No problem. The PLAYER rejected that option.

How is this a problem?

The thing is, that "attack" should not have happened: the kobold succeeded on the contest. It gets to move through the armor's space, once that turn. It does so. It is now on the other side of the armor.
The text of Tumble states that a creature may attempt to Tumble as an action, or a bonus action. The Kobold takes it as a bonus action, then takes the disengage action to leave the armor's reach.

I believe that the player would have taken the action, if they had known it to exist. After all, he declared he wanted to take the disengage action to move through the armor. That speaks to the player not knowing the proper terms to describe the action he wanted to perforrm.

[MaxWilson]

The thing is, that "attack" should not have happened: the kobold succeeded on the contest. It gets to move through the armor's space, once that turn. It does so. It is now on the other side of the armor.
The text of Tumble states that a creature may attempt to Tumble as an action, or a bonus action. The Kobold takes it as a bonus action, then takes the disengage action to leave the armor's reach.

How do you know the Kobold didn't take a Dash action to get well out of range?

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, the more realistic conclusion is that the OP wasn't experienced as to what a "Tumble" was, and either:

The Kobold did the maneuver and a real attack attempt was made.
The Kobold did the maneuver and no attack attempt was made.

In either scenario, the attack appeared to the players to have the same mechanics as an Opportunity Attack, and thought that it'd obey all the same counterplays. They attempted the same maneuver, it seemed to have greater problems than when the Kobold did it, didn't understand the circumstances, and gave up on doing it.

It doesn't really matter what the specifics of a Tumble are. It just boils down to the fact that both sides failed to communicate so that both sides misunderstood.

[Doug Lampert]

The GM DEMONSTRATED the rule he's using and how you get past. You roll tumble, you move through on a success, and you still get attacked.

If someone claims that both the PC and the Kobold have the same capability to combine tumble and disengage, then there is no problem here. If the kobold get attacked, there is no good reason to suppose that the PC can avoid it.

The optional tumble rule in the DMG is not the one in play if it does not allow an attack, because the GM demonstrated the rule he's using, and the demonstration had the attack. The attack isn't an opportunity attack, because it doesn't follow the rules for opportunity attacks (it does not happen on movement out of the threatened zone), hence RAW disengage doesn't help.

I'm really not seeing the problem, when I set up a demonstration of how something works in my game, I expect people to be able to tolerate that being how the rule works for them too, rather than them insisting on something else.

[Yakk]

No good reason, other than the monk class ability permitting disengage as a bonus action, which Kobolds do not have.

Which is a good reason.

[Keravath]

No good reason, other than the monk class ability permitting disengage as a bonus action, which Kobolds do not have.

Which is a good reason.

However, the point made is that it wasn't an opportunity attack. It was just an attack that the DM allowed - perhaps similar to a clause in the sentinel feat.

"When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."

This is an example of an attack granted by a feat that is not an opportunity attack. If a monk used their bonus action to disengage, moved in and attacked a target next to a character with sentinel, then the character with sentinel would still be able to attack the monk whether they were using disengage or not because the attack granted by sentinel in this case is NOT an opportunity attack.

In a similar way, the DM in this case gave the armor/statue a special attack that allowed it to attack creatures moving through its square. The DM demonstrated this to the players with the kobold NPCs. It is a homebrewed house rule for this one encounter presumably. It isn't a tumble from the DMG and it isn't an opportunity attack so disengage doesn't matter.

As MOG mentioned, the best option would probably have been to take the dodge action while moving through the square unless the DM required the action to be used for an acrobatics check.

The problem here wasn't the rules of play but communication between the players and the DM to more clearly explain to the players what was going on ... though the fact that the NPCs demonstrated everything first should have been pretty clear. The fact that it wasn't was something the DM needed to have picked up on and perhaps have the kobolds taunt the PCs for being "scaredy cats" afraid of a little suit of armor. :)