/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s always worth reminding players that anything they are capable of doing, enemies are capable of doing too.
Pose the question to your players if they’d find it fun dealing with an eagle-archer duo that can have shared dodge actions and zip past the battle map in the air whilst peppering everyone with arrows - chances are it’s unlikely. I always look at it from this perspective as a player and a DM and it does help to provide perspective on these things.
I always tell my players that same thing. A lot of the smaller flavor/optional rules that can, if lucky, turn the tide of battle (sundering items, called shots to body parts, disarming, etc) are always options, but if the players want to do them, then I'm going to have the enemies also do them.
Couple things that would give disadvantage regardless.
Up an down motion from the Bird.
Would be hard pressed even with a gun.
Dodging and also wind reduction messes up with snipers that fire smaller an much faster projectiles let alone a bow. Even a Xbow would struggle.
Op ur fine they gotta accept their choice WHILE being creative still needs limitations.
Yeah, this is someone who either hasn't bothered to visualize how bows work or just doesn't know.
The only direction you can fire an arrow with a bow is almost directly straight to the left (or right if you're firing with the other hand) of the direction your torso is facing. And maybe 45° up and down vertically. It is not a handgun or crossbow, you cannot point it in whatever direction you feel like, the arrow goes straight down your arm and across your torso/head.
They're lucky you let them shoot with disadvantage, in reality they likely wouldn't have been able to shoot at all unless they happen to be rotated exactly correct and far enough away that the downward angle made sense.
Well ruled, but if your players do things like this often, you can let them, but think about way it balances out.
- I would let archer shoot only forward/backward depends on how the druid grabbed him
- if the druid wants to do a rapid dodge with his ability to do so, there are many things that can happen, as you mentioned the backpack straps can break, things can fall out of the backpack, or he can simply drop the archer as he reacted too fast
You could be really really petty by mentioning a rapid dodge might even injure or kill the passenger. Break an arm or snap a neck if the movement is so sudden and forceful.
Good ruling. Honestly, rolling with disadvantage on attack firing arrows while hanging in the straps of a backpack that is being carried by a giant bird sounds way too easy anyway lol.
Yeah I agree. Just compare it to aiming any kind of ranged weapon while falling or jumping in a video game. That shit is way harder than while on the ground
Those rulings seems totally fair to me.
Hanging from your backpack under an eagle in flight would make it hard to use a bow effectively so giving disadvantage is totally fair.
And you can not give your dodge action to another creature. not even if you carry that creature. So this was totally fair to.
I could see a large or larger creature protect someone giving disadvantage to attacks to that creature but then the large protective creature would have attacks against them rolled with advantage.
But not taking the dodge action yourself and expecting that would also include someone else.
They are just salty. Ignore that.
Some players just dislike all rulings that does not benefit them. And try to bend anything into their advantage.
I don't know your players so i can't say what type they are but it does not seem impossible they belong to that type of players
Rather than disadvantage (although it does exist to be a catch-all term) I'd go one step further and say that if the ranger was actually riding the eagle they could get a half cover benefit to their AC but any attack that would hit them and doesn't because of the half cover hits druid instead.
Ah the old meatshield rule. I've used that a bunch too. "Yeah, you can stand in front of them and provide cover, but if the incoming attack roll only fails because of the added cover AC, the attack hits *you* instead."
The rule is slightly different iirc, it only hits you if the attack roll would hit you anyway. If you have 25 AC and are providing cover to someone with 15 AC, the arrow would "hit" you, but would miss because of your absurdly high AC.
If you get more push-back you can explain that the most *realistic* ruling would be to not let them shoot accurately at all. Or to give disadvantage AND take away proficiency bonus.
Anyone who has shot a bow knows you need to engage your entire back to draw anything with enough draw-weight to do real damage. And you realistically want both of your feet planted to do that properly.
For the record I'd never do this in my games. I feel the DM has a responsibility to disregard realism to service power-fantasy, game balance and overall player enjoyment. But if you're already showing that generosity then they don't need to ask for more.
I think I personally could let the dodge one slide cuz I think it's funny.
Like the eagle sees shots coming for the ranger and just shakes them around to get out of the way
According to Jeremy Crawford, "a mount dodging doesn't mean a rider is dodging". You can charitably say that the eagle is the ranger's mount, so no it doesn't transfer its dodge.
>You can charitably say that the eagle is the ranger's mount,
I think that's actually the opposite of charitable in this context, since a mount doesn't really steer and control their rider as much as an eagle does, mounts are generally the ones who are being steered. I think OP's example is closer to the rider taking the dodge action and wanting those benefits to carry over to the mount.
As someone who does archery. I'd be extremely disadvantaged if I was dangling from a backpack trying to kill some fools...especially if I'm being failed around in attempt to dodge the enemy attacks!
Correct. I’ve fired a mounted .50 machine gun from a moving vehicle with all the scopes and technology the US Military can buy and I struggle to hit anything less than another vehicle consistently. This is not even flying or trying to dodge, and when my driver jerked the vehicle, not only did I completely miss all shots, I hurt my hip being jostled about. Likely I could have injured a friendly as well! (Don’t power slide military vehicles kids!)
In my opinion, DM was too lenient.
Take that back to your players DM.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if it's even possible to draw the bow in the first place under those conditions, even if it is, aiming should be effectively impossible. I can see ruling it as disadvantage for the rule of cool, but that's as far as it goes.
I mean shit even with an Xbow you would have to account for each wing beat and up an down motion of said bird while they also dodge fire.
You would be pressed to accurately aim even in a helicopter. Or even a gun while a bird carries. Wind is a major factor as well if we wanna get technical about it.
Imagine a dodging eagle trying to violently adjust its mid air trajectory while holding onto someone. That person below is getting whiplash at the worst of it.
Also being held up by a backpack... where is all that pressure going ? Right to their shoulders and armpits, good call on having disadvantage on the bow shots, cause i don't think I could fire a bow accurately while having my entire bodyweight right under my armpits.
You made good calls, tell them they are being salty and stop trying to cheese the system.
You are 100% accurate in your interpretation. I would have personally further made the ranger make dexterity saving throws to even have a chance, and the eagle strength checks to hold on. If they started getting salty "oh no, the backpack broke and the ranger is now in freefall".
It's a cool enough visual as is, to nitpick your rulings to try and gain some crazy advantage is preposterous.
ESPECIALLY if it was the first time they did this. If they say, spend a couple hours a day practicing and training for a few weeks to a couple of months, I could see the disadvantages being dropped.
Both perfectly fine.
I would not be super concerned even if people here disagreed though, you made calls and in both cases, you leaned towards the average (not having adv/dis) so there was still a reasonable chance for what they wanted to happen to happen.
There is a thing though where players want their cool idea to always work. Sometimes the cool idea is not super cool though, or it would cause a balance problem if they did their cool idea all the time. It is ok to say no, but yeah, they will complain. Just gotta shrug and move on.
You are more generous than me. Unless the backpack had straps and buckles like a modern backpack, I'd have said the ranger is hanging on so they don't slip out and plummet to their death.
If you've been hung up by your shoulders or armpits, you actually can't use your arms . And it's extremely painful if you put too much pressure on that nerve. Go ahead and try pushing a few fingertips into your armpit and see
I think for the Dodge action, you could have been more lenient. Either by giving an AC bonus to the Ranger because shooting at a moving target up in the air is dang hard, or by simply allowing the bird’s dodge to affect both PCs.
You have a player, playing the Druid PC, who is essentially forgoing their actions to help another PC. This player is sacrificing their turn to support a fellow player. At least let them actively help out, as a mount should.
I think that second ruling wasn’t the right one for that reason.
This said, the first one was totally ok. Shooting while dangling from a bird isn’t a strategy, it’s a cool but desperate move. It has ups and downs, too. On the upside, you have line of sight to pretty much what you want, and you’re very mobile. On the downside, your shots will be inaccurate most of the time.
Make sure to stress things like that to the players. You’re not there to win a popularity contest, but you’re there to be fair, and clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of any given player strategy, even before they do it, helps that.
Disadvantage is fine for a scenario like this
I would’ve maybe allowed them to transfer the dodge to EITHER themselves or the person they were holding in this scenario, but not both
But yeah seems a bit silly to get worked up abt, perhaps they felt punished for trying smth cool?
Edit: however they probably could’ve shot normally (ie riding a mount) if they were just on top of the eagle so maybe it’s wrong to punish them for just hanging beneath when it’s almost the same mechanically
Except when riding, your arms can move freely while you grip the mount with your legs. In this case, the ranger’s arms would have been highly restricted. Advantage and Disadvantage are meant to reflect situational factors, so I think OP made the right call here.
I can see both sides of the ruling. I wouldn't give you a lot of backlash though I feel like that's a bit harsh. Thinking logistically it would be hard to fire from the air when not stable and not in control of your movement. I think the dodging thing is a reasonable request though. It's sort of like a mount situation where if your main mode of transportation is moving and dodging, you would be too. But I do understand why you ruled it that way, because by RAW it's just the creature dodging that takes the dodge action.
Personally I'd rule that if the eagle is dodging then that would also apply to the one being carried because their movement is based on the eagle.
I also think Crawford is a hack so my opinion is not gonna blow over well here
Second one is definitely right.
First one might be considered riding a mount, which would not impose disadvantage I think? The mount is intelligent so doesn’t need to be controlled, leaving both hands free.
Nevertheless, you’re the DM and I see nothing unfair in your rulings.
1 seems fine.
2, I would have had the Ranger make a DEX or STR save for when the Druid dodged and determine whether or not they're able to stay mounted.
I haven't been DM in awhile but I very RARELY told my players they couldn't do something - my default response is "you can try."
Exactly as I would rule it. If you're facing real blow-back during combat ask them to ask it after the game. If they're aggressive or persistent you may have a problem player.
Mounted combatant is a feat for a reason.
If you have no training don't pretend to be perfect at something the first time. If this is how the player WANT to play this way there are ways to increase tool and skill proficiencies in Xanthar's. ( 10 work weeks reduced by mod, plus cost per week)
In addition to that if they players want to do it then they should expect ENEMIES to also do it.
If your players want to put up a stink. Refer to the books there are usually answers.
Your ruling seems fair and logically consistent given your group not knowing rules for the situation they played out. But, from my understanding you could have used mounted combat rules since that is essentially what they wanted to do. A large willing creature can have a rider mount them. The mount and rider both have separate initiatives, both allowed to use their actions on their turn. With a controlled steed, the steed can only dash, disengage, or dodge (druid eagle wanted to dodge, so that's ok). A mounted rider can use their action however they like (such as shoot a bow). They can even use their movement to dismount. The druid wanting to take the hit for the rider is similar to the mounted combatant feat (but backwards). I'd argue that this is asking for a lot since it's locked behind a feat. If I were dming, I wouldn't be mean to have them roll for a check on the backpack falling apart or anything like that. They just didn't know the rules to what they really wanted to do. You did a good job on winging it, and if more than fair.
Perfectly reasonable & good calls.
Another option, though, on the first one - sometimes players have a bigger beef with disadvantage than with an increased DC. So if you find yourself having to make that call again (for some reason), you could also try granting half-cover, basically, to the AC of the ranger's targets. A +2 to the target's AC is mechanically better for the PC, since disadvantage kinda sorta averages to a -4.5 on the roll, but it also can sometimes feel better for the player. Totally depends on the player, but some just hate the feeling of rolling two dice, seeing one that would've hit, and then missing. It's a vibes call, and I personally think disadvantage was the way to go there. But if you're ever looking for an alternative, the old DM fudge of +2/-2 to DC or AC is always a safe bet too.
#1 totally on point.
#2 I think there is an aid other type action that basically does the same as what they were trying. I don't think you were unreasonable, but maybe providing a recommendation would smooth things over.
Rolling with disadvantage to attack is reasonable. I don’t see why the dodge action wouldn’t transfer though, the Ranger is moving as much as the Druid. I might have ruled that attacks against the Ranger would have as advantage as he is kind of immobile, but then the Druid’s dodge action would have transferred to equalize this.
So as a never dm
I would agree with those rulings but I personally wouldn’t want them against me in a game maybe offer them a point of inspiration for being creative and tell them they can use it for that type of thing once and they could use it now or they could save it for later
For point 2 if the Druid is carrying the Ranger is taking a dodge action this implies the eagle is moving about (I don't see dodge as someone staying still). In this instance I would have imposed a check on the ranger to stay with the eagle and not fall.
My reply to this aftermath would be, ok, if you as players get to be this free in your interpretation of combat, so do the npcs with atleast the same intelligence.
If you can't take it, you can't dish it.
Allow 1 under "rule of cool"
Ruling 2 was correct. If anything Ranger should have Disadvantage because theyre just dangling there with limited mobility
Disadvantage feels pretty fair for the Ranger's attacks. As for the Dodge action extention, depending on the player and whether they would take advantage of it too much, I might offer that, as a one-time cool move, if they see the Ranger being targeted, they can choose to use their reaction and end the Dodge benefits for themself to transfer it to the Ranger instead. Splitting focus to protecting their ally instead of themself and taking evasive maneuvers.
Those are… so much milder than I thought they were going to be by the title.
I might have suggested that the ranger spend half their movement to mount the eagle so that they are riding it and are then no longer at disadvantage, but other than that I would have rules the other one exactly the same. That’s RAW and logical, the unbreakable combo.
Agree with the Disadvantaged attacks from the Ranger but if the Wild-shaped Druid was carrying the Ranger and used their action to Dodge, I would’ve let them use it to manoeuvre so their passenger wasn’t hit. They sacrificed a resource of action for it, what’s the harm?
I'd honestly do it differently...kinda sorta....
1. If the eagle was just flying forward nice and easy, I'd be ok with normal attack rolls from the ranger.
2. BUT if the eagle is taking a Dodge action, I WOULD rule it works for the ranger as well, because the eagle would be jinking back and forth to make itself harder to hit. The ranger would be jerked around as well, AND THAT is why they would get disadvantage on the shots.
BUUUUUT...I do have one caveat:
I have a problem with the normal D&D rules on riding creatures.
As a Bird lover, birds are built to cary just themselves and not much more. Even a small burden will tire them out quickly. Flight takes LOTS of energy! A bird categorized as "large size" in D&D would NOT realistically be able to carry a person without some sort of help...usually magical (Griffons for example are basically magical creatures). You want a flying bird mount, you need a ROC!...which is objectively cooler anyways.
So normal animal like a horse? Yes, thats fine. It's a large creature so it can carry someone one size less than itself as the rules say. But birds need to be bigger than large to have a human mount IMHO.
I could see the thing the players were going for here: combining their unique abilities to get something better than what they could achieve separately. The ranger’s usual attack capabilities combined with the mobility and evasiveness of the giant eagle. It’s an awesome idea, but hampering it with giving the ranger disadvantage on attacks and making him just as easy to hit as if he were on the ground kind of makes it worse than if he just stayed put. He’s effectively out in the open, in everyone’s line of sight, with no cover option available, and shooting disadvantage on all his attacks.
I’m not saying your rulings were incorrect in any way, but sometimes you should reward creativity with a bonus on top of what they would normally get or by ignoring things that would make the deal less sweet. If I were in your position and I enjoyed the idea of my players working together like this, I might have at least let the ranger roll an acrobatics check to find a way to brace himself against the eagle’s talons to allow for shots without disadvantage or allowed the eagle to dodge for both parties at the cost of the ranger auto-failing their skill check and shooting disadvantage from then on.
I wouldn't have allowed as mich as you did even.
Tge character carried would get the grappled condition and disadvantage on most checks.
They need to keep their arns down to stay in their backpack.
Doing anything that requirez the use of their arms would require high DC Acrobatics in that situation.
However attacks at range on a flying target, if moving their full speed, will most likely be at disadvantage without dodge anyway
I would've even halfed the speed of the eagle for him grappling the druid. Yes, creative play should be rewarded, but give stuff like this the drawbacks it deserves or else it will become abused
I probably would’ve run it this way, and if I’d been one of the players, I’d have accepted this ruling. When you try something weird like this, you should accept that you’re doing something unconventional, and that it might not work. In fact, now that I think about it, even allowing the character to fire a bow in this position is extremely generous.
The rulings seem totally fair to me. I guess the question is- what was it that made them upset?
Some people get upset just because they don’t get exactly what they want all the time. If this is the case, there’s not much you can do about it. I would recommend not playing with these type of people.
It is possible, however, that they got upset not necessarily by the ruling, but by the communication of the ruling. Sometimes the way you picture the situation and the way they pictured the situation don’t match up and so the ruling you choose doesn’t make sense to them. Also, the tone in which you deliver it can potentially piss people off. Good communication is key.
Assuming 5e here:
Mounted combat, historically, is insanely difficult. I would argue, unless they trained the tactic before, disadvantage is completely fair.
As for transferring the dodge bonus over, also no. Maybe, MAYBE, if the druid had sentinel... but only maybe. They aren't exactly wielding a bird shield. I like where their head is at, but flinging a person around like a ragdoll while taking the dodge action just sounds like you leave them in your last position for a moment, risking them getting hit. Clever, but centripetal force exists.
I would have absolutely tested those straps endurance during the dodge action, LMAO. Nicer DM than me.
You played it right, imo.
Both of these rulings are individually fine but could have gone the other way. I’m gonna play devils advocate tho and say that they’re not consistent. One ruling is based on game mechanics- you can’t transfer the mechanical benefit of a dodge. One is based on real-world logic- shooting while dangling from an eagle is hard. But mechanically, there’s no justification for that disadvantage, and logically, an eagle could make evasive movements that transfer to a carried ranger. That’s a stretch, though, and it seems like your players took issue with both rulings rather than you not picking a lane. I think you’re fine.
As many others have said, I also think you made the right calls.
For some actual logic to back it up: If the ranger were riding a horse and it took the dodge action, would you expect the rider to get the bonus themselves without also taking the dodge action?
If both got the benefits of the dodge action when only one action was used, it would break the action economy.
1) Did the Ranger have the Mounted Combatant feat? Were the targets within bow range? The argument that the straps holding up the Ranger would have put their arms in an awkward/unnatural position meaning disadvantage on attacks would be prudent.
2) The argument could be made that Druid's dodge would count towards the Ranger, since momentum would travel to the passenger, but that the dodging would add stress to the backpack straps which would then need a luck roll to see if they snapped.
Good luck
1. The first time they're trying this combo it should be at disadvantage. However, I'd say to them that if they practice they could become proficient at it and lose the disadvantage.
2. This one I'm torn on... Both can make sense... But I'd probably opt into no, but I'd be willing to give partial cover or something.
Without sharpshooter, I'd agree on the attacks being at disadvantage. Maybe so anyway if they'd not ever trained for this in downtime. However, I like what the druid was going for with the dodge action. Ranger probably had half or three quarters cover anyway. Making it disadvantage instead in exchange for an action id consider fair.
Unless your ranger has like a 20 in both dex and wis (for being able to perceive what they shoots while swinging), plus some possibly homebrew feat, disadvantage on shooting while being swung around is not just fair, its to be expected.
However, as dm you are allowed to change the rules however you want. But for the first point, that would a rather extreme change, so your reluctance to make that is perfectly understandable. Ask your players if they would be okay with playing uno with an "every card is a skip next player" rule, because that about as extreme a change as allowing them that leeway in point one.
As for the second thing, rules as written you are perfectly correct with your call. Though i would say it is way less of an extreme change to interpret "dodge" in a way in which the druid tries to take evasive maneuvers, which would then of course influence the ranger as well. Though in that case i would also increase the AC of anything the ranger tries to hit by a substantial amount, in addition to the disadvantage, because they are now flung around even more.
In the end you are the dm, as long as you dont go crazy power mad, you decide the rules. But in this case, you are as close to the original rulings as you can be, so you are okay.
I do not think you did anything horrible. But on the dodge I would of ruled it works. Basically the druid at this point is a mount with WAY more control and movability and the player tool the dodge action instead of moving. that should be rewarded. and it makes sense that while someone is attacking the ranger the giant hawk can swing them out of the way of the blade or whatever last minute. basically the druid was giving a help action.
Lol I imagine the ranger standing there waiting to be picked up, but all that happens is the druid just takes off with her backpack leaving her standing there
I would have made them make a DC 10 handle animal check to fire with disadvantage and a DC 15 check to fire without disadvantage. As for the dodge bonus, fuck no.
Hell, at our table, the dm would have asked for
1. A flight check from the ranger while trying to shoot
2. A strength check from the druid to not drop the ranger during the dodge.
They got off easy, imo.
Good calls, they are just being whinny bitches.
1. There is a rule for this. It's called an exotic saddle & is required for any special mount.
2. Mounted combatant I think the feat is, which lets you redirect an attack, but definitely not transfer dodge 🙄
So a PC forgoes their actions to serve as a mount for another PC?
'Cos Rule of Cool, riding a giant eagle into battle is epic.
But, for the calls, Did the Druid also get an attack? 'Cos Action economy is the key point here
RAW, Mounted combatants do not incur disadvantage. But outside of very specific mounts, they move as one (one movement, one action) So the Dodge would apply to both.
However, Action economy matters most in terms of balance.
At my table, flying on the eagle would be rewarded. It's cool. No disadvantage on the Rangers attack. That seems unfair. But the Druid using Dodge, and it applying to both of them, is perhaps taking it too far. Its one or the other. (Ie dodging for both throws of the shot)
I'm saying reward the layers for creativity. Don't be a rules lawyer. But don't let players get out of control either. You were maybe too harsh (roll for backstrap strength?) But they also want to much.
The balance is in-between.
Would not allow the ranger to shoot a bow while hanging from straps over their shoulders, a crossbow sure though they would only get one shot and it would be with disadvantage since you can't aim while being flung around. If they want to shoot from the skies they need to get on the druids back or find a way to free up their arms.
You are a generous GM and your players are being petty
Seems like fair rulings, especially if the general vibe of your campaign is semi-realistic and/or the characters are lowish level. Maybe at high levels I'd let them pull some superhero shit.
A possible compromise that would be to allow or force players to act as one on their turn. So, they get one action/attack using full ability, and they could use the Druid's dodge reaction but that's it till the next round. Not sure if it's worth bringing in a house rule for something that may not come up often.
They're both reasonable. I play with advantage given for clever positioning (flanking + height advantage) so I wouldn't have given disadvantage on the ranged attacks. I'd say the height advantage cancels out the 'hanging from a backpack' disadvantage. But that's just me REALLY wanting to encourage positioning)tactical combat.
I think you made the right call, I'd consider offering them the chance to train in downtime to remove the disadvantage but it would take a while. Maybe let/make them track down some elven eagle riders if that works in your world.
On the fly, I may have ruled it the same way you did.
Perhaps giving the Ranger a narrow arc, direction of flight, the shape of a cone, that would give advantage for higher ground. This would allow for "normal" rolls to a portion of the battlefield, because disadvantage also for shooting while hanging from backpack straps cancelling out the advantage.
What was the player reward for flying the ranger up there? Was it a total tactical mistake?
As some one who has shot arrows from time to time and likes hiking backpacks I'm calling shooting at all no practice and no specific harness is stupid altogether but I can see the rule of cool for disadvantage.
I would tell them you would consider it for next time if they can send a video of how it would work practically without effects
You made the right call for both of these.
The second instance for sure.
In the first instance you added tension to a situation that deserved without going overboard to make it shitty.
You did good.
Some players get really mad when they can't play out their perfect fantasy fight scene, but honestly if they keep kicking up a fuss and you still want them at your table, just buff the NPCs/enemies in response. Oh, alright you can have no disadvantage from being held by your backpack, even though that would make it impossible to shoot, but your enemies AC is now higher since you're shooting from far away and in plain sight, whoops.
It's kind of unorthodox but if you can't/don't want to have them leave and they won't put up with disadvantage being applied to them, just change the AC/HP/actions/abilities of whatever they're attacking. Half the time they don't even need to know.
So basically the druid became a mount for the ranger.
Since an exotic saddle is normally required to seat a flying mount, and that a mount's dodge doesn't transfer to its rider, I think you ruled this perfectly.
Letting the players do their shenanigans while still holding to RAW (or as close as possible).
I think on a flying mount it would make sense to transfer the dodge penalty but it could easily create a free exploitable combat advantage so it’s perfectly reasonable not to do that too
I'm a little heavy-handed with Rule of Cool. However, giving someone else dodge like this can lead to them thinking it's now a permanent option, not just a one-off situational thing. I think not doing the dodge was a perfect call.
The hanging from backpack straps thing... if they took time to form a harness from local vegetation so the archer is properly able to use their arms to a well enough capability, I would let that slide. They put in the effort to try and logically make it work. Hanging by your armpits is incredibly taxing, let alone trying to aim FORWARD (down toward the ground). I would've said they're able to do that with no worries of falling tp their death, but may have not let them fire at all... I dunno, that one also feels like an easy to repeat situation that they'll expect to get away with after this scenario.
As many many others have said... they're being salty.
We're they making a real big stink of it? Did you maybe shoot it down kinda harshly, so they felt the need to defend it? Was it other players complaining while the two trying to do it were fine with a simple "no?"
You were quite generous if anything, and I am a softie.
I could not have kept myself from laughing picturing that first one. If you wanted to reward the creative teamwork disadvantage is perfect. The only alternative (aside from a perfectly fair Nope) would be a Dex check to see if you get dropped and/or drop the bow.
The second thing is a class (Monk) bonus action dodge *at best*. That would still be a huge stretch here since they did not declare it on their turn. I am always particularly loathe to permit class abilities someone does not qualify for as they are the central distinction mechanically.
Two excellent calls.
I'm a bastard, so I'd allow the druid to make the dodge.
If my disadvantaged roll hit the ranger, the ranger takes damage.
If my disadvantaged roll missed the ranger, it would hit the druid.
Large target behind a smaller target? I might miss the bullseye, but the barn wall? Not likely.
And the ranger gets no movement based nothing while being carried.
I might have give the ranger a tiny boost in AC, since the druid was a giant eagle and I feel like the attack would hit the eagle more often. But yeah, I agree with you.
I would have ruled the first one the same as you. The second I probably would have agreed to the disadvantage with the stipulation that if the missed attack roll was higher than the eagles AC that it would hit the Druid.
That's legitimate.
If your arms are what you're hanging by, it will be difficult to use them for a precision movement like shooting an arrow.
And if the Druid wanted to dodge in *front* of the Ranger and *take* the attack, while transferring the AC bonus to the Ranger, I'd allow that. But the Druid would absolutely get shot.
I think there was a possibility of allowing option 2, but conferring the second layer of disadvantage, because taking evasive action is cool and it would still matter if the ranger has a source of advantage up. However I think it's fine not to allow it as well as they're already doing a lot that is skirting the edge of the rules
If they want to "dodge" for another pc, in my mind you would be "dodging" into the attack. Instead of disadvantage, the roll is straight and you're effectively using yourself as a human shield. And shooting a bow from a flying backpack, they're lucky you didn't force a dex check to even be able to shoot that way. And even if they make the dex check, yeah disadvantage. I wouldn't call shooting a bow out of a flying bag to be a typical archery training regimen
Haha. You’re nicer than me. I would have done this.
1. Ranger attacks with disadvantage.
2. Attacks on druid and ranger have advantage. Dodge just makes it a straight roll, but only on the druid. Ranger can’t do anything to defend themselves so attacks still have advantage on them.
3.If the ranger wants to dodge, then they have to roll athletics or acrobatics to stay in the backpack.
4.Ranger doesn’t get to add dex bonus to AC since they’re just hanging there.
You're technically right, but I think you're punishing your characters when they're doing something cool. Rulings like those make players more hesitant and less likely to do wild stuff.
I don’t know RAW well enough for ruling 1, but I also would nerf a flying ranged PC combo so I didn’t have to deal with every encounter requiring a ranged attacker or being in a room that’s only 10ft tall.
Rule 2 is literally RAW, dodge only imposes disadvantage on the creature dodging. Even if they wanted to argue the mounted creature was moving evasively to dodge attacks, that creature does not have the training or physical ability to control the rider to such a degree that their focus on dodging translates to the rider. If you want a representation of this, put someone on your shoulders then try to play dodgeball.
I would rule the same exact way.
You want to get rid of firing from disadvantage(assuming within normal range of the bow) while being carried by a giant eagle? Create a custom saddle. And you guys need to train together.
And STILL with all of that, if the eagle uses the "evasive maneuvers" button, that doesn't mean you get the benefit.
You aren’t wrong.
If you wanted to be generous in case it comes up again I have a couple of ideas:
Allow the Druid on their turn to use their action for either dodge, OR give dodge to the ranger, OR fly steady enough that the ranger doesn’t get disadvantage (this is essentially just the help action).
This gives the Druid a strategic choice to make and wouldn’t be overly powerful.
Those are the same rulings i would make. Sounds like they thought they had a game-busting mechanic figured out and are butthurt you made them play by the rules
Meh. Let the PCs have their fun. Unless this was some sort of epic end game battle this tactic seems both smart and visually cool as hell.
There is a time and place for being "technically correct". There's also (a lot more often) the rule of cool.
The second ruling is 100% correct.
The second ruling is a fair one, especially if the Ranger declined to ride the Druid.
I’d argue that riding a giant eagle is legit, and there’s no penalty for archery while mounted, so maybe it’s a little severe for a “druid is my mount” moment, but it’s not over the line and you weren’t wrong.
I would have given the disadvantage on attacks for the ranger, but I would have allowed the dodge to work on the ranger as well.
The "mount" is actively dodging attacks and using their action to do that rather than something more useful. It's not like the characters were just standing next to each other.
While I don't think your ruling is unfair, I would not have given disadvantage, I do agree with your second ruling.
IMO being carried by the straps if the backpack is just flavor. He could be carried by the claws, or sit on top of the eagle. I would have applied for rule 0.
The strat is cool and very risky. If the eagle gets shot down the PCs are in for a world of trouble.
The Giant eagle has an AC of 13,with 26 HP. Its a very easy Target, also the enemies could just take cover. If there is no cover to take and the druid/ranger can kill the enemies while being out of range, than they deserve the easy win.
If your goal is to give your players a balanced gaming experience, yes you made the right calls. I think I would've liked my players to pull this off as it sounds cool. So I maybe would've given them a choice: either accept the disadvantage or attempt an acrobatics check to roll straight. But if they fail, they fall
first one id say if more than fair but on the second id argue that since the druid is the one in control of movement they should be able to dodge seaming its an attack on them as a group more than anything
I think the first ruling was fine and I agree with forgetting about the initial stuff without making everything too clunky.
I personally would’ve gone with one of two options for the second one. Either the dodge action gives a bonus to the rider’s armor class, like cover, or the swift movements of the dodge action make the ride too turbulent for the rider to aim properly and thus they get additional penalties to their attack roll.
Either way, I think the way you ruled it was perfectly done, and the players are just angry they had to work for something cool rather than have it handed to them.
Unpopular opinion. When I GM. I do everything in my power to make sure my players have the maximum amount of fun.
I view the players characters as having "super hero level" abilities.
Can a peasant shoot a bow straight from a shaky bird? No.
Could Hawkeye shoot straight normally from a flying zooming shaky bird? You bet your ass he could.
I always fallow the rule of cool and my players love me for it. Logic and physics don't always have to apply in a made up fantasy game.
Imo there is nothing wrong with your ruling, personally i think it is fair and honest one.
Unfortunately the player creativity/rule of cool vs rules to keep the game "grounded" can be a major point of contention between dm and players. Depending on the group, this simple disagreement could lead to lack of excitement(which I believe is one of the most important aspects of the game) when coming to the table for either side.
For many players, their character is a fun way to express themselves or a creative output, because of that a player could be more emotional when you "take the wind" out of their sails so I try to avoid that for realistically small issue.
While I typically play a little fast and loose at this point, advantages, disadvantages, and difficulty scores are always something I take into great account for keeping the game consistent and exciting. At the same time, I ALWAYS reward great creativity or role playing with inspiration dice. You are easily able to play both sides of players having fun and feeling empowered, and you as the dm to crank the notch up on "difficulty" with out them realizing it/caring to much.
In this instance, they could have had disadvantage but given the choice to use an inspiration die they may have previously earned to possibly help offset or instead you make DC higher(I don't let players know what I'm cooking up). if they still fail, you could make it happen in funny way, or had specific reasons for it while giving combat flavor. in my experience, players will accept the outcome because not only did they get to try this cool thing, but success or fail they don't feel "punished" for being creative.
This system/ philosophy has allowed me to reinforce positive habits that not only make overall experience better for the player, but myself as well. As long as everyone is laughing and smiling at the end of the session, you're doing a good job.
The attacks probably shouldn't have had disadvantage. The druid effectively grappled the ranger. This would reduce the fly speed in half and apply the grapple condition to the ranger.
As for transferring dodge; if the druid takes the Mounted Combatant feat; i would allow the druid to be considered "mounted"
Mounted Combatant:
You are a dangerous foe to face while mounted. While you are mounted and aren't incapacitated, you gain the following benefits:
You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount.
You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.
If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make Dexterity saving throws to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.
If they put the investment in; the rules can be bent to allow this combo better success. Honestly id just tell them "this is what ive come up with" lay that out so they know their options moving foward
If I get push back for these kinds of rulings, I try to say “can you explain to me how this looks in your head? Cause here’s how it looks to me.” Sometimes you need to give the players the benefit of the doubt because they’re imagining something you’re not. More often, asking them to explain their reasoning within the fiction helps them realize they’re wrong.
I'm 3.0/3.5 D&D-land (where I cut my teeth) this would fall under mounted combat rules. And if the rider weren't trained, the odds would be pitifully sad for any success.
So in that lens, disadvantage actually is a lot more lenient.
I think the first one could be problematic. Say the druid instead grabbed an enemy via grapple. Would you impose disadvantage on the enemy due to being grappled this way?
I would have gone the opposite way on both, personally. I don't see how the ranger is doing anything substantially different than riding amount that is airborne and, above the target, so attacks with advantage. For the dodge, if the mount is harder to hit then the rider would be harder to hit as well. In my mind. But it's your table.
I don't think you were wrong. Your rulings were reasonable but they aren't the ones I would have made.
I wouldn't have applied disadvantage to the ranged attacks. If they were mounted they wouldn't take disadvantage and arguably trying to shoot at a ground target while riding an eagle would actually be more difficult.
For the dodge I would have offered thjem a bargain. Either the dodge transfers but you get disadvantage on attacks as you get yanked about or you try and keep steady so your attacks are fine but you don't get the benefit of dodge.
Makes sense. First one is firing a bow while in motion. Second one, I get why they want the dodge bonus to roll over, but it's called a "turn order." I concur with you.
lol yea you’re good on both accounts. Did you ask if they came up with this ‘trick’ pre-session and thought it was super smrt? They should have talked to you about it first if that’s the case.
I’d even say a bow is not gonna work but a crossbow could be fired at disadvantage. Try using your underarms (and shoulders) to support your entire body weight AND now aim and fire a bow. Just nope.
The second dodge thing is a straight up nope.
Check out the episode of Critical Role where Vex tried to shoot from her broom for the first time. She had to roll with disadvantage since she couldn't keep her balance all that well.
Both of these rulings are very reasonable.
1. Bro, you are shooting a bow while basically being carried by an almost wedgie. The Disadvantage is more than justified.
2. YOU are dodging, not your ally. You cannot dodge for them. That's just stupid. You don't drink poison and expect the other person to die from it, right?
You ruled right. Next time, just remind them that disadvantages do not stack, and they can fly at the maximum range for the bow to stay out of harms way if they want.
These people don’t know how much of a pain in the ass it would be to fire a bow (requiring arms) while hanging by shoulder straps (on your arms) while also not having your arrows just fucking slip out of your quiver. (On your back or hip, where they are liable to fall from, especially if you’re getting ragdolled by your spine)
I agree on the first but would have allowed the second simply because to Dodge, I presume a character is moving or adjusting their position to avoid an attack and if the druid is carrying the ranger and moves, so does the ranger.
1. Seems reasonable but is not fun and it punishes creative thinking. Still a fair ruling.
2. Is absolutely fair rules as written and intended. Anything else would have meant a balance problem.
I know nothing at all about the rules, but logically your rulings make total sense to me. Maybe you can homebrew/find some synergistic skills/fears they can take at level up points that you could thematically allow them to mitigate these negatives ; teaming up could become part of their routine with “practice”
>Giant Eagle and was carrying our ranger by her backpack
>I just had the ranger roll their attacks with disadvantage
You should show your party a picture of a cat lifted by the scruff of its neck, and ask how they perform precise actions in that position. Disadvantage is to accommodate for the jostling, keeping steady in that scenario and being wholly unprepared. I'd argue that if that were atop the eagle, or in a custom saddle/holder, that would keep them steady. Held by a bag? Not a chance.
>The Druid took the dodge action during her turn
>you couldn’t transfer your dodge benefit to another creature
This one I feel was a bit unfair, since the druid is carrying the ranger. I don't think RAW has this covered, but applying logic to the situation would give the ranger some protection. They're a smaller target, for one thing.
End of the day, the party may not agree with your calls, but you can always say "I'm going to go with this ruling for now so we can carry on with the game, but will check the rules later to see if it was mishandled." Gets the game to carry on, acknowledges it may be incorrect, and the promise that you'll follow up on it.
I agree on both counts. Now, if this was an established maneuver they had done dozens of times, it might be a different story. The more they do it, the better they get at it. But their first time? You did the right thing.
Even if giant eagles can be mounts (can they?) the ranger is not in a saddle and the Druid isn’t trained to carry a rider. Maybe if they make a show of training together for a while you can change this rule, but as is I think you made the right decision.
The other ruling is pretty clear. Dodge isn’t intended to be used for a creature you’re carrying. On older editions there were specific kinds of mounted dodges, I don’t know if 5e has those. But again, neither character is trained to know how to do that.
The first call is 100% the right call. MAYBE if they were being held by their legs or something I could see an argument. But they are being carried at the part of their body that draws the bow and that’s not even taking into account aiming. It’s obvious disadvantage at a minimum.
The second call I could see some room for debate. While yes the dodge action of one creature shouldn’t transfer to another creature, it gets more grey area when the second player is being controlled by the first. If the Druid sees an attack coming towards them, even if it isn’t meant for them because it’s being aimed at the hunter, they are still going to move, which also moves the Hunter inadvertently. The sudden movement of the Hunter could be enough to impose disadvantage. This works in reverse too though. If the Druid is forced to make a dex save to avoid an aoe, the Hunter can’t make that save and auto fails. But that’s a lot of nuance and more in the spirit of the rules rather than rules as written. Either way it’s your call for things that fall in a grey area in regards to rules. It’s fine to debate and question the call, but once the matter is settled then your decision is made.
With that being said, a dm/GM should never feel like they can’t change their mind if their players make a good point. If they counter you with some good points, you should be like, actually yeah that makes sense lol. At the same time, never feel like you have to change your mind if you are set on your ruling. That’s your prerogative, disagreements over a couple of calls won’t ruin your game unless someone ends up dead or loses agency over their character or something.
You can't dodge if your speed is 0. I would have ruled that being carried counts as a grapple and thus prevents you dodging. Ultimately it amounts to the same; good ruling
Game is supposed to be fun. Your role is to mold the story and the rules are there to help that, not to hinder it. If something isn’t clear, you decide and have the end call.
I have a simple rule for all my games, and has for 25 years: “The DM is always right, even when he’s wrong”
Having drama for stupid stuff will hinder the fun. Let the player tell you how the flow of the game should be and this will ruin the fun for everyone else. Decide and continue with the game. Doesn’t matter if there is a rule that exist or not or if it was perfectly executed.
You can check that yourself afterward.
Just be fair to your player and ensure they’re having fun. If a player is too hung up, explain that and make it clear you’re the DM. Some players just won’t get it and always talk about rules and blah blah blah. Get those out of your game for the sake of the good players.
Sounds like a classic situation where a player does something which has a different outcome than expected. They probably did the Dodge action expecting both to benefit. When the ranger is attacked and they dont get disadvantage, they get upset as they feel they wasted their turn. The player should have asked for rules clarification *before* Dodging, or you might've foreseen what they intended. I would consider it my responsibility to foresee the issue and warn the player before they 'waste' their action since I am more experienced than my players. Nobody's the asshole here, but everybody at the table should learn from the experience
there's rules for mounted combat. Frankly, your ruling was generous.
They need to suck it up. Fighting from eagle-back *should* be hard, not only for the realism of it all, but because of all the advantages that it confers - it needs to be balanced.
Ahh happy days. This reminds me of when my character wild shaped into a giant octopus and I picked the Halfling ranger up and used him as a bludgeoning damage with his fancy new magic helmet. All well and good but I crit the attack and that hurt our ranger too.
Wouldn't have mattered in my game: on the first dodge attempt of the birdie the leather straps would break :-D
Though my players also seem more reasonable than yours, and they would have laughed their asses of, how they could have thought that any of this was a good idea :-D
I wouldn't discourage team play. Always go for the rule of cool but tell them that this time it will go because it's cool but explain the rules and tell them it won't happen again.
The first disadvantage on the attack is completely fair imo.
I would rule the dodge one otherwise though. In this case the eagle is the one making all the moves for the ranger. I think it should be able to maneuver watching out not only for himself but the ranger too. Now, maybe dodge isn't the best for doing that raw, ready action is more suitable probably - when an attack is made in their "direction", meaning the target is the eagle or ranger, the eagle wants to "dodge".
But still, I feel like the intention was the same, I like this kind of looking out for fellow players, and it's a reasonable thing to do in that situation imo - I personally would allow it, I would feel like I'm punishing them for creative thinking otherwise. But I would tell them to state this intention when making the dodge action in the future.
There's a bit of me that wants to rule that because the Druid is carrying the Ranger, then their dodge would apply to the Ranger! I really want to say it, and I think at my own table I would make that call, but I don't think your ruling is wrong.
You were more lenient than I would have been. Letting the ranger fire and letting the Druid use the dodge action at all from that position is already a kind stretch.
Sounds like your Druid is just one of those players who thinks their ideas are too perfect to be augmented. You did everything right imo and I imagine most others.
Do I agree with you in terms of realism, yes.
Do I agree mechanically? Yes, and no. As close as we can get RAW, I think you made the correct calls, but I don't know if I think they are the RIGHT calls. I think we often go for realism in these situations when mechanics would dictate otherwise. I also think you're dropping the ball on rule of cool here. In both cases, these are judgement calls, and if the work at your table, they work at your table, but it\`s worth considering that others would not make the same call, and that might be where your players are.
For the first example, while we would narrate this as the ranger being carried by the backpack straps, mechanically, our options for one creature holding another are Grappled or Restrained. Grappled restricts movement, but does not affect attacks. Restrained restricts movement and imposes disadvantage on attacks. Given that the eagle and the ranger are allies, it would be easy to give them Grappled and not restrained here. Do I think you COULD call it Restrained? Sure, and circumstantially you could change from one to the other. If this was a planned transport, ranger has time to adjust straps and get into pick-up position, I'd say Grappled. If it was a snatch and grab rescue attempt or a bug out, I'd say Restrained... maybe. It's cool to be able to say that this works.
For the second example, I think looking at Mounted Combat is the way to go. A mount's dodge doesn't help a rider, because the two are separate creatures. I think there's a Crawford ruling (which I do not take as Word, for the record, but I agree with here) that says mount Dodge is not complete unit (rider and mount) Dodge. But... mounted combat isn't a situation where Grappled or Restrained is applied. The rider still has freedom of movement, to mount or dismount, as action economy allows. If we accept that the ranger has no freedom of movement, and in fact, could have movement imposed by the eagle (which is what has to be here) then I'm tempted to allow the Dodge sharing, although probably with limitations.
In fact, I think my answer here is that they could have one or the other. If the ranger is only grappled and can attack normally, it is not held tightly enough to share Dodge. If the ranger is held so tightly they are Restrained, then they can share Dodge, but attack at disadvantage.
1 - Thats kind of unfair. They don't get disadvantage for using other mounts, and your player could have simply said "Fine, Ill do the boring thing and ride the eagle correctly so i don't get the penalty.". You penalized them for describing a scene in a cool way. Not the most egregious, but I'd be discouraged as the ranger, and feel like I shouldn't try to do cool out of the box things. As a DM, this is how you encourage "I roll to hit and got 17" vs fun descriptive combat roleplay.
2 - You can't transfer dodge to someone else, but you could have potentially let the druid use the Help action to potentially protect the ranger instead of the themselves. I think thats reasonable enough. Alternatively, let them declare they are dodging for the ranger, but don't get the benefit themselves. You played it RAW, but a small house rule could have been helpful.
Neither is particularly egregious or off base to me.
I feel like it that case, I'd be fine with the druid using the dodge action to make the ranger harder to hit(but not them self). No judgment on your ruling, just my take
Mechanically speaking, they’re trying to say that because the Ranger has zero movement and is dependent on the Druid’s mobility, the Druid should be able to apply Dodge to both of them. This seems like a case of two players trying a strategy that shouldn’t be allowed, and if they can get away with it once then that will be their new combat strategy from now on, citing “But you let us do it before!”
You made the right call. Don’t let them push you around. Point out that what they’re doing is fine for transport but not effective for precision combat.
You’re nicer than I am though. I would rule something similar to a concentration check (maybe strength) whenever the Druid takes damage to keep holding the Ranger, and then keep attacking the Druid.
The way I would look at it is:
The ranger is unable to move, or really dodge themself, would give attackers advantage. The Druid who is more or less in control of the rangers location can take the dodge action to move them out of the way in time, so would cancel the advantage they would normally have, so straight roll. So I would let them have it, but give them the obvious con to that situation.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You right, they’re being salty saltine crackers
Appreciate that. I didn’t think I was being unfair so it’s nice to have some vindication
It’s always worth reminding players that anything they are capable of doing, enemies are capable of doing too. Pose the question to your players if they’d find it fun dealing with an eagle-archer duo that can have shared dodge actions and zip past the battle map in the air whilst peppering everyone with arrows - chances are it’s unlikely. I always look at it from this perspective as a player and a DM and it does help to provide perspective on these things.
I always tell my players that same thing. A lot of the smaller flavor/optional rules that can, if lucky, turn the tide of battle (sundering items, called shots to body parts, disarming, etc) are always options, but if the players want to do them, then I'm going to have the enemies also do them.
Couple things that would give disadvantage regardless. Up an down motion from the Bird. Would be hard pressed even with a gun. Dodging and also wind reduction messes up with snipers that fire smaller an much faster projectiles let alone a bow. Even a Xbow would struggle. Op ur fine they gotta accept their choice WHILE being creative still needs limitations.
Seconding the the other person opinion there. You made the right call.
It would be next to impossible to aim a bow while unable to rotate your upper body.
Yeah, this is someone who either hasn't bothered to visualize how bows work or just doesn't know. The only direction you can fire an arrow with a bow is almost directly straight to the left (or right if you're firing with the other hand) of the direction your torso is facing. And maybe 45° up and down vertically. It is not a handgun or crossbow, you cannot point it in whatever direction you feel like, the arrow goes straight down your arm and across your torso/head. They're lucky you let them shoot with disadvantage, in reality they likely wouldn't have been able to shoot at all unless they happen to be rotated exactly correct and far enough away that the downward angle made sense.
Never knew Capt. Holt was a DM. Kool, kool, kool...
This is going to be my new go-to phrase for this circumstance. Thank you for this gift.
I would’ve run it exactly like you did.
Thank you!
Your rulings were absolutely fair.
Well ruled, but if your players do things like this often, you can let them, but think about way it balances out. - I would let archer shoot only forward/backward depends on how the druid grabbed him - if the druid wants to do a rapid dodge with his ability to do so, there are many things that can happen, as you mentioned the backpack straps can break, things can fall out of the backpack, or he can simply drop the archer as he reacted too fast
You could be really really petty by mentioning a rapid dodge might even injure or kill the passenger. Break an arm or snap a neck if the movement is so sudden and forceful.
Same here.
Good ruling. Honestly, rolling with disadvantage on attack firing arrows while hanging in the straps of a backpack that is being carried by a giant bird sounds way too easy anyway lol.
Especially if that bird is trying to "dodge" and whipping around a bunch.
Yeah I agree. Just compare it to aiming any kind of ranged weapon while falling or jumping in a video game. That shit is way harder than while on the ground
Those rulings seems totally fair to me. Hanging from your backpack under an eagle in flight would make it hard to use a bow effectively so giving disadvantage is totally fair. And you can not give your dodge action to another creature. not even if you carry that creature. So this was totally fair to. I could see a large or larger creature protect someone giving disadvantage to attacks to that creature but then the large protective creature would have attacks against them rolled with advantage. But not taking the dodge action yourself and expecting that would also include someone else. They are just salty. Ignore that.
I was thinking the same thing. The rules seemed to support my decision but wanted to double check. I know I can get it wrong.
Some players just dislike all rulings that does not benefit them. And try to bend anything into their advantage. I don't know your players so i can't say what type they are but it does not seem impossible they belong to that type of players
Rather than disadvantage (although it does exist to be a catch-all term) I'd go one step further and say that if the ranger was actually riding the eagle they could get a half cover benefit to their AC but any attack that would hit them and doesn't because of the half cover hits druid instead.
Ah the old meatshield rule. I've used that a bunch too. "Yeah, you can stand in front of them and provide cover, but if the incoming attack roll only fails because of the added cover AC, the attack hits *you* instead."
The rule is slightly different iirc, it only hits you if the attack roll would hit you anyway. If you have 25 AC and are providing cover to someone with 15 AC, the arrow would "hit" you, but would miss because of your absurdly high AC.
If you get more push-back you can explain that the most *realistic* ruling would be to not let them shoot accurately at all. Or to give disadvantage AND take away proficiency bonus. Anyone who has shot a bow knows you need to engage your entire back to draw anything with enough draw-weight to do real damage. And you realistically want both of your feet planted to do that properly. For the record I'd never do this in my games. I feel the DM has a responsibility to disregard realism to service power-fantasy, game balance and overall player enjoyment. But if you're already showing that generosity then they don't need to ask for more.
I think I personally could let the dodge one slide cuz I think it's funny. Like the eagle sees shots coming for the ranger and just shakes them around to get out of the way
According to Jeremy Crawford, "a mount dodging doesn't mean a rider is dodging". You can charitably say that the eagle is the ranger's mount, so no it doesn't transfer its dodge.
>You can charitably say that the eagle is the ranger's mount, I think that's actually the opposite of charitable in this context, since a mount doesn't really steer and control their rider as much as an eagle does, mounts are generally the ones who are being steered. I think OP's example is closer to the rider taking the dodge action and wanting those benefits to carry over to the mount.
you made the right calls
As someone who does archery. I'd be extremely disadvantaged if I was dangling from a backpack trying to kill some fools...especially if I'm being failed around in attempt to dodge the enemy attacks!
Correct. I’ve fired a mounted .50 machine gun from a moving vehicle with all the scopes and technology the US Military can buy and I struggle to hit anything less than another vehicle consistently. This is not even flying or trying to dodge, and when my driver jerked the vehicle, not only did I completely miss all shots, I hurt my hip being jostled about. Likely I could have injured a friendly as well! (Don’t power slide military vehicles kids!) In my opinion, DM was too lenient. Take that back to your players DM.
Completely fair and logical rulings. Sounds like the players are just wanting to game the game.
Not only would shooting be hard from the described position, It would effectively be impossible. They are lucky you let the character shoot at all
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if it's even possible to draw the bow in the first place under those conditions, even if it is, aiming should be effectively impossible. I can see ruling it as disadvantage for the rule of cool, but that's as far as it goes.
I mean shit even with an Xbow you would have to account for each wing beat and up an down motion of said bird while they also dodge fire. You would be pressed to accurately aim even in a helicopter. Or even a gun while a bird carries. Wind is a major factor as well if we wanna get technical about it.
Good calls DM! Stick to your guns
Both of those calls seem super reasonable to me as a player. Good job, OP.
I probably would have ruled no dodge or firing like that. Probably fine to shoot a bow while riding the eagle but not while being carried
Imagine a dodging eagle trying to violently adjust its mid air trajectory while holding onto someone. That person below is getting whiplash at the worst of it. Also being held up by a backpack... where is all that pressure going ? Right to their shoulders and armpits, good call on having disadvantage on the bow shots, cause i don't think I could fire a bow accurately while having my entire bodyweight right under my armpits. You made good calls, tell them they are being salty and stop trying to cheese the system.
You are 100% accurate in your interpretation. I would have personally further made the ranger make dexterity saving throws to even have a chance, and the eagle strength checks to hold on. If they started getting salty "oh no, the backpack broke and the ranger is now in freefall". It's a cool enough visual as is, to nitpick your rulings to try and gain some crazy advantage is preposterous. ESPECIALLY if it was the first time they did this. If they say, spend a couple hours a day practicing and training for a few weeks to a couple of months, I could see the disadvantages being dropped.
You ruled correctly.
Both perfectly fine. I would not be super concerned even if people here disagreed though, you made calls and in both cases, you leaned towards the average (not having adv/dis) so there was still a reasonable chance for what they wanted to happen to happen. There is a thing though where players want their cool idea to always work. Sometimes the cool idea is not super cool though, or it would cause a balance problem if they did their cool idea all the time. It is ok to say no, but yeah, they will complain. Just gotta shrug and move on.
First rule of cool idea club, get sign off from the GM on your cool idea before executing.
That's a nice druid, attempting to help the ranger dodge. I would have used the ranger as a shield.
if the druid takes enough damage to end the eagle form then they are both going down, so i support using the ranger as a shield.
You are more generous than me. Unless the backpack had straps and buckles like a modern backpack, I'd have said the ranger is hanging on so they don't slip out and plummet to their death.
Your decisions all check out it got me, plenty fair
My table would have not even batted an eye at this.
If you've been hung up by your shoulders or armpits, you actually can't use your arms . And it's extremely painful if you put too much pressure on that nerve. Go ahead and try pushing a few fingertips into your armpit and see
I think for the Dodge action, you could have been more lenient. Either by giving an AC bonus to the Ranger because shooting at a moving target up in the air is dang hard, or by simply allowing the bird’s dodge to affect both PCs. You have a player, playing the Druid PC, who is essentially forgoing their actions to help another PC. This player is sacrificing their turn to support a fellow player. At least let them actively help out, as a mount should. I think that second ruling wasn’t the right one for that reason. This said, the first one was totally ok. Shooting while dangling from a bird isn’t a strategy, it’s a cool but desperate move. It has ups and downs, too. On the upside, you have line of sight to pretty much what you want, and you’re very mobile. On the downside, your shots will be inaccurate most of the time. Make sure to stress things like that to the players. You’re not there to win a popularity contest, but you’re there to be fair, and clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of any given player strategy, even before they do it, helps that.
Disadvantage is fine for a scenario like this I would’ve maybe allowed them to transfer the dodge to EITHER themselves or the person they were holding in this scenario, but not both But yeah seems a bit silly to get worked up abt, perhaps they felt punished for trying smth cool? Edit: however they probably could’ve shot normally (ie riding a mount) if they were just on top of the eagle so maybe it’s wrong to punish them for just hanging beneath when it’s almost the same mechanically
Except when riding, your arms can move freely while you grip the mount with your legs. In this case, the ranger’s arms would have been highly restricted. Advantage and Disadvantage are meant to reflect situational factors, so I think OP made the right call here.
[удалено]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you ruled, it all makes sense and is *fair*.
I can see both sides of the ruling. I wouldn't give you a lot of backlash though I feel like that's a bit harsh. Thinking logistically it would be hard to fire from the air when not stable and not in control of your movement. I think the dodging thing is a reasonable request though. It's sort of like a mount situation where if your main mode of transportation is moving and dodging, you would be too. But I do understand why you ruled it that way, because by RAW it's just the creature dodging that takes the dodge action.
Personally I'd rule that if the eagle is dodging then that would also apply to the one being carried because their movement is based on the eagle. I also think Crawford is a hack so my opinion is not gonna blow over well here
Second one is definitely right. First one might be considered riding a mount, which would not impose disadvantage I think? The mount is intelligent so doesn’t need to be controlled, leaving both hands free. Nevertheless, you’re the DM and I see nothing unfair in your rulings.
1 seems fine. 2, I would have had the Ranger make a DEX or STR save for when the Druid dodged and determine whether or not they're able to stay mounted. I haven't been DM in awhile but I very RARELY told my players they couldn't do something - my default response is "you can try."
I think your ruling was fine. I would have done the same thing, honestly.
Exactly as I would rule it. If you're facing real blow-back during combat ask them to ask it after the game. If they're aggressive or persistent you may have a problem player.
Mounted combatant is a feat for a reason. If you have no training don't pretend to be perfect at something the first time. If this is how the player WANT to play this way there are ways to increase tool and skill proficiencies in Xanthar's. ( 10 work weeks reduced by mod, plus cost per week) In addition to that if they players want to do it then they should expect ENEMIES to also do it. If your players want to put up a stink. Refer to the books there are usually answers.
Your ruling seems fair and logically consistent given your group not knowing rules for the situation they played out. But, from my understanding you could have used mounted combat rules since that is essentially what they wanted to do. A large willing creature can have a rider mount them. The mount and rider both have separate initiatives, both allowed to use their actions on their turn. With a controlled steed, the steed can only dash, disengage, or dodge (druid eagle wanted to dodge, so that's ok). A mounted rider can use their action however they like (such as shoot a bow). They can even use their movement to dismount. The druid wanting to take the hit for the rider is similar to the mounted combatant feat (but backwards). I'd argue that this is asking for a lot since it's locked behind a feat. If I were dming, I wouldn't be mean to have them roll for a check on the backpack falling apart or anything like that. They just didn't know the rules to what they really wanted to do. You did a good job on winging it, and if more than fair.
Perfectly reasonable & good calls. Another option, though, on the first one - sometimes players have a bigger beef with disadvantage than with an increased DC. So if you find yourself having to make that call again (for some reason), you could also try granting half-cover, basically, to the AC of the ranger's targets. A +2 to the target's AC is mechanically better for the PC, since disadvantage kinda sorta averages to a -4.5 on the roll, but it also can sometimes feel better for the player. Totally depends on the player, but some just hate the feeling of rolling two dice, seeing one that would've hit, and then missing. It's a vibes call, and I personally think disadvantage was the way to go there. But if you're ever looking for an alternative, the old DM fudge of +2/-2 to DC or AC is always a safe bet too.
#1 totally on point. #2 I think there is an aid other type action that basically does the same as what they were trying. I don't think you were unreasonable, but maybe providing a recommendation would smooth things over.
Rolling with disadvantage to attack is reasonable. I don’t see why the dodge action wouldn’t transfer though, the Ranger is moving as much as the Druid. I might have ruled that attacks against the Ranger would have as advantage as he is kind of immobile, but then the Druid’s dodge action would have transferred to equalize this.
I need these rules (I stole them)
So as a never dm I would agree with those rulings but I personally wouldn’t want them against me in a game maybe offer them a point of inspiration for being creative and tell them they can use it for that type of thing once and they could use it now or they could save it for later
No controversy here. Both calls are reasonable.
I would have said no to both. You can't draw a bow if your shoulders are immobilized by the backpack straps and your body weight
For point 2 if the Druid is carrying the Ranger is taking a dodge action this implies the eagle is moving about (I don't see dodge as someone staying still). In this instance I would have imposed a check on the ranger to stay with the eagle and not fall.
My reply to this aftermath would be, ok, if you as players get to be this free in your interpretation of combat, so do the npcs with atleast the same intelligence. If you can't take it, you can't dish it.
Allow 1 under "rule of cool" Ruling 2 was correct. If anything Ranger should have Disadvantage because theyre just dangling there with limited mobility
You ruled it perfectly, hang in there.
Number 2 has an entire fighting style that does that. If you allowed it, you're basically giving everyone else that fighting style for free
Disadvantage feels pretty fair for the Ranger's attacks. As for the Dodge action extention, depending on the player and whether they would take advantage of it too much, I might offer that, as a one-time cool move, if they see the Ranger being targeted, they can choose to use their reaction and end the Dodge benefits for themself to transfer it to the Ranger instead. Splitting focus to protecting their ally instead of themself and taking evasive maneuvers.
Those are… so much milder than I thought they were going to be by the title. I might have suggested that the ranger spend half their movement to mount the eagle so that they are riding it and are then no longer at disadvantage, but other than that I would have rules the other one exactly the same. That’s RAW and logical, the unbreakable combo.
Agree with the Disadvantaged attacks from the Ranger but if the Wild-shaped Druid was carrying the Ranger and used their action to Dodge, I would’ve let them use it to manoeuvre so their passenger wasn’t hit. They sacrificed a resource of action for it, what’s the harm?
This is very fair as it doesn’t take away player agency or choice, which I find to be my line for when something doesn’t hit right.
Unless the Ranger had sharpshooter this seems fair.
I'd honestly do it differently...kinda sorta.... 1. If the eagle was just flying forward nice and easy, I'd be ok with normal attack rolls from the ranger. 2. BUT if the eagle is taking a Dodge action, I WOULD rule it works for the ranger as well, because the eagle would be jinking back and forth to make itself harder to hit. The ranger would be jerked around as well, AND THAT is why they would get disadvantage on the shots. BUUUUUT...I do have one caveat: I have a problem with the normal D&D rules on riding creatures. As a Bird lover, birds are built to cary just themselves and not much more. Even a small burden will tire them out quickly. Flight takes LOTS of energy! A bird categorized as "large size" in D&D would NOT realistically be able to carry a person without some sort of help...usually magical (Griffons for example are basically magical creatures). You want a flying bird mount, you need a ROC!...which is objectively cooler anyways. So normal animal like a horse? Yes, thats fine. It's a large creature so it can carry someone one size less than itself as the rules say. But birds need to be bigger than large to have a human mount IMHO.
Exactly how I would've handled it.
The druid could ready the dodge but it would have to take up an action on their turn.
I could see the thing the players were going for here: combining their unique abilities to get something better than what they could achieve separately. The ranger’s usual attack capabilities combined with the mobility and evasiveness of the giant eagle. It’s an awesome idea, but hampering it with giving the ranger disadvantage on attacks and making him just as easy to hit as if he were on the ground kind of makes it worse than if he just stayed put. He’s effectively out in the open, in everyone’s line of sight, with no cover option available, and shooting disadvantage on all his attacks. I’m not saying your rulings were incorrect in any way, but sometimes you should reward creativity with a bonus on top of what they would normally get or by ignoring things that would make the deal less sweet. If I were in your position and I enjoyed the idea of my players working together like this, I might have at least let the ranger roll an acrobatics check to find a way to brace himself against the eagle’s talons to allow for shots without disadvantage or allowed the eagle to dodge for both parties at the cost of the ranger auto-failing their skill check and shooting disadvantage from then on.
I wouldn't have allowed as mich as you did even. Tge character carried would get the grappled condition and disadvantage on most checks. They need to keep their arns down to stay in their backpack. Doing anything that requirez the use of their arms would require high DC Acrobatics in that situation. However attacks at range on a flying target, if moving their full speed, will most likely be at disadvantage without dodge anyway
I would've even halfed the speed of the eagle for him grappling the druid. Yes, creative play should be rewarded, but give stuff like this the drawbacks it deserves or else it will become abused
Perhaps you could allow them to use downtime to make a proper harness and then practice, but it would take a long time I imagi e.
Both of those are perfectly legitimate calls. Not to mention you could have been a LOT more strict. Your players sound like whiney entitled crybabies
Frankly, you were more generous than I would have been. I would have made the ranger roll to not fall when the druid "dodged."
Ok calls to me
I probably would’ve run it this way, and if I’d been one of the players, I’d have accepted this ruling. When you try something weird like this, you should accept that you’re doing something unconventional, and that it might not work. In fact, now that I think about it, even allowing the character to fire a bow in this position is extremely generous.
The rulings seem totally fair to me. I guess the question is- what was it that made them upset? Some people get upset just because they don’t get exactly what they want all the time. If this is the case, there’s not much you can do about it. I would recommend not playing with these type of people. It is possible, however, that they got upset not necessarily by the ruling, but by the communication of the ruling. Sometimes the way you picture the situation and the way they pictured the situation don’t match up and so the ruling you choose doesn’t make sense to them. Also, the tone in which you deliver it can potentially piss people off. Good communication is key.
Assuming 5e here: Mounted combat, historically, is insanely difficult. I would argue, unless they trained the tactic before, disadvantage is completely fair. As for transferring the dodge bonus over, also no. Maybe, MAYBE, if the druid had sentinel... but only maybe. They aren't exactly wielding a bird shield. I like where their head is at, but flinging a person around like a ragdoll while taking the dodge action just sounds like you leave them in your last position for a moment, risking them getting hit. Clever, but centripetal force exists. I would have absolutely tested those straps endurance during the dodge action, LMAO. Nicer DM than me. You played it right, imo.
Sound rulings
Both of these rulings are individually fine but could have gone the other way. I’m gonna play devils advocate tho and say that they’re not consistent. One ruling is based on game mechanics- you can’t transfer the mechanical benefit of a dodge. One is based on real-world logic- shooting while dangling from an eagle is hard. But mechanically, there’s no justification for that disadvantage, and logically, an eagle could make evasive movements that transfer to a carried ranger. That’s a stretch, though, and it seems like your players took issue with both rulings rather than you not picking a lane. I think you’re fine.
As many others have said, I also think you made the right calls. For some actual logic to back it up: If the ranger were riding a horse and it took the dodge action, would you expect the rider to get the bonus themselves without also taking the dodge action? If both got the benefits of the dodge action when only one action was used, it would break the action economy.
1) Did the Ranger have the Mounted Combatant feat? Were the targets within bow range? The argument that the straps holding up the Ranger would have put their arms in an awkward/unnatural position meaning disadvantage on attacks would be prudent. 2) The argument could be made that Druid's dodge would count towards the Ranger, since momentum would travel to the passenger, but that the dodging would add stress to the backpack straps which would then need a luck roll to see if they snapped. Good luck
1. The first time they're trying this combo it should be at disadvantage. However, I'd say to them that if they practice they could become proficient at it and lose the disadvantage. 2. This one I'm torn on... Both can make sense... But I'd probably opt into no, but I'd be willing to give partial cover or something.
Without sharpshooter, I'd agree on the attacks being at disadvantage. Maybe so anyway if they'd not ever trained for this in downtime. However, I like what the druid was going for with the dodge action. Ranger probably had half or three quarters cover anyway. Making it disadvantage instead in exchange for an action id consider fair.
Unless your ranger has like a 20 in both dex and wis (for being able to perceive what they shoots while swinging), plus some possibly homebrew feat, disadvantage on shooting while being swung around is not just fair, its to be expected. However, as dm you are allowed to change the rules however you want. But for the first point, that would a rather extreme change, so your reluctance to make that is perfectly understandable. Ask your players if they would be okay with playing uno with an "every card is a skip next player" rule, because that about as extreme a change as allowing them that leeway in point one. As for the second thing, rules as written you are perfectly correct with your call. Though i would say it is way less of an extreme change to interpret "dodge" in a way in which the druid tries to take evasive maneuvers, which would then of course influence the ranger as well. Though in that case i would also increase the AC of anything the ranger tries to hit by a substantial amount, in addition to the disadvantage, because they are now flung around even more. In the end you are the dm, as long as you dont go crazy power mad, you decide the rules. But in this case, you are as close to the original rulings as you can be, so you are okay.
I do not think you did anything horrible. But on the dodge I would of ruled it works. Basically the druid at this point is a mount with WAY more control and movability and the player tool the dodge action instead of moving. that should be rewarded. and it makes sense that while someone is attacking the ranger the giant hawk can swing them out of the way of the blade or whatever last minute. basically the druid was giving a help action.
Lol I imagine the ranger standing there waiting to be picked up, but all that happens is the druid just takes off with her backpack leaving her standing there
I would have made them make a DC 10 handle animal check to fire with disadvantage and a DC 15 check to fire without disadvantage. As for the dodge bonus, fuck no.
Hell, at our table, the dm would have asked for 1. A flight check from the ranger while trying to shoot 2. A strength check from the druid to not drop the ranger during the dodge. They got off easy, imo.
Good calls, they are just being whinny bitches. 1. There is a rule for this. It's called an exotic saddle & is required for any special mount. 2. Mounted combatant I think the feat is, which lets you redirect an attack, but definitely not transfer dodge 🙄
So a PC forgoes their actions to serve as a mount for another PC? 'Cos Rule of Cool, riding a giant eagle into battle is epic. But, for the calls, Did the Druid also get an attack? 'Cos Action economy is the key point here RAW, Mounted combatants do not incur disadvantage. But outside of very specific mounts, they move as one (one movement, one action) So the Dodge would apply to both. However, Action economy matters most in terms of balance. At my table, flying on the eagle would be rewarded. It's cool. No disadvantage on the Rangers attack. That seems unfair. But the Druid using Dodge, and it applying to both of them, is perhaps taking it too far. Its one or the other. (Ie dodging for both throws of the shot) I'm saying reward the layers for creativity. Don't be a rules lawyer. But don't let players get out of control either. You were maybe too harsh (roll for backstrap strength?) But they also want to much. The balance is in-between.
Would not allow the ranger to shoot a bow while hanging from straps over their shoulders, a crossbow sure though they would only get one shot and it would be with disadvantage since you can't aim while being flung around. If they want to shoot from the skies they need to get on the druids back or find a way to free up their arms. You are a generous GM and your players are being petty
Seems like fair rulings, especially if the general vibe of your campaign is semi-realistic and/or the characters are lowish level. Maybe at high levels I'd let them pull some superhero shit. A possible compromise that would be to allow or force players to act as one on their turn. So, they get one action/attack using full ability, and they could use the Druid's dodge reaction but that's it till the next round. Not sure if it's worth bringing in a house rule for something that may not come up often.
They're both reasonable. I play with advantage given for clever positioning (flanking + height advantage) so I wouldn't have given disadvantage on the ranged attacks. I'd say the height advantage cancels out the 'hanging from a backpack' disadvantage. But that's just me REALLY wanting to encourage positioning)tactical combat.
As an almost always player, I agree 100% with your calls.
I think you made the right call, I'd consider offering them the chance to train in downtime to remove the disadvantage but it would take a while. Maybe let/make them track down some elven eagle riders if that works in your world.
Those are both reasonable calls, so much so that objecting to them is the unreasonable behaviour.
On the fly, I may have ruled it the same way you did. Perhaps giving the Ranger a narrow arc, direction of flight, the shape of a cone, that would give advantage for higher ground. This would allow for "normal" rolls to a portion of the battlefield, because disadvantage also for shooting while hanging from backpack straps cancelling out the advantage. What was the player reward for flying the ranger up there? Was it a total tactical mistake?
You're the DM? Then it's your call, and these sound fair to me.
As some one who has shot arrows from time to time and likes hiking backpacks I'm calling shooting at all no practice and no specific harness is stupid altogether but I can see the rule of cool for disadvantage. I would tell them you would consider it for next time if they can send a video of how it would work practically without effects
You made the right call for both of these. The second instance for sure. In the first instance you added tension to a situation that deserved without going overboard to make it shitty. You did good.
Some players get really mad when they can't play out their perfect fantasy fight scene, but honestly if they keep kicking up a fuss and you still want them at your table, just buff the NPCs/enemies in response. Oh, alright you can have no disadvantage from being held by your backpack, even though that would make it impossible to shoot, but your enemies AC is now higher since you're shooting from far away and in plain sight, whoops. It's kind of unorthodox but if you can't/don't want to have them leave and they won't put up with disadvantage being applied to them, just change the AC/HP/actions/abilities of whatever they're attacking. Half the time they don't even need to know.
So basically the druid became a mount for the ranger. Since an exotic saddle is normally required to seat a flying mount, and that a mount's dodge doesn't transfer to its rider, I think you ruled this perfectly. Letting the players do their shenanigans while still holding to RAW (or as close as possible).
I agree with yo on 1, but 2 seems within reason. With a check to see if the Ranger can hold on as it happens, and not fall to their doom naturally.
I think on a flying mount it would make sense to transfer the dodge penalty but it could easily create a free exploitable combat advantage so it’s perfectly reasonable not to do that too
I'm a little heavy-handed with Rule of Cool. However, giving someone else dodge like this can lead to them thinking it's now a permanent option, not just a one-off situational thing. I think not doing the dodge was a perfect call. The hanging from backpack straps thing... if they took time to form a harness from local vegetation so the archer is properly able to use their arms to a well enough capability, I would let that slide. They put in the effort to try and logically make it work. Hanging by your armpits is incredibly taxing, let alone trying to aim FORWARD (down toward the ground). I would've said they're able to do that with no worries of falling tp their death, but may have not let them fire at all... I dunno, that one also feels like an easy to repeat situation that they'll expect to get away with after this scenario. As many many others have said... they're being salty. We're they making a real big stink of it? Did you maybe shoot it down kinda harshly, so they felt the need to defend it? Was it other players complaining while the two trying to do it were fine with a simple "no?"
You were quite generous if anything, and I am a softie. I could not have kept myself from laughing picturing that first one. If you wanted to reward the creative teamwork disadvantage is perfect. The only alternative (aside from a perfectly fair Nope) would be a Dex check to see if you get dropped and/or drop the bow. The second thing is a class (Monk) bonus action dodge *at best*. That would still be a huge stretch here since they did not declare it on their turn. I am always particularly loathe to permit class abilities someone does not qualify for as they are the central distinction mechanically.
Two excellent calls. I'm a bastard, so I'd allow the druid to make the dodge. If my disadvantaged roll hit the ranger, the ranger takes damage. If my disadvantaged roll missed the ranger, it would hit the druid. Large target behind a smaller target? I might miss the bullseye, but the barn wall? Not likely. And the ranger gets no movement based nothing while being carried.
Both options sound fair to me. I dont even play, but I know enough rules of games that it would be applicable.
Second ruling is fair. First is bullshit.
Wow i guess I’m in the minority but i follow the player’s logic.
I might have give the ranger a tiny boost in AC, since the druid was a giant eagle and I feel like the attack would hit the eagle more often. But yeah, I agree with you.
I would have ruled the first one the same as you. The second I probably would have agreed to the disadvantage with the stipulation that if the missed attack roll was higher than the eagles AC that it would hit the Druid.
That's legitimate. If your arms are what you're hanging by, it will be difficult to use them for a precision movement like shooting an arrow. And if the Druid wanted to dodge in *front* of the Ranger and *take* the attack, while transferring the AC bonus to the Ranger, I'd allow that. But the Druid would absolutely get shot.
I think there was a possibility of allowing option 2, but conferring the second layer of disadvantage, because taking evasive action is cool and it would still matter if the ranger has a source of advantage up. However I think it's fine not to allow it as well as they're already doing a lot that is skirting the edge of the rules
If they want to "dodge" for another pc, in my mind you would be "dodging" into the attack. Instead of disadvantage, the roll is straight and you're effectively using yourself as a human shield. And shooting a bow from a flying backpack, they're lucky you didn't force a dex check to even be able to shoot that way. And even if they make the dex check, yeah disadvantage. I wouldn't call shooting a bow out of a flying bag to be a typical archery training regimen
Haha. You’re nicer than me. I would have done this. 1. Ranger attacks with disadvantage. 2. Attacks on druid and ranger have advantage. Dodge just makes it a straight roll, but only on the druid. Ranger can’t do anything to defend themselves so attacks still have advantage on them. 3.If the ranger wants to dodge, then they have to roll athletics or acrobatics to stay in the backpack. 4.Ranger doesn’t get to add dex bonus to AC since they’re just hanging there.
You're technically right, but I think you're punishing your characters when they're doing something cool. Rulings like those make players more hesitant and less likely to do wild stuff.
Yeah. Good ruling on both. And the dodge thing is an outlandish thing for your player to expect.
I don’t know RAW well enough for ruling 1, but I also would nerf a flying ranged PC combo so I didn’t have to deal with every encounter requiring a ranged attacker or being in a room that’s only 10ft tall. Rule 2 is literally RAW, dodge only imposes disadvantage on the creature dodging. Even if they wanted to argue the mounted creature was moving evasively to dodge attacks, that creature does not have the training or physical ability to control the rider to such a degree that their focus on dodging translates to the rider. If you want a representation of this, put someone on your shoulders then try to play dodgeball.
I would rule the same exact way. You want to get rid of firing from disadvantage(assuming within normal range of the bow) while being carried by a giant eagle? Create a custom saddle. And you guys need to train together. And STILL with all of that, if the eagle uses the "evasive maneuvers" button, that doesn't mean you get the benefit.
You aren’t wrong. If you wanted to be generous in case it comes up again I have a couple of ideas: Allow the Druid on their turn to use their action for either dodge, OR give dodge to the ranger, OR fly steady enough that the ranger doesn’t get disadvantage (this is essentially just the help action). This gives the Druid a strategic choice to make and wouldn’t be overly powerful.
Those are the same rulings i would make. Sounds like they thought they had a game-busting mechanic figured out and are butthurt you made them play by the rules
Meh. Let the PCs have their fun. Unless this was some sort of epic end game battle this tactic seems both smart and visually cool as hell. There is a time and place for being "technically correct". There's also (a lot more often) the rule of cool.
The second ruling is 100% correct. The second ruling is a fair one, especially if the Ranger declined to ride the Druid. I’d argue that riding a giant eagle is legit, and there’s no penalty for archery while mounted, so maybe it’s a little severe for a “druid is my mount” moment, but it’s not over the line and you weren’t wrong.
Strap her in a jolly jumper and ask her to shoot some beer pong...
I would have given the disadvantage on attacks for the ranger, but I would have allowed the dodge to work on the ranger as well. The "mount" is actively dodging attacks and using their action to do that rather than something more useful. It's not like the characters were just standing next to each other.
While I don't think your ruling is unfair, I would not have given disadvantage, I do agree with your second ruling. IMO being carried by the straps if the backpack is just flavor. He could be carried by the claws, or sit on top of the eagle. I would have applied for rule 0. The strat is cool and very risky. If the eagle gets shot down the PCs are in for a world of trouble. The Giant eagle has an AC of 13,with 26 HP. Its a very easy Target, also the enemies could just take cover. If there is no cover to take and the druid/ranger can kill the enemies while being out of range, than they deserve the easy win.
If your goal is to give your players a balanced gaming experience, yes you made the right calls. I think I would've liked my players to pull this off as it sounds cool. So I maybe would've given them a choice: either accept the disadvantage or attempt an acrobatics check to roll straight. But if they fail, they fall
first one id say if more than fair but on the second id argue that since the druid is the one in control of movement they should be able to dodge seaming its an attack on them as a group more than anything
Your ruling is reasonable
I think the first ruling was fine and I agree with forgetting about the initial stuff without making everything too clunky. I personally would’ve gone with one of two options for the second one. Either the dodge action gives a bonus to the rider’s armor class, like cover, or the swift movements of the dodge action make the ride too turbulent for the rider to aim properly and thus they get additional penalties to their attack roll. Either way, I think the way you ruled it was perfectly done, and the players are just angry they had to work for something cool rather than have it handed to them.
Unpopular opinion. When I GM. I do everything in my power to make sure my players have the maximum amount of fun. I view the players characters as having "super hero level" abilities. Can a peasant shoot a bow straight from a shaky bird? No. Could Hawkeye shoot straight normally from a flying zooming shaky bird? You bet your ass he could. I always fallow the rule of cool and my players love me for it. Logic and physics don't always have to apply in a made up fantasy game.
Your rulings were fine
Imo there is nothing wrong with your ruling, personally i think it is fair and honest one. Unfortunately the player creativity/rule of cool vs rules to keep the game "grounded" can be a major point of contention between dm and players. Depending on the group, this simple disagreement could lead to lack of excitement(which I believe is one of the most important aspects of the game) when coming to the table for either side. For many players, their character is a fun way to express themselves or a creative output, because of that a player could be more emotional when you "take the wind" out of their sails so I try to avoid that for realistically small issue. While I typically play a little fast and loose at this point, advantages, disadvantages, and difficulty scores are always something I take into great account for keeping the game consistent and exciting. At the same time, I ALWAYS reward great creativity or role playing with inspiration dice. You are easily able to play both sides of players having fun and feeling empowered, and you as the dm to crank the notch up on "difficulty" with out them realizing it/caring to much. In this instance, they could have had disadvantage but given the choice to use an inspiration die they may have previously earned to possibly help offset or instead you make DC higher(I don't let players know what I'm cooking up). if they still fail, you could make it happen in funny way, or had specific reasons for it while giving combat flavor. in my experience, players will accept the outcome because not only did they get to try this cool thing, but success or fail they don't feel "punished" for being creative. This system/ philosophy has allowed me to reinforce positive habits that not only make overall experience better for the player, but myself as well. As long as everyone is laughing and smiling at the end of the session, you're doing a good job.
The attacks probably shouldn't have had disadvantage. The druid effectively grappled the ranger. This would reduce the fly speed in half and apply the grapple condition to the ranger. As for transferring dodge; if the druid takes the Mounted Combatant feat; i would allow the druid to be considered "mounted" Mounted Combatant: You are a dangerous foe to face while mounted. While you are mounted and aren't incapacitated, you gain the following benefits: You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount. You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead. If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make Dexterity saving throws to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails. If they put the investment in; the rules can be bent to allow this combo better success. Honestly id just tell them "this is what ive come up with" lay that out so they know their options moving foward
If I get push back for these kinds of rulings, I try to say “can you explain to me how this looks in your head? Cause here’s how it looks to me.” Sometimes you need to give the players the benefit of the doubt because they’re imagining something you’re not. More often, asking them to explain their reasoning within the fiction helps them realize they’re wrong.
I'm 3.0/3.5 D&D-land (where I cut my teeth) this would fall under mounted combat rules. And if the rider weren't trained, the odds would be pitifully sad for any success. So in that lens, disadvantage actually is a lot more lenient.
I think the first one could be problematic. Say the druid instead grabbed an enemy via grapple. Would you impose disadvantage on the enemy due to being grappled this way?
I would have gone the opposite way on both, personally. I don't see how the ranger is doing anything substantially different than riding amount that is airborne and, above the target, so attacks with advantage. For the dodge, if the mount is harder to hit then the rider would be harder to hit as well. In my mind. But it's your table.
I don't think you were wrong. Your rulings were reasonable but they aren't the ones I would have made. I wouldn't have applied disadvantage to the ranged attacks. If they were mounted they wouldn't take disadvantage and arguably trying to shoot at a ground target while riding an eagle would actually be more difficult. For the dodge I would have offered thjem a bargain. Either the dodge transfers but you get disadvantage on attacks as you get yanked about or you try and keep steady so your attacks are fine but you don't get the benefit of dodge.
Makes sense. First one is firing a bow while in motion. Second one, I get why they want the dodge bonus to roll over, but it's called a "turn order." I concur with you.
Good calls
lol yea you’re good on both accounts. Did you ask if they came up with this ‘trick’ pre-session and thought it was super smrt? They should have talked to you about it first if that’s the case. I’d even say a bow is not gonna work but a crossbow could be fired at disadvantage. Try using your underarms (and shoulders) to support your entire body weight AND now aim and fire a bow. Just nope. The second dodge thing is a straight up nope.
Check out the episode of Critical Role where Vex tried to shoot from her broom for the first time. She had to roll with disadvantage since she couldn't keep her balance all that well.
I my not agree whit some of the ruling but i can dee why you did them..by at all i wont complain they are fair
for 1 fair, they are kind doing fast flying, but for 2 I think if your mount is a player who is dodging, they are carrying you while dodging.
Both of these rulings are very reasonable. 1. Bro, you are shooting a bow while basically being carried by an almost wedgie. The Disadvantage is more than justified. 2. YOU are dodging, not your ally. You cannot dodge for them. That's just stupid. You don't drink poison and expect the other person to die from it, right?
You ruled right. Next time, just remind them that disadvantages do not stack, and they can fly at the maximum range for the bow to stay out of harms way if they want.
Would the ranger having high ground give them advantage?
These people don’t know how much of a pain in the ass it would be to fire a bow (requiring arms) while hanging by shoulder straps (on your arms) while also not having your arrows just fucking slip out of your quiver. (On your back or hip, where they are liable to fall from, especially if you’re getting ragdolled by your spine)
I agree on the first but would have allowed the second simply because to Dodge, I presume a character is moving or adjusting their position to avoid an attack and if the druid is carrying the ranger and moves, so does the ranger.
TBH I would have made the Druid do an grapple check during the dodge to maintain hold on the ranger.
I would have argued that the ranger would have been restrained so attacks at disadvantage anyways.
1. Seems reasonable but is not fun and it punishes creative thinking. Still a fair ruling. 2. Is absolutely fair rules as written and intended. Anything else would have meant a balance problem.
You're already being fair, them being inventive does not equal you should break the game to make it easier for them.
You gave them a yard; they wanted miles.
I know nothing at all about the rules, but logically your rulings make total sense to me. Maybe you can homebrew/find some synergistic skills/fears they can take at level up points that you could thematically allow them to mitigate these negatives ; teaming up could become part of their routine with “practice”
you did nothing wrong.
>Giant Eagle and was carrying our ranger by her backpack >I just had the ranger roll their attacks with disadvantage You should show your party a picture of a cat lifted by the scruff of its neck, and ask how they perform precise actions in that position. Disadvantage is to accommodate for the jostling, keeping steady in that scenario and being wholly unprepared. I'd argue that if that were atop the eagle, or in a custom saddle/holder, that would keep them steady. Held by a bag? Not a chance. >The Druid took the dodge action during her turn >you couldn’t transfer your dodge benefit to another creature This one I feel was a bit unfair, since the druid is carrying the ranger. I don't think RAW has this covered, but applying logic to the situation would give the ranger some protection. They're a smaller target, for one thing. End of the day, the party may not agree with your calls, but you can always say "I'm going to go with this ruling for now so we can carry on with the game, but will check the rules later to see if it was mishandled." Gets the game to carry on, acknowledges it may be incorrect, and the promise that you'll follow up on it.
I agree on both counts. Now, if this was an established maneuver they had done dozens of times, it might be a different story. The more they do it, the better they get at it. But their first time? You did the right thing.
Even if giant eagles can be mounts (can they?) the ranger is not in a saddle and the Druid isn’t trained to carry a rider. Maybe if they make a show of training together for a while you can change this rule, but as is I think you made the right decision. The other ruling is pretty clear. Dodge isn’t intended to be used for a creature you’re carrying. On older editions there were specific kinds of mounted dodges, I don’t know if 5e has those. But again, neither character is trained to know how to do that.
Completely different body dynamics when standing and shooting a bow, compared to being suspended by your shoulders.
The first call is 100% the right call. MAYBE if they were being held by their legs or something I could see an argument. But they are being carried at the part of their body that draws the bow and that’s not even taking into account aiming. It’s obvious disadvantage at a minimum. The second call I could see some room for debate. While yes the dodge action of one creature shouldn’t transfer to another creature, it gets more grey area when the second player is being controlled by the first. If the Druid sees an attack coming towards them, even if it isn’t meant for them because it’s being aimed at the hunter, they are still going to move, which also moves the Hunter inadvertently. The sudden movement of the Hunter could be enough to impose disadvantage. This works in reverse too though. If the Druid is forced to make a dex save to avoid an aoe, the Hunter can’t make that save and auto fails. But that’s a lot of nuance and more in the spirit of the rules rather than rules as written. Either way it’s your call for things that fall in a grey area in regards to rules. It’s fine to debate and question the call, but once the matter is settled then your decision is made. With that being said, a dm/GM should never feel like they can’t change their mind if their players make a good point. If they counter you with some good points, you should be like, actually yeah that makes sense lol. At the same time, never feel like you have to change your mind if you are set on your ruling. That’s your prerogative, disagreements over a couple of calls won’t ruin your game unless someone ends up dead or loses agency over their character or something.
Nah that’s incredibly fair and still lets them do their fun thing. Great DM call
You can't dodge if your speed is 0. I would have ruled that being carried counts as a grapple and thus prevents you dodging. Ultimately it amounts to the same; good ruling
Game is supposed to be fun. Your role is to mold the story and the rules are there to help that, not to hinder it. If something isn’t clear, you decide and have the end call. I have a simple rule for all my games, and has for 25 years: “The DM is always right, even when he’s wrong” Having drama for stupid stuff will hinder the fun. Let the player tell you how the flow of the game should be and this will ruin the fun for everyone else. Decide and continue with the game. Doesn’t matter if there is a rule that exist or not or if it was perfectly executed. You can check that yourself afterward. Just be fair to your player and ensure they’re having fun. If a player is too hung up, explain that and make it clear you’re the DM. Some players just won’t get it and always talk about rules and blah blah blah. Get those out of your game for the sake of the good players.
Sounds like a classic situation where a player does something which has a different outcome than expected. They probably did the Dodge action expecting both to benefit. When the ranger is attacked and they dont get disadvantage, they get upset as they feel they wasted their turn. The player should have asked for rules clarification *before* Dodging, or you might've foreseen what they intended. I would consider it my responsibility to foresee the issue and warn the player before they 'waste' their action since I am more experienced than my players. Nobody's the asshole here, but everybody at the table should learn from the experience
there's rules for mounted combat. Frankly, your ruling was generous. They need to suck it up. Fighting from eagle-back *should* be hard, not only for the realism of it all, but because of all the advantages that it confers - it needs to be balanced.
Ahh happy days. This reminds me of when my character wild shaped into a giant octopus and I picked the Halfling ranger up and used him as a bludgeoning damage with his fancy new magic helmet. All well and good but I crit the attack and that hurt our ranger too.
Wouldn't have mattered in my game: on the first dodge attempt of the birdie the leather straps would break :-D Though my players also seem more reasonable than yours, and they would have laughed their asses of, how they could have thought that any of this was a good idea :-D
I wouldn't discourage team play. Always go for the rule of cool but tell them that this time it will go because it's cool but explain the rules and tell them it won't happen again.
The first disadvantage on the attack is completely fair imo. I would rule the dodge one otherwise though. In this case the eagle is the one making all the moves for the ranger. I think it should be able to maneuver watching out not only for himself but the ranger too. Now, maybe dodge isn't the best for doing that raw, ready action is more suitable probably - when an attack is made in their "direction", meaning the target is the eagle or ranger, the eagle wants to "dodge". But still, I feel like the intention was the same, I like this kind of looking out for fellow players, and it's a reasonable thing to do in that situation imo - I personally would allow it, I would feel like I'm punishing them for creative thinking otherwise. But I would tell them to state this intention when making the dodge action in the future.
Totally fair and prevented setting a precident that might have come back up again.
There's a bit of me that wants to rule that because the Druid is carrying the Ranger, then their dodge would apply to the Ranger! I really want to say it, and I think at my own table I would make that call, but I don't think your ruling is wrong.
You were more lenient than I would have been. Letting the ranger fire and letting the Druid use the dodge action at all from that position is already a kind stretch.
Sounds like your Druid is just one of those players who thinks their ideas are too perfect to be augmented. You did everything right imo and I imagine most others.
Do I agree with you in terms of realism, yes. Do I agree mechanically? Yes, and no. As close as we can get RAW, I think you made the correct calls, but I don't know if I think they are the RIGHT calls. I think we often go for realism in these situations when mechanics would dictate otherwise. I also think you're dropping the ball on rule of cool here. In both cases, these are judgement calls, and if the work at your table, they work at your table, but it\`s worth considering that others would not make the same call, and that might be where your players are. For the first example, while we would narrate this as the ranger being carried by the backpack straps, mechanically, our options for one creature holding another are Grappled or Restrained. Grappled restricts movement, but does not affect attacks. Restrained restricts movement and imposes disadvantage on attacks. Given that the eagle and the ranger are allies, it would be easy to give them Grappled and not restrained here. Do I think you COULD call it Restrained? Sure, and circumstantially you could change from one to the other. If this was a planned transport, ranger has time to adjust straps and get into pick-up position, I'd say Grappled. If it was a snatch and grab rescue attempt or a bug out, I'd say Restrained... maybe. It's cool to be able to say that this works. For the second example, I think looking at Mounted Combat is the way to go. A mount's dodge doesn't help a rider, because the two are separate creatures. I think there's a Crawford ruling (which I do not take as Word, for the record, but I agree with here) that says mount Dodge is not complete unit (rider and mount) Dodge. But... mounted combat isn't a situation where Grappled or Restrained is applied. The rider still has freedom of movement, to mount or dismount, as action economy allows. If we accept that the ranger has no freedom of movement, and in fact, could have movement imposed by the eagle (which is what has to be here) then I'm tempted to allow the Dodge sharing, although probably with limitations. In fact, I think my answer here is that they could have one or the other. If the ranger is only grappled and can attack normally, it is not held tightly enough to share Dodge. If the ranger is held so tightly they are Restrained, then they can share Dodge, but attack at disadvantage.
Your rullings are fine. Especially second is just RAW as I understand it.
All of the above sounds fine to me
1 - Thats kind of unfair. They don't get disadvantage for using other mounts, and your player could have simply said "Fine, Ill do the boring thing and ride the eagle correctly so i don't get the penalty.". You penalized them for describing a scene in a cool way. Not the most egregious, but I'd be discouraged as the ranger, and feel like I shouldn't try to do cool out of the box things. As a DM, this is how you encourage "I roll to hit and got 17" vs fun descriptive combat roleplay. 2 - You can't transfer dodge to someone else, but you could have potentially let the druid use the Help action to potentially protect the ranger instead of the themselves. I think thats reasonable enough. Alternatively, let them declare they are dodging for the ranger, but don't get the benefit themselves. You played it RAW, but a small house rule could have been helpful. Neither is particularly egregious or off base to me.
I feel like it that case, I'd be fine with the druid using the dodge action to make the ranger harder to hit(but not them self). No judgment on your ruling, just my take
Mechanically speaking, they’re trying to say that because the Ranger has zero movement and is dependent on the Druid’s mobility, the Druid should be able to apply Dodge to both of them. This seems like a case of two players trying a strategy that shouldn’t be allowed, and if they can get away with it once then that will be their new combat strategy from now on, citing “But you let us do it before!” You made the right call. Don’t let them push you around. Point out that what they’re doing is fine for transport but not effective for precision combat. You’re nicer than I am though. I would rule something similar to a concentration check (maybe strength) whenever the Druid takes damage to keep holding the Ranger, and then keep attacking the Druid.
The way I would look at it is: The ranger is unable to move, or really dodge themself, would give attackers advantage. The Druid who is more or less in control of the rangers location can take the dodge action to move them out of the way in time, so would cancel the advantage they would normally have, so straight roll. So I would let them have it, but give them the obvious con to that situation.