5e Players Surrounded by spears and combat breaks out!

[stoutstien]

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


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

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

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

Question two: is this narrative particularly meaningful?

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

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

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

[RifleAvenger]

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

The DM job is to describe the situation, then the players decide what they do, DM resolves and describes the results of the action. There other jobs like pacing, presenting challenging, and meaningful choices but it all goes back to basically describing the scenario and describing the resuts.

I think it's fine for the GM to be a storyteller. They just have to remember that tabletop RPGs are interactive and collaborative stories, and the players control the main characters. The GM is still the "chief" storyteller in most systems, as they control the world and most of the people in it; however, they don't control the players (or their PC's) and should pay attention to what both players and PC's WANT OOC and IC respectively. At my table, that means working a player's desired character arc for their PC into the plot or at least allowing it as a side story.

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[Amechra]

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

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

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

...

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

[col_impact]

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

Or disengage and ignore all OA's.

Also, there's no "longspear".

[stoutstien]

Or disengage and ignore all OA's.

Also, there's no "longspear".

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

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

[Hail Tempus]

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

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

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

Yeah, agreed. Bullywugs are a CR 1/4 monster. A dozen of them are a medium encounter for a level 3 party. They have multi-attack, but their bite does 3 damage and their spear does 4. Intimidating, they're not.

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

[Doug Lampert]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

[Demonslayer666]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question two: is this narrative particularly meaningful?

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

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

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

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

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

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

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

My 2 copper.

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[BullyWog]

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

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

[Kane0]

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

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

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

[Demonslayer666]

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

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

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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


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

[LordCdrMilitant]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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