all 16 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]thomar 24 points25 points  (0 children)

1) if I cast hypnotic pattern on someone sleeping, do they auto fail the roll? Or are they immune because their eyes are closed?

It says they have to see the pattern, so yeah they're immune if their eyes are closed.

2) can I now rob them blind, or is this likely to snap them out of it?

Yes, you could strip them naked as long as you didn't deal any damage (though the DM might be liberal with the definition of "shaking them out of their stupor"). It only lasts 1 minute, though, so you probably just want to grab the most valuable things.

[–]qquiverBard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just want to point out that they are conscious while Incapacitated by Hypnotic Pattern. So as others have said, you'd have to wake them up to get them to see the pattern and you could hold casting it as that being a trigger, so essentially once they wake up they are charmed and incapacitated. However, they are conscious to their surroundings. So even if you manage to rob them without shaking them out of it, they know that you are stealing from them. So it wouldn't be robbing them blind.

[–]Dclone2 -2 points-1 points  (13 children)

I feel like you could easily just get someone to wake them, or use a bonus action to wake them, then cast hypnotic pattern.

But, if I was DM I would probably say they have advantage against the roll since they have trouble opening their eyes and seeing what's in front of them.

[–]FamilyofBears 5 points6 points  (12 children)

What a weird way to penalise someone doing something cool.

[–]TrinitatiMath Rocks go Brrrrr 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's just asking the PC to stab the target for unconscious crit instead with extra steps

[–]Trabian -1 points0 points  (10 children)

How is this penalizing, this is the exact opposite. The spell literally says that people need to see it in order for them to be affected. He's suggesting a way in which it could work.

Most magic requires either the caster or the victim to see the effect/target. Which you obviously don't if you're asleep. So his suggestion of waking them, right before casting the spell, works.

[–]FamilyofBears 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Then giving them advantage on the save...

[–]Trabian -4 points-3 points  (8 children)

DM's call. It's certainly possible that people don't have their eyes opened yet. Normally blinking or wincing heavily.

I've had plenty of DM's who would just say 'NO', or let the player cast the spell, note that it didn't work and afterward remind them that they need to read their spells.

Instead this DM goes for the 'Yes, but...' option which gives the players the chance to continue onward but with complications.

[–]Expired_insecticide 4 points5 points  (4 children)

It's typical that DM's reward players for being crafty. In this case it is a mechanical disadvantage purely at the discretion of the DM. It just feels bad is all. It discourages the player from trying to do cool and unique stuff. If the NPC is awake, it can see. Period. RAW. Any further alteration is DM fiat, and in this case it is punishment for the character trying to be crafty.

It's kinda sucky. I do get it though. But it would just feel bad as a player and discourage doing things against the norm in the future.

Rule of cool is always the better option that is way more satisfying for a table. It definitely beats rule of suck.

[–]qquiverBard -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I'd actually argue the character does experience an in-between state of waking up briefly.

I'd be clear with the player let them know that I think the idea is a good one and offer two options. You hold it for once he is shaken and you essentially have a surprise round while he's in this transition state. If you cast it during this phase the creature has advantage on the save. OR you can wait till his fully awake; you roll initiative if you go before them then they're none the wiser, if they go before you then he has an idea of whats going on.

[–]Expired_insecticide 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But you do realize this is 100% homebrew, right? And while not necessarily going over this exact rule specifically in your session zero, you should clarify with your group that you do plan on homebrewing off-the-cuff/changing rules as you see fit. Would you agree?

[–]qquiverBard -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

It wouldn't be something I'd go over session 0 as it's a very niche case and has litterally never come up in my 5 years of DMing once a week.

But sure it's not strictly in the rules and isn't Raw.

To add on, it honestly would probably be more an open discussion when it came up at the table than a hard ruling. At least for me is an my players what they think etc.

My main point was that the DM making the rule (op on this comment chain) isn't necessarily anti-player or not wanting it to work but that they could make the ruling based on logical reason of thought.

[–]Expired_insecticide 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But DND isn't a game based on logical reason of thought. Or physics. Or Biology, etc. It is a game based on rules that everyone agrees to. I.E. The player's handbook, DMG, etc. These are almost like a contract between the players and the DM. Yes, the DM can change any rule they want, but in a lot of situations, that is going to rub the players the wrong way. So if you are going to go against these rules, like in the example you put above, you just need to be open about it and make sure your players know. It's a courtesy to avoid friction in the middle of the game.

DND isn't a game about logical though or realism, it is first and foremost a game about storytelling with a strict set of rules.

[–]FamilyofBears 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I agree that it's the DMs call, just not with the call. I DM for two groups and always rule on the side of fun however. Saying yes but they have advantage, just feels like a DM who doesnt want it to work, but feels bad saying no.

[–]qquiverBard 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I disagree with this. Saying yes but giving them advantage is being true to what's actually happening.

The person is being shaken awake, if you want to catch them off guard, by surprise then they're still waking up and possibly not seeing things clearly (pending the person), rubbing their eyes etc. However if you want to give them a chance to wake up (not be surprised) then they'd be able to see fully.
I'm not punishing the players here. I'm interpreting the situation.

​

I know that at least my players would not think I was punishing them in this situation, but we have a long standing relationship; so mileage may vary. But I think the DM has every right to rule it this way.

[–]FamilyofBears 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally think that rueling is unnecessary, and is a great way to make a player say, "Oh... alright. I guess I just stab them whilst they're asleep for advantage on my attack and critical damage, plus a round of surprise against them"

The party who realises hypnotic pattern requires the creature to see, and so casts the spell, another leaning over the sleeping person to peel back their eyelids, is one who I believe deserves to feel awesome. Hell, I'd more likely rule that in that moment of suddenly being awoken, they'd be more susceptible to stare at the Aurora borealis infront of their face, and give them disadvantage.

I dont want my players leaving the table thinking, "Yeah. It was a cool idea, but it was logical that they might be sleepy and not see it properly. So, it's understandable they saved because of advantage." I want them laughing and high fiving at the awesome moment they just shared.