firm rulings

nswanson27 · Mar 22, 2016

So I know that 5e is all about "rulings, not rules". However, it seems to me like the very nature of AL either requires firm rulings on certain things (that a DM is not allowed to go against), or you end up getting an inconsistent play experience across different DMs that IMO breaks the immersion and "fun" of adventuring in certain situations.
I'll grant for minor things, is isn't a big deal. But suppose I have a battle master that takes disarming strike as one of their maneuvers. It's easy to see that the value of that maneuver greatly depends on whether or not the PC is allow to pick up the disarmed weapon. Otherwise, the enemy can just pick up the disarmed weapon using their free action, and continue as normal. In other words, one day disarming mechanic works one way, and the next day (to my character's dismay and bewilderment) it works another way. I don't see any upsides ways to spin this to make this "fun" for players.
It's impossible to know what future DMs that I've never met will rule on it, and rather than risk it, it makes me not pick that maneuver at all. Since AL already limits on what DMs can do with regards to magic items and rewards, why not limit them on certain rulings that creates such scenarios for the players? I'm not suggest that there are a lot of these, just the most egregious examples.

Pauper · Mar 22, 2016

The argument I've always heard is 'where do you draw the line?' What's egregious for one player might not matter to another, and vice versa, so if you start issuing rulings, you get requests to basically issue 'all the rulings', because to someone, that ruling is a possible game-breaker.

As for the specific question about Disarming Strike, the obvious answer is that, if picking up the weapon would be 'interacting with an object' for the enemy, it should be that for you as well, and thus if you have a free hand, you should be able to pick up the weapon yourself. This means you'll have to give up AC or damage to perform this maneuver, but that's part of the give-and-take that you get within the game rules; nobody is or can be good at everything.

--
Pauper

ccs · Mar 22, 2016

Why wouldn't you be able to pick up the enemies weapon?

nswanson27 · Mar 22, 2016

Pauper said:
The argument I've always heard is 'where do you draw the line?' What's egregious for one player might not matter to another, and vice versa, so if you start issuing rulings, you get requests to basically issue 'all the rulings', because to someone, that ruling is a possible game-breaker.

As for the specific question about Disarming Strike, the obvious answer is that, if picking up the weapon would be 'interacting with an object' for the enemy, it should be that for you as well, and thus if you have a free hand, you should be able to pick up the weapon yourself. This means you'll have to give up AC or damage to perform this maneuver, but that's part of the give-and-take that you get within the game rules; nobody is or can be good at everything.

--
Pauper

Picking up a dropped object is explicitly listed as something you can use your free action for (Basic rules. pp.70). You don't sacrifice anything (damage or AC) to do this. But anyways, I've read on various forums and threads that your "obvious" interpretation is not so obvious with many DMs, as they say that they won't allow players to pick up enemy's weapons - hence the need IMO for rules that forbid DM's to do rule this in AL play. I don't mean to single out disarming strike - it's just a clear example of a larger issue that I'm trying to bring attention to.

delericho · Mar 22, 2016

nswanson27 said:
So I know that 5e is all about "rulings, not rules". However, it seems to me like the very nature of AL either requires firm rulings on certain things (that a DM is not allowed to go against), or you end up getting an inconsistent play experience across different DMs that IMO breaks the immersion and "fun" of adventuring in certain situations.

I think that "inconsistent play experience" is a feature of 5e, not a bug. And although it's less-than-optimal for AL in some situations, I suspect that's also considered a price worth paying to get away from some of the micro-managed rules of 3e and 4e.

nswanson27 · Mar 22, 2016

delericho said:
I think that "inconsistent play experience" is a feature of 5e, not a bug. And although it's less-than-optimal for AL in some situations, I suspect that's also considered a price worth paying to get away from some of the micro-managed rules of 3e and 4e.

I disagree. AL already crosses this line with limiting what rewards DMs can give out, as well as the plot context that they must stay in. What I'm suggesting is still very far away from "micro-managing". How is "inconsistent play experience" supposed to be a good thing? Do you have a reference for this, or is this just how you personally feel?

delericho · Mar 22, 2016

nswanson27 said:
How is "inconsistent play experience" supposed to be a good thing? Do you have a reference for this, or is this just how you personally feel?

It's a feature of 5e in general - that the DM is empowered to make the rulings that suit his table. A natural consequence of that is that different DMs will make different rulings, which will therefore give an inconsistent play experience.

What I'm suggesting is still very far away from "micro-managing".

As long as it's one or two rulings, that's true. But if that list of "firm rulings" becomes very long then it will restrict the DM's ability to rule for himself.

(And, yes, those "firm rulings" will become de facto rules for a large number of tables, and not just AL tables, in the same way Sage Advice is given rather more weight than is due to "just one guy's opinion".)

Pauper · Mar 22, 2016

ccs said:
Why wouldn't you be able to pick up the enemies weapon?

Mainly because his character is probably either sword-and-boarding or two-weaponing, and doesn't have a free hand to do it with, hence my response.

--
Pauper

nswanson27 · Mar 22, 2016

delericho said:
It's a feature of 5e in general - that the DM is empowered to make the rulings that suit his table. A natural consequence of that is that different DMs will make different rulings, which will therefore give an inconsistent play experience.

Except that they can't give rewards outside of what's prescribed, nor go outside of the plot that's prescribed. That's what makes AL distinct from general 5e play. If you are going to take issue with what I'm suggesting, then you should be taking issue with those things as well by the same reasoning.

delericho said:
As long as it's one or two rulings, that's true. But if that list of "firm rulings" becomes very long then it will restrict the DM's ability to rule for himself.

(And, yes, those "firm rulings" will become de facto rules for a large number of tables, and not just AL tables, in the same way Sage Advice is given rather more weight than is due to "just one guy's opinion".)

Agreed. From what I've seen there aren't very many of these that would be needed to ensure mechanical consistency of characters across play scenarios. But to be clear, these need to be firm rules, not just "weighted rulings". Otherwise the problem still persists.

delericho · Mar 22, 2016

nswanson27 said:
Except that they can't give rewards outside of what's prescribed, nor go outside of the plot that's prescribed. That's what makes AL distinct from general 5e play. If you are going to take issue with what I'm suggesting, then you should be taking issue with those things as well by the same reasoning.

The difference is that if I make a ruling on whether you can or can't pick up a disarmed weapon, that has no lasting consequence beyond the session - when you sit down to Bob's session next week, it will all work fine.

If I give you out a whole load of extra treasure then that does persist beyond the session, potentially skewing the results in all future games. And if I divert from the plot, especially in the current season, then I've potentially just derailed the over-arching story of the season.