D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[James Gasik]

So the lack of any visual image of how something a PC wants to do would actually look like isn't a problem?

Isn't it up to the DM to describe the world to the players?

 

[Maxperson]

I feel justified overruling RAW when it conflicts with a clear RAI. That's why the whole "this darkness spell creates light!" argument in 3.X never bothered me. The terminology was clearly intended to mean that it lowers the ambient illumination by one level (according to the game's listing for degrees of brightness) and was simply poorly written, assuming that the area was brightly lit by default. So yeah, "it makes a pitch-black area become shadowy" was never an idea that flew at any table where I was the GM.

For me neither RAW nor RAI really matter. It's all about if the rule makes sense for a situation or not. If RAW comes up with a circumstance where following it would be nonsensical, I will overrule it for that circumstance and similar circumstances in the future. And what the originally designers intended doesn't really matter to me if it conflicts with what makes sense.

 

[MGibster]

Naturally, I'm reminded of a sidebar in the original Spelljammer boxed set, "The Adventurer that Fell to Earth", where they discuss the fact that technically, a character could survive a fall from orbit. That didn't mean the DM had to allow it!

Palladium gave similar advice. A GM wrote in complaining that his player characters would do things like jump on grenades knowing they could take the damage and it was no big deal. While there are some Palladium games out there where such actions would be reasonable, this GM was playing one of the games where such things wouldn't be reasonable. Palladium's advice was to do one of the following: Apply any damage from a character deliberately laying on a grenade to their hit points instead of their SDC (this would be more likely to kill the character.) Option two was to simply say the player character dies. The reasoning behind their advice is that the rules assume characters are actively trying to avoid damage. If they're going to do something suicidal then let them die.

 

[overgeeked]

I feel justified overruling the RAW whenever the RAW produces dumb results. Unfortunately, depending on the game, that can be fairly frequent.

I do think Matt should have listed that as something the kaiju was immune to when Beau used extract aspects on it so she wouldn’t have wasted the re-roll. As much as the ruling makes sense, it feels kinda lame to burn resources to no effect. That said, giving her back the re-roll would make the most sense.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"You have treated this fun game like a fun game. Prepare to die, obviously."

 

[overgeeked]

the issue ismagic is magic and therefore doesn't have any 'realistic limits' that it needs to conform to and is thus much more free to perform whatever nonsense the players desire it to as the DM doesn't need to square it with their preconcieved notions of what's possible like they do with martials as magic specifically does impossible things

Simple solution: every PC in D&D is magic, regardless of if they cast spells. Looking at the mechanics of the game, this isn’t a stretch and reading the fluff this is explicitly the case.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Isn't it up to the DM to describe the world to the players?

In 5e, specifically, the DM narrates the results, of player actions, yes.

So the lack of any visual image of how something a PC wants to do would actually look like isn't a problem?

Since 3e, D&D has prettymuch let players describe things about their characters as they like. So even if there were a visual image, it wouldn't be unfair to substitute another. Conversely, if there were a specific image, it would doubtless also be used as grounds to deny the use of the feat.

Sentinel says "You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard" - so, I suppose that covers just about anything you might do. The Kaiju steps over your character, leaving vulnerable spot exposed, you stab it, it rears back in pain and surprise - damage, 0 movement for the rest of the turn. Doesn't seem hard to come up with.

Really, the only thing implausible about all that is the Kaiju ever having it's guard up against such a relatively small foe, in the first place. It'd've been as reasonble to have ruled her able to use Sentinel every round she stayed adjacent to the Kaiju, and just driven it crazy until it finally took the trouble to stomp her flat.

 

[iserith]

I stick to the rules. I can't recall a time I overrode them knowingly in play. In the example in the OP, we'd just have to imagine what it looked like and settle on something that was exciting and memorable. What the DM says, the players say, and the rules contribute to what emerges in play. I don't really find there's a reason to overrule them when the fiction is so malleable.

 

[James Gasik]

Simple solution: every PC in D&D is magic, regardless of if they cast spells. Looking at the mechanics of the game, this isn’t a stretch and reading the fluff this is explicitly the case.

It is, and the PHB actually says as much in the sidebar on The Weave in Chapter 10. You will, however, get a lot of people who will happily refute this fact.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Palladium books has, lets just say, famously bad mechanics - but in their Beyond the Supernatural (2nd Edition) they have a neat innovation.

PCs powers "scale up" depending on the level of the supernatural threat. So for example, when things are "normal" a telekinetic will have to expend huge resources (PPE in this case) to move a penny. But when things get "weird" (direct supernatural threat) that same amount of PPE can move a car. It's an interesting take.

How very...narrative.