D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Clint_L]

This isn't like someone swapping their spell list out today! Surely in your mind you could have said "Gee, I wonder how that Sentinel Feat is going to affect my encounter?" well in advance?

No, I actually don't think it is reasonable for the DM to think through all of the the essentially infinite combinations of feats, spells, abilities, and contextual situations in advance. At all. Unexpected are going to happen. All the time. And you have to react to them in the way that you see best.

 

[Mort]

No, I actually don't think it is reasonable for the DM to think through all of the the essentially infinite combinations of feats, spells, abilities, and contextual situations in advance. At all. Unexpected are going to happen. All the time. And you have to react to them in the way that you see best.

Sure, that's right.

Unfortunately, when it's not "magic" way too many DMs reaction is to disallow.

 

[Maxperson]

People say this but in my experience, at the table during play hits are described as hits, flying teeth and blood and all. I literally can't think of a time that a player or GM has described a hit as a "miss" to conform to the "glancing blow" nonsense.

I do it all the time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

(Of course what annoyed me more about that than the incident itself, was the internet reaction. There were a lot of "LOL Marisha so dumb" comments, even though her intuition of the rules governing the situation was perfectly correct, Matt just pulled the rug from under her. Smelled like misogyny. )

That's because it probably WAS misogyny.

I've been thinking about this thread, and I think my biggest problem with Mercer's ruling wasn't actually the ruling - if he wanted the monster to have the ability to negate Sentinel, he should have given IT the ability to negate Sentinel (even on-the-fly) rather than make her explain how she could possibly make Sentinel work, and then have it so that if she could not, it wouldn't work.

It's an order of operations thing that I think makes all the difference. She CAN use Sentinel. Then the Monster uses an ability of its (let's call it "Barge Through", for example, to keep moving (shoving her aside) and go where it wants to.

It winds up being the same basic effect, in that her Sentinel winds up not working as intended, but at least she doesn't feel like her play got shut down.

Note: I'm talking about a situation where the DM really doesn't want their monster to be stopped by Sentinel. I would probably just let it be stopped by Sentinel, were it me.

 

[Maxperson]

We're not doing reality, though. We're in a fantasy world where people's whole point is fighting godzillas, so I find appeals to 'it doesn't make sense for him to be able to stop Godzilla, after practising how to stop Godzillas' to be non-sensical.

The rules tell how the world works. The rules say the Godzilla stops. However you end up flavoring it.

Nobody trains to stop Godzilla. They trained of people roughly their size.

And again, since you ignore it, the DMG says otherwise. It tells the DM several different times to not be slave to the rules like you describe above.

 

[billd91]

I would, however, be pissed if the ruling was given after the *re*roll.

Well, it wasn’t like it was a complete loss. The reroll did turn a miss into a critical hit.

 

[overgeeked]

That's because it probably WAS misogyny.

It almost certainly was not. Would Matt have asked any of the guys the same question? Definitely.

I've been thinking about this thread, and I think my biggest problem with Mercer's ruling wasn't actually the ruling - if he wanted the monster to have the ability to negate Sentinel, he should have given IT the ability to negate Sentinel (even on-the-fly) rather than make her explain how she could possibly make Sentinel work, and then have it so that if she could not, it wouldn't work.

It's an order of operations thing that I think makes all the difference. She CAN use Sentinel. Then the Monster uses an ability of its (let's call it "Barge Through", for example, to keep moving (shoving her aside) and go where it wants to.

It winds up being the same basic effect, in that her Sentinel winds up not working as intended, but at least she doesn't feel like her play got shut down.

Note: I'm talking about a situation where the DM really doesn't want their monster to be stopped by Sentinel. I would probably just let it be stopped by Sentinel, were it me.

Sure. Something like using up one of its legendary resistances...or giving her back the re-roll...or both.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Nobody trains to stop Godzilla. They trained of people roughly their size.

Okay, my character is a monster hunter and trained to stop Godzilla. People roughly their size just get affected the same as a side benefit.

And again, since you ignore it, the DMG says otherwise. It tells the DM several different times to not be slave to the rules like you describe above.

Yes, we can houserule anything we want. Some DMs do so in order to attack and diminish martial players. This is not news to anyone, or an answer to anything.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It almost certainly was not.

Why do you think that? It's pretty built-in to society in general and fan communities even moreso.

Sure. Something like using up one of its legendary resistances...or giving her back the re-roll.

Yeah, exactly. In the very LEAST giving her back her re-roll! That's just MEAN otherwise!

 

[Mort]

That's because it probably WAS misogyny.

I've been pretty hard on the ruling, but that's a HUGE reach.

Forgetting everything else, the player in question was his wife. I'm quite sure he would have done the same (asked for a reason, likely said no) with anyone else at the table.