D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[nevin]

There's a RAW rule for targeting the nads?

no different that called shot to the vitals...

 

[nevin]

Yeah, I got that impression, that it was way too big and also a sort of amorphous creature. I know we could all use our imaginations to come up with some sort of rationale, but those guys are all professional actors so they are looking for more than that - they want something that preserves the coherence of the story they are creating. Which is my preferred way to play as well - I am very much of the "rules are suggestions" school that Snarf describes above. Not that I don't follow them most of the time, because most of the time they work great and it's easiest to stick with them. But none of us think twice about chucking them when they conflict with what makes sense to us in the story. Note that this tends to work in the players' favour a lot more often than not:

Them: "Can I try this thing that isn't covered in the rules at all (or even contradicts the rules) but would be super awesome in the story?"

Me: "Sure, let's figure out a DC!"

But keep in mind that I have also been known to substitute a jenga tower for difficulty checks and stuff like that in my D&D, so I'm not exactly a stickler.

I do miss the old 1st edition fights. Had a Dm go sweep everything off of his dresser into pillowcase and then throw his ring in it shake it up and tell the player if they could find the ring and put it on in 3 combat rounds he'd allow it. (after at least 5 min of heated argument). good times...

 

[Mort]

This, this though, this is accurate. There's some very stupid gaps in monster immunities/resistances.

Not here though, Ghosts are immune to the frightened condition.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Not here though, Ghosts are immune to the frightened condition.

Not accurate about ghosts in particular, but how, for example, skeletons/zombies are charmable/frightenable/sleepable etc

I'm not going to go through the monsters to list such, it's just something that keeps popping up. 'Looks like... that ability does work. Huh.' situations.

...or how that ghost, who is immune to being frightened, would still run away in fright if someone cast Dissonant Whispers...

 

[Mort]

Not accurate about ghosts in particular, but how, for example, skeletons/zombies are charmable/frightenable/sleepable etc

I'm not going to go through the monsters to list such, it's just something that keeps popping up. 'Looks like... that ability does work. Huh.' situations.

I mean if it's a clear mistake - sure.

 

[billd91]

I mean if it's a clear mistake - sure.

I'm not sure I'd characterize it a mistake, per se, as much as an "Ah, sure it'll do..." kind of approach.

It's true, 5e has a lot more of these kinds of things - monsters affected by things that make you scratch your head - than 3e did. But that was one of the criticisms leveled at 3e - too many special exceptions and detail for monster types to the point it was just hard to run. 5e simplifies by removing a lot of it under the assumption that a few head-scratchy moments is better than highly tuned monster classification rules. And in some cases overtuned as we saw with too many creature types immune to things like sneak attack - thus nerfing the much-improved rogue too much.

 

[Mort]

I'm not sure I'd characterize it a mistake, per se, as much as an "Ah, sure it'll do..." kind of approach.

It's true, 5e has a lot more of these kinds of things - monsters affected by things that make you scratch your head - than 3e did. But that was one of the criticisms leveled at 3e - too many special exceptions and detail for monster types to the point it was just hard to run. 5e simplifies by removing a lot of it under the assumption that a few head-scratchy moments is better than highly tuned monster classification rules. And in some cases overtuned as we saw with too many creature types immune to things like sneak attack - thus nerfing the much-improved rogue too much.

I actually like the 5e approach MUCH more. 3e got way too specific and exception based. I'd much rather get the occasional edge case - as happens with 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do miss the old 1st edition fights. Had a Dm go sweep everything off of his dresser into pillowcase and then throw his ring in it shake it up and tell the player if they could find the ring and put it on in 3 combat rounds he'd allow it. (after at least 5 min of heated argument). good times...

1e AD&D, one-minute combat rounds?

 

[nevin]

1e AD&D, one-minute combat rounds?

I'm probably screwing it up but i do remember he had less than a minute and he got so flustered it took him over 5 minutes to find that ring. If I recall he was falling to his death so probably how ever long the DM gave him to hit the ground.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure I'd characterize it a mistake, per se, as much as an "Ah, sure it'll do..." kind of approach.

It's true, 5e has a lot more of these kinds of things - monsters affected by things that make you scratch your head - than 3e did. But that was one of the criticisms leveled at 3e - too many special exceptions and detail for monster types to the point it was just hard to run. 5e simplifies by removing a lot of it under the assumption that a few head-scratchy moments is better than highly tuned monster classification rules. And in some cases overtuned as we saw with too many creature types immune to things like sneak attack - thus nerfing the much-improved rogue too much.

Not an issue I had with 3e. Bring back the monster classification rules!