D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Reynard]

I think, ideally (IMO of course), the DMs line of thought and inquiry should be "how can I make your action fit into what I think is going on in the fiction..." And the DM should work with the player to get the action to fit (in a way they both conceptualize working) .

I think that is the opposite of ideal. The GM is the players' senses and if there is a disconnect it is because the GM failed to sufficiently describe something. The GM should dial back a little and reiterate the scene framing to make sure the player understands the scenario well enough to make a choice.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To often, I see DMs act as goalies, who think their job is to intercept/disallow any act that doesn't fit their idea of the fiction/what's going on.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disallow that action declaration as it doesn't fit the fiction and it isn't consistent with verisimilitude.

Goalies block. Defensive backs intercept.

 

[Maxperson]

Just because you've pulled one weed from the garden it doesn't mean you stop pulling.

Depends on if you smoke it or not.

 

[Mort]

I think that is the opposite of ideal. The GM is the players' senses and if there is a disconnect it is because the GM failed to sufficiently describe something. The GM should dial back a little and reiterate the scene framing to make sure the player understands the scenario well enough to make a choice.

Part of working with the player is ensuring that the scene was described well enough for them to make a proper choice.

Often, when a player responds with an action the DM thinks "doesn't make sense" it is directly because the DM didn't describe/frame the scene as completely/well as they thought they did. So I agree with you, and I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me (maybe I didn't frame describe my response as well as I thought I did and need to make sure we're on the same page).

Let's take the OP. Clearly Mercer thought a 35 foot tall monster was kaiju level big and wouldn't be subject to stuff like sentinel. But to many, 35' isn't THAT big and it clearly should be (subject to sentinel). Had the monster been 300+ feet tall, we probably wouldn't even blink at his ruling - that's terrain level big. What we have is a disconnect in framing/description between player and DM need to be on the same page here.

 

[Reynard]

Part of working with the player is ensuring that the scene was described well enough for them to make a proper choice.

Often, when a player responds with an action the DM thinks "doesn't make sense" it is directly because the DM didn't describe/frame the scene as completely/well as they thought they did. So I agree with you, and I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me (maybe I didn't frame describe my response as well as I thought I did and need to make sure we're on the same page).

Let's take the OP. Clearly Mercer thought a 35 foot tall monster was kaiju level big and wouldn't be subject to stuff like sentinel. But to many, 35' isn't THAT big and it clearly should be (subject to sentinel). Had the monster been 300+ feet tall, we probably wouldn't even blink at his ruling - that's terrain level big. What we have is a disconnect in framing/description between player and DM need to be on the same page here.

I think we are on the same page. I probably assumed some tone that wasn't present.

Conceptual size is actually very difficult to square with rules. I was once running a high level fight versus an ancient dragon (before I understood what chumps MM dragons are). When I imagine ancient dragons, I think of Lodoss War city busters, because that is the aesthetic I grew up with and love. So when the PCs cast force cage on it I was both surprised and miffed. I checked the size of the spell versus the size of the dragon and yup -- it fit. I could have leaned on the description I had going (it being the size of a castle) but since I was running it from the book stat wise, I did not feel I could nerf the spell like that. It was also early 5E days and I was still in a mental GM mode informed by 3.x/Pathfinder where the rules were king. I would do it differently now.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

It's simple. If I remove a single feat from martials and a third of the class(assuming the ability to cast 9th levels spells) from spellcasters, there's no possible way it can be perceived as being aimed at martials or hitting martials harder. It simply can't rationally be perceived that way. This guy is trying to tell me that I'm being harder on martials if I do that, and he's flat out wrong and misrepresenting.

I think your bias is really showing. First comparing a martial feat to a cantrip, and now this, when a martial only gets a few feats while a caster gets tens of spells (and scrolls and wands)... and those spell slots aren't even gone, they just cannot directly remove the problem, but can still be spent in alternative ways (buffing, healing, utility like teleporting).

You may not set out to hit one type of players more than the others, but that's what the end result of this type of misjudgement is.

 

[Hriston]

I was watching the Critical Role special from Wembley, and there comes a moment where the party is fighting a kaiju-sized opponent and a character, Bo, tries to use a reaction attack from the sentinel feat to stop it moving after another party member. The attack is successful, but Mercer immediately overrules it, asking the player (his wife) “how do you do that?”

I've only skimmed the thread, but if I was this player, I'd look at the feat on my character sheet and say, "I use a technique I've mastered to take advantage of our enemy dropping its guard."

The feat gives the player access to a metagame in which they are empowered to rely on a couple things being true in the fiction: 1) that their character has mastered a technique that reduces any enemy's speed to zero for the rest of the turn by hitting it with an opportunity attack, and 2) that the enemy drops its guard to facilitate the use of the technique.

 

[Gorck]

My take away from Matt’s decision is: while I’m perfectly fine with the last 2 bullet points of the Sentinel feat, the first bullet point should include one of the following:

A) a size limitation (…if the target is one size larger than you or smaller)

Or

B) a saving throw to avoid the speed reduction

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, I'm not in favor of removing functionality from one of the few defender options left to fighters.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Look, if Sentinel cannot apply to big things, then it cannot stop ghosts either, or things with multiple legs, or oozes, or... basically half of what DnD people end up fighting.

It is also one of a very few non-spell features in the whole game that lets a warrior apply any control (and even that is just to one thing per round).

I'm fine with banning things from games (looking at you, Guidance), but it should be done before the game even starts, so people looking to, say, be a knight who seeks to protect others, know not to make that kind of a character.