D&D 5E Please understand your spells

[sunshadow21]

DMG, pg 5, 5th paragraph under "Part 3: Master of Rules". <-- basically says "You're the DM, you need to know the rules or where to find them if you don't".
----------------------------------------
On the first part...yes, you need to be a human reference sheet if you want to be anything even approaching a great DM. You can get by with relying on players for stuff, sure, but you (general "you", again) will never be a great DM. This is fine for most groups (hell, probably all groups!), but it doesn't change the fact that a truly superior DM will know the game inside and out. And the real test is, as always, "Is everyone at the table having a good time?". As long as that answer is "HELL YA!, then keep on keeping on. However...

Anyway, I still stand by my earlier post. A DM should know ALL the rules in the game (including spells, abilities, etc). It's how much of this knowledge that is accumulated that really helps a DM run a superior campaign. Of course, "should know ALL" isn't a requirement for playing in a D&D game and having a good time. Hell, some of the best times I've had playing RPG's is when we don't know anything about a new game and are learning it, fumbling our way around the rules like newborn kittens. But, as time goes on, we learn the rules. The DM/GM/Ref/Whatever needs to step up more and learn more stuff. If he doesn't, he's nothing more than "just another player, rolling dice for the monsters".

I agree with the part above the line, but not the part below. Most of the time, the best place to find information pertaining to what the PC's are doing in the middle of the combat quickly and efficiently is from the players themselves, not from having memorized the rulebook. I as a DM cannot and will not try to memorize every possible thing that each PC is capable of; I especially will never reach the point where I will be able to pull random spell A seen once or twice in an entire campaign out of my head when I am trying to focus on the NPCs and the actions of the other players in addition to what the player whose turn is currently is wants to do. The players have to meet me half way if there is going to be any hope of getting through any combat half way efficiently; I don't expect them to memorize everything themselves, but they need to have good notes and be using their time between turns reasonably effectively so that when their turn comes around, they can answer most questions I might reasonably have with a reasonable amount of time.

I need enough knowledge to understand when I need to look something up myself right then and there or when what my players tell me is enough to work with at that moment, nothing more and nothing less. I don't have to memorize the entire Player's Handbook to be a good, or even a great DM; what I do need is to get a good feel for when I need to worry about the rules and when I can get away with not worrying about every little detail. Knowing details about what each PC brings to the table certainly helps, but details about every single thing every single PC can do is not something I would ever even consider trying. I am not the one running them for a reason; I expect the person whose whole stake in the game is through that one character to be able to learn how to run that character efficiently just as I work to run each NPC and encounter as efficiently as my skills as a DM allow. If someone genuinely needs help and is simply taking a bit longer than the rest of the party to fully learn everything, I can live with that, but if I don't see improvement after I and/or the other players have helped them as much as possible, it will start to get frustrating very quickly, and I will likely suggest (and have with a friend that is currently playing an archer in a 3.5 game but is consistently having difficulty understanding the math behind it) that they try a simpler class of the same type in order to get the underlying mechanics down before trying to deal with the more complex or option filled classes. If another player (or in the archer example above, the DM, as I am just a player in that game) is willing to help out and it doesn't take too much away from the game to do so, it doesn't bother me, but simply by stepping up to DM doesn't mean that I am agreeing to babysit every character and memorize all of their potential capabilities. It helps, and a good DM will learn from their experiences, but in my experience memorizing the rules doesn't matter nearly as often as memorizing with it's reasonably safe to fudge (or even ignore) the rules, and when it's genuinely important to get the rules right the first time, even if it means stopping the game for 5 minutes to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The reason my take-away is what it is can be summed up in this one question: "continually, and without improvement" for how long, exactly?

These two statements are mutually exclusive: there either is a set schedule for improvement by which a lack can be noted, or it is not possible to both note a lack of improvement and that the lack is because of insufficient effort rather than insufficient time.

See, you're looking for a hard rule that you can then find an example of to show how it's unfair in whatever thought experiment you draft for the purpose. I'm operating on the fact that I'm a person dealing with persons with relatable life experience, and that I won't be operating in some vacuum of 'defined improvement only' and 'define timeline only' and will have access to such things as actual discussions with the player and with the rest of the group to fill in necessary holes in understanding and expectations.

So your answer is 'well, it depends on a bunch of factors that come up when your in a social interaction with a group.' I made my initial complaint because I have dealt with a situation where a player, that I knew and who had no impediments to learning, just refused to put any work into the game and took forever having to figure things out on his turn slowing down play. He doesn't play with us anymore (it wasn't a good fit). In my current group, I have a range of learning disabilities, and a player who, through no fault of their own, is slow on rules uptake. They make an effort though, and improve over time. I don't set a schedule for them.

Your complaint, perhaps... but the complaint which I originally quoted, and you joined the conversation regarding, I don't think that has been shown to be the case.

I should have started here. I'm struggling to figure out how I'm responsible for what other people said. I said my piece, and clarified it in the face of your first set of questions. Now you're holding me to account because I said my piece in a thread where other people also posted and I should have to defend their statements? I really don't see that happening.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

See, you're looking for a hard rule that you can then find an example of to show how it's unfair in whatever thought experiment you draft for the purpose.

I'm not.

I'm operating on the fact that I'm a person dealing with persons with relatable life experience, and that I won't be operating in some vacuum of 'defined improvement only' and 'define timeline only' and will have access to such things as actual discussions with the player and with the rest of the group to fill in necessary holes in understanding and expectations.

Yeah... sure... that's not any different from what I'm doing.

What does appear to be different is that I am envisioning this scenario in which the player is constantly reading the PHB and seeing that as evidence of the effort the player is making to learn the information, because not making the effort to learn looks a lot more like

Player: "I cast [insert spell name]."
DM: "...and what does that do?"
Player: "I dunno, it's an attack or something, right? You're the DM, you tell me."

And you aren't considering the reading the player is doing in the scenario to be such an effort to learn, so when I asked you how long seeing the player making effort to learn before you declare them disrespectful for having not made progress, you thought I was asking something else.

I'm struggling to figure out how I'm responsible for what other people said. I said my piece, and clarified it in the face of your first set of questions. Now you're holding me to account because I said my piece in a thread where other people also posted and I should have to defend their statements? I really don't see that happening.

You are not responsible for what other people said, and I am not holding you to account to defend anyone's statements.

I did, however, invite you to remember that even in posts which I am talking to you in that I am also able to be talking to other posters in, because at the time the question I had opened had yet to be answered by the person I opened it to, though you and I had resolved our own conversation on the topic.

 

[Uchawi]

and people wonder why they put a simplistic fighter class in the game

To piss off people that enjoy a complicated fighter. At least then you could have the same discussion, i.e. a fighter should know the maneuvers, etc.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Ok, I seem to be ruffling some feathers here. I'll try one more time.

A DM who knows enough to get by running a game is fine. That's all that is really required of a DM. Players who know enough to get by playing a character is also fine. That's all that is really required of a Player.

My contention is that a Player should, at some point, know all the stuff for his character. This takes time. Most players will read stuff "out of game" about their characters, but not all. As a player, they aren't held up to the same standards as a DM because they don't have to worry about, well, anything. A DM, however, doesn't get that luxury.

A Player who didn't read up on a couple of his characters spells is being a bit lazy, sure. But the DM is fully within his 'rights' to tell the player "Well, read it now. I'll let Bill do his attack. If you aren't done by the end of that, you miss your turn". Then, as DM, you just continue on with the game and everyone else. The player will eventually learn his stuff. A DM, however, who doesn't know what a spell does that his NPC is going to cast...well, he holds up the whole game, not just himself. An uninformed player is a speed bump; an uninformed DM is a brick wall.

If you (general you) don't want to put time and effort into mastering the game, that's fine...but don't expect your players to have to master their 'job' either. It's a two way street, but the DM's side just happens to have four lanes, a bike path and a railway.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[sunshadow21]

A Player who didn't read up on a couple of his characters spells is being a bit lazy, sure. But the DM is fully within his 'rights' to tell the player "Well, read it now. I'll let Bill do his attack. If you aren't done by the end of that, you miss your turn". Then, as DM, you just continue on with the game and everyone else. The player will eventually learn his stuff. A DM, however, who doesn't know what a spell does that his NPC is going to cast...well, he holds up the whole game, not just himself. An uninformed player is a speed bump; an uninformed DM is a brick wall.

You are right about DMs needing to be able to run their NPCs properly; the main contention in this thread is more about the degree DM's should be expected to cover learning gaps in the PC department. When it comes to NPCs, I agree with you 100%, although as I am just starting out, I do tend to have to ask for a bit more patience simply because sometimes the only way to learn how to run a lot of complex NPCs is to actually do it, and accept the inevitable failures as part of the learning process. When it comes to the PCs, I expect the players to accept similar responsibility for what is supposed to be their character. My point of view is that for the most part, whoever brings that character to the table, whether it be a NPC being run by a DM or a PC being run by a player, needs to be the one primarily running that character after a reasonable adjustment and learning period. There will be some exceptions and variances for followers, cohorts, hirelings, and the like which often can reasonably controlled by either DM or player based on the situation, but overall, that basic principle applies. I don't like bringing NPC's to the fight if I am not comfortable running them for this reason, and if I do, I will ask for a bit of slack for that combat precisely because I am aware that things are going to be slower on my end; I also expect that if I do that too much consistently I am going to have some annoyed players. Similarly, I am willing to give players a bit of slack occasionally as they learn, they do eventually need to be able to run their character compentently with minimal help from others. Someone wanting to play a caster is going to either have to memorize the spells or learn how to take good notes in order to not bog down combat, and if neither of those is possible, they need to switch a simpler class for a while.

The comment about different tiered players earlier may have been a bit more blunt than necessary, but it's not far off the mark. Many players simply cannot effectively run mid or high level casters, and only just barely get by at the low levels. Good players learn and grow and get better at it, but some players simply don't, and the group has to decide whether it's worth it to carry them and basically run their character for them or get them to play something else. There isn't one set place where the difficulty becomes too much, but there is definitely that line that certain players cannot cross without putting the rest of the group in a difficult posiont of trying to figure out how to respond.

To the OP, try working with the player in other ways first, but at the end of the day, don't be afraid to tell him that he needs to play something else if the problem persists. Letting the problem drag on and fester will simply cause more problems.

 

[n00b f00]

If a player who only has to control one PC, and has multiple characters acting ahead of them. Is consistently waiting for their turn to start thinking about their choice. Whether it is asking what spells they have, looking up rules and effects, or just having to be retold what is happening in the scene. I'd be incredibly frustrated too. Everyone does it some time. But if you're checked out when you're not playing, and your turns take 20 times as long as everyone else, everytime. Then I would recommend taking corrective steps.

 

[Nellisir]

Hiya.

Ok, I seem to be ruffling some feathers here. I'll try one more time.
...
If you (general you) don't want to put time and effort into mastering the game, that's fine...but don't expect your players to have to master their 'job' either. It's a two way street, but the DM's side just happens to have four lanes, a bike path and a railway.

That's an interesting "try".

If you've memorized every spell in the PHB, every magic item, every psionic effect, and every maneuver, oath, feat, and what-have-you, then my hat's off to you. I haven't and I'm not going to. If that means I'm not a great DM in your eyes, I'll be consoled by the fact that it's extremely unlikely that we're ever going to cross paths.

That said, there's the reality that if there are 6 players at the table, and each takes an equal turn, 5/6th of your time can be spent looking up spells, and 0/6th of mine can. So yeah, I'm going to use you to do some of the gruntwork and double check the exact rules relating to drowning when Barbie the Barbarian has unexpectedly opened a portal to the elemental plane of water. I'm NOT stopping the game. That's the whole point of relying on the players to do some research for me. THINGS KEEP MOVING.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Isn't the solution here to sit down the problem player and say 'hey man, combat is taking ages because you don't know the spell list very well, what can we do to help make combat faster?'

That said, there's the reality that if there are 6 players at the table, and each takes an equal turn, 5/6th of your time can be spent looking up spells, and 0/6th of mine can. So yeah, I'm going to use you to do some of the gruntwork and double check the exact rules relating to drowning when Barbie the Barbarian has unexpectedly opened a portal to the elemental plane of water. I'm NOT stopping the game. That's the whole point of relying on the players to do some research for me. THINGS KEEP MOVING.

Yeah I do this all the time - if it's not imperative to have the answer right this second tell the player who's turn it just was to look it up while you facilitate the next guys turn. No-one minds this and it saves a ton of time (particularly when playing a new system).

 

[Tyranthraxus]

I had this issue last night. THe Druid cast Thunderwave and started rolling to hit. Then I asked 'Why are you rolling to damage

'Oh thats right its 2d8 damage' So '12 damage' . I asked 'Is there a save'? 'Ummmm' Multiple people scrambled to check.