D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Mort]

I had a player that was one of those players that would try to do things way outside the rules all of the time. So I would tell them no, the game doesn't work that way and ask what they were trying to do. Based on what they were attempting I'd see if there was some way we could get close to what they were attempting but sometimes the answer was no. Want to swing from a chandelier even though there's no rules for it? No problem, give me a check. Try to do something completely outside of the capability of the character? I'm not going to be an "always say yes" kind of DM.

Limitations on what PCs, and trying to solve situations within those limitations, is part of the fun of the game.

Sure, but I think here is a bit different.

Here It's not saying to the player "What you're trying to do isn't RAW or even close..."

it's "I know what your trying to do IS RAW but I'm going to disallow it because..."

The latter is likely to happen MUCH less often. If it's happening a lot there is likely some kind of major disconnect between the player and DM - and that needs to be ironed out.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

To be fair, nothing was hurting that monster until they figured out the puzzle. Even when the paladin?barbarian? dropped 160 points of damage in 2 attacks, it just kept on going. I'm pretty sure it had quantum hit points and in that light not letting her stop it with a pointy stick doesn't seem out of place. I bet it would have shrugged off a restraining spell, too.

Again, then it's not HER inability to reasonably affect it that should be in question, it's how the monster shrugs it off. IF I were going to rule that way, I'd have said, "You get in its way (like you usually do with Sentinel) and it shoves past you, the ground rumbling as it moves as you are pushed back and to the side by its pure might."

It's the same result, but avoids the question, "How do you do THAT?" with the implication that she should know better. Which led, sadly inevitably, to the mockery she received online.

IMO, one wants the PCs to be awesome, and sometimes the monsters to just be MORE awesome. Not to make the PCs suck in the face of awesomeness.

 

[Reynard]

It's the same result, but avoids the question, "How do you do THAT?" with the implication that she should know better. Which led, sadly inevitably, to the mockery she received online.

To be clear, I think Mercer was being a bit of a jerk there (and it appeared she thought so too). Also, I don't follow CR closely so I don't know what kind of mockery she got, but knowing the internet it was probably not just unfair but gross. I wish there was an answer beyond "eff those people."

 

[Reynard]

Do you happen to remember which episode this was? More context might be useful.

This was the Wembly Stadium special. The big fight starts at something like the 3 hour mark (it is time stamped on YouTube).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Session 0, the DM should explain to the players how they will invalidate that player's choices and actions to match their personal aesthetics whenever they want without warning.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

But that's not a flaw in description, that's a disconnect in what different people think the implications of that description are.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Be that as it may, the time to announce such a rule change is before the player has even selected the feat, and definitely way before they've committed their reaction to using it!

It's very likely that no one had tried to use sentinel on a creature that large before.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But part of the discussion is when to override RAW and does doing so tend to affect certain classes more than others.

For example, you mentioned you don't cap falling damage. And falling damage is an interesting case.

Casters tend to have an easy solution - feather fall -makes up to 5 people ignore 600' of falling damage.

non-casters have to rely on their HP. Admittedly falling over 200' is fringe case, but most of these will be (when discussing ignoring RAW).

I don't think that is part of the decision. The setting exists independently of the PCs in my view.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I maintain: IF you are going to overrule RAW in a situation like this (and I probably wouldn't) THEN give your monster the ability to "Stomp Over" obstacles (including PCs) in its path, rather than directly nerfing your PC's abilities. It's just better form. It gets you to the same (perhaps, in your mind, verisimilitudinous) place, but lets your player know that it's a one-off based on THIS monster's awesomeness, and not "Your abilities now suck."

 

[Mort]

But that's not a flaw in description, that's a disconnect in what different people think the implications of that description are.

Depends on what or how the scene was described. Besides if there is a disconnect on the implications of the description your still facing a disconnect between the player and DM. IF there's a disconnect, then you're going to have misunderstandings on what's actually possible in any given situation.