D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah if you are going to do that then you need to do the same for magic users.

Why? It's not the same issue.

 

[delericho]

I try really hard not to overrule RAW once play has started. I do maintain a list of campaign rules that I count as RAW.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps. I've seen Critical Role enough to know when Mercer asks a question like that - it usually means your chance of success is at/near 0%. He's actually quite conservative on his game rulings (at least last I saw, haven't watched the current campaign at all really).

I agree with @James Gasik. Questions like that HEAVILY over penalize martials. The answer really is - because I can, that's why.

It's not even silly. In a world where massive monsters exist, maybe people learn weak spots that "real world" people don't have to bother with.

But to answer the OP. I'll overrule RAW when it leads to an unanticipated/absurd/unfun result, 99/100 I will not overrule it AGAINST a player.

They penalize martials, but I wouldn't say they overpenalize them. He gave her a chance to make her case, after all, and she couldn't do it.

 

[Mort]

Why? It's not the same issue.

Of course it's the same issue. The characters are living in the same world.

It's blatantly unfair to have 1 set of characters be able to get away with just about anything because "it's magic..."

and another set of characters have to have every one of their abilities/actions have to get through the DMs "does that make sense..." filter.

Take the OP case. The ability says what it says, why not just rule the PC (upon a successful attack) hits a vulnerable spot in the foot (or whatever) of the gargantuan creature - enough to make it pause. Easy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem with this is that Sentinel doesn't have any limitations to it's ability, unlike other Martial abilities (see my Pushing Attack example, above).

Sentinel's text:

You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits.

• When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
• Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
• When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Adding a "this has to make sense to me" as an additional limitation, then asking the player how their ability functions is simply unfair. Do we ask the Wizard to show us how to make a fireball with spell components? Do we require Fighter players to be master swordsman IRL before they can play their characters?

It's a roleplaying game, where you assume the role of a character who is, almost assuredly, more competent than the player at their chosen field. The player might not know how it works, but surely the character does!

If someone asked me your Fireball question, I could give them an answer that makes sense in the context of the setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, fine, you throw a ball of guano & sulphur at them, they're a bit put out by it, but y'know, magic is real.


Is it that hard to imagine a tiny enemy inflicting an unexpected wound to a tender area causing a much larger foe to pause in it's forward progress for the better part of six whole seconds?
Has no one unexpectedly stepped barefoot on a d4?

Did she provide an explanation like that?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I try really hard not to overrule RAW once play has started. I do maintain a list of campaign rules that I count as RAW.

Agreed. I think consistency is a really... er... critical part of DMing. If I sometimes overrule RAW to the detriment of the players, players may start to wonder or even doubt what their characters can actually do/attempt. That's something that would be the antithesis of a desired play experience, IMO.

 

[James Gasik]

Hey, it's hard to be tiny. Imagine seeing that move in a movie. How would it be depicted?

Stopping an enemy's movement with an opportunity attack? I'm sure I've seen duels where someone puts their blade to an opponent's chest or throat so they have to stop moving or they take a critical wound.

 

[James Gasik]

If someone asked me your Fireball question, I could give them an answer that makes sense in the context of the setting.

But should you be required to, in order to play a Wizard?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course it's the same issue. The characters are living in the same world.

It's blatantly unfair to have 1 set of characters be able to get away with just about anything because "it's magic..."

and another set of characters have to have every one of their abilities/actions have to get through the DMs "does that make sense..." filter.

Take the OP case. The ability says what it says, why not just rule the PC (upon a successful attack) hits a vulnerable spot in the foot (or whatever) of the gargantuan creature - enough to make it pause. Easy.

Magic has its own set of rules. Fairness doesn't enter into that in this situation. You want spells to be less effective? Make them so. But as it stood, she wasn't able to provide an explanation more convincing than, "the rules say I can".