D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Definitely a situation that should be addressed in the rules, I agree, and if a player was doing that, I would probably rule in their favor. But that's a different situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

It certainly makes the experience richer. And why would a GM that allows someone to use magic like that in their setting even ask that question? This seems quite hypothetical to me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Did she provide an explanation like that?

IMO she shouldn't have to. Anyone at the table could justify it, and so could the DM. It's not like she has to wrestle the monster. She has to stop it from moving forward for a few short seconds - most sensibly by distracting it (but even that could be done in a myriad of ways). Heck, even if NO ONE at the table can come up with a reasonable answer, it's STILL perfectly reasonable to think that the character knows a way that none of US do. She's the one that fights giant monsters, after all. Not us.

 

[James Gasik]

It certainly makes the experience richer. And why would a GM that allows someone to use magic like that in their setting even ask that question? This seems quite hypothetical to me.

That's really the point though. GM's don't tend to ask players how their magic does things. So why ask a player who decides to roll Fighter how intricate combat maneuvers work? It's like demanding a Bard player be able to sing or play a lute IRL.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If a DM pulled a stunt like that, it would be my last night at that table.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's really the point though. GM's don't tend to ask players how their magic does things. So why ask a player who decides to roll Fighter how intricate combat maneuvers work? It's like demanding a Bard player be able to sing or play a lute IRL.

Yeah, "I want you to sing well enough that I feel healthier!"

If a DM pulled a stunt like that, it would be my last night at that table.

In the very least you should be able to tell the DM off for arbitrarily nerfing your fighter's abilities. It was a bad ruling, I think, but sometimes DMs (being people) make mistakes. You should give them a chance to own it, but yeah, if they won't back down? I can understand moving on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's really the point though. GM's don't tend to ask players how their magic does things. So why ask a player who decides to roll Fighter how intricate combat maneuvers work? It's like demanding a Bard player be able to sing or play a lute IRL.

Because they are different things. Fighter maneuvers are not supernatural constructs, and there should be a possible explanation for how they work. I don't want mechanics to override the setting.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

"I yell 'Oh, no, you don't, big boy!' as it tries to step over my and I hit it with Sentinel."
"How does that work?"
"I don't know, maybe I pissed it off enough to make it pause and consider me a nuisance?"
"OK, cool, it uses its legendary reaction to stomp on you."
"Um... yay?"

You don't need a physics explanation, just one that makes sense in the game you are playing.

That's EXACTLY how I imagine it going if it were MY game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, "I want you to sing well enough that I feel healthier!"


In the very least you should be able to tell the DM off for arbitrarily nerfing your fighter's abilities. It was a bad ruling, I think, but sometimes DMs (being people) make mistakes. You should give them a chance to own it, but yeah, if they won't back down? I can understand moving on.

There was, IMO, nothing arbitrary about it. I'm sure Mercer didn't feel his ruling was arbitrary either. That is a subjective opinion.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So my question is: when do you feel justified overruling RAW?

When RAW just doesn't give a plausible result, similar to Mercer's complaint. (That said, I think I could have justified the attempted action, as both a player and a DM. A level 20 hero knows a lot about how to use weapons to get the effect they want in combat.)

Most recent example: In a play by post game I'm running, the PCs scattered caltrops on the floor. An animated suit of armor came marching through to attack them. By the RAW, the caltrops should slow it, which -- to my mind -- requires it to be slowing down from pain. But animated suits of armor are basically crude magical robots. They will certainly get damaged by the caltrops (a little), but they're not smart enough to go "ow, this sucks, I'm going around a different way."

Similarly, caltrops by RAW should slow oozes or swarms, which is hard to picture.

So I ruled that caltrops don't slow the armor and wouldn't slow other creatures where it was hard to make the logical case for it, even if, from a game standpoint, they would.