D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[SkidAce]

Yes, the DM rules, but as a player, I find the DM stepping in and changing what I understand the rules to be against me to be less then fun. Having understood rules is more fun then depending on the DM's common sense.

What about the times where the DM agrees and decides with you? In other words, why is this concern usually expressed as player versus DM? Maybe the DM is also tired of people -reinterpreting what the understand to be the rules.

Work it out together...if the DM is ALWAYS ruling against the player's interpretation, then there's a different problem.

 

[aramis erak]

Y'know, I think I was mixing him up with MSB, Terry wasn't exactly a pit bull.

As for where he is now, wasn't he big into Chivalry & Sorcery? Does C&S have any sort of online fandom these days?

There is some. It's just not where most D&Ders will see it.

 

[billd91]

Also it leads to vast differences in game play at different tables, this can be an issue when joining multiple groups through either organized play or online play.

I'm going to go right out and say this is a good thing. People need to learn to be more tolerant of differences in play styles and interpretations.

 

[Thank Dog]

I'm going to go right out and say this is a good thing. People need to learn to be more tolerant of differences in play styles and interpretations.

I'm playing in a game at the moment where we rolled stats and are rolling hit points. It's something I truly hate with a fiery passion. But... I'm... trying... to... deal... with... it...

 

[billd91]

I'm playing in a game at the moment where we rolled stats and are rolling hit points. It's something I truly hate with a fiery passion. But... I'm... trying... to... deal... with... it...

Good! Have fun with it.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to go right out and say this is a good thing. People need to learn to be more tolerant of differences in play styles and interpretations.

Does that include DM's?

After all, from what I'm seeing here, is that if I'm playing at a bunch of different tables, I'm expected, as a player, to automatically trust the DM and go along with whatever rules interpretations that DM chooses to make, regardless of my own experience.

I'll give you an example. I was playing at a table where it came up, in the middle of play, (this was a 4e game) that a roll of a 1 on a skill check was an automatic failure. Now, that's is specifically not RAW. That's not true in 4e, nor is it true in any edition of D&D ever. And, IMO, it's very much against RAI too since it means that no matter how expert you are, you still fail trivial activities 5% of the time.

Now, what should I do? What is your advice here? Should I just nod and smile and "trust the DM" here? Or should I bring it up (maybe after the session) and point out that the DM is actually factually wrong here?

How far does being more tolerant of differences go?

 

[Thank Dog]

After all, from what I'm seeing here, is that if I'm playing at a bunch of different tables, I'm expected, as a player, to automatically trust the DM and go along with whatever rules interpretations that DM chooses to make, regardless of my own experience.

Has anyone aside from you actually said that? I know I haven't. I said it's up to the players & DM.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yes it has and 5E didn't change that of what i can see rules still get interpretated as they are written with the new system, its just that some rules are written with less clarity and thus are more open to interpretations, including varying ones, because of their imprecisions.

RAW is an excercise of interpretation of rules-as-written, and some rules have multiple RAWs instead of just one. This IMO create more problem than it solve any, because the less interpretation variation a rule or game element has, the less argument about its functioning there usually is IMX. To take a simple exemple, nobody argues how Shove works because it has only one interpretation of how its resolution works and its usually adjucated the same way across all tables.

Personally i prefer clearer rules as they more easily fade into the background IMO, being less of a source of arguments. While 4E had its goods and bads, the clarity of its rules made it, among all of them, the edition with which my group had the less arguments at the table and i'm probably not the only one.

I prefer DM interpretations to come into play for rules or situations not covered by the books, not for unclear rules functioning or interactions purposefully written so that they're more obscure and subject to (mis)interpretations. While i really like 5E, it's probably one of my biggest gripe about it.

 

[Eric V]

This has been my experience as well. Some things should be vague (like Background bonuses, which can be used as "plot advancers" and such) and work better that way. Math-related stuff? Um, no. I should know what my toon's AC is, and I shouldn't need the DM to tell me, and it shouldn't vary from table to table.

Some spells having some vagueness in some of their aspects is cool since it lets players try to be creative.

One thing I have noticed with RAI, is that it tends to advantage spellcasters. Because we assume more familiarity with non-casters than other classes, RAI, IMO, tends to apply "realism" to those classes and not others. The recent example of the monk prone-ing the Tarrasque is an example, (even though the monk's ability is clearly supernatural!)

That's my experience anyway. I have been playing since AD&D

Yes it has and 5E didn't change that of what i can see rules still get interpretated as they are written with the new system, its just that some rules are written with less clarity and thus are more open to interpretations, including varying ones, because of their imprecisions.

RAW is an excercise of interpretation of rules-as-written, and some rules have multiple RAWs instead of just one. This IMO create more problem than it solve any, because the less interpretation variation a rule or game element has, the less argument about its functioning there usually is IMX. To take a simple exemple, nobody argues how Shove works because it has only one interpretation of how its resolution works and its usually adjucated the same way across all tables.

Personally i prefer clearer rules as they more easily fade into the background IMO, being less of a source of arguments. While 4E had its goods and bads, the clarity of its rules made it, among all of them, the edition with which my group had the less arguments at the table and i'm probably not the only one.

I prefer DM interpretations to come into play for rules or situations not covered by the books, not for unclear rules functioning or interactions purposefully written so that they're more obscure and subject to (mis)interpretations. While i really like 5E, it's probably one of my biggest gripe about it.

 

[Paraxis]

Lets take a look at a feat from 5e that I have seen some different interpretations of.

Polearm Master
You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:
• When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
• While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.


So I see the RAW of this feat as your bonus action attack with the polearm as the following.

• Bonus action attack does d4+str mod damage.
• Bonus action attack has reach
• Bonus action attack is with a two handed weapon so things like great weapon fighting style apply to it.
• All magic modifiers on the polearm apply to the bonus action attack.

Now some of the various interpretations I have seen of this feat include some or all of the following.

• The bonas action attack doesn't add ability score modifier damage.
• The bonus action doesn't add magic weapon bonus to hit/damage, or extra damage like flaming.
• The bonus action attack doesn't have reach.
• The bonus action doesn't count as a two handed weapon attack.

So if you are a player say in the organized play program and you built a character around this feat, like a tempest cleric that can add thunder damage to every attack with a weapon, but by the virtue of organized play every month it is under a new DM, your power level with something as simple as your standard attack action changes so drastically it is mind boggling.

Clear RAW is very important to some people, and doesn't matter much at all to others. But the thing is to those who it does matter the game needs to be clear and consistent in it's design and wording, to the others it doesn't matter they will just play it the way the want with inconsistent writing or not. So make the game clear and consistent with a goal of rules first design it makes everyone happy.