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

[Derren]

The issue is relying on "fixes during play." A DM should not rely on it. A DM should be knowledgable of most of the common rules issues and describe their fices well ahead of time.

It hasn't anything to do with fixes, but just how people interpret the word "afflict".

 

[Paraxis]

Hiya.

With regards to the whole "player expects X, DM says Y...now player is screwed/upset" thing.

If a player has a character that relies primarily on some particular "schtick", the moment his butt hits the seat he should ask the DM how certain rules are applied. For the 'thunder cleric' example mentioned above, the *player* needs to ask the DM how he interprets X, Y and Z. For the thief trying to do the shadow-attack-backtoshadow thing...definitely ask the DM. If you are playing with a new DM, s/he doesn't know what your characters method operandi is...so it's your job to inform them so you all know what to expect. If it turns out to mess with your perfectly chosen skills/stats/feats/whatever, then you have time to adjust your play style...or at least you know what to expect.

Sure if you are going to build a character for an ongoing campaign with the same DM you should ask how certain things interact, but isn't easier to just have good well written rules that are the standard and everyone knows how they should interact with each other so that new players don't have to play 20 questions with the DM about ok what about this exploit? no, ok what about this build? this feat combination here? how do you adjudicate X?

Besides, if someone has built a character around some particular "build", "tactical method", or "rules exploitation"...then finds himself in a game where that's just not going to work because of the DM...well, that's not the DM or the rules being "bad". Maybe the player should have concentrated on making an interesting and in-depth character, and not just a collection of specific stats and abilities. If you want to do the whole "perfect build" thing...5e isn't for you (generic 'you'), go look at 3.x/PF/4e (it seems to be built perfectly for that).

5e is very much for me, and when I play I always build, exploit, power game, min/max my characters and have done so since 1e days. Your way of making characters is not any better or more fun than mine, so maybe you should get off your high horse there buddy. As an aside, my min/maxed build characters do have interesting and in-depth backstories and personalities. You can roleplay and rollplay at the same time, especially considering all the building/tweaking/exploiting/min-maxing happens away from the gametable, not when everyone is together and roleplaying.

So lets not tell people they are playing wrong or playing the wrong game.

 

[Minigiant]

It hasn't anything to do with fixes, but just how people interpret the word "afflict".

If the player brings a PC who can "afflict", the onus is one the DM to define "affict" before play.

The second I show the DM that I prepared Contagion, he or she should have before or right then explain his adjudication.


Adjudication upon casting should be for improvised actions, crazy stuff, and the things the game never intended to cover.

 

[Mistwell]

Several posters have flat out said that you automatically should trust the DM. I asked above if that trust was a two way street.

Yes, of course. Again, you're playing with friends, you should trust them to not be jerks. And if you are playing with strangers they are your peers, at a public event likely, and so you should go in assuming they are trustworthy adults (or adult enough to participate in this kind of game). But yes the initial basis of trust isn't in the rules - the rules could be for any RPG. The initial trust is because you're adults willingly participating in a game for entertainment, likely with friends.

Most people seem to have no trouble with organized play as well, for any RPG, regardless of how rules-intensive or rules-lite or rules-clear or rules-vague. If you find you're repeatedly having trouble with organized play, stop doing organized play and focus on creating your own game with your own friends. And if you don't have any friends, or friends willing to play with you - that probably says you need to work on that more.

On some level, when people repeatedly have trouble getting along with others and they blame it on "playstyle differences" or "the rules were too vague", it's probably your own responsibility. Anyone can have one or two groups that just don't work out, but if it's happening a lot and you feel it's so dominant in your experiences that you want to turn to "the rules" for a basis in mutual trust, odds are the rules (regardless of the RPG) won't help either.

And that goes for the whole group, Players and GM/DM. It's not an adversarial game...there are no "two sides" there, you're all playing the game together.

 

[Trainz]

It's worth mentioning that the dawn of 3E was just a titch prior to the spread of internet forums; the only real D&D community online that I remember from that period was the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd.

I remember those usenet days fondly, as I remember your insights and the good laughs we had.

Me, I'm seeing the shift as a refreshing change, but one that I know carries with it its own inherent issues. The min/maxers will still min/max and cause problems for games they play in, they'll just have to go about doing it in a different way.

After the rules bloat of 3.5, and the accounting nightmare that 4th ed was, I'm definitely having a nerdgasm, so is my group.

And once the splatbooks start getting churned out...

We don't need no stinkin' splatbooks, but I'm going to buy them all the same.

 

[Eric V]

For example, Attack + Hide every turn doesn't normally work in my 5e game. But a player wanted to do this. So I created a shadowdancer subclass for him. Other PCs can't attack+hide vs the same guy over and over. But HE can.

Just out of curiosity, do you not allow Rogues of level 2+ to use their bonus action to Hide after having made an attack and a move?

 

[Authweight]

The issue with RAI is that the I part is often nowhere near as clear as some people think it is. A good example of this was an argument I saw here about whether a monk should be able to knock the tarrasque prone with one of his ki powers. By RAW, he clearly could. A lot of people argued that this was patently ridiculous and abusive, but just as many felt that the result was entirely intentional and desirable.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to house rule things to fit their own game. But it bothers me a lot when people get called munchkins for just wanting to go by the rules in the book. I feel that house rules should be stated up front. I also feel that if a GM house rules something in the middle of a game, any affected players should be allowed the chance to switch their character in response to the new ruling.

I don't like the attitude that says the GM can just do what they want and everyone else has to deal with it. For this reason, the concept of RAW is important. Maybe you'll play it differently at your table, but we can all start with RAW as a baseline so we can make it clear what changes are being implemented before they come up in play.

Also, clear rules don't have to take away GM initiative. A rule can simply say, "the GM may decide what this means." That's okay - it is both clear and open-ended. What is bad is when a rule is open-ended because it is phrased poorly. That leads to unnecessary conflict. If you don't want there to be a RAW ruling on something, just say so in the rules, don't get there by creating confusion.

 

[Thank Dog]

5e is very much for me, and when I play I always build, exploit, power game, min/max my characters and have done so since 1e days. Your way of making characters is not any better or more fun than mine, so maybe you should get off your high horse there buddy.

Then your playstyle is what is putting you into conflict with others. Blaming the system for those conflicts isn't fair or reasonable. If you're going to deliberately "exploit, power game, min/max" your characters then you have to expect some pushback from people who realise that and you can't expect the system or other players to conform to what you think the rules mean.

Playing in organised play means working within the confines of the situation. I have numerous characters that I'd like to play but not all of them suit organised play. So I do what most people would do in that situation. I don't play them.

 

[Minigiant]

Just out of curiosity, do you not allow Rogues of level 2+ to use their bonus action to Hide after having made an attack and a move?

They can attempt to use Cunning action to hide. I just rule that the people they hide from must have something at least middling distracting happening for it to even work or the rogue must continue to move while hiding.

A nearby ally of the rogue is usually enough.
But you can't simply stab an ogre, jump behind a rock, and squat there expecting the ogre to not know you are behind the rock. The ogre can't see you but your aren't hidden until something happens to make your position suspect.

 

[Aenghus]

I greatly value transparency and clarity in rules, so much so that I haven't bought 5e because it isn't transparent and clear. I want a ruleset that can be used as written without constant adjustment and tweaking. I don't expect perfection, but my sense of aesthetics can't handle sloppy rules writing, and there is loads of unnecessarily ambiguous writing in 5e.

Badly written rules are easier to ignore or overrule - I don't see this as an advantage.

I realise I place a higher value on clarity than some others. I'm just stating my opinion. YMMV