D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

[Sadras]

@Maxperson's "time travel" argument relies on a distinction between rolling to hit and rolling the damage. I'm curious what he says if there is no damage roll.

Someone casts a Charm Person spell on your character, do you wait until you know if you fail the saving throw before deciding when to Counterspell? Same with hit rolls and damage, you're hit - either cast Shield and protect yourself, or take the damage and miss the opportunity to cast Shield.

And more generally, I find it interesting that Maxperson is very quick to tell us how the 5e rules should be understood (on this thread vis-a-vis clerics and warlocks; on another current thread vis-a-vis initiative), and yet is revising/ reinterpreting these various rules because they don't fit with his picture of how the game works. That's not necessarily a fault in his picture, but it does strongly suggest that it's not a very good picture of 5e! (If there are all these features that it can't handle.)

My personal opinion and why I do not get involved in these kinds of discussions, clerics/warlocks, urchins, champions, initiative is that there is no real benefit to gain from these, to any party involved. There is no learning experience.

EDIT: To add, 5e as it is has its faults, but for me (a) it has many of the best parts of 2e-4e, (b) is the easiest of the systems to tinker with, (c) it is light for DMs, and (d) the books are inspiring. IMO 5e provides the best picture of the D&D game.

Do I really care what a poster's definition of a street urchin or champion is? Or what a person's view on what initiative symbolises? Or how one comes to worship deities/serve patrons for clerics and warlocks and how active they are at someone's table?

 

[pemerton]

you're hit - either cast Shield and protect yourself, or take the damage and miss the opportunity to cast Shield.

But that principle doesn't tell us whether or not the damage gets rolled before I decide!

Here's one way to look at it - I'm more likely to cast Shield if the arrow is coming for my head than my thigh. And one indicator of that - in D&D - is the damage roll.

 

[Sadras]

But that principle doesn't tell us whether or not the damage gets rolled before I decide!

Well, on the Paladin's Divine Smite ability, one may activate it on a successful hit. Is this not an indication that the attack and damage are resolved separately? Just imagine the player who hits decides to use his Divine Smite (rolls well) and the DM goes, sorry Shield, you miss.

Here's one way to look at it - I'm more likely to cast Shield if the arrow is coming for my head than my thigh. And one indicator of that - in D&D - is the damage roll.

Sure, one can twist and tease the narrative in a plausible way to gain additional meta knowledge to assist in their decision making process. At our table we try as best to limit meta knowledge (player knowledge or otherwise).

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, most of the reaction type powers in 5e specify that you use the reaction power before damage is rolled. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is right on this one.

 

[Nagol]

Why would a king have a champion that would lose to the barroom bully?

Why did Arthur pick Galahad? Why pit David against Goliath?

There are nearly an infinite number of reasons. Of the top of my head:

• It's been granted to a young cousin. The position is both ceremonial and prestigious. Who is their right mind wold challenge the king? It's unheard of.
• It's been prophesied.
• The champion is a fraud/misidentified a la Brave Little Tailor or The Inspector General.
• Posting this person bought the favour/was the price for a necessary political move.
• The next challenge needs to be lost to pull off a political stratagem.
• No one else would take the role.

Each of these reasons has a plethora of possible conditions and interesting initial conditions for a scenario.

 

[Maxperson]

What if it's an attack that does a static amount of damage? (Eg a blowgun)

It doesn't matter. After the damage has been applied, it's too late.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet I suspect that many of us are also primarily the DMs as well. So maybe it is not the DM we distrust, but, rather, the culture of attitudes and privileges surrounding and imparted into the role.

Unless that "culture of attitudes and privileges" is abused, there's zero reason to distrust it. This distrust is nothing more than an assumption that the DM will act in bad faith. You're basically claiming to distrust the sword, and not the person who is wielding it. The sword doesn't do anything by itself.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]And more generally, I find it interesting that Maxperson is very quick to tell us how the 5e rules should be understood (on this thread vis-a-vis clerics and warlocks; on another current thread vis-a-vis initiative), and yet is revising/ reinterpreting these various rules because they don't fit with his picture of how the game works.

Why is that interesting? Just because I understand RAW, doesn't mean that I agree with RAW in every instance.

That's not necessarily a fault in his picture, but it does strongly suggest that it's not a very good picture of 5e! (If there are all these features that it can't handle.)

There is absolutely no relationship between not liking some parts of RAW and not having a good picture of 5e. I can count on one hand the number of RPGs that I haven't had to engage house rules on, and have four fingers and a thumb left over. I can also count on one hand the number of RPGs I have had a bad picture of and still played, and have four fingers and a thumb left over.

I don't play games I have a bad picture of, and no RPG is perfect.

 

[Maxperson]

But that principle doesn't tell us whether or not the damage gets rolled before I decide!

Here's one way to look at it - I'm more likely to cast Shield if the arrow is coming for my head than my thigh. And one indicator of that - in D&D - is the damage roll.

And yet the arrow coming for your head can be a glancing blow that does a single point of damage. And the one for your thigh can hit the femoral artery critting you for 16, and put you on the ground making death saves.

 

[Aldarc]

Unless that "culture of attitudes and privileges" is abused, there's zero reason to distrust it. This distrust is nothing more than an assumption that the DM will act in bad faith.

It need not be abuse. I have reason distrust it when I see people in this thread feel threatened by the DM having less authority or by players expressing desire to have some semblance of authority beyond their character. I have reason to distrust it when DMs express hostile territorial behaviors regarding their role. I have reason to distrust it when DMs condescendingly speak of their players and insist they know what's best for their players. I have reason to distrust it when DMs likewise speak of players from an inherent position of suspicion and distrust. I have reason to distrust it when DMs speak of the game as theirs and not a game shared by the players. If you want to falsely reduce my issue to an assumption of "bad faith" and "abuse," then you are welcome to continue holding that grossly false belief.

You're basically claiming to distrust the sword, and not the person who is wielding it. The sword doesn't do anything by itself.

I do not want to get into a sword control debate. I would say, rather, that while despots may be moral and enlightened people who act in good faith and in good rulership, I nevertheless prefer systems of government where there is a greater distribution of governing power among the masses than what despotism provides.