D&D 5E Adjudicating Unusual Actions

[Celebrim]

There's nothing wrong with a gonzo campaign, they can be fun. I want my campaign a little more based in reality.

The problem I have with a gonzo campaign is that they have implicit or explicit meta-rules like "the rule of cool" or more likely "the rule of funny" where rulings are made based on the GM's desired outcome rather than based on any sense of fairness. This makes it almost impossible as a player to predict how a GM is going to rule because "cool" and "funny" are such subjective things - imagine the GM has a sadistic streak for example.

There are an almost infinite number of problems with the ballista strategy. First, it's not going to be easy to hit a flying target with a large siege weapon. So I'd pretty much be expecting the PC's to spend a 'True Strike' or other spell resource to get this to happen outside of luck.

But this also has to happen with the ballista trailing a stout line. Weight matters here, so range has to be more or less point blank or that ballista bolt is running out of energy. If this isn't a silk line or other high quality rope, I'm applying penalties even to a point blank shot . And getting that point bank shot probably involves luring the dragon successfully in some manner, and that involves a beast that has super-genius level intelligence and the eye-sight of an eagle. So unless there are some really good distractions going on, that dragon knows exactly what you are up to and will bemusedly counter your plan.

And hopefully your amount of spare line exceeds the range of your shot, otherwise you just found a really interesting way to violently trip yourself.

Then the ballista bolt has to actually get lodged in the dragon, which for me would be a damaging critical hit. And there aren't a lot of ways to ensure critical hits (for very good reason). Most plans would just fail here. The bolt did hit point damage but not enough to become lodged.

But even if you do lodge the bolt in the dragon, nothing suggests that that line suddenly going taunt isn't simply going to rip the bolt free. That's a tremendous amount of third derivative of velocity with respect to time going on here. There is also the problem that if the bolt doesn't rip itself free, the second weakest point in this system is the PC. Hopefully they didn't tie the knots wrong, and hopefully they tied it around a durable part of their body. If it is around their leg or something, the next fortitude save is going to be for their hip socket.

But even if by a miracle this all works, the dragon is a four legged beast with manipulative digits and a serpentine neck and a very high intelligence. The PC is just separating himself from the party at a high rate of speed in an environment he has no real movement rate in. The PC has definitely not thought this through, as the dragon can certainly bring more resources to bear in this situation than he can. This is creative suicide, not a heroic action.

 

[Oofta]

I suppose. Ranged trip attacks would be incredibly useful. So much so I'm surprised bolo's aren't more of a thing.



Historically speaking, there are at least some attempts to weaponize dust as a tool for distracting and debilitating opponents. And certainly from the perspective of genera emulating where we are going for verisimilitude and not realism, "sand in the eyes" is a common trope that you can expect players to want to duplicate in play.



Certainly in the movies they do it all the time, although at times you'll see the good guys do it as well - I'm pretty sure I've seen Kirk do it in an episode of Star Trek. There is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have a bad guy whose shtick is "dirty fighter".



No.



Yes.



You should read my link on resolving stunts included in an earlier post. While the discussion is centered on my house rules (it's part of the text that is intended to become my version of the DMG), the sort of worries you have here are expressedly covered.

I'm most familiar with 3.Xe and its variants (like Pathfinder). I'm completely comfortable generating rulings that manage to say "Yes" without making them go-to tricks in those systems, and if I had any 5e system mastery I'm sure I could come up with comparable rulings in that system.

In this case, the real get out of jail clause for me is that I can set the DC of that reflex save to whatever I feel is reasonable in the circumstance. And as I said, I'd use a circumstance bonus to adjust down the chance of success if this was tried repeatedly. While this sort of tactic is great for PC vs. mook, I'm completely OK with the PC's dominating mooks like protagonists in movies. It would not be terribly effective for PC versus truly threatening bad guys or peer level foes, who would simply just be likely to make their saving throw. But at worst, it isn't any worse to make a ruling like this than having a PC throwing minor debuffing spells at a target. I mean, this is much less threatening to derail the game as not rewriting the 3.5e 'Glitterdust' spell and if you are still using that spell RAW, you really can have no complaints against my house rules here which are less broken than the RAW.

In case I wasn't clear: I'm not saying this kind of thing is bad. It's great if the DM can come up with a clear set of rules on how to handle it like you have*.

I just don't think that every trope can be replicated in D&D, nor should they be. In a different type of game where you can have cinematic moments to do unusual things, some improvised actions would make more sense.

*And when I have a chance I'll go back and read through old posts to see how I'd implement what you're talking about in 5E.

 

[Umbran]

The problem I have with a gonzo campaign is that they have implicit or explicit meta-rules like "the rule of cool" or more likely "the rule of funny" where rulings are made based on the GM's desired outcome rather than based on any sense of fairness. This makes it almost impossible as a player to predict how a GM is going to rule because "cool" and "funny" are such subjective things - imagine the GM has a sadistic streak for example.

Well, if you are playing Paranoia, that sadistic streak is... kind of the point

More seriously - not all game styles are for all groups. The issues you raise here, for example, fade significantly if the GM and players know each other well, and the GM has established that they work well in, "Yes, and..." mode.

But for a group that just met in the FLGS, yeah, you can have issues with players not getting fair treatment, because they don't quite get into the same groove as the GM.

Or, you can choose a game that isn't D&D, and has a somewhat more narratively-forcused action resolution system. Swords of the Serpentine, for example, has mechanics that allow for gonzo action natively.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The problem I have with a gonzo campaign is that they have implicit or explicit meta-rules like "the rule of cool" or more likely "the rule of funny" where rulings are made based on the GM's desired outcome rather than based on any sense of fairness. This makes it almost impossible as a player to predict how a GM is going to rule because "cool" and "funny" are such subjective things - imagine the GM has a sadistic streak for example.

After a couple of sessions the players and DM should know each other well enough to come up with a collective idea of what is cool/funny at that table.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Many years ago, I had a boss that told me a phrase I love, and implement myself not just at work, but in gaming as well: no reasonable request should be unreasonably denied.

so like some of you, I do try to adhere to realism for many things as the general rule. The ballista issue would cause significant problems as mentioned. Also, probably take some damage as you’re violently yanked off your feet even if all the other stuff somehow managed to work. I’d probably limit it to higher level PCs for various reasons (more heroic, can do extraordinary things, etc)

that said, if an idea is really cool or a great idea, I tend to be a little softer on my stance.

 

[Oofta]

For the ballista thing ... let's see. The odds of hitting the dragon in flight with a rope (and adventurer) attached is pretty much slim and none and I think Slim just left town.

But what if it were a catapult or trebuchet instead of a ballista? Now we're just launching the PC into the air and getting rid of a lot of complexity. There's no sudden jolt from the rope and the people using a catapult they just need to adjust for the weight of the PC.

There are still going to be a lot of issues though - hitting a moving creature is going to be really difficult. The PC will need to try to grab onto the dragon somehow. Maybe a grappling hook? Rope of entangling?

Okay this is still extreme but at least it's Batman level silliness.

In other words it's not automatically "yes" but it could be "no but" followed by a still difficult, probably going to fail but has at least the possibility of success challenge. Most likely ends up with the PC suffering a bunch of falling damage but it just might work.

If, of course, you're okay with Batman in your games.

 

[Celebrim]

I just don't think that every trope can be replicated in D&D, nor should they be.

Part of my table philosophy as a DM involves what I call the "Kindergartner Rule", which states that, "Any thing that an imaginative 5 year old could attempt to do, any PC ought to be allowed to attempt to do." It may in fact be a terrible idea, and like the 5 year old they may lack the skills to successfully accomplish it, but they can and ought to be allowed to at least try.

So for example, the Kindergartner Rule insists that "climb" is not something that only thieves can do. It insists that grappling doesn't require a special silo'ed ability, and that anyone can, if they are grappled with something attempt to throw that someone.

In other words, a 5 year old may not be proficient at anything, but if you can attempt to do it without proficiency then it should not require proficiency (or a class, or a feat, or whatever) to attempt it.

Following the "Kindergartner Rule", "I attempt to throw sand in my opponent's face" is a valid proposition. Five year olds could propose to do that, and I can even imagine a 5 year old being successful it at versus another five year old (probably by sheer accident, because the average 5 year old will end up throwing it down rather than up into the face). Then by the rule there must be some chance that this will work when proposed by the PCs.

You may be right that not every proposed action or trope can be replicated in D&D, but I don't have a meta-rule that tells me what those actions or tropes are. The one I have invented that works for my table is that "Kindergartner Rule", and it turns out to

 

[Bawylie]

New scenario to adjudicate:

Player wants to have the character tie a rope onto a ballista bolt, tie the other end to himself, lodge the bolt in a Huge flying dragon, and get pulled along with it in hopes of climbing up the rope to get either closer to or on top of the dragon at some point.

Use Rope has its day at last!

I’ll use that cool elf rope from lord of the rings that weighs nothing and works as intended. That should help against real-world-physics issues like drag-ons.

And the ballista from Game of Thrones because we know those can tag a dragon and stick.

(It’s crazy to me that some stuff doesn’t pass “the smell test” on D&D forums where elsewhere it’s commonly accepted!) I like that quote “No reasonable request should be unreasonably denied.” I’m keeping it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ah, I’m getting nostalgic when everything was a “make a DEX check” lol

 

[5ekyu]

My rule is what I call "My Stupid Rule" and its basically if I would feel stupid describing a rule to my players, I wont use that rule as is.

Goes for rulings too.

Given blindness is second level magic that requires use of a slot and failed save, with likely re-saves, I am not inclined to just let pocket sand become a blinded effect.

Hence my " it's the answer to "what does disengage look like?"..