D&D 5E When RAW goes too far

[Charlaquin]

The fun part was the second hand crossbow was never needed. A player can freely use one to get off normal attack and the bonus attack provided by the feat.

It was needed, actually. The errata to crossbow expert @Oofta referred to was that used to say “When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.” Which meant if you had only one hand crossbow and fired it, you wouldn’t be able to fire it a second time as a bonus action because it was no longer loaded.

This, combined with the fact that there is now RAW for loading a crossbow other than as part of the attack with it, lead to a great many arguments about how the Feat was supposed to work, since it was clearly broken as-written. The dual-wielding hand crossbow camp’s argument basically boiled down to “clearly it’s meant to allow you to fire two crossbow bolts in one turn, and dual-wielding them is a cool image.” Those arguments disappeared once the errata made it actually possible to fire the same hand crossbow twice.

 

[Fenris-77]

The dual gunslinging Hand Crossbows is still a very cool image. It's cool enough I'd work to make it happen for an interested PC. Clip-fed hand crossbows is a doable alternative. I'm not one to let the rules get in the way cool.

 

[Oofta]

I'd allow some minor magic to make a hand crossbow repeating if someone asked. But the argument back when basically was RAW doesn't say it, therefore it's not required.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't really care what the RAW says if it doesn't pass the laugh test. The laugh test is, IMO, a much more important function of the rules than RAW. Much like stats, the RAW can often be made to say silly things but that doesn't oblige me to allow it. I do feel for the DDAL DMs though, yeesh.

 

[R_J_K75]

dice it out anyway, depending on the surface someone falls onto there are some RL miracles, like the confirmed fall of 14000 ft of a WW II Lancaster bomber crewman on some scrubbery covered in a thick layer of snow which he survived injured.

Pretty sure the 2E PHB or DMG cites this or another example in a sidebar. Falling onto a solid surface is definitely survivable. Falling into lava on the other hand probably not. So a little common sense goes a long way.

 

[billd91]

We’re all content to take potshots at lack of realism in some threads like this one, yet even around here there are plenty of people who will raise the argument that realism doesn’t apply in a pointy-eared elf game with fire breathing dragons flying around.

 

[Oofta]

We’re all content to take potshots at lack of realism in some threads like this one, yet even around here there are plenty of people who will raise the argument that realism doesn’t apply in a pointy-eared elf game with fire breathing dragons flying around.

I always assume the world works more or less like the real world unless it's specifically overridden by a rule or fantasy-campaign-specific logic.

Otherwise the narrative starts to fall apart for me.

 

[MGibster]

We’re all content to take potshots at lack of realism in some threads like this one, yet even around here there are plenty of people who will raise the argument that realism doesn’t apply in a pointy-eared elf game with fire breathing dragons flying around.

Even if they're doing something I don't personally enjoy, if another group wants to completely abandon any semblance of realism in order to have the best possible time then I say more power to 'em. In my opinion, when it comes to fantastical settings I need to suspend my disbelief while simultaneously maintaining a little verisimilitude.

Suspension of Disbelief: Every setting with fantastic elements requires the audience to suspend their disbelief in order to get on with the story. I know that human corpses possess no fine or gross motor control and cannot rise and cannibalize their friends and family. In order to enjoy The Walking Dead, I need to suspend my disbelief and accept the base premise of the show so I can watch it. An ant the size of a Volkswagon cannot exist because it could not breathe. But I have no problem sitting down and enjoying the classic B-movie Them!

Verisimilitude: This just means that something gives the appearance of being true and this comes in two parts. I might suspend my disbelief and accept a fantastic premise, but I'll still expect the rest of the world to work as I expect. I can accept walking corpses but if the living characters suddenly became immune to gunshots I'd have a problem.

The second part of verisimilitude is that the rules for how the fantastic work is established and we follow them (for the most part). If it's been established that one bite will kill you and turn you into a ghoul then we need to see that applied consistently. If it isn't applied, say one character is immune to changing, I want everyone else to at least make note of that.

I think it's impossible to come up with a set of rules that can cover every single situation. Players are creative people and odds are at some point they'll come up with a situation rule makers didn't really consider. So that's a good reason why we have a GM in the first place.

 

[Morrus]

We’re all content to take potshots at lack of realism in some threads like this one, yet even around here there are plenty of people who will raise the argument that realism doesn’t apply in a pointy-eared elf game with fire breathing dragons flying around.

Both extremes have comedic value.

 

[MGibster]

Both extremes have comedic value.

Sometimes it's fun to laugh at what you love.