D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Vaalingrade]

To be honest, I don't think Sentinel should work on Godzilla either

Why does Godzilla even have a tail if you can't grab him by it?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It can be multiple people's fault. Asmodeous or the tarrasque shouldn't be slowed by caltrops. A simple, inexpensive item shouldn't be broadly applicable to nearly all foes, and the designer no doubt knows that. I imagine (not having been around for D&D Next) that this was something tossed in at the last minute without testing, because it was "clearly" fine.

The rules do not say how big your caltrops are.

 

[James Gasik]

Why does Godzilla even have a tail if you can't grab him by it?

Normally, his enemies forget he has a tail until he smacks them upside the head with it, lol!

 

[James Gasik]

The rules do not say how big your caltrops are.

No, but they do say how much they cost and weigh...

That having been said, the ability for players to make and use traps is woefully undersupported in the game!

 

[Micah Sweet]

If that were true, the 200 hit point character should still take cover when a couple goblins with short bows fire at them. they don't do that, because they know how powerful they are. I think it is silly to ask the players to pretend they are playing a different game than the one they are using. High level 5E D&D characters know they are powerhouses that can shrug off dragon's breath and wrestle giants. That is a good thing. It means they will play the game. if you don't want them doing those things, run a different game where characters remain fragile.

High level modern PCs make no sense in the world they live in. This is why I advocate for just cutting off the level train earlier, and reducing hit points across the board.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And that makes a lot of sense, but then we get tables who would let spike growth fly without batting an eyelash. Now you would be right in saying buying and carrying and deploying a bunch of caltrops is a lower opportunity cost than being a Druid and casting a spell, naturally.

I don't like how the game treats difficult terrain. Like it either is or isn't difficult terrain for everyone. For example in case of spike growth it might make more sense to say it is difficult terrain to large or smaller creatures.

I don't know though. When you punish a player trying to be clever because of "logic" in your fantasy make pretend game of action heroes fighting mythical monsters out of the blue, it doesn't sit right with me.

But remember that the flip side is allowing the players to use that same logic to break the rules for their advantage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, but they do say how much they cost and weigh...

Yes, they're surprisingly light, but there you go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I said, i think it is more effort than it is worth to try and pretend the game doesn't work the way it does. I prefer to lean into the PC superiority. I mean, we are emulating myths, legends and literature here. It isn't like Beowulf didn't rip a monster's arm off barehanded.

You are emulating myths if that's what you want your game to do. Nothing wrong with wanting your setting more grounded.

 

[James Gasik]

I have a friend who has a character with proficiency in a Poisoner's Kit in his game. He was complaining to me the other day that most of the poisons he has access to are weak, and that if half the monster seeming to be immune to poison wasn't bad enough, most monsters save against his poison.

He then told me he asked the DM if he could whip up larger does of poison that forced disadvantage on the saving throw, but the DM said no, that's not how the game works.

"Ok, try this. Next time you use poison, have your party Wizard cast Silvery Barbs and see what happens."

Sure enough, he calls me after his next session. "Man, it was crazy, the DM just sighed and the enemy failed their save!"

"Yep, that's generally how that goes. DM's are perfectly fine with stuff that costs a character resource or magic. Gold and mere ability checks? That's when you get the frowny face."

This is, I'll admit, tangential to the question asked by this thread, I know. But there is a tendency for DM's to do this sort of thing, and I think any DM who makes a ruling like this should stop and ask themselves what's really being saved here- the verisimilitude of the setting, or funneling players into one kind of play.

 

[Bagpuss]

Did she provide an explanation like that?

No but, why should she need to, players don't have to explain how magic works.