jmartkdr2
Hero
The difference is timing.Are house rules the same as "overruling RAW"? (he asked, desperate to avoid yet another martials vs casters threadstorm)
The difference is timing.Are house rules the same as "overruling RAW"? (he asked, desperate to avoid yet another martials vs casters threadstorm)
Sure, but hopefully the same GM who would sometimes override the rules due setting logic in a ways that disadvantages the PCs would also do so when it benefits them.They certainly can. But whether or not they will is not something you can rely on with any GM.
I don't think I've seen anything in 5e beating the Simulacrum chain, maybe some of the Magic Jar/Nystul's Aura shenanigans, but it seems more sketchy.If there's one lesson I learned in 3e, it's that one man's overpowered is another man's scrub tier.
Indeed, if you're running a grounded game where verisimilitude is king, why on earth are you presenting a kaiju as something for your player characters to fight without an artifact or three?!
Is that RAW? If it is, then I definitely ignore it too.The most common RAW I ignore is that you cannot talk when it's not your turn.
Apropos of nothing, I guess, but,Talking in D&D is one of those weird things you just have to handwave. How much information you can get out in 6 seconds?
A page's worth.How much information you can get out in 6 seconds?
The game is emulating those inspirational stories. It says so right in the books. There's nothing wrong with modifying the game to not do that of course. That's totally reasonable, if more work than it would be to just pick a game that actually does what you want out of the box. What's strange to me is using 5E anyway and trying to convince the players to pretend they don't have 200 hit points, while still throwing giants and dragons at them.You are emulating myths if that's what you want your game to do. Nothing wrong with wanting your setting more grounded.
Where is this rule found?The most common RAW I ignore is that you cannot talk when it's not your turn.