D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Tony Vargas]

After falling 1500 feet. So the rule should limit to 150 d6 instead of 20.

FWIW, it also shouldn't be per distance fallen, but based on velocity. (In my 1e campaign, I stuck with distance fallen, because I decided my world would run on aristotelian rather than newtonian physics - no, I was not any saner back then)

Velocity of an object falling 10' is about 25'/sec? - if that's a d6 of damage, and damage is directly related to velocity, terminal velocity for a human is like 200'/sec? or 8d6? Which, will absolutely splat an ordinary 0-level D&D human.
Hit Points
Realism

D&D's rules are wildly unrealistic.
Yet, we feel compelled to selectively override them to enforce realism, some of the time.

 

[Oofta]

FWIW, it also shouldn't be per distance fallen, but based on velocity.

Velocity of an object falling 10' is about 25'/sec - if that's a d6 of damage, and damage is directly related to velocity, terminal velocity for a human is like 200'/sec, or 8d6. Which, will absolutely splat an ordinary 0-level D&D human.
Hit Points
Realism

D&D's rules are wildly unrealistic. Yet, we feel compelled to selectively override them to enforce realism, some of the time.

I don't get caught up in details, it's a good way to drive yourself crazy. It's a game, and one that vastly oversimplifies just about everything in an attempt to streamline it down to something we can actually play. Personally at a certain point I don't care how many HP you have, the fall will kill you because D&D doesn't really attempt to model that type of damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't get caught up in details, it's a good way to drive yourself crazy. It's a game, and one that vastly oversimplifies just about everything in an attempt to streamline it down to something we can actually play. Personally at a certain point I don't care how many HP you have, the fall will kill you because D&D doesn't really attempt to model that type of damage.

See, that's what I mean about selectively enforcing realism.

 

[Oofta]

See, that's what I mean about selectively enforcing realism.

I have no idea how much damage a person should take from falling. I do know that there is no logical way something as big as a tarrasque is going to be affected by a variety of things. Whether that's a sentinel attack, ball bearings, caltrops, or any number of things such as being pushed back by a thunderwave if it ever came up.

 

[Lanefan]

If a DM pulled a stunt like that, it would be my last night at that table.

See ya.

I mean, really. In the OP example I'd say it's on the player to recognize that while the rules say the ability should work the fiction is screaming that it working as written would be ludicrous, and thus not even try to use that ability in that situation.

 

[el-remmen]

. . .but how, for example, skeletons/zombies are charmable/frightenable/sleepable etc

I'm not going to go through the monsters to list such, it's just something that keeps popping up. 'Looks like... that ability does work. Huh.' situations.

This is the exact kind of thing that I try to change ahead of time (and why I am redoing stat blocks before most sessions) but am totally willing to change in the moment if it does not fit my view of undead (or whatever). I feel no compunction to explain this to the players ahead of time. They can figure it out in game.

The only exception would be if I was changing how a monster they've faced before [edit: as those characters, not in general ever] works. In that case, I'd let them know because knowledge they gained is now different in a way that does not have an in-game explanation for the change.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have no idea how much damage a person should take from falling. I do know that there is no logical way something as big as a tarrasque is going to be affected by a variety of things.

There have been perfectly reasonable visualizations of that posted in this thread, already.

And there's no logical way magic works, so, again, that's selectively enforcing realism.

 

[Lanefan]

Are house rules the same as "overruling RAW"? (he asked, desperate to avoid yet another martials vs casters threadstorm)

I don't think so, in that house rules in effect become a part of the RAW for that game/campaign.

 

[Oofta]

There have been perfectly reasonable visualizations of that posted in this thread, already.

And there's no logical way magic works, so, again, that's selectively enforcing realism.

Yep. Your point?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep.

thank you for your honesty