3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Majoru Oakheart]

The rules pretty much assume that if you have movement of a given type, you can use it). It's when you think too far that starts confusing things. You could figure out the physics of the situation, etc. Or just leave it simple.

Yes, which is why I would rule there would be no problem with the creature flying out. If we start arguing physics, it doesn't have aerodynamics or big enough wings, it can't fly in the first place. So, it "flies however it flies" and it gets out of the water.

If I started introducing rules like this, my players would be all over me with logic problems. Still, I see how someone else could rule this way. The more you do it though, the more you risk opening up a can of worms you don't want open.

My point is that the word "needlessly" is extremely subjective.

I completely agree, which is exactly why I try to avoid doing it even if there seems to be a need. What I may think is a "needed" reason to introduce a new rule may just ruin someone else's perception of the game. When I say "I'm going to allow all those oozes to share the same spot without squeezing penalties" I get players yelling at me because it gives the oozes an unfair advantage in combat over them, allowing more then 1 of them to attack them at once, despite fighting in a corridor. So, I learned my lesson. The rules apply.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I completely agree, which is exactly why I try to avoid doing it even if there seems to be a need. What I may think is a "needed" reason to introduce a new rule may just ruin someone else's perception of the game. When I say "I'm going to allow all those oozes to share the same spot without squeezing penalties" I get players yelling at me because it gives the oozes an unfair advantage in combat over them, allowing more then 1 of them to attack them at once, despite fighting in a corridor. So, I learned my lesson. The rules apply.

Not being subject to critical hits is an unfair advantage for oozes, too. The only differences between the two rules are (1) one rule was devised by WotC, and the other was devised by you, and (2) you determined that "players yelling" was sufficient reason to change your rule.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

I agree. For example, the situation where we were discussing someone jumping down off a table. There is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a jump check to jump down 3 or 4 feet. You just do it, I've reread the jump description twice to be sure there wasn't something I was missing.

No, that's incorrect and misleading - let's be clear: the scenario was tumbling off a table to the floor in melee to flank an opponent .

Adding a jump check is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more die rolls than you need to have...

First, including the Jump check as part of a complex combat maneuver was one possible solution to reflect the added dificulty of what the character was attempting to do, as was requiring a second Tumble check or increasing the Tumble DC.

Second, some GMs would consider the situation more complex than what the rules provide for, that the rules fail to adequately reflect the challenge of what the character is attempting to do. Is Tumbling from the table, or from an eight-foot wall, the same as Tumbling while standing on flat ground? If you read the rules as written, it is - however, this tests the limits of plausibility for some GMs.

It's also bland as heck. As a GM, I want the players to operate on the edge of success, not safely behind it - this means creating challenges that force them to make tough choices, where calculating DCs results in, "Gee, that's gonna be a close one!" Some GMs use circumstance modifiers, some use complex skill checks, but either way, the goal is the same: to nudge the players out of their characters' comfort zones and make the action as exciting and unpredictable as action/adventure should be.

(In my humble opinion, of course.)

By the way, complex skill checks are a part of the rules. Want to jump up to reach a ledge or a scaffold twelve feet over your Medium-sized character's head? DC 16 Jump check and DC 15 Climb check. Straight from the RAW. Using a complex skill check to resolve the Tumble from table or wall is an extension of the RAW.

(What's the penalty for failing? Do you fall over? Why? It's not far enough to take damage, according to a new FAQ ruling, it pretty much assumes if you don't take damage, you are still standing).

When the rules are ambiguous or are being extended to cover something that isn't explicitly addressed, that's up to the GM to decide.

The idea that most skill checks are pass/fail also contributes to that sense of blandness that I try to avoid. I've used a lost action as the consequence for failing a skill check, such as missing a Drive check - that could be the only consequence of missing the Jump check in the Tumble example above, if the GM decides to blur the sharp edges of the existing rule.

On the other hand, it would be much more interesting if that character attempting to Tumble from the table or the wall had a chance to fall flat on her arse instead of Tumbling past safely regardless of the results of the skill check...

(Just say no to bland.)

It's when you think too far that starts confusing things. Can almost anyone step off a table without falling over? Yes, no roll.

Again, this was not the scenario originally offered - you're dumbing-down the example rather than addressing it as written. Please stop.

Jumping over a 4 foot wall? How high do you need to jump, find the DC, and you are done.

Really?

Okay, Majoru Oakheart, quote the Jump DC from the 3.5 SRD for the scenario I described - hopping over a four-foot wall to land immediately on the other side (not eight-feet beyond it) - and I won't post to any ENWorld board other than the PbP forums for a week.

The rules are there to cover any situation where the result is in question. If the result isn't in question, you don't need to use them. Which is why the rules need common sense applied to them.

Tumbling from flat ground. Tumbling from a table. Tumbling from an eight-foot high wall. All in melee. All DC 15.

Maybe that seems like common sense to you - it doesn't to me.

3e/d20 does an admirable job of covering a great many actions, but there are also what I call "sharp edges" to many of the rules - six inches one way or another means the difference between risking damage or not from a fall, for example. Blurring those edges a bit increases the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it feel less like a board game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think that the interplay between these posts might be confusing your position. As I understand it, you are not saying that a thing not mentioned specifically in the rules does not exist in the game world. Rather, you are trying to say that a thing not specifically mentioned in the rules does not exist in the rules, and is therefore fully open to DM interpretation/house rules without said interpretation/house rules being considered an actual variation from the RAW.

I think he is simply stating that the rules as printed are not all encompassing. They arn't an exhaustive list of all in game events, objects, and such. If the DMG doesn't list a trap with a DC 30, it doesn't mean that that trap can't exist under the RAW, it just means that they didn't happen to detail any above that DC. So, a DC 30 trap isn't breaking the RAW, because the RAW does not say specifically that a trap's DC is capped at 25. Likewise, it isn't against the RAW to come across an orc with ranks in Craft(weaponmaking) just because the orc in the MM doesn't have that because it isn't prevented under the RAW.

That kind of thing.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

(Just say no to bland.)Again, this was not the scenario originally offered - you're dumbing-down the example rather than addressing it as written. Please stop.Really?

That's how I use the rules. I dumb it down to the simplest explaination for anything using the rules to reduce the number of rolls made at the table at to avoid rules arguements:

In this case:
Stepping off a table: Easy, no roll
Moving through enemies threaten space: DC 15, likely 17 as you are doing it across uneven ground. Done as part of a move.
If he can get where he wants to go using the movement rate he has, he still has and attack action left and can attack.

One tumble check and you are done and can be on to deciding the real question in the combat: Do you beat the enemies? How much damage does everyone take? So that when you have an answer you can get on with the story.

This is, of course, just my opinion, and the way I play it. I normally favor a sort of "you can do most things if you succeed in a DC 20 roll" idea. I like the players to be able to accomplish whatever they want. The more rolls I make them make, the less chance they have of succeeding in one. Basically, if it gives no mechanical benefits, I will allow it with minimal rolls.

In this case, does tumbling off a table give any benefits more than tumbling normally (or using a DC 25 tumble check to tumble THROUGH a dragon which we've done many times), so why complicate it other than to set up more chances to fail? I love when my PCs do interesting actions and defeat the enemies. They are supposed to win, they are the heroes. I could say "alright, make a jump check in this case...you failed? You lose your action this round, looks like you won't get there in time to save your friend." I find we all have more fun when things succeed.

Okay, Majoru Oakheart, quote the Jump DC from the 3.5 SRD for the scenario I described - hopping over a four-foot wall to land immediately on the other side (not eight-feet beyond it) - and I won't post to any ENWorld board other than the PbP forums for a week.

Yes, I know there is no DC for "jumping directly over a wall without going too far". I generally assume that if anyone wants to do LESS than what is listed, they can. If someone makes the DC for jumping that high, they make it over, if they don't want to go 8 feet past, they don't have to. Physics doesn't work the same way it does in real life, people can leap 40 feet in the air.

You are right though, this is a situation that goes slightly past the rules so any rule someone came up with would be fine. If a DM said "look, you need to jump straight up and land on the wall and then jump off the other side OR you have to jump 8 feet past the wall, those are your choices." I'd be fine with that. Once again, I've said, if you get beyond the rules, you should expect to be at the mercy of the DM, but still have a good guess as to what to expect. Both of those options are supported by the rules and I would expect either of them.

3e/d20 does an admirable job of covering a great many actions, but there are also what I call "sharp edges" to many of the rules - six inches one way or another means the difference between risking damage or not from a fall, for example. Blurring those edges a bit increases the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it feel less like a board game.

There ARE those edges, I will admit them. 10 feet you take damage, 9 feet you don't. I've always just said that was the way physics worked in a D&D world in an effort to avoid remembering new rules and keeping the game simple to use.

In this situation, for instance, I've had a DM say you still took damage at 9 feet because he didn't like that "edge", which then started an arguement about where the dividing line was and if 10 feet did so much damage, 9 should do less, but what about 8 feet 9 inches? There was always a line somewhere and it was always just as arbitrary as 10 feet, and it only made one person, the DM, feel better. Now, in order to make sure people know. If I say about 8 feet up, my players expect to take no damage, I say 10 feet, they expect to take 1d6.

The problem is, from our point of view, the game still IS a board game. It isn't a life simulator, it's a set of rules to simulate a world remotely resembling ours. If we get nitpicky about one rule, we can raise similar beefs with nearly every rule in the book. It starts a slippery slope I don't want to start on.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think he is simply stating that the rules as printed are not all encompassing.

Yep, exactly. Just because there isn't a DC listed for Jumping over a wall made of ICE doesn't make it different from jumping over anything else.

Traps exist that aren't in the books, monsters do as well. Exceptions to each rule exist as well, but when every creature is an exception, it makes the baseline mean nothing.

 

[The Shaman]

Traps exist that aren't in the books, monsters do as well. Exceptions to each rule exist as well, but when every creature is an exception, it makes the baseline mean nothing.

Yes, absolutely.

However, IMX 3e breeds players that expect everything to be baseline, without exceptions, which I see as a consequence of making more of the mechanics transparent to the players. While I can understand the desire of players to want to be able to weigh the odds of a given action, I think this is taken to extremes at times.

That's how I use the rules. I dumb it down to the simplest explaination for anything using the rules to reduce the number of rolls made at the table at to avoid rules arguements:...One tumble check and you are done and can be on to deciding the real question in the combat: Do you beat the enemies? How much damage does everyone take? So that when you have an answer you can get on with the story.

I don't see complex skill checks as taking anything away from "the real question": in fact, I build whole encounters that are based around skill checks rather than combat. Those dice rolls are 'the real answer' for me: how something is accomplished is just as much a part of the story as the accomplishment itself.

I also don't seem to encounter as many rules arguments as you do - from your posts I gather this was a regular feature of your games. For myself I've seen far more rules arguments since I started playing 3e than I did when I played 1e or original.

I love when my PCs do interesting actions and defeat the enemies.

Me, too - something else we can agree on.

They are supposed to win, they are the heroes. I could say "alright, make a jump check in this case...you failed? You lose your action this round, looks like you won't get there in time to save your friend." I find we all have more fun when things succeed.

I believe the heroes should have a reasonable chance of success, but that there are times when the Fates will not smile kindly and they will in fact fail, sometimes spectacularly and very publicly.

For me, as both player and GM, picking yourself up and dusting yourself off after failure is part of the fun - winning all the time is like watching the grass grow.

(And those failures often make the most entertaining stories, IMX.)

You are right though, this is a situation that goes slightly past the rules so any rule someone came up with would be fine....Once again, I've said, if you get beyond the rules, you should expect to be at the mercy of the DM, but still have a good guess as to what to expect.

For the most part I agree with you here as well.

The problem is, from our point of view, the game still IS a board game. It isn't a life simulator, it's a set of rules to simulate a world remotely resembling ours. If we get nitpicky about one rule, we can raise similar beefs with nearly every rule in the book. It starts a slippery slope I don't want to start on.

IMX consistency provides the traction that prevents sliding down that slippery slope.

That, or a DC 20 Balance check.

 

[Quasqueton]

However, IMX 3e breeds players that expect everything to be baseline, without exceptions, which I see as a consequence of making more of the mechanics transparent to the players. While I can understand the desire of players to want to be able to weigh the odds of a given action, I think this is taken to extremes at times.

To my knowledge (admittedly, relatively limited), in 90% of the games other than D&D (and even some editions of D&D), all the game/rule mechanics are listed in the same book. The mechanics are transparent to the Players. The Players have full access to all the rules, all the "monsters", all the "magic", etc. The Players have the same game knowledge as the GM. How, then, is this only a problem with D&D3? How is this just now being complained about?

Quasqueton

 

[The Shaman]

How, then, is this only a problem with D&D3? How is this just now being complained about?

Excellent question, and probably one that belongs in its own thread, since answering this question would take this one even further afield from the subject than it is presently.

 

[Hussar]

However, one could easily say that there is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a cannot fly with wet wings. You just do it. Adding a condition to flight is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more complication than you need to have (What's the penalty to flying? Can you simply not fly? How wet is wet? The rules pretty much assume that if you have movement of a given type, you can use it). It's when you think too far that starts confusing things. You could figure out the physics of the situation, etc. Or just leave it simple.

My point is that the word "needlessly" is extremely subjective.

RC

Well, in my mind there are two issues actually. One, can a harpy fly with very wet wings. The other, which, to me is far more relavent, can a Harpy take off from water. Now, since a Harpy really can't fly anyway, the whole wet wings thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, talons don't work so well for taking off from water, so, I ruled no.

The point is, this is a situation which is not covered in the RAW, so it requires a DM ruling. It's not even remotely touched on in the RAW, so you cannot reasonably expect to extrapolate from existing rules. So, the DM steps in and does the deed.

However, when there are existing rules which cover the situation, IMO, there's nothing wrong with the players expecting those rules to be followed.

A recent conversation in another thread had a DM who got rid of the Flat Footed rules. Simple enough change I suppose. He wanted to streamline combat and didn't want to constantly deal with different AC's. However, that simple change has major effects. The biggest effect is the fact that a rogue can now only sneak attack if he is flanking. This means that a lone rogue can NEVER sneak attack. This is a huge effect. Any player playing a rogue would be well within his rights to blow a gasket. Imagine if a DM ruled that a mage could never cast spells unless he was accompanied by an ally. Here's an example where a DM is pretty definitively in the wrong. Stripping away a major ability of a class without any compensation is not good.

Being DM does not make anyone right. It means that your word is final, that's true, but, it doesn't make you right.

3e has meant that my arguement time around the table has gone from about 30% of game time to about 1%. I've just run 10 straight sessions of the World's Largest Dungeon. I've had one rules arguement and I was wrong. My players pointed out to me in the rules where I made my mistake. IIRC, it was whether or not you could take a 5 foot adjustment after standing from prone. Today's session saw the orc barbarian try to take a 5 foot step to cleave - and got shot down. It works both ways. Being able to end disagreements in about 1 minute is why I play 3e.

For those who talk about having to go through multiple supplements, well, I suppose if you used Arcana Unearthed or something like that, it would make sense. But, then again, shouldn't the alternative rules be listed all in one book? If I'm using DR rules for armor, for example, aren't those rules all listed in one section of the same book? What situation would require me to look for answers in more than one book?