3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Geron Raveneye]

What situation would require me to look for answers in more than one book?

The simple fact that you're using alternative rules from more than one book, and try to gauge how they influence each other in a given problem situation?

 

[Hussar]

The simple fact that you're using alternative rules from more than one book, and try to gauge how they influence each other in a given problem situation?

But, correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't use an awful lot of alternative rules, but, aren't alternative rules by and large replacements for existing rules? If you are using the AC as DR alternative rule, then, the only place you would look for answers would be the Unearthed Arcana. If I'm using a Warforged character, then any questions regarding my warforged abilities should be directed at the Players guide for Eberron. How many people actually use two sets of alternative rules at the same time?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Don't forget that combat itself is really a form of complex skill check.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Sure it's covered in the RAW. A creature with a listed fly speed can fly, period. One could say that's just "the way physics worked in a D&D world in an effort to avoid remembering new rules and keeping the game simple to use".

Please note that I am not advocating the simpler system. I am merely pointing out that what the RAW actually contains is subjective. A person could easily claim that the RAW contains, or does not contain, rules for flight from water. On one hand, flight from water is not specifically mentioned, so you can say that the RAW does not cover the situation. On the other hand, flight from water is not mentioned as an exception to the flight rules, so you can claim that, according to the RAW, normal flight rules apply.

The changes, extrapolations, and/or additions that one needs to make to the RAW, both as part of campaign design and in-play to cover unforseen circumstances, are highly subjective. Which elements of change are "needless" and which are necessary for a cohesive world-vision or to maintain suspension of disbelief vary from group to group and DM to DM.

Which, I believe, was the point of the "tumble from table" example. It is also a very good reason why DM's are allowed to make rules calls/changes as they decide they are needed. I would hate to have every rules decision argued about, as Majoru seems to experience. Outside the game, sure. Inside the game, my table rule is "Go home or game on".


RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But, correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't use an awful lot of alternative rules, but, aren't alternative rules by and large replacements for existing rules? If you are using the AC as DR alternative rule, then, the only place you would look for answers would be the Unearthed Arcana. If I'm using a Warforged character, then any questions regarding my warforged abilities should be directed at the Players guide for Eberron. How many people actually use two sets of alternative rules at the same time?

T'would be nice if it was that easy, but if you ever tried to answer a question about a spell from book A, modified with a feat from book B, affects an opponent who is either from book C entirely or maybe has a template from book D, all the while keeping in mind that there are various boni (not all from core books only, either) in effect, you might find yourself flipping more than one book while hoping to find a good answer. Or you simply make up one on the spot.

Maybe I'm the only one who simply hasn't the time to scan and collect all the different stuff he'd like to try in his games, and I still love 3E for the options it gives, I truly am...but sometimes it can get a bit time-consuming, if it does ya. And yes, writing it out beforehand, and copying all the relevant stuff into one folder is a good solution that I heard more than once, so all I need now is somebody get my real life off my back for a week so I can actually do that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't use an awful lot of alternative rules, but, aren't alternative rules by and large replacements for existing rules? If you are using the AC as DR alternative rule, then, the only place you would look for answers would be the Unearthed Arcana. If I'm using a Warforged character, then any questions regarding my warforged abilities should be directed at the Players guide for Eberron. How many people actually use two sets of alternative rules at the same time?

But you might not just be using one alternative rule. For example, if you use the Vitality rules from UA, and the armor as DR rules from UA, you might also have to devise rules for how these things interact. This is something I have had to do, and I discovered that the interaction covered exactly something that was otherwise missing from D&D.

RC


EDIT: When armour DR removes wound points from a critical hit, the armour takes the damage itself. Subtract the DR for the material the armour is made of from the actual damage to the armour. Whatever remains is a penalty to AC for that armour, which remains until the armour is repaired (craft skill check DC 10 + the amount of damage taken by the armour). If the character has a shield, the damage can be taken by the shield, possibly destroying it, to retain the full function of his remaining armour.

Suddenly, armour becomes truly important (DR vs really terrible wounds is as good as DR vs vitality), can be damaged using a simple system, and shields can be riven by a lucky blow! Eowyn's last stand against the Lord of the Nazgul can become a D&D event....!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Which, I believe, was the point of the "tumble from table" example. It is also a very good reason why DM's are allowed to make rules calls/changes as they decide they are needed. I would hate to have every rules decision argued about, as Majoru seems to experience. Outside the game, sure. Inside the game, my table rule is "Go home or game on".

Yes, I agree on almost all points, it IS highly subjective. Thus, my comment about trying to avoid coming up with new rules for "exceptions" when the raw works fine. Like the flying out of water thing, RAW doesn't say you can't make a large leap directly into the air only for the purposes of taking off out of water, and mechanically, you end up the same as raw, it flys out of the water. It satisfies my sense of "realism" to have the image of the powerful creature suddenly jumping high into the air with powerful muscles and catching a drift of air. This way I don't have to add it to a growing list of new rules I've added to the game to cover strange things.

I'm glad you've not experienced the sort of rules discussions we've had in the past. Well, I wouldn't call them rules discussions. In previous editions, they were normally logic discussions. Which lasted for hours as each side really advocated their side: "The book doesn't say how far you can jump, so I say the world record is 30ft (made up number here), I have a strength of 20 which is above the max for humans, so I can jump further than that!"

Now we have small number of rules clarifications arguements, mostly things like "This PrC says you can use a move equivilant action to create a weapon. Can I make more than one?" or "It says I can apply extra damage to a weapon I'm holding, is this special abilty I have considered a weapon?" They are normally clearly yes or no answers with the DM making the final decision.

Most of the important rules that affect nearly every session are spelled out in the book. My players know if they want to move from point a to point b, they can do so, if they move through threatened spaces they provoke AOO unless they tumble. If they do all threatened spaces they move through take double moves. I've never really needed to implement special rules for jumping off of tables, walking down stairs, leaping over walls. The most discussion over this sort of thing has been "a 4 foot tall wall, huh? Ok, I take 5 more feet of movement to walk around instead, then I attack" or "Can you jump over it? Sure, it's about 5 ft, make a DC 5 check"

I find other DMs are good at overcomplicating situations, turning each action anyone attempts into an except to the rules so that the rules never apply. I just assume any modifiers that aren't obviously overwhelmning are inconsequential.

 

[the Jester]

I just wanted to chime in here and say that I've just spent several hours reading most of this thread and it is, imho, a really cool one. Good arguments on all sides, no real personal attacks, etc. I'm sorry I missed getting into it earlier... at this point there's so much built up that I don't know quite where to begin.

Keep on keepin' it civil, guys! There's a lot of passion here- and I'd hate to see this thread end up closed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm glad you've not experienced the sort of rules discussions we've had in the past. Well, I wouldn't call them rules discussions. In previous editions, they were normally logic discussions. Which lasted for hours as each side really advocated their side: "The book doesn't say how far you can jump, so I say the world record is 30ft (made up number here), I have a strength of 20 which is above the max for humans, so I can jump further than that!"

I never had these sorts of arguments for a very good reason. I don't allow more than a sentence or two to convince me at the table (EDIT: Happened just this week that I changed a ruling because of that sentence, though!), and after the game has moved on I find that players tend to be less concerned about what the world record was.

When the DM can say "No" the game can stay on track.

Going over the thread again, it amazes me how some would say, on one hand, that the DM does a whole bunch of extra work because he enjoys it, and on the other hand that there wouldn't be a game without the players. Aside from the fact that it is always easier to find players than DMs, it seems that the DM actually does gain quite a bit of enjoyment from the game away from the players. I have to admit that this is true in my experience as well. I enjoy the set-up, most days, nearly as much as actually playing (and without the careful set-up, I don't enjoy running a game nearly as much).

I wish you all the best in your games, no matter how you enjoy playing them. If you ever sit at my table, though (or I sit at yours), you know ahead of time that I believe in the DM's authority.


RC