Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8041803" data-attributes="member: 16814">You seem to have missed two very big design goals for 5e.  The first is that it's not written like a normal rules book -- it avoid jargon and uses natural language that is to be interpreted by the GM, not slavishly followed.  This means that you do not actually examine each word for how it's defined and what it means.  If you do this, you're going to be dissatisfied, and the instant point makes that case.  Secondly, it's quite often written in a way that requires GM adjudication that is extra to the rules.  Look to the rules for stealth, for instance -- nothing is hard and fast or jargony there; it explicitly places all determination into the hands of the GM.So, it appears you're off on the wrong foot to start with, and that's leading into the instant issue.Also, the implication that Jeremy just uses random words in Sage Advice that don't mean anything, like "usually," is not a good look to base an argument on.I did, in fact, make an erroneous assumption.  It's far more common to have people treat the rules as exhaustive and literal from 3e than from AD&D.  Mea culpa.I absolutely do not claim 5e has no RAW.  Pointing out where and what that RAW is being taken as an argument that it doesn't exist is baffling.Again, I point out the core play loop, in the rules, and you claim I'm saying there are no rules?  This is bizarre.  What I'm going is pointing out that there's already a general rule for just about any case and that it's established in the first few pages of the PHB.  So, when you go off looking for specific rules for things, when I say there's already a rule for that, it's the general rules for the core play loop, that isn't claiming RAW doesn't exist.  It is interesting that you're dismissing the core play loop as not rules, though, and I think that's exactly where a huge amount of your issue is coming from.Sigh, when I point out specific passages that I think you should read, telling me you read other rules and they don't say anything about what I've said isn't irony.  Read the passage in the PHB on the core play loop of the game.  It's pretty short and very good.Then, reread the DMG on the role of the dice.  There are three paths.  They do another good job of explaining the approaches to the game, but aren't quite as short.And, when I point to how the rules tell you to play the game, that's not making up your own rules on the fly -- it's actually using the rules of the game.Here's a great thread on this:  H<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-to-adjudicate-actions-in-d-d-5e.453707/" target="_blank">ow to Adjudicate Actions in D&D 5e</a>.  I highly recommend it.Well, if I had said that the surprise rule was meant only as guidance, you'd be right, but that's not what I said.  I said the surprise rule doesn't limit surprise to situations with hidden foes only.  That's your reading, because you're fixed only on things explicitly said that agree with you.  You've chosen to ignore the first and last sentence in that paragraph, or what step 1 says:  the GM determines who's surprised.  Usually (as Sage Advice says), that's going to be due to hidden foes, but that section is specific guidance for hidden foes -- it's not the exhaustive list of what the GM can use to determine who's surprised.  Again, 5e doesn't go in for exhaustive rules or jargon but uses natural rules and follows an exception based design -- general rules hold unless specific rules directly change them.  In this case, the general rule is that the GM decides.  How?  By following the other general rules of the game, like the core play loop.  If someone is trying to hide, then here's a specific rule, which really isn't specific because it's just a restatement of the general rule.Fundamentally, the core mechanic of 5e is not roll a d20, but that the GM decides.The designer didn't intend to limit much at all, so it's not shocking at all that they wouldn't waste words explaining how any and every rule interaction can work.  Again, one the design principles of 5e is to rely on GM adjudication.  Here, we have rules for social interaction, including how to get to your "ask."  It doesn't limit what that "ask" can be, because it's up to the GM to determine if it would succeed, fail, or is uncertain and then what difficulty it might be and then to narrate the outcome.And doing so would be your prerogative, and a fine way to rule.  What it isn't is demanded by RAW -- it's just your call.  And, I can't see how using a rule in the book is in any way abusive towards it.  The only people at the table I can be abusive towards is the players or myself.  I cannot offend the rules.  Allowing the PCs to gain surprise in this instance certainly doesn't abuse them, and it doesn't abuse me, either, so it really can't be abuse.  Leaving the charged words off might really help, here.</blockquote>

Verification