D&D 5E Adjudicating Unusual Actions

[Ruin Explorer]

Im not ok with it personally. Cloud's sword to my players and i is like garlic to a vampire. It offends our smell and our sight. It hurts us. hisssssssss

That's totally fair but it's also fair to note we had two entire editions where they were fully rules-supported (indeed with the right Feats you could dual-wield them in 3.XE IIRC), and whilst 5E has basically made them just greatswords again, we still have some almost equally silly weapons. I feel like Fullblades will sneak back in somewhere in 5E eventually, though they'll probably still be inferior to a GWM and Feat supported greatsword.

 

[Umbran]

Not sure where you're getting this conclusion.

I explicitly said it was a joke. Do you need that in huge font and blinking text?

No, the people who are OK with swords like that are not the ones who are arguing they have issues with the scenario.

I know that. I'm noting that the fantasy genre has room for people all along the spectrum, and that we should note that this argument then isn't really so much about adjudicating the rules, as it is noting the desired genre assumptions, which are not right or wrong.

When someone says, "How would you adjudicate this?" there are two basic approaches: 1) "I wouldn't, and here's why...", and 2) "You could handle it this way..." #1 is kind of limiting - once you've said why you wouldn't... you're kind of done.

I really, really wish people would stop making this argument of fallacy. Just because there are dragons (or magic), does not mean that we should handwave away any and all elements of realism in our games.

Nobody is saying that you have to throw out everything. Please don't overstate the point, and then argue against it.

I am saying that, when you have chosen a rule-set that openly and explicitly breaks from "realism" all over the place, that defense of a choice because of "realism" is rhetorically weak. The rules-choice has already ceded that realism must hold everywhere- the point that we are being inconsistent with realism is not fallacious. If it doesn't hold everywhere, you then have to tell me where it does hold, and if you want players to buy in, you may have to justify why the choice was made that way in each case you come across. This is exhausting, so I am suggesting something better.

As a matter for practical play, to make fantasy or most sci-fi work, we need to pick and choose where realism holds. If the GM does not have an overarching theme or purpose to the choices, the results are apt to be self-contradictory, and will almost certainly seem arbitrary. For our players, "because the GM feels like it" is a poor basis for understanding what they can and cannot accomplish. The rules of the world in which they play become opaque.

But, if you have an overarching theme or purpose, you can use that as your reasoning for the choice, and in the process give the players far more information about what they can expect to be able to do or not do.

This is where genre comes in. "I am aiming for a game that is more 'Lord of the Rings' and less 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' in its action" communicates more to everyone than, "realism!" in the face of dragons and such. Moreover, such a statement leaves argument down at the level of whether the rules you have chosen support that style well, and whether a particular interpretation of the rules serves that thematic choice. Folks can't fairly argue that you are wrong to want to play LotR-style in general. And you can't fairly argue that they shouldn't have CT/HD either.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I explicitly said it was a joke. Do you need that in huge font and blinking text?

You're a mod, so I can't ignore you, but if this is the type of condescending and sarcastic attitude you're going to take immediately, then I won't be responding to you in the future. Just so you know. I was asking a legitimate question.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are a couple other issues here as well. The way a large ballista is built, the rope and person would have to fit through the firing mechanism (see image). Those ballista fires bolts around 10lbs in weight.
So the player is probably assuming a smaller ballista that is open ended. Those fired bolts around 5 lbs.

I was thinking like Leonardo Da Vinci’s giant crossbow design:

When a 5lb object suddenly has to pull a 200lb armored person, it will lose all momentum. End of story. All the rest is irrelevant.

That’s why I ruled that the attack’s close range would be the length of the rope - up until it has to actually start pulling the character, it should function normally. But once it does start needing to pull them, it would have disadvantage. It would probably be far more realistic to call the length of the rope the maximum range, or maybe call the long range like the length of the rope + 5 feet or something.

 

[Maestrino]

Can the monk use his speed to create a whirlwind? Probably not. Would I allow that monk to literally run on water for a short distance as if the pool were not difficult terrain? Maybe so, give me a balance check.

At least in 5e, that's exactly the monk's 9th level ability - run across vertical surfaces and liquids without falling (As long as they don't stop in the middle of the move...)

 

[Sacrosanct]

I was thinking like Leonardo Da Vinci’s giant crossbow design:

That’s why I ruled that the attack’s close range would be the length of the rope - up until it has to actually start pulling the character, it should function normally. But once it does start needing to pull them, it would have disadvantage. It would probably be far more realistic to call the length of the rope the maximum range, or maybe call the long range like the length of the rope + 5 feet or something.

If that works for you table, then great! I mean that sincerely, and not sarcastically. I don't think any two people will ever agree with how to adjudicate this. We have responses ranging from "never gonna happen" to "just make an attack roll with minor changes" and everything in between. I suppose they're all valid.

For me, D&D already pretty much ignores actual damage to the body (like broken bones, concussions, arms pulled out of sockets, etc) so I personally wouldn't apply that even though in real life if you hooked a person up to that ballista above with a rope, they'd have at least one of those lol. But I would probably apply some damage, and make the attack roll very hard to hit. Translation: an attempt only a very high level PC could even do, which sort of jives with what I expect very high level PCs could do, because then you're at the point where a person can take the full effects of a dragon's breath, or fall from a mile up without a scratch, and slay a giant in a single turn.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Chair: "Ok, roll To Hit with Dex, at Disadvantage because it's a chair, but +1 because his back is turned and, it's a chair"..."You hit him...right in the back of the legs. He [rolls Dex Save vs To Hit roll the player made]..stumbles forward onto his face"

Spoon: "The spoon bends! It's magic! ...well, not really...your PC is just insane and is pretty sure they made the spoon bend. Everyone else is looking at you funny...or, in your PC's mind, 'in amazement'. What do you do next?"

Sand: "Interesting...ok, [roll Dex Save vs DC 12 because it was totally unexpected and unorthodox, and just weird to be carrying around that much sand in your pocket]...you throw the sand in his face, stinging his eyes as he tried to turn his head away. You have one round before he recovers".

Dragon/Ballista-Rope: "You, sir, are either very brave...or very stupid. Lets see how it plays out! Roll your To Hit for the ballista first. A hit! Right, the rope quickly tightens and yanks you off your feet...[rolls d8], and you take 4 points of damage from the VERY abrupt start! Hold on [pulls out Hackmaster GMG 4th and makes an Item Saving Throw for 'Rope, thin; vs Blow, Crushing', a 6, rolls d20 and gets a 10)...right. The rope holds and you are pulled up into the air...the dragon notices..."

...etc...

In a nutshell...I have all the guidelines I need in the game. I don't need...and, in fact, imnsho, SHOULDN'T...try and fit a "Rule into a Situation". It should be the other way around. "This is the Situation...is there a rule that fits? If not, what rule is closest? Is it close enough? Or should I just take the intent of the rule as I interpret it and use my own judgement and ruling?". I almost always do that latter simply because there are, as we see, just FAR too many 'unusual situations' a PC can get themselves into that no RPG could cover all of them. This is why I am an "Old Skool" DM (well, and I am, uh, and old skool DM...never played any other way). Any situation a Player can throw at me, I can handle because I'm experienced in 'using the rules as guidelines to run a game', and haven't been a 'slave to the rules' since Stage 2 (see below) of a DM's career.

"Stage 2": I saw three Stages to a DM's career. The first is the "I have no idea what I'm doing!...and I LOVE IT!" stage. This is where the DM just makes stuff up CONSTANTLY...because they don't know the rules, if rules even exist for it, and what to do with those rules even if he/she found them. This is where you have 2nd level PC's encounter a Torturer in the dungeon that has 4,000hp's...or a Gold Dragon who is undead and Chaotic with a magical +3 Sword sticking out of it's back...or just saying "The Minotaur grabs you, turns you upside down, and kicks you in the head until you die...make a new PC, please". That stage (usually) never lasts long. Then Stage 2: This is where the DM realizes all the stuff they were doing wrong...and figure that if they play 'by the book' then nothing could possibly go askew. This stage lasts longer, but eventually leads to Stage 3. In Stage 3, the DM has grasped that being a DM means making rulings based on their own interpretation of various situations and rules. This is where DM's really begin actually being Dungeon Masters.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Umbran]

I was asking a legitimate question.

I had clearly set it up as a non-legitimate point. I explicitly said it was a joke. I noted the numbers I used were ludicrous. My apologies if my response seemed snarky. I was incredulous, given the setup, than anyone would then legitimately try to address it as you did.