D&D 5E Conjure Animals NERFED

[KahlessNestor]

Exactly. If one's interpretation of 5e DM empowerment is that broad, then why bother having rules? The rules of the game as written in the PHB are the only thing I as a player have access of and cotrol of in the game. Everything else is DM. So I don't appreciate even that little bit being yanked away from me by fiat.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Exactly. If one's interpretation of 5e DM empowerment is that broad, then why bother having rules? The rules of the game as written in the PHB are the only thing I as a player have access of and cotrol of in the game. Everything else is DM. So I don't appreciate even that little bit being yanked away from me by fiat.

Not to derail the thread...but...

"Why bother having rules?" --> Because it gives the DM a baseline to make interpretations, and a baseline for the players to have a foundation to understand the DM's interpretations.

"I as a player have access of and control of [the PHB rules]" --> Yes to access, a firm NO to control. You don't "control" the PHB rules any more than you "control" the stuff in the MM or DMG. ALL three books make up the rules of 5e D&D...and the rules of 5e D&D ultimately reside in the hands of the DM.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but when playing (not DM'ing) a game of 5e D&D, EVERYTHING is ultimately up to the DM. If he wants Fighters to have d8 HD, he can do that. If he wants Wizards to be able to use Longswords as a focus, he can do that. If he wants Goblins to have 20HD, fly and breath fire at will...he can do that to. If he wants to require Athletics checks to walk up/down dungeon stairs, yup, he can do that. Stealth? Where to begin...basically, it's all up to him.

If a player finds himself not enjoying a game for whatever reason, he is free to either start his own game as DM and run it the way he/she wants, find another game to play in (easier said than done!), or try and get some kind of compromise and/or understanding between himself and his DM. Well, I suppose they could just quit playing too...but that's one of those last resort things for me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Exactly. If one's interpretation of 5e DM empowerment is that broad, then why bother having rules? The rules of the game as written in the PHB are the only thing I as a player have access of and control of in the game. Everything else is DM. So I don't appreciate even that little bit being yanked away from me by fiat.

You don't have access to the rules of the game as written in the PHB. Those rules have only ever been at the discretion of the DM. The DM is the one who decides which rules to use, and if you don't like that, then you don't have to play. The only thing that you have control of, as a player, is your character; and even that is circumscribed within the limits of the rules as the DM chooses to implement them.

This is not a democracy. The DM is the one who puts in all of the work in order to make the game happen. Without the DM, there is no game. Without you, the game will continue as normal - or even better than normal, since that's one less self-entitled player that the DM has to deal with.

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah, I'd roll with the decision. I'm sure you'll be fine.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Hiya!



Not to derail the thread...but...

"Why bother having rules?" --> Because it gives the DM a baseline to make interpretations, and a baseline for the players to have a foundation to understand the DM's interpretations.

"I as a player have access of and control of [the PHB rules]" --> Yes to access, a firm NO to control. You don't "control" the PHB rules any more than you "control" the stuff in the MM or DMG. ALL three books make up the rules of 5e D&D...and the rules of 5e D&D ultimately reside in the hands of the DM.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but when playing (not DM'ing) a game of 5e D&D, EVERYTHING is ultimately up to the DM. If he wants Fighters to have d8 HD, he can do that. If he wants Wizards to be able to use Longswords as a focus, he can do that. If he wants Goblins to have 20HD, fly and breath fire at will...he can do that to. If he wants to require Athletics checks to walk up/down dungeon stairs, yup, he can do that. Stealth? Where to begin...basically, it's all up to him.

If a player finds himself not enjoying a game for whatever reason, he is free to either start his own game as DM and run it the way he/she wants, find another game to play in (easier said than done!), or try and get some kind of compromise and/or understanding between himself and his DM. Well, I suppose they could just quit playing too...but that's one of those last resort things for me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The DMG are OPTIONAL rules, and monsters aren't really "rules". How am I as a player supposed to find any equilibrium in the shifting ground you describe? How am I supposed to make a character or make intelligent, informed character choices in that situation?

Trust me, I have had this happen with DMs where my character was totally invalidated because "no, that power doesn't work that way in my world". But it says how it works right in the book! "So? The rules say I can ignore them as much as I want". So I just wasted all tjese experience points building this character BY THE RULES and you say no...

This is why I play and DM as RAW as possible unless I have a very good reason. I want players to know what to expect and be on the same page as to how things work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't want to sound like a 5e apologist here, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to, anyway. Apologies (npi/maybe some irony though) in advance.

I've played in an RPG where the players knew no rules and the DM, [MENTION=813]jmucchiello[/MENTION] , adjudicated everything. It was a lot of fun, but there was trust and consistency from him.

The 1e DMG advised DMs to keep ahead of their players in rules-knowledge. Your anecdote is sort of an extreme/ideal case of that with players having 0 rules knowledge, but it does illustrate that that the players having no recourse to rules-'lawyering' can work very well, as long as the players trust the DM.

In an RPG with written rules, that's a common foundation for everyone playing the game, with the DM both as arbiter and custodian of the rules. If there is ambiguity, like in this case, it's up to the DM to decided how to run it. And if there is no ambiguity but the DM wants to run it otherwise, they can do that as well as a house rule.

That's a fair way to handle it, but not the only way. And, I'd argue, not quite the way 5e was designed for, ideally. You certainly can run 5e with above-board formal house rules. You might find you need a lot of 'em. IMHO, running 5e on "rulings not rules" works even better. You do lose the implied consistency of formally changing the rules, but you're not boxed in by those changes, either.

However, it's the shared understanding of the rules that allows things to flow smoothly.

That's another way. You can depend on the DM, or depend on the rules, or both to varying degrees. Depending entirely on the DM (Empowering the DM as 5e does), or on the other extreme, sticking to a clear/balanced/consistent ruleset, can help a game run smoothly. In both cases you avoid having too much debate or animosity over rules issues.

Also, if the DM runs a rule one way in one circumstance and another way at a different time, the players need to bring that up as well.

It depends on the group's style and the game in question. It may well be that there is a good reason for the DM ruling differently at different times. (Of course, there could be a 'bad reason,' that's why the afore-mentioned trust is so important.)

Not saying a DM can't change how they handle something, but it should be like the OP - the DM comes out and says "I'm going to be doing X differently because of Y and Z". Because at the end of the day RPGs are a social game and everyone has a say.

The implied social contract can vary. You can't force a player to join or stay in a campaign, for instance, so everyone has a say in some sense, no matter how tightly the DM holds to his prerogatives.

5e's loose design and DM Empowerment help it work very well when the players trust the DM to handle things with rulings and don't dwell on whether they're consistent or not. That's further facilitated by the old-school technique of taking a lot of the resolution, bookkeeping and the like 'behind the screen,' removing sources of doubt and/or contention.

Not that there's no merit in discussing what might be a better ruling, just that it's a DM discussion. There's no need to 'prove' or even argue that RAW goes one way or another, for instance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The DMG are OPTIONAL rules, and monsters aren't really "rules". How am I as a player supposed to find any equilibrium in the shifting ground you describe? How am I supposed to make a character or make intelligent, informed character choices in that situation?

Ask the DM for any house rules, and rulings on any controversial issues that you expect to come up, before the game starts.

This edition of the game is very deliberately designed for the DM to use their own judgment to a greater degree than in either of the last two editions. It can create issues of uncertainty, as you note, but that's something which can be settled easily enough through a simple conversation, such that they felt it's not worth codifying everything in a way that would slow down gameplay and potentially bind the DM to unreasonable outcomes.

 

[77IM]

By a strict reading of the spell, the DM picks the animal statistics, but the player picks where they appear: the range and targeting language used is very standardized, so if the DM picks where the animals appear, that's like the DM choosing where the wizard targets the fireball.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Ask the DM for any house rules, and rulings on any controversial issues that you expect to come up, before the game starts.

This edition of the game is very deliberately designed for the DM to use their own judgment to a greater degree than in either of the last two editions. It can create issues of uncertainty, as you note, but that's something which can be settled easily enough through a simple conversation, such that they felt it's not worth codifying everything in a way that would slow down gameplay and potentially bind the DM to unreasonable outcomes.

And I do tend to like that about 5e. I really like 5e. I just am not a big proponent of "I'm the DM, so I'm God!"

I tend to be rules lawyer. Not in the sense of argumentative, but in the sense that I try to know the rules, and often know them better than the DM. It gives me a firm foundation on which to base my decisions as a player, knowing what I can do. So in that sense, yes, the rules as presented are something I as a player have control over. I don't like the uncertainty of living at the whim of some guy I barely know and see once a week. I don't think that makes me a "self-entitled player".

Everyone says trust the DM. Some of us don't have that luxury. If I play with the same group for 20 years, then sure, that trust would be there. But I play in AL and at my FLGS. I have no relationship with these people outside the weekly game. Theh don't know or care about me. Sure, we are friendly and joke or laugh. But they don't know me. So why should I trust the DM implicitly?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Everyone says trust the DM. Some of us don't have that luxury. If I play with the same group for 20 years, then sure, that trust would be there. But I play in AL and at my FLGS. I have no relationship with these people outside the weekly game. Theh don't know or care about me. Sure, we are friendly and joke or laugh. But they don't know me. So why should I trust the DM implicitly?

If you can't trust the DM, then you are doomed to failure in any case. This game cannot be played if you cannot trust the DM. (That's probably one area where 4E significantly outclasses 5E; if the DM in a 4E game hated you and was actively trying to kill your characters, the rules and guidelines would still give you a fair chance.)

Given that a bad DM will give you a bad game regardless of your trust, and a good DM will give you a good game only if you trust them, the logical decision is to put that trust there. If they later demonstrate that they cannot be trusted, then you're probably better off getting out of that game, since you won't be having fun in any case.