D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[FormerlyHemlock]

For me Sage Advice is more of a tool to settle discussions globally once and for all. Often when I ask SA to clarify a rule, this comes from page-long discussions on forums how a rule is meant in which people just couldn't agree on something. SA is basically a judge that says which one of the two+ possible interpretations is the correct one. A DM intentionally going against that consequently is a killer for me, because in the end I want to rely on a global understanding of the rules and not re-learn the interpretation per DM.

According to Sage Advice, that's not how Sage Advice is meant to be used.

In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules
decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious.
Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group
keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the
design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to
contradict another.
Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice
comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication.
Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as
well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their
tastes. The column should also reveal some perspectives
that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that
aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"Paladorcs"?

Paladin/Sorcerer, Paladin primary. E.g. Paladin 7/Sorc 4.

Because to my ear, "Sorcadin" sounds kind of dumb, and has an implication that you're primarily a spellcaster and not a champion of goodness. When I say "Paladorc" I mean "a Paladin who studies magic too."

 

[Rya.Reisender]

According to Sage Advice, that's not how Sage Advice is meant to be used.

I see that quote as agreeing with me because it says:
1. Sage Advice "does just like rules do". So going against it is like going against a rule.
2. Sage Advice is there to help making a decision when a rule isn't clear or seems to contradict with another rule. So if there is no clear understanding of a rule, Sage Advice can be used.

 

[steeldragons]

Paladin/Sorcerer, Paladin primary. E.g. Paladin 7/Sorc 4.

Because to my ear, "Sorcadin" sounds kind of dumb, and has an implication that you're primarily a spellcaster and not a champion of goodness. When I say "Paladorc" I mean "a Paladin who studies magic too."

So why wouldn't that be "Paladorcerer"? I guess it's a bit long. "Palacerer"? ...one who palaces...hmmm...

Sorcadin sounds cool to my ear...though would indicate, I suppose, the Sorcerer bit being dominant.

Just stray pre-coffee thoughts. I really don't care.

 

[Azurewraith]

So why wouldn't that be "Paladorcerer"? I guess it's a bit long. "Palacerer"? ...one who palaces...hmmm...

Sorcadin sounds cool to my ear...though would indicate, I suppose, the Sorcerer bit being dominant.

Just stray pre-coffee thoughts. I really don't care.

Pre-coffee thoughts are the best especially when they come from the throne room! I solved all the world's problems but no one would listen to a uncaffinated nut, having my pants round my ankles didn't help.

 

[delericho]

I think my only rules-based deal-breaker is if the DM insists on rolled hit points. I had a very long spell where I never rolled anything above a '1', and while playing a character with a weakness can be fun once, it very quickly ceases to be.

Otherwise, it mostly boils down to whether I'm having fun (if not, I'll bow out), or whether there are 'problematic' behaviours at the table (where I'll either seek to have the issues resolved, or I'll bow out - unless I'm the host, in which case they'll be fixed or the group will find a new place to play).

 

[Azurewraith]

I think my only rules-based deal-breaker is if the DM insists on rolled hit points. I had a very long spell where I never rolled anything above a '1', and while playing a character with a weakness can be fun once, it very quickly ceases to be.

Otherwise, it mostly boils down to whether I'm having fun (if not, I'll bow out), or whether there are 'problematic' behaviours at the table (where I'll either seek to have the issues resolved, or I'll bow out - unless I'm the host, in which case they'll be fixed or the group will find a new place to play).

I find mechanical weakness such as HP deficit ain't fun. "Your a Knight in shining armour why you standing in the back"
"I rolled 3 1s for HP so I may get killed"

Much more fun to be for a rp/ character building reason "why you standing in the back sir gilmore get up there and fight"
Because I'm a coward and I disdain conflict I got knighted because chicks dig Knight's"

 

[ad_hoc]

I think my only rules-based deal-breaker is if the DM insists on rolled hit points. I had a very long spell where I never rolled anything above a '1', and while playing a character with a weakness can be fun once, it very quickly ceases to be.

Otherwise, it mostly boils down to whether I'm having fun (if not, I'll bow out), or whether there are 'problematic' behaviours at the table (where I'll either seek to have the issues resolved, or I'll bow out - unless I'm the host, in which case they'll be fixed or the group will find a new place to play).

We play with rolled HP but we use 2 dice instead of 1 to create a bell curve and to up the average to the amount you can pick in the book.

Instead of 1d8 you get 2d4 etc.

 

[MostlyDm]

So you roll 2d3 and 2d5 a lot?

Sounds a little awkward. I dunno, I'm probably just prejudiced against core integration of nonstandard dice.

 

[ad_hoc]

So you roll 2d3 and 2d5 a lot?

Sounds a little awkward. I dunno, I'm probably just prejudiced against core integration of nonstandard dice.

It's only during level up, it doesn't occur as part of play as we use standard HD for short rest recovery.

2d3
2d4
1d4+1d6
2d6