firm rulings

[nswanson27]

The piling on and piling on of meta knowledge is what I object to. It goes against everything 5e was designed for, streamlined ease of rulings at the table and DM empowerment. I play a PFS druid, and the amount of knowledge outside Core I found I was expected to know about animal companions was annoying. Books I had never heard of and didn't own, changes to what was in the Core, and a gazillion FAQ questions to wade through to find the info on it that I needed, on a website I don't normally visit. It made everything a million times more complicated than it needed to be.

I don't think what I'm suggesting is to going to reach that point. Not even close. As I've stated earlier, there aren't many of these that tend to cause issues, and the ideal situation would be to clear it up in errata. The worst scenario is to keep having them show up mid-game and be a disruption to playing.

 

[kalani]

I can state for the record that the AL has no intention of making campaign-wide rulings for general rules questions.

The AL rule on the matter is - The DM has full authority to make a ruling at their table for any ambiguous rule or situation the rules do not cover. The DM cannot however make rulings that contradict the printed rules in an official rules source

 

[nswanson27]

I can state for the record that the AL has no intention of making campaign-wide rulings for general rules questions.

The AL rule on the matter is - The DM has full authority to make a ruling at their table for any ambiguous rule or situation the rules do not cover. The DM cannot however make rulings that contradict the printed rules in an official rules source

Ok. I'm curious - in the case of disarming strike, is the ability to pick up the enemy's weapon considered "in the rules" or not? To me it seems like it is, but on forums there's enough debate to make me think it's not. If not, then I guess I won't be choosing that maneuver then for a fighter, for fear that it just one day "won't work" on my character, which would really suck.

 

[KahlessNestor]

If you have a free hand and haven't used your object interaction yet, yes, you should be able to pick it up. Or kick it away. Or have a party member take care of it.

 

[Pauper]

If you have a free hand and haven't used your object interaction yet, yes, you should be able to pick it up. Or kick it away. Or have a party member take care of it.

But not every DM will allow this, because there's no specific rule about it.

The general rule that covers this situation is this: "Expect table variation."

If you can't handle that, and need your character to perform precisely the same at every table you play at, then you should probably only ever play at one table.
--
Pauper

 

[Granville]

I know some time back the rules were tweaked a bit on wild shape and summoning spells. I was curious if you can still use the Polymorph spell to turn an ally into a T-Rex? Or is Giant Ape (Still very good) where the buck stops?

 

[KahlessNestor]

But not every DM will allow this, because there's no specific rule about it.

The general rule that covers this situation is this: "Expect table variation."

If you can't handle that, and need your character to perform precisely the same at every table you play at, then you should probably only ever play at one table.
--
Pauper

If picking up an object is specifically listed as an example of object interaction then why would it fall under table variation and not RAW?

 

[Byakugan]

If picking up an object is specifically listed as an example of object interaction then why would it fall under table variation and not RAW?

Technically, if you are using weapon attacks, then your 'free' object interaction is being used on the weapon you used. I can see plenty of DMs deciding that on the spot. I've seen plenty DMs rule that if you spent your turn opening a door you couldnt attack because your weapon had to be sheathed or 'unreadied'.

Biggest problem with Disarming strike as I see it is that an NPC with said ability could use it against the PCs and that would be uber annoying. Bad guy disarms your Dawnbringer, picks it up and runs like hell...please deduct the magic item from your character sheet...ohh sorry I am not allowed to give out magic items so theres no more Dawnbringer fornyou to get back...ouch.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Technically, if you are using weapon attacks, then your 'free' object interaction is being used on the weapon you used. I can see plenty of DMs deciding that on the spot. I've seen plenty DMs rule that if you spent your turn opening a door you couldnt attack because your weapon had to be sheathed or 'unreadied'.

Biggest problem with Disarming strike as I see it is that an NPC with said ability could use it against the PCs and that would be uber annoying. Bad guy disarms your Dawnbringer, picks it up and runs like hell...please deduct the magic item from your character sheet...ohh sorry I am not allowed to give out magic items so theres no more Dawnbringer fornyou to get back...ouch.

If you drew tour weapon then yes, you couldn't pick it up because you used your free interaction. So don't use disarming strike then. Use it next round when you have your free interaction available.

The maneuver is still useful even if you can't pick it up. The enemy can't pick it up until his turn, so that leaves him unarmed until then. Opportunity attacks would be limited to unarmed. Someone else could pick it up in the meantime. Someone could shove the enemy away from his weapon, etc.

 

[RCanine]

The biggest problem with abilities like disarming strike is it increases the challenge of the DM to suddenly have to improvise how a monster would attack while disarmed. It's a small thing, but DMing is stressful enough.

That said, oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth when PCs realize that their weapons on the ground are also fair game, and that you drop what you are carrying when you fall unconscious.

 

[kalani]

I know some time back the rules were tweaked a bit on wild shape and summoning spells. I was curious if you can still use the Polymorph spell to turn an ally into a T-Rex? Or is Giant Ape (Still very good) where the buck stops?

Please see my "List of Approved creatures for summoning" thread which is stickied at the top of this forum. Short answer: T-Rex is not allowed as it is not in the Allowed Rules (PHB appendix D and MM appendix A)

 

[delericho]

I don't see how the fact that it's contained within a given session solves the problem.

It means it's different enough that your statement, "If you are going to take issue with what I'm suggesting, then you should be taking issue with those things as well by the same reasoning" doesn't apply.

The thing is, I don't play AL. I therefore don't care what AL does or does not do, because it doesn't affect my game at all.

But what I object to is WotC introducing this new category of "firm rulings" because those then become de facto rules that will impact on my game - suddenly, instead of routinely ignoring Sage Advice and the designer's tweets (and even errata), I'll be expected to keep track of this category of "firm rulings" and either apply them or explain why I'm not using them. Which I don't want.

But, also, it goes against the ethos of 5e as a whole. 5e is deliberately designed to be a lighter framework than 3e or 4e, with fewer solid rules and a consequent need for more DM rulings. But "firm rulings" means that it actually isn't a lighter framework with DM rulings; it's actually a rules-heavy game with the rules scattered across Twitter. Which would be a sucky way to present a game. If they wanted something to be a rule, the place for it was in the rulebooks.

 

[nswanson27]

It means it's different enough that your statement, "If you are going to take issue with what I'm suggesting, then you should be taking issue with those things as well by the same reasoning" doesn't apply.

The thing is, I don't play AL. I therefore don't care what AL does or does not do, because it doesn't affect my game at all.

But what I object to is WotC introducing this new category of "firm rulings" because those then become de facto rules that will impact on my game - suddenly, instead of routinely ignoring Sage Advice and the designer's tweets (and even errata), I'll be expected to keep track of this category of "firm rulings" and either apply them or explain why I'm not using them. Which I don't want.

But, also, it goes against the ethos of 5e as a whole. 5e is deliberately designed to be a lighter framework than 3e or 4e, with fewer solid rules and a consequent need for more DM rulings. But "firm rulings" means that it actually isn't a lighter framework with DM rulings; it's actually a rules-heavy game with the rules scattered across Twitter. Which would be a sucky way to present a game. If they wanted something to be a rule, the place for it was in the rulebooks.

So you didn't explain why that reasoning wouldn't work, so I remain unconvinced.
I agree it should be in the rulebook. It's just unfortunate that it wasn't more clear to begin with.

 

[kalani]

The thing is, I don't play AL. I therefore don't care what AL does or does not do, because it doesn't affect my game at all.

I have to ask - if you don't play AL, what is your reasoning for participating in an AL-specific thread in an AL-specific forum?

Saying "I don't care about AL" doesn't add anything to the conversation since each and every thread in this forum is devoted exclusively for AL-discussion, and as such - what AL does/doesn't do is all that matters. There is no point bringing up issues relating to non-AL games, and/or solutions that work in non-AL games (unless they are applicable in an AL game).

Or is your reason for being here just to troll the AL forums and stir up trouble? I am genuinely curious why you would be participating in a thread that by your own words means nothing to you (because it is AL-related).

 

[nswanson27]

If you drew tour weapon then yes, you couldn't pick it up because you used your free interaction. So don't use disarming strike then. Use it next round when you have your free interaction available.

The maneuver is still useful even if you can't pick it up. The enemy can't pick it up until his turn, so that leaves him unarmed until then. Opportunity attacks would be limited to unarmed. Someone else could pick it up in the meantime. Someone could shove the enemy away from his weapon, etc.

In that case "useful", yes, but considerably underpowered, and sage advice has been clear that this interpretation wasn't the intent of the authors anyway. But this is altogether moot anyway. I already got authoritative response that this issue won't be resolved, which sucks. Inconsistency of play at this level breaks the realism and immersion for me personally, so I have no choice but just not choose disarming strike for any character builds.

 

[delericho]

I have to ask - if you don't play AL, what is your reasoning for participating in an AL-specific thread in an AL-specific forum?

Firstly, I view the threads through the "All Discussion" option. When I clicked on the thread title, it was not apparent that it was AL-specific.

Secondly...

Saying "I don't care about AL" doesn't add anything to the conversation since each and every thread in this forum is devoted exclusively for AL-discussion, and as such - what AL does/doesn't do is all that matters.

I explained that in the post you quoted: "But what I object to is WotC introducing this new category of "firm rulings" because those then become de facto rules that will impact on my game".

AL doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Pauper]

In that case "useful", yes, but considerably underpowered,

And there you have it -- what you really want is a ruling that enshrines your perceived use of this power in authority that you can use to tell the DM how to adjudicate the use of the power.

*That's* the biggest reason AL isn't providing official rulings, to prevent people from telling the DM how to run the game.

--
Pauper

 

[AverageCitizen]

You should be able to pick it up. Unfortunately, a LOT of people conflate 5e sensibilities with 3.5, and will arbitrarily rule accordingly. If so, you could probably make an even better case for being able to kick it away. I don't see how they could argue against that.

 

[nswanson27]

And there you have it -- what you really want is a ruling that enshrines your perceived use of this power in authority that you can use to tell the DM how to adjudicate the use of the power.

*That's* the biggest reason AL isn't providing official rulings, to prevent people from telling the DM how to run the game.

--
Pauper

It's not "my" perceived use, it's the one the authors intended it to be, which has been clearly established. Big difference. And I would appreciate it if you didn't try spin my ask for a consistency in AL play to a power grab over the DM. That is not my intention, and I don't enjoy being accused of things like that. This is a perfectly legitimate issue that affects the level of fun in AL play, and I'm trying to address it fairly.

 

[kalani]

Here is the issue in a nutshell. We can either:

• Give DMs leniency to make appropriate rulings, and trust that any rulings they make are for the good of the game, their players, and game balance...
• Hamstring DMs by providing a list of hard rules that must be followed, regardless of the cost. If a rule does not exist - the DM cannot make one up, and if a situation comes up that demands a rule (or rules change), the DM is SOL until a new set of rules is released.
• Take the middle ground.

4th Edition took the hard-line, and it was a disaster. Due to the kitchen sink nature of LFR, and the fact that the campaign relied exclusively on errata - whenever an issue came up in LFR that caused problems for the OP, the dev's released a new errata that affected ALL games. This would fix the current problems, but create new ones.... and would only work until the next loophole or rules exploit occurred. At that point, players would be free to run amok with DMs being impotent to make corrections until such times as the next errata was released and HOPEFULLY fixed the current issue.

5E takes a moderate approach. There are some hard rules which must be followed, and the rest is left to DM adjudication. The thing is, the hard rules are moderately extensive and despite being moderate - we are having serious difficulty getting DMs and players to follow those rules as is.

For example: DMs are allowed to adjudicate any ambiguous or unclear rules and create a ruling for that session.... Some DMs try to impose those rulings on future DMs, and some players refuse to accept DM authority in this matter. Then there is the FAQ which spells out campaign-wide rulings that MUST be followed, or the fact that DMs are not allowed to substitute monsters in an encounter (but they can add/remove existing monsters).

AL has very few rules which must be followed. We expect players and DMs to abide by the printed rules in the PHB/MM/Errata, the ALPG/ALDMG, and the FAQ. We also provide frequent clarification on how an AL-ruling is intended to function. The AL however, gives plenty of room for players and DMs to make the game their own.... For some, this is still too much restriction, and for others it is not enough.

We can't please everyone, but I think the moderate approach that AL has taken serves the majority overall.