D&D 5E (2014) How has your personal experience/expertise affected rulings?

[pogre]

I have coached track & field for years and years. Some of the jump rules have raised my eyebrows, but I think I have let the rules dictate some world class jumps in armor.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with the OP, and only have a couple of things I would add. First, while I try to base my rulings on common sense (experience) of how things would work in the real world I also accept there are a lot of things I don't know. So I try to give players the benefit of the doubt. I assume that even if the players are doing something stupid, or forgetting something critical, their characters are reasonably competent. Especially if trained.

So if I think the plan is close enough, or there's a logical reason to apply a skill I'll allow it on a regular basis.

Having said that ...

You don't need a feather bed to get a good nights sleep. As long as you are reasonably warm and not excessively noisy you can get a good nights sleep. I've done hiking trips where we slept on rocks (no padding) and I was fine, if a bit stiff. So I don't assume that sleeping in armor is a problem because we already have (amazingly) well made armor you can wear all day.

Strength matters for archery. I get that there's this weird clean split between strength and dex. Because of that we can have a world class archer with a 30 pound bow because they have a 6 strength. There's a big difference being able to hit a target and hitting it with enough oomph to do real damage. It's why I added bows that allow you to add your strength mod to attack and damage.

Endurance/Constitution matters. I don't care how strong you are, at a certain point you use up the immediately available energy and you need to pull on reserves. In fact, some people with the greatest endurance have fairly low strength. I think this is best marked by constitution.

 

[Fractal Rabbit]

I'm with the OP here. I have used my own personal knowledge to change the game. I was, waaaaay back in the day, part of a Mountain Search & Rescue Team. I was trained in Land Nav, Winter Survival (I got to go to Greenland in February!), Rappelling, Rock Climbing, etc.

I've also had players with knowledge convince me through their own real life skills and training that things should be tweaked.

I get that some frown on bending to Realism/Verisimilitude in a game based on heroic fantasy but I enjoy it quite a bit. Used to play with a DM who was an ER Physician and man was his combat crazy. He'd added all the homebrew healing rules (e.g. Broken bones needed to be set before healing spells were used or bad things happened at the point of break, etc.). I found it refreshing and immersive. And surviving his combat was an achievement, not because he was a Killer DM out for blood but because of how some aspects mirrored real life.

It made the fantasy parts even more fantastic.

Good topic, Sacrosanct!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think it's safe to say that every DM uses all of their personal knowledge to make rulings. The difficult thing is knowing when to use information your experience tells you is wrong. Frex, if the rules say the characters have X% chance of doing something and the DM knows better, it's generally best to go with the RAW because the players are basing their plans on the rules.

Another problem comes up when one of the players knows the rules are wrong. This puts the DM in a bad position, since it can insert unexpected changes into the game that are tough to cope with, and since the DM doesn't have enough information to know if a player decides to snow him.

 

[abirdcall]

I have a degree in a medical field.

As such I think Medicine (Wisdom) makes no sense. Also, it's such a narrow skill anyway esp. with magical healing available that people shouldn't take it.

Nature (Intelligence) covers everything that people would think Medicine would. If you know about anatomy and physiology you know Medicine. It's the same thing.

 

[Coroc]

I am pretty interested in historic things from the middle Ages and Renaissance, so in my games i use some houserules for more realism. E.g. there is no leather armor or studded leather, there is padded and bolstered armor (made from layers of linen) and Brigantine (the source of many People being stuped in that leather with studs has a use above being accesoires for a heavy metal fans or sm studios). I only allow rapier main gauche to be dual wielded and only in Settings which have a Renaissance background (read: rapiers exist in the setting). In my renaissance setting platemail is available easy but you will not be able to buy chainmail, it is much to expensive to produce and inferior, that is another thing from actual history. Otoh if i decide the Setting has a dark ages Background platemail and polearms might not be available.

 

[Lanefan]

In our crew I'm the only one with any real boating/yachting experience (though none of it recent!), so I'm on solid footing with that sort of thing as DM and often have to chime in as a player when such things come up. I'm also well-versed in weather - I was a weather geek long before I became a D&D geek - and describing realistic weather can really help set the tone and make the world believable.

Another player in our group knows much more about horses than the rest of us - meaning we non-horsey types just ask her about that stuff when we need to. And so on.

And we go for realism where we can, knowing full well that a) it's not always possible and b) when it is, our imagined realism might not entirely reflect actual realism - as the OP points out quite well.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

One of my players tried to set some cobwebs on fire when the party was entering the nest of some giant spiders. I told them: "Nothing happens, because cobwebs are not flammable."

And my players were like: "What? Are you sure? Wow, I never knew."

I usually do a bit of research for certain things in the campaign. For example, I researched various tropical fruit, what they taste like, and how to eat them. This allows me to add an extra bit of immersion by giving them accurate information for even seemingly minor things. I also know what the tree looks like that the fruit grows on, and describe it to them accurately.

Then again, one of my players is a chemist, and he'll correct me too when I get some basic chemistry wrong.

 

[Sadras]

Or a second example is climbing, like a rock face or mountain climbing. Most people who have never done it assume there is a large strength requirement needed. Nope. It's all technique. In fact, if you use your arms to pull you up, you'll burn out and get muscle failure very fast. If anything, all climbing checks would be DEX, not STR. Sorry DEV team, you got that one wrong. Same with survival. That should be intelligence, not wisdom. As a survivalist myself, it relies WAY more on actual knowledge than decision making skills, because the decision making skills are a no brainer if you have the knowledge to begin with. The only decision making skills are "get security, get shelter, get food, all in that order". Without the knowledge you're screwed.These are all examples of errors from assumptions I see in the game often.

Emphasis mine.

Just playing devil's advocate here...wouldn't proficiency in the skill signify that you have the technique or the knowledge of the skill already, otherwise what would the proficiency bonus signify?

 

[Lanefan]

One of my players tried to set some cobwebs on fire when the party was entering the nest of some giant spiders. I told them: "Nothing happens, because cobwebs are not flammable."

Which while probably true in real life, rather flies in the face of long-established D&D lore largely built around the Web spell, the webs from which have always been quite flammable.