Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?

[Cadfan]

Xxxxx

 

[DM_Blake]

The simple answer tothe original post:

Use common sense to understand the Rules As Written and to find the best interpretation of the Rules As Intended. Don't use common sense as an excuse to disregard a rule, change a rule, or create a new rule.

The more complex answer is the same, but with the added allowance to use common sense to disregard, change, or create rules where doing so is agreed by a consensus of everyone at the gaming table.

 

[FadedC]

There are always going to be some times when you just have to make a common sense ruling because no set of pen and paper rules can cover everything.

To use an example I always gave in 3e, and which works just as well in 4e, by the letter of the rule it's completely legal to have your horse climb a rope. All it requires is an atheltics check (or a climb check in 3e) and horses easily have a high enough strength to make it. I suspect however that there are very few DMs who would not be inclined to make a common sense ruling here.

 

[Umbran]

That's mainly because 4e threw common sense out the window, right along with the baby and the bathwater.

While we invite intelligent criticism, you should please remember that you are in the 4e rules forum. This forum is for discussing the rules. It is not for crapping on the edition as a whole. Please don't do this again.

 

[FireLance]

Common sense should overrule rules, HOWEVER, I often find that what people call common sense is instead an excuse to not use ones imagination to try and make sense of a rule.

Only if you simply cannot come up with some imagined scenario where something could be described in a cinematic manner should "common sense" overrule a rule.

I agree with this, with one proviso: if I the DM am having trouble coming up with a justification for a scene, and the player wants it to happen, it's on the player's head to describe it without rules before I'll let it happen within the rules.

Common sense should win. However, claiming that you're making a ruling because "its common sense" when it is not, in fact, common sense, is still bad.

I tend to find that just asking the player to explain how what he did worked is a great way to avoid abuse without squelching anyone.

Exactly. It's a game where using your imagination is supposed to be encouraged, you know.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As it stands, I really can't think of much that doesn't match common sense reasonably well. The only ones that boggle my mind are the rogue's close blast powers that use ranged weapons. I totally buy throwing a handful of shuriken at a bunch of guys, but I don't buy rapid firing a crossbow like its a mac10.

Yeah, for those ones I'm pretty much stuck with one of two options:
a) Some sort of ricochet trick if it's few enough foes
b) Loading the crossbow with something other than a normal bolt

The real problem is that a power that lets you attack up to 9 foes with a crossbow bolt hitting them with enough accuracy that they are blinded is a first level daily, and as you increase in level, nothing seems to top that in terms of how much skill you'd expect is needed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Neither strike me as being as desireable as they may sound on the surface:

Literal Reading: I'll twist the rules around to see if I can make them say something stupid, if it makes my character more powerful or just gives me a smug sense of intellectual superiority.

Common Sense: I'll ignore what the rules say in favor of what I think they should mean.


It may be difficult, but it's best to read for comprehension. Try to understand the rules without bringing an agenda to your analysis.

 

[Syrsuro]

The only ones that boggle my mind are the rogue's close blast powers that use ranged weapons. I totally buy throwing a handful of shuriken at a bunch of guys, but I don't buy rapid firing a crossbow like its a mac10.

Xena could do it.

She'd just bounce the shot back and forth between them like a ping-pong ball.

Carl

 

[pemerton]

Polearm Gambit hitting characters who teleport next to you? No - its intended to give the characters reach opportunity attacks.

Slightly off-topic - wouldn't the rule that teleport does not provoke OAs for movement deal with this anyway?

 

[Runestar]

On a side note, what are some interesting scenarios you have come across that made you go "Hmm....", and what was your solution to them?

Like, can I use icy terrain (aka the wizard3 power) on a flying enemy?
CS (common sense): No, it is not on the ground.
Rules: Yep, just revise its desc to have it create a thin film of ice on the dragon's wings or something, which then interferes with its ability to stay aloft.

Can I cast my fireball a little above the ground so that I can hit only the larger enemy and spare the shorter PC?
CS: Possible, but a potential slippery slope....
Rules: surprisingly silent on how 3D combat is to be resolved. A literal reading suggests that fireball actually creates a column of flame that is infinitely high! You may also end up with weird stuff like cubic fireballs/burning hands.

Can I use command (the cleric power) on another PC to forcibly slide him, allowing him to automatically escape grapples and avoid AoOs?
CS: Don't be ridiculous...
Rules: Do you even want to go there?

Just interested in compiling a list of sorts for personal reference.