D&D 5E What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?

[Corwin]

You think a high enough perception somehow gives people DareDevil like senses.

Yeah, you keep telling me that's my belief...



For whatever reason, your posts remind me of those DMs who grit their teeth in dismay over aarokocra because they want to "challenge" the party with a 20' wide hole in the ground..

 

[MiraMels]

<facepalm>. It's magic dude. Did I say I was using the invisibility spell?

OK, it's a short gargoyle. Gargoyles are indistinguishable from statues when at rest.

Short gargoyle with the invisibility spell cast on them and they are motionless long before the PCs arrive and there's no environmental factors to draw attention to their presence? Automatically hidden, I agree with you. The PCs don't have a chance to notice the gargoyle.

That's still a ruling, and this thread was supposed to be about the rules-as-written.

As the original "You know the exact location of an invisible creature until said creature takes the Hide action and beats your passive perception" girl who started this whole mess, I stand by my assertion that that is how to handle perception and invisibility, unless the DM rules specific circumstances require a different mechanical interpretation. Nothing you've said over the past week has convinced me otherwise.

But mostly I feel bad for the OP because I doubt this whole production has been useful to them (they originally came here asking for help with something specific remember) and I'd really like it if we could all just let this conversation drop. There's nothing new being said about the invisibility rules now that wasn't being said three days ago.



Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

Short gargoyle with the invisibility spell cast on them and they are motionless long before the PCs arrive and there's no environmental factors to draw attention to their presence? Automatically hidden, I agree with you. The PCs don't have a chance to notice the gargoyle.

That's still a ruling, and this thread was supposed to be about the rules-as-written.

As the original "You know the exact location of an invisible creature until said creature takes the Hide action and beats your passive perception" girl who started this whole mess, I stand by my assertion that that is how to handle perception and invisibility, unless the DM rules specific circumstances require a different mechanical interpretation. Nothing you've said over the past week has convinced me otherwise.

But mostly I feel bad for the OP because I doubt this whole production has been useful to them (they originally came here asking for help with something specific remember) and I'd really like it if we could all just let this conversation drop. There's nothing new being said about the invisibility rules now that wasn't being said three days ago.



Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

IMHO the intent of the game was never to be limited to rules as written only. They had very detailed rules for stealth at one point and decided to scrap them for a more "open" ruling.

Therefore I was pointing out that the phrase "the only way for an invisible creature to avoid detection is to take the hide action" is not RAW or RAI, which is specifically pointed out in the podcast.

You can't run the game based on the rules in the book alone, it's not computer code instructions and it's not meant to be. It's actually more difficult to write rules in such a way as to allow this kind of flexibility for the DM, but I'm happy they did.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

IMHO the intent of the game was never to be limited to rules as written only. They had very detailed rules for stealth at one point and decided to scrap them for a more "open" ruling.

Therefore I was pointing out that the phrase "the only way for an invisible creature to avoid detection is to take the hide action" is not RAW or RAI, which is specifically pointed out in the podcast.

You can't run the game based on the rules in the book alone, it's not computer code instructions and it's not meant to be. It's actually more difficult to write rules in such a way as to allow this kind of flexibility for the DM, but I'm happy they did.

The first line here is the most accurate statement you have made. The game is all about interpretation and rulings of rules. This specific topic is about RAW, which kind of means it is kind of limited to things as written in the book. You could make a case of a misapplication of the "rulings over rules" rule, but that is getting way to meta. This subject has gone way beyond the scope of the topic and probably should be its own. Maybe one specifically about Invisibility and the more meta one "When DM rulings become RAW" or "Is the rule of doesn't say you can't RAW"

 

[Caliban]

Short gargoyle with the invisibility spell cast on them and they are motionless long before the PCs arrive and there's no environmental factors to draw attention to their presence? Automatically hidden, I agree with you. The PCs don't have a chance to notice the gargoyle.

That's still a ruling, and this thread was supposed to be about the rules-as-written.

So you are choosing to completely ignore the rules that say the DM decides when you get a perception check, or when you need to make a stealth check then?

A creature may be undetected without actually attempting to hide (as there is no "hidden" condition in the rules). It's completely in the purview of the DM, based on their reading of the situation. That's the rules, not a ruling.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

So you are choosing to completely ignore the rules that say the DM decides when you get a perception check, or when you need to make a stealth check then?

A creature may be undetected without actually attempting to hide (as there is no "hidden" condition in the rules). It's completely in the purview of the DM, based on their reading of the situation. That's the rules, not a ruling.

There's no "undetected" (or "unseen" for that matter) condition defined either. I think in both cases we all understand the natural language of both words and don't need to have the PH to have a defined condition for everything that is being discussed.

 

[Oofta]

The first line here is the most accurate statement you have made. The game is all about interpretation and rulings of rules. This specific topic is about RAW, which kind of means it is kind of limited to things as written in the book. You could make a case of a misapplication of the "rulings over rules" rule, but that is getting way to meta. This subject has gone way beyond the scope of the topic and probably should be its own. Maybe one specifically about Invisibility and the more meta one "When DM rulings become RAW" or "Is the rule of doesn't say you can't RAW"

LOL. I want to whine about the "most accurate statement..." dig and agree with you.

If I wasn't going camping tomorrow, I might start that thread. Alas I will be blessedly disconnected from the world.

 

[Caliban]

There's no "undetected" (or "unseen" for that matter) condition defined either. I think in both cases we all understand the natural language of both words and don't need to have the PH to have a defined condition for everything that is being discussed.

Yet you seem to be claiming that an invisible and silent creatures would automatically be detected unless it actively attempted to stealth. Apparently "natural language" isn't enough for you. Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Also, I believe you are mistaken about this thread being about RAW. The title says "mistake or misapply" - to me, that's more about RAI and reasonable rulings, not blind RAW.

 

[Satyrn]

IMHO the intent of the game was never to be limited to rules as written only. They had very detailed rules for stealth at one point and decided to scrap them for a more "open" ruling.

Therefore I was pointing out that the phrase "the only way for an invisible creature to avoid detection is to take the hide action" is not RAW or RAI, which is specifically pointed out in the podcast.

I have grown a strong dislike for the phrase Rules As Written over the past few years.

I wonder if I can force Game As Written into common use instead.

Things like this, from page 4 of the DMG is the Game As Written

And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them . . . The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

 

[Oofta]

I have grown a strong dislike for the phrase Rules As Written over the past few years.

I wonder if I can force Game As Written into common use instead.

Things like this, from page 4 of the DMG is the Game As Written

You and me both. I try to avoid the phrase, it's too often used as a shortcut for "I'm Right in All Ways".