D&D 5E When a rule is clear but leads to illogical efffects

[The Crimson Binome]

If the characters have not fought the swarms previously in their lifes the only problem with your example would be players metagaming and complaining to take an advantage.

If the rules say that you can attack a swarm with a weapon, then it is a true fact of the world that swarms are susceptible to weapon attacks, and characters would know this based on having tried to smash spiders in the past, or from stories they have heard, or from any number of sources; if something is objectively true, then all evidence will be consistent with it. It is simply a case of their world being a different place from our world.

If the actual rule of how the world works is different than that in the book, then the character would instead be aware of that. If it's a true fact of the world that you can't smash spiders with a morningstar, and attempting to fight a whole swarm in such fashion would be as ridiculous as we'd expect in real life, then all evidence would instead support that conclusion. The characters would be aware of this, and players should make their decisions based on that fact.

The issue is when a DM institutes a house rule to make things more realistic (you can't stab a swarm), but the player is still operating on character-logic (which says you can stab a swarm). Unless you actually tell the players about your house rules, it would be meta-gaming on their part if they assumed anything worked as it does in real life rather than how it does in the book. Barring those rare cases of true malicious intent, most accusations of meta-gaming are actually just failure by the DM to respect that characters are real people who have a basic understanding of how their world actually works, just because their world works differently from our world.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If the rules say that you can attack a swarm with a weapon, then it is a true fact of the world that swarms are susceptible to weapon attacks, and characters would know this based on having tried to smash spiders in the past, or from stories they have heard, or from any number of sources; if something is objectively true, then all evidence will be consistent with it. It is simply a case of their world being a different place from our world.

If the actual rule of how the world works is different than that in the book, then the character would instead be aware of that. If it's a true fact of the world that you can't smash spiders with a morningstar, and attempting to fight a whole swarm in such fashion would be as ridiculous as we'd expect in real life, then all evidence would instead support that conclusion. The characters would be aware of this, and players should make their decisions based on that fact.

The issue is when a DM institutes a house rule to make things more realistic (you can't stab a swarm), but the player is still operating on character-logic (which says you can stab a swarm). Unless you actually tell the players about your house rules, it would be meta-gaming on their part if they assumed anything worked as it does in real life rather than how it does in the book. Barring those rare cases of true malicious intent, most accusations of meta-gaming are actually just failure by the DM to respect that characters are real people who have a basic understanding of how their world actually works, just because their world works differently from our world.

The characters would be aware to some extent, but only insofar as you or I would be (unless they had already dealt with swarms in which case the only thing in question is consistency). I certainly couldn't tell you how long it would take to get rid of a swarm of spiders using a morningstar, and I'd be very surprised if you know either. At best, we can say that it's not the most effective method. The DM doesn't have to tell the players everything. Perhaps in his campaign a swarm made up of dozens of insects can be affected by weapons (albeit, at half damage) but a swarm of hundreds is immune. I don't think that the DM is necessarily obligated to tell the players, any more than he would be obligated to tell them that a warrior who proves immune to weapon attacks is actually a werewolf. That's up to the players to figure out (or not).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Specifically, the party rogue was attacked by a swarm of spiders. He poisoned his weapon and attacked the swarm the same as he would any other foe (he is using a subclass form the Primeval Thule Player's Companion that applies poison to his weapon as a bonus action). He hit and rolled his weapon damage (which was cut in half because of the swarm's resistance). He also rolled his poison damage, which was not reduced because the swarm is not immune or resistant to poison damage. Additionally, the swarm failed its saving throw and therefore suffered from the poisoned condition.

There is no ambiguity over how any part of the encounter should function by the RAW. But basically, the rogue killed dozens or hundreds of tiny spiders, crawling on his body, with the swipe of a poisoned sword. Those who survived the blow were somehow very sick. A round or so later, his brother the barbarian killed the last of them by striking them (again, the tiny spiders crawling all over the rogue) with a morningstar.

The spiders weren't crawling on his body. To do that, they'd have to use the optional "climb onto a bigger creature" rules from the DMG, page 271. At that point, they get to make an athletics/acrobatics check against the rogue's acrobatics check. Success means they get advantage on attack rolls and rogue's ability to attack them "depends on the smaller creature's location and is left to your discretion". They also move with him, and he can make an athletics check opposed by their athletics/acrobatics to dislodge them. At that point you might also say that the barbarian is going to at least risk hitting his friend with his mace.

As is, if he'd simply moved away from the swarm, it would have stopped damaging him. It's clear that at worst, he has a few spiders biting his ankles. The bulk of the swarm is on the floor at his feet, at which point him and his friend hitting them with weapons makes sense, and the scenario of 'poison dripping onto the floor' can also explain the effect on the swarm as a whole.

HOWEVER

Yes, there's plenty of points where the rules don't make a lot of sense. Not being able to 'wait and see what happens' if you roll a high initiative, for instance. Many interactions of movement (ie - you start 60 feet from a foe, and both of you are melee fighters who wish to engage each other. Whomever moves first will only get a single attack with a ready action, while the guy who goes second gets his full attack routine) have odd interactions.

 

[dco]

Twenty years or so ago I would have agreed with you. I was totally into the whole "metagaming is bad and when players metagame they are being bad players". Since that time though, I've come to see metagaming as inevitability, and complaints about metagaming as either a sign of poor rules or poor DMing or both.

Take this particular case. The player knows from the rules that he can attack swarms. It is grossly unfair to ask the player to forget that he knows that and try to predict how he would behave if he didn't know that. It is impossible for the player to know how he would behave if he didn't have the information that he has. What's he supposed to do, guess how likely he would have been to make a bad decision? Throw the dice?

If you perceive your players are metagaming, it's rarely their fault. You either need to adjust your procedures or adjust the rules.

What I'm sure is the DM has no fault if their players are metagaming and have selective reading skills.
Modifying monsters is a basic tool for any DM, perhaps those players should have read also the DM's book and learn what a DM is or at least read the section about modifying and creating monsters.

If the rules say that you can attack a swarm with a weapon, then it is a true fact of the world that swarms are susceptible to weapon attacks, and characters would know this based on having tried to smash spiders in the past, or from stories they have heard, or from any number of sources; if something is objectively true, then all evidence will be consistent with it. It is simply a case of their world being a different place from our world.

If the actual rule of how the world works is different than that in the book, then the character would instead be aware of that. If it's a true fact of the world that you can't smash spiders with a morningstar, and attempting to fight a whole swarm in such fashion would be as ridiculous as we'd expect in real life, then all evidence would instead support that conclusion. The characters would be aware of this, and players should make their decisions based on that fact.

The issue is when a DM institutes a house rule to make things more realistic (you can't stab a swarm), but the player is still operating on character-logic (which says you can stab a swarm). Unless you actually tell the players about your house rules, it would be meta-gaming on their part if they assumed anything worked as it does in real life rather than how it does in the book. Barring those rare cases of true malicious intent, most accusations of meta-gaming are actually just failure by the DM to respect that characters are real people who have a basic understanding of how their world actually works, just because their world works differently from our world.

It is the DM's world, that's the first rule, unless you play some kind of narrative game where all the players can participate on how is the world and what happens to it.
The DM can create monsters, modify monsters, surprise the players in different ways, etc, it is not a boardgame where consistency is needed, this is a roleplaying game.
Perhaps I'm lucky, but if my players complained all the time because my monsters or worse my NPCs don't match the book I would sell the monster book or play another game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The DM can create monsters, modify monsters, surprise the players in different ways, etc, it is not a boardgame where consistency is needed, this is a roleplaying game.
Perhaps I'm lucky, but if my players complained all the time because my monsters or worse my NPCs don't match the book I would sell the monster book or play another game.

Roleplaying games take place in consistent worlds. It doesn't matter whether anything matches what's in the book; it matters whether it matches itself.

Players take on the roles of characters who actually live within the game world. If it's something that the character should know, then the DM is obligated to tell the player, or else the game is utterly unplayable as a roleplaying game.

 

[MNblockhead]

That's why we have Rule 0. Because this isn't a sporting match refereed by a neutral arbiter. It's a fun past-time, usually played by friends.

A sporting match refereed by a neutral arbiter is not a fun past-time often played by friends? I think this says a lot about where you are coming from.

;-)

I love this discussion because I can accept both positions and would be happy playing with a GM who takes either position. Anyway, carry on you two.

 

[Lanefan]

Roleplaying games take place in consistent worlds. It doesn't matter whether anything matches what's in the book; it matters whether it matches itself.

Players take on the roles of characters who actually live within the game world. If it's something that the character should know, then the DM is obligated to tell the player, or else the game is utterly unplayable as a roleplaying game.

Absolutely.

Where we (all) probably differ is in our assumptions of how much the characters know before they start adventuring as opposed to how much they just have to learn the hard way.

Personally, as my preference is to have characters become heroes rather than start out as heroes (i.e. more a 1e approach than 4e), I generally assume they don't know much about much beyond the very basics until they've encountered it once or been told about it by someone. And this includes stuff that's in theory covered by the rules.

For example, all the spells and their effects etc. are listed in the rulebooks but that by no means says every character - or even any character - knows what any given spell can do or how it works until they either see it cast or someone in the party learns how to cast it. Before that, it's what amounts to a scaled-difficulty knowledge check (ranging all the way from trivial to fuggeddabouddit) based on your class, your level, and the level of the spell.

The same might apply with swarms: sure the rules might say something but that doesn't mean the characters will automatically know it until they've learned by trial and error. Burning trolls is a more classic example of this.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Roleplaying games take place in consistent worlds. It doesn't matter whether anything matches what's in the book; it matters whether it matches itself.

Players take on the roles of characters who actually live within the game world. If it's something that the character should know, then the DM is obligated to tell the player, or else the game is utterly unplayable as a roleplaying game.

The Forge called, they want you to pose for the picture in the "Simulationist" entry.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The same might apply with swarms: sure the rules might say something but that doesn't mean the characters will automatically know it until they've learned by trial and error. Burning trolls is a more classic example of this.

In general, I agree, but I would disagree on this specific. In real life, I am fairly confident in guessing that a rapier or warhammer would serve me poorly against a 5' cube full of hornets. If the game world was different enough that this was not the case, then it's a safe bet that my professional sword-or-hammer-wielder would have figured that out by now. That's just because bugs are common, though, and a swarm of bugs is easy to visualize; a troll is something about which an inexperienced character would be less likely to comfortably speculate.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I don't necessarily find illogical to have a swarm of spiders not inherently immune to poison because poisoning insects can still be subject to some drugs or poison, nor is successfully attacking tiny creatures sharing space with a larger one because a hit is a hit regardless of size or location.

The DM could have always give disadvantage to attack them if he thought it's was particularly difficult to achieve.


Yan
D&D Playtester