D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Mort]

It's a fantasy world, that ideally has a measure of internal consistency. That might mean that magical solutions don't suffer the same restrictions as nonmagical ones.

Or, It's a fantasy world - that means just because solutions are technically non-magic it doesn't mean they have to be consistent with what would happen in the "real world."

 

[Mort]

I agree. Not a good feat.

It's a GREAT feat.

It's one of the very few abilities that lets a fighter do something meaningful other than "I do loads of damage to it."

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a fantasy world, that ideally has a measure of internal consistency. That might mean that magical solutions don't suffer the same restrictions as nonmagical ones.

It might very well mean magical solutions suffer more and more severe restrictions than non-magical ones. Magic is the wildcard, the game design can do what it wants with it.

However you decide that should work, it needn't get in the way of the game being fair (better yet, balanced).

I agree. Not a good feat.

Sentinel is not a good feat. For instance, because it burns your Reaction, which you also need for Protection Style. Heck, the 5e handling of Reactions is pretty bad, generally, making play too turn-based, too much like you 'freeze' when it's not your turn.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Wasn't this an action that doesn't do damage?

No, it's an opportunity attack with an added effect.

 

[billd91]

This reminds me of another similar bad ruling of Mercer's (again on Marisha's expense,) where he ignored the normal fall rules after the player had already committed to the jump (correctly by the RAW) assuming that that the fall could not be lethal. Buddy, the moment to tell the player that the normal rules won't apply is before they jump!

(Of course what annoyed me more about that than the incident itself, was the internet reaction. There were a lot of "LOL Marisha so dumb" comments, even though her intuition of the rules governing the situation was perfectly correct, Matt just pulled the rug from under her. Smelled like misogyny. )

Before people pull out the pitchforks on that topic again,

 

[cbwjm]

I agree that the kaiju shouldn't have been stopped, and honestly I feel like a lot of movement abilities should have size limits, whether sentinel, thunderwave, or an eldritch blast invocation. However, I normally rule in favour of the players so I'd probably still allow it to be stopped because that's what sentinel does.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Before people pull out the pitchforks on that topic again,

Ah, so a mistake and not a bad ruling. Perfectly understandable, we all make mistakes. Still does not excuse the people mocking Marisha of course. She was the one who had the correct understanding of the situation.

 

[Mort]

It might very well mean magical solutions suffer more and more severe restrictions than non-magical ones. Magic is the wildcard, the game design can do what it wants with it.

However you decide that should work, it needn't get in the way of the game being fair (better yet, balanced).


Sentinel is not a good feat. For instance, because it burns your Reaction, which you also need for Protection Style. Heck, the 5e handling of Reactions is pretty bad, generally, making play too turn-based, too much like you 'freeze' when it's not your turn.

I've toyed with giving fighters something like "combat reflexes: instead of 1 reaction per turn, you get a number of reactions per turn equal to your proficiency modifier." Would make sentinel, polearm master, Protection style etc. very attractive - even at high levels.

 

[Umbran]

I was watching the Critical Role special from Wembley, and there comes a moment where the party is fighting a kaiju-sized opponent and a character, Bo, tries to use a reaction attack from the sentinel feat to stop it moving after another party member. The attack is successful, but Mercer immediately overrules it, asking the player (his wife) “how do you do that?”, to which she had no real answer. Note that after missing on the initial attack she had spent her only reroll to try again, believing that immobilizing the monster was critical.

I agreed with his ruling - her comparatively tiny character somehow locking down a massive supernatural creature to whom she was insignificant would have made no sense in the story.

Sideline: I didn't watch the piece, but he should have gotten the narrative justification for the action before the die rolled. Sometimes things are moving fast, and things get out of order, and that's okay. But if she had to spend a resource to make it happen, and he overrules it, she should get the resource back.

So my question is: when do you feel justified overruling RAW?

For me it is very much a case-by-case thing, difficult to generalize.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've toyed with giving fighters something like "combat reflexes: instead of 1 reaction per turn, you get a number of reactions per turn equal to your proficiency modifier." Would make sentinel, polearm master, Protection style etc. very attractive - even at high levels.

Something like that occurred to me prettymuch at first glance at the 5e rules. My thought was Extra Attack should at least also give you extra OAs....