D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[Micah Sweet]

Not necessarily. Sometimes you have to try a thing to know it won't work.

Like fire and trolls. In my game they are immune, or it heals them, or causes backlash, or anything other than halting their regeneration.

Similar to the idea that you should attack PCs with things they are resistant or even immune to, if it makes sense for an enemy to do so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well it is, if they fail to take into account caltrops working on golems, oozes, fire elementals, etc., etc.. Basically the a lot of this comes down to the fact that D&D is not written to be a simulation. It's a game, and it's rules don't always take verisimilitude into account.

Simply put, if you're going to write rules with the assumption that they do what they say they do in all circumstances, put a disclaimer on your game saying "hey, sometimes rules don't make sense in the logical world we live in. D&D isn't that world.".

In the end of course, the DM is certainly free to change or ignore any rule that makes the campaign less fun. Perhaps Mr. Mercer felt allowing a puny Feat to reduce the challenge of his encounter significantly was, ultimately, less fun for his game. The problem I have is less that he decided to do this, it's more the when and the how.

Doing that when the player is thinking to themselves, well my character has this ability, so I'll do this in the combat isn't great.

And it's made less great when, instead of explaining why it doesn't work, the DM says "now you, player, who have nothing to go on but your own potentially meager knowledge of fighting giant monsters, and have no information other than some vague flavor text, justify your ability's existence!"

Even if the player had come up with a defense, it's the player convincing the DM, and has nothing to do with their character or their abilities. "Ability to persuade the DM out of character" shouldn't be a necessary skill to play D&D.

Did you play much in the TSR era?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wouldn't think so, as long as they are properly explained to the players (and presumably approved by them).

Like say you have a rule that says that Monster of size Huge are immune to things that reduce speed (call it the Juggernaut Rule) simply due to their mass and momentum. If the rule is known, then the player knows they can't use Sentinel or Ray of Frost, or Lance of Lethargy, or anything else in this battle.

If the players feel that's a fair rule (and they will certainly let you know if not, one way or another), everything is good.

If you spring this rule on the fly, OTOH, that may result in damage to your relationship with your players.

I agree it should have been handled beforehand.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."

Doesn't have to be, but IMO if it isn't there should be a clear reason why not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."

Disagree. There are better ways to handle that desire.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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).

It kinda does in this situation though, because it leads to implausible events.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Correct understanding of the rules, absolutely. She did, however, throw her PC off a cliff from a height that has no plausible reason not to be lethal just because the rules said she could.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Correct understanding of the rules, absolutely. She did, however, throw her PC off a cliff from a height that has no plausible reason not to be lethal just because the rules said she could.

There was a small pond and they were "practically gods." High level characters can do crazy stuff in D&D, no particular reason to assume that this specific crazy stuff wouldn't be possible.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

WotC apparently believes this is a very powerful ability- see the capstone of the Cavalier.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was a small pond and they were "practically gods." High level characters can do crazy stuff in D&D, no particular reason to assume that this specific crazy stuff wouldn't be possible.

Not in the rules, no. From an in-character perspective it was a silly and foolhardy action, and I said as much at the time.