D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[CreamCloud0]

Hard to see this as a good thing, personally.

the double standard you mean?

 

[Oofta]

I try not to override RAW in game as a spur-of-the-moment decision. I try to make any house rules offline after a discussion with my players. I may still make a decision they disagree with, but I will hear them out and we'll discuss it.

 

[James Gasik]

the double standard you mean?

Quite.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sentinel doesn't have to just physically impede an enemies movement. They can get in the way, distract, make themselves a better target, goad the monster, etc. It's the idea that it's purely physical that is the problem, not the rules.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So to answer the OP: Whenever I want to, but also rarely. There's seldom any need.

 

[Mort]

I don't think it was necessarily a doomed venture, if she could of come up with some reason to stop it that made some sense within the fiction, rather than just the rules, I think he would have allowed it. But that does penalise unimaginative players.

Perhaps. I've seen Critical Role enough to know when Mercer asks a question like that - it usually means your chance of success is at/near 0%. He's actually quite conservative on his game rulings (at least last I saw, haven't watched the current campaign at all really).

I agree with @James Gasik. Questions like that HEAVILY over penalize martials. The answer really is - because I can, that's why.

It's not even silly. In a world where massive monsters exist, maybe people learn weak spots that "real world" people don't have to bother with.

But to answer the OP. I'll overrule RAW when it leads to an unanticipated/absurd/unfun result, 99/100 I will not overrule it AGAINST a player.

 

[Quickleaf]

Whenever possible.

I actually see this as more an issue of the "GM as a listening device" and "communicating clearly."

I'm paying attention to player intent – what are they trying to do? This may mean listening carefully or it may mean asking questions. If the player's intent doesn't conform to the RAW, I'll make it up, crafting a reasonable mechanic around their intent.

For your Critical Role example, I would have paused the player as they were describing their attack (keeping in mind that they've been thwarting my enemies with Sentinel before), BEFORE they rolled, and asked their intent. "Are you trying to hamper its movement somehow? Can you describe that?" When they couldn't, that's when I'd say "This thing is colossal and your normal techniques at hampering movement wouldn't work. It would take something like an incredibly strong wire or fishing net or something like that around its legs to even begin slowing it."

I'd be offering a give and take, in other words, trying to meet the player in the middle.

 

[MGibster]

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. But I know others would have very different feelings. So my question is: when do you feel justified overruling RAW?

I have some mixed feelings about this. On one hand, you're absolutely right, something human sized stopping such a massive creature is somewhat silly. But then again, D&D in particular is full of such silliness. A 30 pound halfing shouldn't be able to lock down a 280 pound goliath but rules as written they certainly can. An elf paladin shouldn't be able to hurt a gargantuan red dragon with his longsword but the rules as written say they can. I guess it just depends on what you're willing to accept as reasonable.

I tend to overrule RAW when I feel its reasonable. Generally speaking, I avoid doing so and won't overrule RAW unless I have a compelling reason.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem with this is that Sentinel doesn't have any limitations to it's ability, unlike other Martial abilities (see my Pushing Attack example, above).

Sentinel's text:

You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemy's guard, gaining the following benefits.

• When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
• Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
• When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Adding a "this has to make sense to me" as an additional limitation, then asking the player how their ability functions is simply unfair. Do we ask the Wizard to show us how to make a fireball with spell components? Do we require Fighter players to be master swordsman IRL before they can play their characters?

It's a roleplaying game, where you assume the role of a character who is, almost assuredly, more competent than the player at their chosen field. The player might not know how it works, but surely the character does!

 

[R_J_K75]

D&D in particular is full of such silliness

Yeah, case in point, 3E Epic Level Handbook gave a skill, class feature or feat that let you swim up waterfalls. Aquaman, go talk to some fish...