D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[CreamCloud0]

There definitely should be a new set of manoeuvres for higher levels.

and/or have the regular maneuvres scale, almost like 'martial cantrips'

 

[Reynard]

and that's exactly the point and the double standard

martials 'have to be clever' to fight something like that (which unfortunately describes what they're reduced to in far too many circumstances when all their regular abilities fail to work), and they don't really get 'better' abilities they just get more of the same things they're already using, casters on the other hand merely have to move up to a better grade of abilities but that are technically still the same abilities they could use on those kobolds too, and it's easier to be 'clever' when you've got magic to assist you.

If the game is going to include things like kaiju, or really anything that requires "powers" to deal with, then the game should include options for martials to be in on that in some form. What form that takes is highly campaign dependent. One campaign might give them "fantasy power armor" a la the Stormlight Archives, while another might make high level warrior types all Beowulf, Gilgamesh and Heracles.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There definitely should be a new set of manoeuvres for higher levels.

Level Up's maneuver system does the job.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And I wish people would stop mischaracterizing what we are saying.

When realism is used as a club to beat down one small subset of classes, it looks that way. That or give non-casters some magic juice/deific blessing/whatever when they hit 9/10th level to get the same handwavium that casters get in order to do the bare minimum of functioning with their limited toolset as the threats they face get more and more fantastic.

Every time I see verisimilitude. diagetic, etc, I cringe. Just some five dollar Forgie words to gussy up the preference that "fighters drool, mages rule.

 

[Maxperson]

When realism is used as a club to beat down one small subset of classes, it kind of is.

It's not, though. I've said repeatedly that casters get it too. Either accept what I am saying as truth(at least about how I DM) and respond to that, or don't respond to me on this subject. I'm not going to engage with mischaracterizations.

 

[el-remmen]

I get what you're saying. I do consider telegraphing as a regular part of my duty as DM in describing a scene to the players.

This makes sense to me. I guess I wasn't thinking about "Describing the scene/describing the monster" as telegraphing, but I do make sure to provide information I think would be obvious and helpful, though sometimes it takes some interaction.

For example, skeletal undead in my games are immune to damage from non-magical piercing weapons, so when someone attacks a skeleton with a spear (for example), I might say "Your blow might have punctured a living man's lung, but instead your spear head rattles around in the skeleton's empty ribcage, drawing nothing but a puff of crypt dust and making no substantial mark on its bones. . ."

Similarly, if the PC in the above scenario were using a warhammer (which many skeletal undead are vulnerable to) I might say, "Your warhammer's blow strikes more heavily than you expected and resounds with the shattering of countless bones and what remains of the skeleton crumbles under its own weight!" I might then append "(You did double damage)."

 

[Micah Sweet]

When realism is used as a club to beat down one small subset of classes, it looks that way. That or give non-casters some magic juice/deific blessing/whatever when they hit 9/10th level to get the same handwavium that casters get in order to do the bare minimum of functioning with their limited toolset as the threats they face get more and more fantastic.

Every time I see verisimilitude. diagetic, etc, I cringe. Just some five dollar Forgie words to gussy up the preference that "fighters drool, mages rule.

Not true, and thanks for the kind words, by the way.

You want to hold magic to a similar standard in a situation where that makes sense? Go for it. I'm of the opinion that martials need some kind of supernatural edge to keep up at higher levels (if you insist on games going that high) anyway.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When realism is used as a club to beat down one small subset of classes, it looks that way. That or give non-casters some magic juice/deific blessing/whatever when they hit 9/10th level to get the same handwavium that casters get in order to do the bare minimum of functioning with their limited toolset as the threats they face get more and more fantastic.

Every time I see verisimilitude. diagetic, etc, I cringe. Just some five dollar Forgie words to gussy up the preference that "fighters drool, mages rule.

So it has been since someone taught the fandom 'verisimilitude' as a cudgel to use against the 'please give the fighter some class features' set back in 3e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

and/or have the regular maneuvres scale, almost like 'martial cantrips'

Definitely /and/, you'd also need leveled, 'limited'-use maneuvers.
The old, if failed, calculus of D&D caster/martial balance figured that since all spells were each useable only 1/day, they could be overwhelmingly powerful compared to at-will abilities. It doesn't work out that way for a lot of reasons, but, in 5e, there's the additional reason that casters have scaling at-will cantrips.

So it has been since someone taught the fandom 'verisimilitude' as a cudgel to use against the 'please give the fighter some class features' set back in 3e.

"Verismillitude" (and "simulation" and "dissociated mechanics") ain't nuthin' but "Realism" misspelled.

(with apologies to Harlan Ellison)

want to hold magic to a similar standard in a situation where that makes sense? Go for it.

Typed damage could go a fair way with that sort of thing. MM does 'force' damage, now, and back in the day, it wasn't specified.
It's one of the perks of a clearer ruleset that things like damage type get spelled out, so if there's some detail in the adventure where it matters, it can be given a concise, mechanical definition, that doesn't discriminate based on the concept of the character inflicting that type of damage.

I'm of the opinion that martials need some kind of supernatural edge to keep up at higher levels (if you insist on games going that high) anyway.

I applaud your honesty in that.
It's not a preference I share, because genre tends to depict heroes without overtly supernatural power carrying the day, and, casters, if they are even supporting cast rather than villains, not entirely overshadowing them.
But, y'know, D&D has established it's own genre where casters are strictly more powerful, and it would be nice if the game were just up-front about that Say, by weighting class choices differently in some way. Max level, especially given 3e/5e style MCing, would be a convenient way of doing that. At some level - 11th, maybe, at the latest - the superntural equivalent of 6th-level spells kicks in for everyone, one way or another. You either take the 11th and later levels of your full-caster class, or the first level of some prestige class that starts with such powers. Simply relegating the few non-caster sub-classes that remain in 5e to 3e-style "NPC Class" choices would also work. They're there, mechanically for the DM's NPCs or even for someone who willfully wants to play an inferior character, but they're not 'traps,' anymore.

For example, skeletal undead in my games are immune to damage from non-magical piercing weapons, so when someone attacks a skeleton with a spear (for example), I might say "Your blow might have punctured a living man's lung, but instead your spear head rattles around in the skeleton's empty ribcage, drawing nothing but a puff of crypt dust and making no substantial mark on its bones. . ."

Cool. That makes me wonder what the magical spear that inflicts +1 damage when piercing a living person's lung does to the skeleton when rattling around in its empty rib cage that does full damage to it? I mean, you could, because magic, visualize anything. Like, the skeleton's lung comes back and it dies choking on it's own blood, as if it were still alive.
But, what's a 'plausible' or 'verisimilitudinous' visualization of the spear's +1 damage to the living, that also explains it's full damage to the skeleton?

Old-school skeletons took half from "sharp" weapons, and feel like there was a point when they took 1 from piercing, 1/2 f/slashing, and full f/bludgeoning - all regardless of whether the weapon was magical - and, skeletons are perhaps a good example, because they were also immune to poison and some of the better low-level spells in the old game, like Sleep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Definitely /and/, you'd also need leveled, 'limited'-use maneuvers.
The old, if failed, calculus of D&D caster/martial balance figured that since all spells were each useable only 1/day, they could be overwhelmingly powerful compared to at-will abilities. It doesn't work out that way for a lot of reasons, but, in 5e, there's the additional reason that casters have scaling at-will cantrips.


Typed damage could go a fair way with that sort of thing. MM does 'force' damage, now, and back in the day, it wasn't specified.
It's one of the perks of a clearer ruleset that things like damage type get spelled out, so if there's some detail in the adventure where it matters, it can be given a concise, mechanical definition, that doesn't discriminate based on the concept of the character inflicting that type of damage.

I applaud your honesty in that.
It's not a preference I share, because genre tends to depict heroes without overtly supernatural power carrying the day, and, casters, if they are even supporting cast rather than villains, not entirely overshadowing them. But, y'know, D&D has established it's own genre where casters are strictly more powerful, and it would be nice if the game were just up-front about that, by weighting class choices differently in some way. Max level, especially given 3e/5e style MCing, would be a convenient way of doing that. At some level - 11th, maybe, at the latest - the superntural equivalent of 6th-level spells kicks in for everyone, one way or another. Simply relegating the few non-caster sub-classes that remain to 3e-style "NPC Class" choices would also work. They're there, mechanically for someone who willfully wants to play an inferior character, but they're not 'traps,' anymore.


Cool. That makes me wonder what the magical spear that inflicts +1 damage when piercing a living person's lung does to the skeleton when rattling around in its empty rib cage that does full damage to it? I mean, you could, because magic, visualize anything. Like, the skeleton's lung comes back and it dies choking on it's own blood, as if it were still alive.
But, what's a 'plausible' or 'verisimilitudinous' visualization of the spear's +1 damage to the living, that also explains it's full damage to the skeleton?

Old-school skeletons took half from "sharp" weapons, and feel like there was a point when they took 1 from piercing, 1/2 f/slashing, and full f/bludgeoning - all regardless of whether the weapon was magical - and, skeletons are perhaps a good example, because they were also immune to poison and some of the better low-level spells in the old game, like Sleep.

Honestly I'd rather just have a shallower advancement curve for PCs and stop personal super-power development at around name level or so (9-14, but like I said a shallower advancement curve). After that, you move into followers and the domain game. True high level spells become lengthy, difficult to source and cast rituals for all casters, but still powerful if you can pull it off.

So much more reminiscent of TSR era play, but leaned into that style even more.