D&D General When do you overrule RAW?

[el-remmen]

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?

Well, they are still resistant to piercing even if the spear is magical - but I would just describe the spear head scoring and weakening the bones and how the PC can feel as if the weapon were cutting into gauzy ectoplasmic flesh, even though no flesh could be seen.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Well, they are still resistant to piercing even if the spear is magical - but I would just describe the spear head scoring and weakening the bones and how the PC can feel as if the weapon were cutting into gauzy ectoplasmic flesh, even though no flesh could be seen.

Flexible fiction FTW!

 

[abirdcall]

Sometimes there are rules written from a certain perspective that are then used in a different way with unintended consequences.

Monster statblocks and shapeshifting is a big one. Being able to automatically grapple and restrain another creature regardless of size is too much for a CR 1 or 2 creature. It was written that way because it assumes that it will attack PCs.

So I let the player know the limitations of it before using it.

In this scenario of sentinel not working that doesn't mean it is breaking 'raw'.

Monsters can have whatever abilities the DM designs for them. I'm perfectly happy to have a Kaiju have the special ability that they cannot be moved or stopped by anything smaller than them.

This would apply equally to sentinel and spells.

I don't design or use monsters with the party's abilities in mind. I think it would be wrong to specifically take away their abilities. But if it makes sense for the monster to have an ability that is tough for the party to deal with then that is what happens.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I don't want this thread to become another one complaining about martial classes, so I will point out that, regardless of this ruling, the monk and barbarian absolutely dominated that short battle, with the spell casters, including a 20th level wizard using simulacrum, being more adjunct. In this case the ruling went against a martial character, but that doesn't always have to be the case, and as a DM I find myself vetoing RAW far more often when it comes to spells and magical abilities in general.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, they are still resistant to piercing even if the spear is magical - but I would just describe the spear head scoring and weakening the bones and how the PC can feel as if the weapon were cutting into gauzy ectoplasmic flesh, even though no flesh could be seen.

That's fine, of course. Personally, I'd go the other way - a skeleton may not have lungs and organs to puncture, but they also lack muscle and flesh to protect them. Also, they're not very heavy. A good spear-fighter ought to be able to LIFT them with their spear and smash them on the ground (or into a wall) or just PRY them open using the spear as a lever.

I like that we can describe our games with anything we can imagine. (I know you do too). I'm not faulting YOU, but in general, I find that when people call most things "unrealistic", they're just not being imaginative enough.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't want this thread to become another one complaining about martial classes,

Wait.... there's another kind of thread?
Asking for a friend.

As to the subject of the OP, I generally find that there are two types of people-

1. People who believe that the rules are suggestions, and as such don't really think too hard about "overruling" the rules.
2. People who believe that the rules must be followed, and as such are very concerned about overruling the rules.
3. The innumerate.

 

[Pedantic]

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

If the argument is going to be "people want a thing" refuted by "that thing isn't real, they just want me to suffer" forever, then it hardly matters what terms we use. You've go two sides with the explicit premise "adopt my design goal and ignore theirs."

There isn't a compromise there, it's just whining about who's lost the current round of getting what they want.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You know what would have helped?

If we got that modular design they absolutely never promised or mentionedshutupitneverhappened.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, they are still resistant to piercing even if the spear is magical -

I meant, the immune skeletal undead you mentioned, not one with resistance
in reference to:

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. . ."

but I would just describe the spear head scoring and weakening the bones and how the PC can feel as if the weapon were cutting into gauzy ectoplasmic flesh, even though no flesh could be seen.

Fair enough. I was curious if there was some rationalization consistent with damaging the bones being the only way to damage the skeleton, but that works, for instance, with the "animus" explanation of undead, there's an incorporeal animus or magical force with an invisible/intangible body moving the skeleton around, the magic weapon damages that directly, the non-magical one deprives it of articulated bones to move.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the argument is going to be "people want a thing" refuted by "that thing isn't real, they just want me to suffer" forever, then it hardly matters what terms we use. You've go two sides with the explicit premise "adopt my design goal and ignore theirs."

There isn't a compromise there, it's just whining about who's lost the current round of getting what they want.

That's all any of this is. Mostly complaining from the lovers and mostly schadenfreude from the winners.