D&D 5E When RAW goes too far

[Fenris-77]

I don't think the issues with Leomund's Tiny Hut are what the thread is about either. Yes, it's OP, no it's not the topic at hand.

 

[clearstream]

I disagree.

Anything, no matter how ridiculous, can be attempted.

The DM can tell me my PC has absolutely zero chance of success and might even hurt or kill itself in the process, but she's overstepped her bounds if she tells me I can't make the attempt.

Put another way, there's a very big difference between her telling me I can't succeed and telling me I can't try.

Hmm... I guess here I mean something like "perform acts that could result in what you want". My 1st-level character cannot disintegrate Waterdeep (the city, everyone in it). They cannot "attempt" to do that, because any such attempt will be nonsense. They will be performing acts that could not possibly result in what they want, so that there is no causal relationship between what they are doing and what they want.

Thus, when I speak of attempt, I mean perform acts that could have a causal relationship with what you want. Not acts that could not have a causal relationship with what you want. Say my character holds their breath until Waterdeep goes away... I'm not dignifying that with "attempt". They're doing something, but that something doesn't amount to an attempt to disintegrate Waterdeep.

If to attempt just means to do anything I like and call it an attempt to do X, notwithstanding whether it could even make any progress toward X, then sure, a character can attempt what they like in that sense.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

well my all time favorite still is the dual wielding of jousting lances to get two attacks from one mounted charge, please don't ask for the nonsensical justification.

my reaction: Help! (like in the tweet)

The one sensical (to me at least) justification is that you just point both lances at the same area.

 

[Asisreo]

Hmm... I guess here I mean something like "perform acts that could result in what you want". My 1st-level character cannot disintegrate Waterdeep (the city, everyone in it). They cannot "attempt" to do that, because any such attempt will be nonsense. They will be performing acts that could not possibly result in what they want, so that there is no causal relationship between what they are doing and what they want.

Thus, when I speak of attempt, I mean perform acts that could have a causal relationship with what you want. Not acts that could not have a causal relationship with what you want. Say my character holds their breath until Waterdeep goes away... I'm not dignifying that with "attempt". They're doing something, but that something doesn't amount to an attempt to disintegrate Waterdeep.

If to attempt just means to do anything I like and call it an attempt to do X, notwithstanding whether it could even make any progress toward X, then sure, a character can attempt what they like in that sense.

I'd probably ask how they wanted to disintegrate Waterdeep. If they have something in mind, I'll listen. If it's nonsensical, I'll tell them it probably won't work. If they're persistent to try, I'll let them fail quickly just to reinforce that it wasn't possible.

But I ask because I'm not all-knowledgable. I don't know if they have something that really makes sense. I don't want to shutdown creativity, I just want to keep the realism grounded.

Maybe what they're attempting is more interesting than the path predetermined, too. It's certainly interesting to see how a player would go about destroying a whole city in one go.

 

[Lanefan]

Hmm... I guess here I mean something like "perform acts that could result in what you want".

I think you're missing my point.

"Perform acts..." means do. I * hit the Orc with my arrow. I * jump across the Mississippi. I * disintegrate Waterdeep.

"Attempt to..." means try. To each of the above, '*' gets replaced with 'try to'.

The DM is fully within her rights to simply say "You fail". She is not within her rights to say "You can't make the attempt".

My 1st-level character cannot disintegrate Waterdeep (the city, everyone in it). They cannot "attempt" to do that, because any such attempt will be nonsense.

Again you're not getting it.

So what if it's nonsense? Nothing can ever stop me from trying to jump to the moon even if a great many things are ironclad guaranteed to stop me from succeeding.

If to attempt just means to do anything I like and call it an attempt to do X, notwithstanding whether it could even make any progress toward X, then sure, a character can attempt what they like in that sense.

OK, now you've got it.

Never mind that give me enough uninterrupted time with a hammer (and an Elf-length lifespan!) and yes I could in theory disintegrate Waterdeep.

 

[Gadget]

I thought we had left most of this kind of silliness (in the OP) behind in 3.x. The rules are not a fantasy world physics simulation engine (TM). Sometimes you have to use some common sense.

 

[Asisreo]

I thought we had left most of this kind of silliness (in the OP) behind in 3.x. The rules are not a fantasy world physics simulation engine (TM). Sometimes you have to use some common sense.

I find common sense to be overrated in both D&D discussions and in real life because nobody really has a metric for what's common sense. For some, common sense is that rain would extinguish an oil fire but that's not true. Others might think it's common sense you can't walk up walls but in D&D, there are ways.

Does gravity really work the same in D&D as irl? To what extent? Does gravity not exist in the ethereal plane? Common sense says no but do arrows no longer have limited range if that's true? Do all your shots need to account for the earth's slight curve or else they fly off into ethereal space?

Even mundane things that are common sense don't actually make sense. You'd expect flame-tipped arrows to do fire damage but irl, they're pretty worthless.

 

[Gadget]

I find common sense to be overrated in both D&D discussions and in real life because nobody really has a metric for what's common sense. For some, common sense is that rain would extinguish an oil fire but that's not true. Others might think it's common sense you can't walk up walls but in D&D, there are ways.

Sigh. Yes, but I submit that if you're pulling out the slide rule and calculator to try and solve these things, you might be overdoing it. The rules are there to facilitate a interacting in a fantasy game of make believe. Is there seriously people who think their character can walk up walls without a specific ability to do so? If so, maybe the rules are the least of your problems. Miles after all, are still miles.

The rules are not, however, a holodeck that just does everything for a group.

Does gravity really work the same in D&D as irl? To what extent? Does gravity not exist in the ethereal plane? Common sense says no but do arrows no longer have limited range if that's true? Do all your shots need to account for the earth's slight curve or else they fly off into ethereal space?

When do these questions ever matter? How often do they come up? Why are they (or are they) important? These are, imho, more relevant questions to answer before one digs into the above details.

Even mundane things that are common sense don't actually make sense. You'd expect flame-tipped arrows to do fire damage but irl, they're pretty worthless.

In real life they were used to set structures and ship's rigging and such on fire, iirc, and probably weren't used as often as media portrays. If one is looking to the rules to answer each and every point in questions like these, it makes for a very different game. The rules are not there to necessarily provide excessive realism, but to facilitate play in the genre in a relatively smooth way. Obviously, ymmv. But I do not think overdone process sim enhances the game.

 

[Asisreo]

Sigh. Yes, but I submit that if you're pulling out the slide rule and calculator to try and solve these things, you might be overdoing it. The rules are there to facilitate a interacting in a fantasy game of make believe. Is there seriously people who think their character can walk up walls without a specific ability to do so? If so, maybe the rules are the least of your problems. Miles after all, are still miles.

The rules are not, however, a holodeck that just does everything for a group.



When do these questions ever matter? How often do they come up? Why are they (or are they) important? These are, imho, more relevant questions to answer before one digs into the above details.

So, back before sage advice. Many people were sure breath attacks counted as magical. It's common sense, it's surely not natural to have a creature barf up cold so it should count as magical. Except it doesn't.

In real life they were used to set structures and ship's rigging and such on fire, iirc, and probably weren't used as often as media portrays. If one is looking to the rules to answer each and every point in questions like these, it makes for a very different game. The rules are not there to necessarily provide excessive realism, but to facilitate play in the genre in a relatively smooth way. Obviously, ymmv. But I do not think overdone process sim enhances the game.

The arrows weren't really the point, but for the record, you aren't burning anything with fire arrows. They're usually too fast and the wind kills the flames, too front heavy to be effective projectiles, or they people next to it will just stamp the fire down.

 

[Gadget]

So, back before sage advice. Many people were sure breath attacks counted as magical. It's common sense, it's surely not natural to have a creature barf up cold so it should count as magical. Except it doesn't

And this matters when? In an anti-magic field? I can't think of another situation where it would, off the top of my head. Except that 5e does distinguish between spells and other effects that are usually considered magical. And parsing the difference between various supernatural abilities is a far cry from realizing that a wall provides cover from most effects and attacks.

The arrows weren't really the point, but for the record, you aren't burning anything with fire arrows. They're usually too fast and the wind kills the flames, too front heavy to be effective projectiles, or they people next to it will just stamp the fire down.

And what was the point? The point I was making is that 5e's rulings not rules goes a long way to expediting the game without having to provide a physics manual on how each thing works. We can still have arguments about how effective fire arrows are/were/should be in game, we just don't have an arbitrary rule bloating the books about it.