D&D 5E When RAW goes too far

[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.

There are some things that a character cannot meaningfully try. The best approach is to deflect them with an indirect "No", by asking "How will you do that?" That directs their thought to something they genuinely could attempt. So a 1st-level Half-Orc Fighter cannot "attempt" to cast a fireball. They can attempt to learn where an item might be found that could give them that possibility. But then, what they are attempting is something else... they are attempting to find the local sage perhaps... or whatever act seems likely to set them on the right course.

The problem I see with "Go ahead, but you can't succeed" is that I think this really is just to say "You cannot attempt that" but it's also not constructive. It doesn't guide the player to think of something their character really could attempt. It might be fun a few times for comic relief, if the half-orc goes through the motions they have seen the party Wizard doing. But that could also mislead and mock the player if they genuinely didn't realise that casting fireball is not something a 1st-level fighter can do. I think it would have been better to let them know that they might prefer to roll a wizard or sorcerer who will be able to do it at level 5.

 

[clearstream]

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".

Ah, I see. So I take attempt to include in its meaning "act in a way that bears a relation to what you aim to achieve"

I see that Google defines it as "make an effort to achieve or complete (something difficult)" so I do not call it attempting if no effort is available to the character that could achieve or complete that difficult thing. A caster can attempt to cast invisibility but a 1st-level fighter with no magic items or spells cannot attempt to be invisible. What they can do is attempt to hide, but they will not be able to do so as if they were invisible, simply by saying that they attempt to hide as if they were invisible. I will disregard the invisible part and I will let them know that it cannot apply.

OTOH this could be about whether DMs should ever say "No". Some groups think not. I am not in that camp. I think a good DM says "No" whenever they need to. That makes it clear to players what the constraints are and moves them toward doing something constructive. I like my RPG to be as much game as role-play, and that gamefulness is crucial to my enjoyment. In a game, some things - those things that are against the rules - cannot be attempted. If they are, then that is to cheat or in the case of the spoilsport as Huizinga put it, to shatter the play world.

 

[clearstream]

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".

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.

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.

Actually, I wanted to also acknowledge your point here. Yes, you are right to say "attempt" is like "try" and my response could be seen as a quibble. We both end up with an implicit "no" or as you put it "you fail".

The nuances that I wanted to call out include that on the game side of role-playing game, the rules are constitutive (we accept them just so that we can play the game). To attempt an action that is against the rules is to cheat or be a spoilsport (using these terms in a fairly technical sense, not pejoratively). So with their referee hat on a DM should say "No, you cannot do that" if a player wants to act against the rules.

Then there is the matter of possibility. I am saying that if something is impossible for a character to do, they can't really attempt that thing and to entertain them in trying could mislead them. They need to be let know that it is impossible, and guided one way or another to changing tack. That's where I like @Asisreo's "How will you do that" as a gentle form of "No, but what do you want to try that you could possibly do?"

 

[Lanefan]

Well, it's certainly an unnatural occurence. Like, I could explain scientifically why an element-breathing dragon couldn't exist. I mean, fire/ice? It's a stretch but ok. Lightning? Hell no.

Lightning isn't much of a stretch at all.

Just think of a blue dragon as the end-state evolution of what we know as the electric eel.

That said, I've always seen dragon breath as just something the creature could do. It's not dispellable, can't be countered by counterspell or similar, and works just fine in an anti-magic field.

And that said, while the breath weapon would work fine in an anti-magic field the dragon itself would have serious problems, as I have dragons (and many other creatures e.g. unicorns, elves, most 'fey' creatures, etc.) as being intrinsically magic-based. Being in a null-magic area for any length of time can and will kill them - and this causes problems for Elf PCs now and then too.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, I wanted to also acknowledge your point here. Yes, you are right to say "attempt" is like "try" and my response could be seen as a quibble. We both end up with an implicit "no" or as you put it "you fail".

The nuances that I wanted to call out include that on the game side of role-playing game, the rules are constitutive (we accept them just so that we can play the game). To attempt an action that is against the rules is to cheat or be a spoilsport (using these terms in a fairly technical sense, not pejoratively). So with their referee hat on a DM should say "No, you cannot do that" if a player wants to act against the rules.

Agreed.

What I'm referring to are the kind of gonzo (attempted) actions that the rules never even consider.

Then there is the matter of possibility. I am saying that if something is impossible for a character to do, they can't really attempt that thing and to entertain them in trying could mislead them.

No problem there. They'll learn by trial and error what's impossible and what isn't.

Hell, one of the true joys of D&D is that you can try anything, no matter how ridiculous, just to see what happens next - if anything.

They need to be let know that it is impossible, and guided one way or another to changing tack.

Again, trial by error will accomplish this just as well, only with more entertainment in the meantime.

 

[Coroc]

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

problem is you are essentially doubling the area of impact with the same kinetic energy. So if you care at all for physics, rightfully each Lance should only do half damage, assuming you hit with both.
Also it is more difficult to hit with both so the attack should get penalties.

 

[Fenris-77]

problem is you are essentially doubling the area of impact with the same kinetic energy. So if you care at all for physics, rightfully each Lance should only do half damage, assuming you hit with both.
Also it is more difficult to hit with both so the attack should get penalties.

I think there are some issues with the bolded part of your argument. I don't think that 'rightly' they'd do half damage at all. If I punch two holes in you I'm doing more damage than I would with just one hole. The holes aren't half sized or anything. The second part of your post is accurate though - it does sounds like a difficult task.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The second part of your post is accurate though - it does sounds like a difficult task.

Well, that's why it need a feat to do it. Because most people can't.

 

[Coroc]

I think there are some issues with the bolded part of your argument. I don't think that 'rightly' they'd do half damage at all. If I punch two holes in you I'm doing more damage than I would with just one hole. The holes aren't half sized or anything. The second part of your post is accurate though - it does sounds like a difficult task.

sorry you are as wrong as can be. It is not about you thrusting one lance individually with the force provided by your left and your right arm. It is a horse with a mass and a velocity providing impact energy to a Lance with an impact area. Via that impact area the kinetic energy is converted. The smaller it is the more devastating it gets and the less energy is needed e.g. for penetration.
think doctor giving you a shot, if the needles diameter would be one inch at the tip, he would have to use a maul to punch it through your skin.
so now using double the impact area halves the energy at each impact area and so the damage.
this of course does not apply for normal dual wield with two different energy sources (your arms)

 

[Fenris-77]

sorry you are as wrong as can be. It is not about you thrusting one lance individually with the force provided by your left and your right arm. It is a horse with a mass and a velocity providing impact energy to a Lance with an impact area. Via that impact area the kinetic energy is converted. The smaller it is the more devastating it gets and the less energy is needed e.g. for penetration.
think doctor giving you a shot, if the needles diameter would be one inch at the tip, he would have to use a maul to punch it through your skin.
so now using double the impact area halves the energy at each impact area and so the damage.
this of course does not apply for normal dual wield with two different energy sources (your arms)

What planet are your physics from? It's the same small impact area, twice. Not a doubled impact area on one lance.

As an example. Lets say a lance punches through you ribs and skewers your left lung. Compare that to two lances punching through your ribs on either side of your sternum and skewering both lungs. Are you really suggesting that the second example should be doing the same abstract damage as the first? Crazy talk.