The thing that gets me the most here is the guy’s (not OP’s, the cleric’s) claim that Rule of Cool is what separates D&D from other board games. Just...no. I’m a more by the book, tough combats player, but that doesn’t mean I play D&D like a board game. It’s about telling fantasy stories, doing silly voices, creating unique characters, and having non-competitive fun with friends. You can do that with or without the Rule of Cool. It’s awesome to do stuff outside the rules once in a while, like swinging over a sword fight on a chandelier, but if you use it for silly advantages like the cleric did, you’re disrespecting the other players (who want their chance too) and DM (who worked hard balancing this).
The true irony is that this guy is one heluva RP'er. He uses a fantastic voice for the char, that is remarkably consistent, and the mannerisms and out of initiative in-game stuff he does with his char are also consistent, and cool. Annoying, in-game for my char, but that is strictly RP stuff, and very cool.
But as soon as that "cool" intrudes into combat and basic game mechanics, then all bets are off.
Your point about a Wall of Ice would as close to this detour as one can get. Assuming Burning Hands could be perverted into the use you suggest, lets look at the math. A 10 x 10 x 1 section has 30 HP, and Vulnerable to Fire. Burning Hands does 3d6 damage, so lets double that to 6d6 because of Fire Vulnerability. So it is now 21 points of damage. That is still not enough to destroy that 10 x 10 x 1 section, let alone something dozens of feet thick, or even hundreds of feet thick.
But the DM did not rule with the player. They did not seem to specify any specific amount of ice melted, merely that the archer was worried enough to jump down. That could have happened even if NO ice actually melted.
Nor did the DM side with the player over their character healing with his foot.
So other than one player trying things you didn't like seeing someone even try, most of the time the DM seems to have ruled reasonably. I am not seeing all this 'enabling' that you are going on about.
Actually, no. The DM said, and I paraphrase a bit "You take out a large enough of a chunk of the wall that the archer feels his position is structurally unsound, and he jumps down." I thought I had made that clear, but I guess not.
So yes, the DM indeed did agree with the player, and gave him the desired outcome, instead of reading the actual spell, then saying "Nope."
That is still numerically unspecified. And again, the DM determines the ice thickness and stability, not you nor any of the players.
If the archer was able to jump down safely, then no, since the player in question was almost certainly hoping for at least some falling damage.
Sigh...if you want to continue playing word games about one issue out of many, so be it. We walked into glacier, into a cave mouth that was 20 feet high. and appeared to be created by some stream of water (more like a river), that had long stopped. Once we got in, we were attacked by numerous creatures, including these elevated archers. They were not on thin sheets of ice. They were cut into alcoves in the very sides of the ice cave. The DM had described it as such, and the diagram he provided confirmed it. No split second of heat would structurally alter that. Anyone playing within the rules knew that. Except of course, this player and the DM.
hey Vince, let me take a different approach since you dont seem to be getting what others are getting at.
Open the Dungeons Masters Guide to page 4 and look towards the bottom of the left hand column, there are 2 very important sentences. In fact I'll save you some time "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game". In other words, whatever the DM says, goes. Even if it contradicts the written rules of the game. This is a fact, it has been printed in the book and is widely known. What you are arguing is how you feel, and what is you oh so famous signature? I'll quote that as well, to save some time "Facts trump feelings. Facts hurting your feelings is not anyone's problem but your own."
In other words, this isn't our problem, its not the DM's problem, its not the other players problem. It's your problem. The facts stated in the Dungeon Masters Guide solve the issues at hand, if they allow anything, end of, it goes. Sometimes, things are better if the rules are not so strictly enforced, it allows for some great moments. Maybe read the rules, so situations like this do not happen again
:)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" - Dungeon Masters Guide
Right, this is an example of what I was saying -- being able to touch with a foot to Cure Wounds is not an attempt to "be creative" here. It is not an attempt to "recognize the vision of one's character that cannot be encompassed by all of these constricting Gygaxian rules..." It is a blatant attempt to be able to have a "free hand" while holding a shield and a sword (or whatever) in the actual hands. He doesn't want to waste time sheathing the sword, so he comes up with some B/S that is clearly designed to make his character OP, allowing it to do things the rules say you can't do.
Just out of curiosity.... is that an actual rule? I mean, a quick glance at Cure Wounds and general spellcasting doesn't show any requirements on how you have to touch that I see. Am I missing something?
Maybe the small amount of melting made the ice too slick to stay on and they jumped down.
I agree, this would be homebrew, not RAW. It was not doing anything like what disintegrate would do, but it wasn’t following the rules either. But I would be completely fine with the DM’s ruling.
But the amount of anger it is creating just points to, this is not the DM or group you should be playing with.
hey Vince, let me take a different approach since you dont seem to be getting what others are getting at.
Open the Dungeons Masters Guide to page 4 and look towards the bottom of the left hand column, there are 2 very important sentences. In fact I'll save you some time "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game". In other words, whatever the DM says, goes. Even if it contradicts the written rules of the game. This is a fact, it has been printed in the book and is widely known. What you are arguing is how you feel, and what is you oh so famous signature? I'll quote that as well, to save some time "Facts trump feelings. Facts hurting your feelings is not anyone's problem but your own."
In other words, this isn't our problem, its not the DM's problem, its not the other players problem. It's your problem. The facts stated in the Dungeon Masters Guide solve the issues at hand, if they allow anything, end of, it goes. Sometimes, things are better if the rules are not so strictly enforced, it allows for some great moments. Maybe read the rules, so situations like this do not happen again
hey Vince, let me take a different approach since you dont seem to be getting what others are getting at.
Open the Dungeons Masters Guide to page 4 and look towards the bottom of the left hand column, there are 2 very important sentences. In fact I'll save you some time "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game". In other words, whatever the DM says, goes. Even if it contradicts the written rules of the game. This is a fact, it has been printed in the book and is widely known. What you are arguing is how you feel, and what is you oh so famous signature? I'll quote that as well, to save some time "Facts trump feelings. Facts hurting your feelings is not anyone's problem but your own."
In other words, this isn't our problem, its not the DM's problem, its not the other players problem. It's your problem. The facts stated in the Dungeon Masters Guide solve the issues at hand, if they allow anything, end of, it goes. Sometimes, things are better if the rules are not so strictly enforced, it allows for some great moments. Maybe read the rules, so situations like this do not happen again
:)
The best analogy:
Those that play "rule of cool" prefer feelings.
Those that play RAW prefer facts.
I don't know why you always go back to this. It's stupid. It also paints yourself in a negative light, and people already have strong negative feelings toward you here.
The bottom line is you want a table that is 100% RAW, with roleplay flavor, and NOTHING altering RAW. That's fine. I don't think you'll find it at a vast majority of tables, but that's fine. That's how you want your D&D, and so be it. You're entitled to play the game how you want to play the game. The flipside is that other people do not have to entertain that same style of play, so now the onus flips back to you on if you want to stay at that table, maybe have a conversation with the DM on a happy middle ground, or find a new group that is more inclined to RAW.
Your presentation of statements as being black and white, no grey make it so people argue with you, not have discussions with you. Hell, your opening post basically said you had already made up your mind. What's the point of the thread then? We aren't going to have a meaningful dialogue because you position the thread in such a negative light toward a concept, that there is no turning back.
Had you presented it in such a way of hey, my DM is doing rule of cool, I'm pretty against it, but there are some rulings that he is making that are clearly against already predetermined spell effects, how do I have this conversation? Now people come in and have rational dialogue on it. They express thoughts and opinions. Most of this thread is just people coming in going "Hey its another Vince thread, time to shut him down", and I don't think that's what you want. I think you want to actually have conversations, but for a lot of people, the way they feel about your positioning of ideals trumps the facts you are trying to outline.
The part about Cure Wounds and touching a dude with his foot counting as somatic components? That's BS and sets a slippery slope for all somatic spellcasting. The part of Wall of Ice being semi melted by Burning Hands? I'm a big fan of spells do what they say they do, no more or less, but at the same time, its literally fire vs ice and Wall of Ice states its affected by Fire Damage. Now, its 6d6 fire damage since vulernable, so there's a chance it breaks. If it doesn't break though, it doesn't break. It also doesn't stop the 2nd part of the Wall of Ice effect from happening either. This is creative application of the rules, and I'm ok with this. Now if someone wanted to say Prestidigation melts the magical ice per the writing of the Prestidigation spell, I'd tell them to bite it. A cantrip vs a 6th level spell, doesn't work. The power of one magic overwrites the other, too bad. If someone busted out all of the math and tried to teach me about how melting ice works, I'd tell them to get their math out of my fantasy game.
Overall, I think the DM is trying to provide some unique experiences to the table, and that's a great thing. They just need to have the a discussion with the table at large, which includes you, on how that will proceed going forward.
Jesus, there's so much to unpack here, but I'm simply not going to go through all of it.
Vince, this is only the third topic of yours I've come across, but each of them has been you wanting to force anyone and everyone to see and do things your way.
You clearly don't vibe with the group you're in and my advice, for what it's worth, would be to let them know you're leaving before the next session. Doing it mid-session, as you said was likely, is bad form.
Being this angry over other people's creativity and fun is just not healthy. I run my game fairly close to RAW, but if something is fun then it's fun and why would I let that get in the way? This is a game after all, it's simply not that serious.
If you want to run and/or play in a straight RAW game with no deviation then by all means do so. And I hope you find that. I hope you find a group that fits with what you're wanting, but demanding that others do things the way you want is flat out wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
If I read the story correctly then the player asked to heal with his foot but the DM said no. So we agree the DM did the right thing and applied the rules correctly? Not an example of poor rule application like the dim light example.
The DM made the correct ruling on this.
It was the only time he made the correct ruling. But the fact that some player even considered talking about it enrages me. That player is a bad player. Because the player never checked the rules, or decided the rules did not apply to his character, or thought he could push the DM to allow it. Take your pick. They are all the hallmarks of a bad player.
Now see, you talk about being enraged because this other player asked a question. That enraged me actually. All your posts are about you judging people and demanding they behave the way you tell them to. You have absolutely no right to do either of this things, least of all over a GAME.
I meant what I said in my previous reply, I hope you find a group to enjoy because we all deserve fun and happiness. The way you express yourself and seemingly handle disagreement and confrontation isn't right though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
he true irony is that this guy is one heluva RP'er. He uses a fantastic voice for the char
Just a point here -- using a voice has zero to do with RP. A good RPer has his character do things it would do, whether or not the player would do it. In fact I would say the mark of a great RPer is to make your character do things that you, the player, absolutely would not do -- especially when it puts you at a mechanical disadvantage based on the rules. A quote from Meghan Caves in the Wildcards ETU during season one went something like this, after the GM clarified a rule for her, "Oh, I know that, but Addie [her character] doesn't, so yeah, she's going to do it." It wasn't done in a voice. Meghan, who has proven herself extremely capable of doing voices at various times on the show, talks in her normal voice when RPing Addie. (Though she has a lot more awkward pauses when RPing the character.) But she had her character do something that was dangerous and probably (based on the Savage Worlds rules) mechanically stupid (and certainly sub-optimal), possibly even deadly, because it's what her character would do.
Ask yourself about this "great RPer," if trying to touch someone with a toe instead of his hand is logically what a cleric would do? Or is it what the player wants the character to do so he can get a mechanical advantage?
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game". In other words, whatever the DM says, goes. Even if it contradicts the written rules of the game
All true... but if you toss out the rules with dispatch, just because not following them in this momemt sounds "cool," it can lead to a very inconsistent game that the players can't rely on from session to session. This session it's cool for Burning Hands to melt an entire wall of ice in one go, so it happens. Next session, it's not cool for Burning Hands to do that, so it doesn't. This prevents the players from being able to predict adequately the results of their characters' actions, which turns the game into a version of when kids do "let's pretend" and make up the rules on the spot, rather than a roleplaying game with consistent rules.
One thing a GM should never be is arbitrary. In fact, being arbitrary is about the worst thing a GM can be. And that is what has been presented here (admittedly one-sidedly --we don't have the DM's side, or that of the other players). The GM in this case appears to follow the rules sometimes, and not others, all in the name of the rule of cool, and all entirely based on what is the most entertaining or coolest thing to happen in the moment. This is the literal definition of arbitrariness. A good GM may allow cool things to happen that bend the rules now and again, but a good GM never does this in an arbitrary manner.
GMs need to be consistent, and at the very least follow their own (well-stated, clear, above-board) rules, if they aren't going to follow the book. Skills, abilities, actions, etc., need to work the same way each time they are used, not a different way each time, based on the arbitrary decision of the GM about what is "cool" in the moment.
In the Counterspell example I gave above, neither my initial nor my revised rules were arbitrary. My initial ruling was based on RAW (triggered by a thread I read here, and posted at the start of the campaign -- based on a plain text reading of the reaction rules in XGE). This rule was posted to the House Rules section of our game's World Anvil page and all players were alerted to its presence. Later, my second ruling was made based on a long Zoom chat with the player, who made a well-reasoned argument, combined with one of the replies Pantagruel, whose rulings I have come to deeply respect, made to that initial thread. Because Pantagruel's house rule and my friend's well-reasoned argument were on the same page, I became convinced to do it another way. I immediately announced this revision to the rules, and this has been how we have played ever since.
What I did NOT do was say in a session, "OK you can both ID and counterspell it this time because it's cool if that happens," and then the next time say, "Sorry you can't both ID and counterspell because it's cooler if the spell goes off this time." That is literally following the rule of cool, but it is arbitrary, and I would argue massively unfair to the players, who will then never know what to expect.
And I think herein lies the problem: Lack of fairness. Someone said up a few posts that this seems like rulings are based on whatever is most entertaining to the GM. If that's the case, and one player is better at "entertaining" the GM than the others, then that player will have rulings made that benefit him/her more often than the others in the group. That is not fair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If I read the story correctly then the player asked to heal with his foot but the DM said no. So we agree the DM did the right thing and applied the rules correctly? Not an example of poor rule application like the dim light example.
The DM made the correct ruling on this.
It was the only time he made the correct ruling. But the fact that some player even considered talking about it enrages me. That player is a bad player. Because the player never checked the rules, or decided the rules did not apply to his character, or thought he could push the DM to allow it. Take your pick. They are all the hallmarks of a bad player.
Now see, you talk about being enraged because this other player asked a question. That enraged me actually. All your posts are about you judging people and demanding they behave the way you tell them to. You have absolutely no right to do either of this things, least of all over a GAME.
I meant what I said in my previous reply, I hope you find a group to enjoy because we all deserve fun and happiness. The way you express yourself and seemingly handle disagreement and confrontation isn't right though.
Why does it enrage you? Kotath, who does not have much use for me either, posted the specific link as to why the very concept of doing what the player wanted is utterly broken. It is a main tenet of the game. It is the equivalent of rolling a d20 for attacks and saves. You just do it. There is no other way.
For the player to even suggest, or ask the question, shows a shocking lack of regard to the basic rules of the game, the other players, and/ or the DM. The player is saying "I don't care about anything that is written down. I just want to do what I feel, no matter what others think." That is selfish, and insulting, and yes, it enrages me.
If a player said "Can I roll 4 d20's and take the best one for my saves and attacks?" you would simply roll your eyes at such a statement. Why is this question any different? Keep in mind. This is not some 12 year old kid playing D&D for the 1st time, but someone who has been playing off and on for 20 plus years. The player HAS to know this rule already.
he true irony is that this guy is one heluva RP'er. He uses a fantastic voice for the char
Just a point here -- using a voice has zero to do with RP. A good RPer has his character do things it would do, whether or not the player would do it. In fact I would say the mark of a great RPer is to make your character do things that you, the player, absolutely would not do -- especially when it puts you at a mechanical disadvantage based on the rules. A quote from Meghan Caves in the Wildcards ETU during season one went something like this, after the GM clarified a rule for her, "Oh, I know that, but Addie [her character] doesn't, so yeah, she's going to do it." It wasn't done in a voice. Meghan, who has proven herself extremely capable of doing voices at various times on the show, talks in her normal voice when RPing Addie. (Though she has a lot more awkward pauses when RPing the character.) But she had her character do something that was dangerous and probably (based on the Savage Worlds rules) mechanically stupid (and certainly sub-optimal), possibly even deadly, because it's what her character would do.
Ask yourself about this "great RPer," if trying to touch someone with a toe instead of his hand is logically what a cleric would do? Or is it what the player wants the character to do so he can get a mechanical advantage?
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game". In other words, whatever the DM says, goes. Even if it contradicts the written rules of the game
All true... but if you toss out the rules with dispatch, just because not following them in this momemt sounds "cool," it can lead to a very inconsistent game that the players can't rely on from session to session. This session it's cool for Burning Hands to melt an entire wall of ice in one go, so it happens. Next session, it's not cool for Burning Hands to do that, so it doesn't. This prevents the players from being able to predict adequately the results of their characters' actions, which turns the game into a version of when kids do "let's pretend" and make up the rules on the spot, rather than a roleplaying game with consistent rules.
One thing a GM should never be is arbitrary. In fact, being arbitrary is about the worst thing a GM can be. And that is what has been presented here (admittedly one-sidedly --we don't have the DM's side, or that of the other players). The GM in this case appears to follow the rules sometimes, and not others, all in the name of the rule of cool, and all entirely based on what is the most entertaining or coolest thing to happen in the moment. This is the literal definition of arbitrariness. A good GM may allow cool things to happen that bend the rules now and again, but a good GM never does this in an arbitrary manner.
GMs need to be consistent, and at the very least follow their own (well-stated, clear, above-board) rules, if they aren't going to follow the book. Skills, abilities, actions, etc., need to work the same way each time they are used, not a different way each time, based on the arbitrary decision of the GM about what is "cool" in the moment.
In the Counterspell example I gave above, neither my initial nor my revised rules were arbitrary. My initial ruling was based on RAW (triggered by a thread I read here, and posted at the start of the campaign -- based on a plain text reading of the reaction rules in XGE). This rule was posted to the House Rules section of our game's World Anvil page and all players were alerted to its presence. Later, my second ruling was made based on a long Zoom chat with the player, who made a well-reasoned argument, combined with one of the replies Pantagruel, whose rulings I have come to deeply respect, made to that initial thread. Because Pantagruel's house rule and my friend's well-reasoned argument were on the same page, I became convinced to do it another way. I immediately announced this revision to the rules, and this has been how we have played ever since.
What I did NOT do was say in a session, "OK you can both ID and counterspell it this time because it's cool if that happens," and then the next time say, "Sorry you can't both ID and counterspell because it's cooler if the spell goes off this time." That is literally following the rule of cool, but it is arbitrary, and I would argue massively unfair to the players, who will then never know what to expect.
And I think herein lies the problem: Lack of fairness. Someone said up a few posts that this seems like rulings are based on whatever is most entertaining to the GM. If that's the case, and one player is better at "entertaining" the GM than the others, then that player will have rulings made that benefit him/her more often than the others in the group. That is not fair.
I will re-iterate a portion of what the DM said, and I fear it echo's what you are getting at:
"I think that focusing on the minutia of game mechanics slows down the game and takes away from creativity. If you are not sure if you can do something, try it. If it fails, then you learned that it doesn’t work. If it succeeds, then you have learned that is can work. I don’t want knowledge of a book to stop people from trying new things because creativity is what makes the game fun for me. If the rules are followed 100% of the time with no exceptions and everyone one follows the “cookie cutter” play book, as a DM, I will know the outcome of an adventure before we sit down at the table. I will never be surprised as a DM, I love it when players surprise me."
If I read the story correctly then the player asked to heal with his foot but the DM said no. So we agree the DM did the right thing and applied the rules correctly? Not an example of poor rule application like the dim light example.
The DM made the correct ruling on this.
It was the only time he made the correct ruling. But the fact that some player even considered talking about it enrages me. That player is a bad player. Because the player never checked the rules, or decided the rules did not apply to his character, or thought he could push the DM to allow it. Take your pick. They are all the hallmarks of a bad player.
Now see, you talk about being enraged because this other player asked a question. That enraged me actually. All your posts are about you judging people and demanding they behave the way you tell them to. You have absolutely no right to do either of this things, least of all over a GAME.
I meant what I said in my previous reply, I hope you find a group to enjoy because we all deserve fun and happiness. The way you express yourself and seemingly handle disagreement and confrontation isn't right though.
Why does it enrage you? Kotath, who does not have much use for me either, posted the specific link as to why the very concept of doing what the player wanted is utterly broken. It is a main tenet of the game. It is the equivalent of rolling a d20 for attacks and saves. You just do it. There is no other way.
For the player to even suggest, or ask the question, shows a shocking lack of regard to the basic rules of the game, the other players, and/ or the DM. The player is saying "I don't care about anything that is written down. I just want to do what I feel, no matter what others think." That is selfish, and insulting, and yes, it enrages me.
If a player said "Can I roll 4 d20's and take the best one for my saves and attacks?" you would simply roll your eyes at such a statement. Why is this question any different? Keep in mind. This is not some 12 year old kid playing D&D for the 1st time, but someone who has been playing off and on for 20 plus years. The player HAS to know this rule already.
Why were you enraged that the other player asked a question concerning if they could attempt something? Are questions not allowed?
To answer the question you posed after the ridiculous example, yes, I would roll my eyes at that, but I wouldn't at a player asking if touching someone with their foot would satisfy the touch rule of the spell. Why? Because not all questions are the same. I would tip my metaphorical hat at the thought and tell them no, but if someone else were in my shoes and rule it the other way I wouldn't care, even as a different player to that one.
It's odd to me that you're willing to die on the hill of just knowing what this other person was thinking, feeling, and ultimately doing. As if there was no other explanation other than that this player was knowingly and purposefully attempting to game the system to win the outcome and you just don't know that. I'm not sure why you continue to post when you're not ACTUALLY looking for conversation and debate, you've already made up your mind and refuse to see it from any other perspective.
Why does it enrage you? Kotath, who does not have much use for me either, posted the specific link as to why the very concept of doing what the player wanted is utterly broken. It is a main tenet of the game. It is the equivalent of rolling a d20 for attacks and saves. You just do it. There is no other way.
For the player to even suggest, or ask the question, shows a shocking lack of regard to the basic rules of the game, the other players, and/ or the DM. The player is saying "I don't care about anything that is written down. I just want to do what I feel, no matter what others think." That is selfish, and insulting, and yes, it enrages me.
Ugh.
First, Kotath posted a link to the actual rule. None of that qualifies as an argument why doing it differently would be "utterly broken" (maybe Kotath thinks that, I don't know, but you shouldn't imply there's anything more to this link than there really is). For what it's worth, I think the notion of touching someone with a foot or elbow to avoid having to free up a hand is silly and an unnecessary concession compared to the RAW but not broken - let alone utterly broken. Putting down your mace for a sec in order to heal someone is inconvenient, but hardly gimping your options.
Second, a "shocking lack of regard"? Selfish and insulting? Feels like I'm back in high school and my drama teacher is telling us there's no such thing as overacting on stage (he was wrong btw, there definitely is). What kind of sheltered life have you had that this enrages you?
If the rules are followed 100% of the time with no exceptions and everyone one follows the “cookie cutter” play book, as a DM, I will know the outcome of an adventure before we sit down at the table. I will never be surprised as a DM, I love it when players surprise me."
We follow the rules in my group as close to 100% of the time as I can manage it. I don't know all the rules and there are times when I allow something I shouldn't have out of ignorance, but never on purpose.
My players still surprise the heck out of me every single session. If this DM's players must break the rules to surprise him/her, then they aren't very competent players.
If the rules are followed 100% of the time with no exceptions and everyone one follows the “cookie cutter” play book, as a DM, I will know the outcome of an adventure before we sit down at the table. I will never be surprised as a DM, I love it when players surprise me."
We follow the rules in my group as close to 100% of the time as I can manage it. I don't know all the rules and there are times when I allow something I shouldn't have out of ignorance, but never on purpose.
My players still surprise the heck out of me every single session. If this DM's players must break the rules to surprise him/her, then they aren't very competent players.
Precisely. If a player needs the crutch of "rule of cool" to make their char successful and entertaining, then that player actually LACKS creativity. It takes more creativity to play within the rule set that it does to make stuff up on the fly.
Precisely. If a player needs the crutch of "rule of cool" to make their char successful and entertaining, then that player actually LACKS creativity. It takes more creativity to play within the rule set that it does to make stuff up on the fly.
It definitely takes more skill as a player to succeed within a defined ruleset then to just make up rules that give you an advantage.
Players asking for the Rule of Cool, in my experience, are always asking to be more powerful than they are supposed to be. Which if you think about it, is another way of saying they are asking the game to be easier. So they are literally admitting they're not very good at running their character, and need the game to be easier if they are to ever succeed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Maybe the small amount of melting made the ice too slick to stay on and they jumped down.
I agree, this would be homebrew, not RAW. It was not doing anything like what disintegrate would do, but it wasn’t following the rules either. But I would be completely fine with the DM’s ruling.
But the amount of anger it is creating just points to, this is not the DM or group you should be playing with.
Knowing Vince, I don't think there is a group they should be playing with. They post a weekly thread complaining about something the DM decides, even if it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of RAW. I think they never realized that D&D is supposed to be fun.
I don't disagree with you here, because I have this problem with three players in a campaign I'm in, but I don't really want to hear about your problems.
Seems like this is the sort of thing that should have been ironed out in session zero. While the GM could have laid things out more clearly, I think Vince also needs to speak up about his peculiarities. With decades of experience, he should know by now that he should not play with people who do not share his narrow vision of D&D. It just seems like he keeps barging into tables and groups that are clearly not meant for him. Before joining a group and starting a campaign, if he just spends fifteen to twenty minutes showing the GM his Beyond forum posts, it would save him a lot of time and headache as the GM will know right then and there whether Vince will be a good fit for the campaign and group.
The true irony is that this guy is one heluva RP'er. He uses a fantastic voice for the char, that is remarkably consistent, and the mannerisms and out of initiative in-game stuff he does with his char are also consistent, and cool. Annoying, in-game for my char, but that is strictly RP stuff, and very cool.
But as soon as that "cool" intrudes into combat and basic game mechanics, then all bets are off.
Sigh...if you want to continue playing word games about one issue out of many, so be it. We walked into glacier, into a cave mouth that was 20 feet high. and appeared to be created by some stream of water (more like a river), that had long stopped. Once we got in, we were attacked by numerous creatures, including these elevated archers. They were not on thin sheets of ice. They were cut into alcoves in the very sides of the ice cave. The DM had described it as such, and the diagram he provided confirmed it. No split second of heat would structurally alter that. Anyone playing within the rules knew that. Except of course, this player and the DM.
hey Vince, let me take a different approach since you dont seem to be getting what others are getting at.
Open the Dungeons Masters Guide to page 4 and look towards the bottom of the left hand column, there are 2 very important sentences. In fact I'll save you some time "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game". In other words, whatever the DM says, goes. Even if it contradicts the written rules of the game. This is a fact, it has been printed in the book and is widely known. What you are arguing is how you feel, and what is you oh so famous signature? I'll quote that as well, to save some time "Facts trump feelings. Facts hurting your feelings is not anyone's problem but your own."
In other words, this isn't our problem, its not the DM's problem, its not the other players problem. It's your problem. The facts stated in the Dungeon Masters Guide solve the issues at hand, if they allow anything, end of, it goes. Sometimes, things are better if the rules are not so strictly enforced, it allows for some great moments. Maybe read the rules, so situations like this do not happen again
:)
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" - Dungeon Masters Guide
Just out of curiosity.... is that an actual rule? I mean, a quick glance at Cure Wounds and general spellcasting doesn't show any requirements on how you have to touch that I see. Am I missing something?
Maybe the small amount of melting made the ice too slick to stay on and they jumped down.
I agree, this would be homebrew, not RAW. It was not doing anything like what disintegrate would do, but it wasn’t following the rules either. But I would be completely fine with the DM’s ruling.
But the amount of anger it is creating just points to, this is not the DM or group you should be playing with.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The best analogy:
Those that play "rule of cool" prefer feelings.
Those that play RAW prefer facts.
I don't know why you always go back to this. It's stupid. It also paints yourself in a negative light, and people already have strong negative feelings toward you here.
The bottom line is you want a table that is 100% RAW, with roleplay flavor, and NOTHING altering RAW. That's fine. I don't think you'll find it at a vast majority of tables, but that's fine. That's how you want your D&D, and so be it. You're entitled to play the game how you want to play the game. The flipside is that other people do not have to entertain that same style of play, so now the onus flips back to you on if you want to stay at that table, maybe have a conversation with the DM on a happy middle ground, or find a new group that is more inclined to RAW.
Your presentation of statements as being black and white, no grey make it so people argue with you, not have discussions with you. Hell, your opening post basically said you had already made up your mind. What's the point of the thread then? We aren't going to have a meaningful dialogue because you position the thread in such a negative light toward a concept, that there is no turning back.
Had you presented it in such a way of hey, my DM is doing rule of cool, I'm pretty against it, but there are some rulings that he is making that are clearly against already predetermined spell effects, how do I have this conversation? Now people come in and have rational dialogue on it. They express thoughts and opinions. Most of this thread is just people coming in going "Hey its another Vince thread, time to shut him down", and I don't think that's what you want. I think you want to actually have conversations, but for a lot of people, the way they feel about your positioning of ideals trumps the facts you are trying to outline.
The part about Cure Wounds and touching a dude with his foot counting as somatic components? That's BS and sets a slippery slope for all somatic spellcasting. The part of Wall of Ice being semi melted by Burning Hands? I'm a big fan of spells do what they say they do, no more or less, but at the same time, its literally fire vs ice and Wall of Ice states its affected by Fire Damage. Now, its 6d6 fire damage since vulernable, so there's a chance it breaks. If it doesn't break though, it doesn't break. It also doesn't stop the 2nd part of the Wall of Ice effect from happening either. This is creative application of the rules, and I'm ok with this. Now if someone wanted to say Prestidigation melts the magical ice per the writing of the Prestidigation spell, I'd tell them to bite it. A cantrip vs a 6th level spell, doesn't work. The power of one magic overwrites the other, too bad. If someone busted out all of the math and tried to teach me about how melting ice works, I'd tell them to get their math out of my fantasy game.
Overall, I think the DM is trying to provide some unique experiences to the table, and that's a great thing. They just need to have the a discussion with the table at large, which includes you, on how that will proceed going forward.
Jesus, there's so much to unpack here, but I'm simply not going to go through all of it.
Vince, this is only the third topic of yours I've come across, but each of them has been you wanting to force anyone and everyone to see and do things your way.
You clearly don't vibe with the group you're in and my advice, for what it's worth, would be to let them know you're leaving before the next session. Doing it mid-session, as you said was likely, is bad form.
Being this angry over other people's creativity and fun is just not healthy. I run my game fairly close to RAW, but if something is fun then it's fun and why would I let that get in the way? This is a game after all, it's simply not that serious.
If you want to run and/or play in a straight RAW game with no deviation then by all means do so. And I hope you find that. I hope you find a group that fits with what you're wanting, but demanding that others do things the way you want is flat out wrong.
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
Quicksilver & The Scarlet Witch - A pair of magical firearms for your Gunslinger or Artificer.
Now see, you talk about being enraged because this other player asked a question. That enraged me actually. All your posts are about you judging people and demanding they behave the way you tell them to. You have absolutely no right to do either of this things, least of all over a GAME.
I meant what I said in my previous reply, I hope you find a group to enjoy because we all deserve fun and happiness. The way you express yourself and seemingly handle disagreement and confrontation isn't right though.
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
Quicksilver & The Scarlet Witch - A pair of magical firearms for your Gunslinger or Artificer.
Just a point here -- using a voice has zero to do with RP. A good RPer has his character do things it would do, whether or not the player would do it. In fact I would say the mark of a great RPer is to make your character do things that you, the player, absolutely would not do -- especially when it puts you at a mechanical disadvantage based on the rules. A quote from Meghan Caves in the Wildcards ETU during season one went something like this, after the GM clarified a rule for her, "Oh, I know that, but Addie [her character] doesn't, so yeah, she's going to do it." It wasn't done in a voice. Meghan, who has proven herself extremely capable of doing voices at various times on the show, talks in her normal voice when RPing Addie. (Though she has a lot more awkward pauses when RPing the character.) But she had her character do something that was dangerous and probably (based on the Savage Worlds rules) mechanically stupid (and certainly sub-optimal), possibly even deadly, because it's what her character would do.
Ask yourself about this "great RPer," if trying to touch someone with a toe instead of his hand is logically what a cleric would do? Or is it what the player wants the character to do so he can get a mechanical advantage?
All true... but if you toss out the rules with dispatch, just because not following them in this momemt sounds "cool," it can lead to a very inconsistent game that the players can't rely on from session to session. This session it's cool for Burning Hands to melt an entire wall of ice in one go, so it happens. Next session, it's not cool for Burning Hands to do that, so it doesn't. This prevents the players from being able to predict adequately the results of their characters' actions, which turns the game into a version of when kids do "let's pretend" and make up the rules on the spot, rather than a roleplaying game with consistent rules.
One thing a GM should never be is arbitrary. In fact, being arbitrary is about the worst thing a GM can be. And that is what has been presented here (admittedly one-sidedly --we don't have the DM's side, or that of the other players). The GM in this case appears to follow the rules sometimes, and not others, all in the name of the rule of cool, and all entirely based on what is the most entertaining or coolest thing to happen in the moment. This is the literal definition of arbitrariness. A good GM may allow cool things to happen that bend the rules now and again, but a good GM never does this in an arbitrary manner.
GMs need to be consistent, and at the very least follow their own (well-stated, clear, above-board) rules, if they aren't going to follow the book. Skills, abilities, actions, etc., need to work the same way each time they are used, not a different way each time, based on the arbitrary decision of the GM about what is "cool" in the moment.
In the Counterspell example I gave above, neither my initial nor my revised rules were arbitrary. My initial ruling was based on RAW (triggered by a thread I read here, and posted at the start of the campaign -- based on a plain text reading of the reaction rules in XGE). This rule was posted to the House Rules section of our game's World Anvil page and all players were alerted to its presence. Later, my second ruling was made based on a long Zoom chat with the player, who made a well-reasoned argument, combined with one of the replies Pantagruel, whose rulings I have come to deeply respect, made to that initial thread. Because Pantagruel's house rule and my friend's well-reasoned argument were on the same page, I became convinced to do it another way. I immediately announced this revision to the rules, and this has been how we have played ever since.
What I did NOT do was say in a session, "OK you can both ID and counterspell it this time because it's cool if that happens," and then the next time say, "Sorry you can't both ID and counterspell because it's cooler if the spell goes off this time." That is literally following the rule of cool, but it is arbitrary, and I would argue massively unfair to the players, who will then never know what to expect.
And I think herein lies the problem: Lack of fairness. Someone said up a few posts that this seems like rulings are based on whatever is most entertaining to the GM. If that's the case, and one player is better at "entertaining" the GM than the others, then that player will have rulings made that benefit him/her more often than the others in the group. That is not fair.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Why does it enrage you? Kotath, who does not have much use for me either, posted the specific link as to why the very concept of doing what the player wanted is utterly broken. It is a main tenet of the game. It is the equivalent of rolling a d20 for attacks and saves. You just do it. There is no other way.
For the player to even suggest, or ask the question, shows a shocking lack of regard to the basic rules of the game, the other players, and/ or the DM. The player is saying "I don't care about anything that is written down. I just want to do what I feel, no matter what others think." That is selfish, and insulting, and yes, it enrages me.
If a player said "Can I roll 4 d20's and take the best one for my saves and attacks?" you would simply roll your eyes at such a statement. Why is this question any different? Keep in mind. This is not some 12 year old kid playing D&D for the 1st time, but someone who has been playing off and on for 20 plus years. The player HAS to know this rule already.
I will re-iterate a portion of what the DM said, and I fear it echo's what you are getting at:
"I think that focusing on the minutia of game mechanics slows down the game and takes away from creativity. If you are not sure if you can do something, try it. If it fails, then you learned that it doesn’t work. If it succeeds, then you have learned that is can work. I don’t want knowledge of a book to stop people from trying new things because creativity is what makes the game fun for me. If the rules are followed 100% of the time with no exceptions and everyone one follows the “cookie cutter” play book, as a DM, I will know the outcome of an adventure before we sit down at the table. I will never be surprised as a DM, I love it when players surprise me."
Why were you enraged that the other player asked a question concerning if they could attempt something? Are questions not allowed?
To answer the question you posed after the ridiculous example, yes, I would roll my eyes at that, but I wouldn't at a player asking if touching someone with their foot would satisfy the touch rule of the spell. Why? Because not all questions are the same. I would tip my metaphorical hat at the thought and tell them no, but if someone else were in my shoes and rule it the other way I wouldn't care, even as a different player to that one.
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
Quicksilver & The Scarlet Witch - A pair of magical firearms for your Gunslinger or Artificer.
Ugh.
First, Kotath posted a link to the actual rule. None of that qualifies as an argument why doing it differently would be "utterly broken" (maybe Kotath thinks that, I don't know, but you shouldn't imply there's anything more to this link than there really is). For what it's worth, I think the notion of touching someone with a foot or elbow to avoid having to free up a hand is silly and an unnecessary concession compared to the RAW but not broken - let alone utterly broken. Putting down your mace for a sec in order to heal someone is inconvenient, but hardly gimping your options.
Second, a "shocking lack of regard"? Selfish and insulting? Feels like I'm back in high school and my drama teacher is telling us there's no such thing as overacting on stage (he was wrong btw, there definitely is). What kind of sheltered life have you had that this enrages you?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We follow the rules in my group as close to 100% of the time as I can manage it. I don't know all the rules and there are times when I allow something I shouldn't have out of ignorance, but never on purpose.
My players still surprise the heck out of me every single session. If this DM's players must break the rules to surprise him/her, then they aren't very competent players.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Precisely. If a player needs the crutch of "rule of cool" to make their char successful and entertaining, then that player actually LACKS creativity. It takes more creativity to play within the rule set that it does to make stuff up on the fly.
If you have to post about this, it's GAME OVER! join or start a new game.
It definitely takes more skill as a player to succeed within a defined ruleset then to just make up rules that give you an advantage.
Players asking for the Rule of Cool, in my experience, are always asking to be more powerful than they are supposed to be. Which if you think about it, is another way of saying they are asking the game to be easier. So they are literally admitting they're not very good at running their character, and need the game to be easier if they are to ever succeed.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Knowing Vince, I don't think there is a group they should be playing with. They post a weekly thread complaining about something the DM decides, even if it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of RAW. I think they never realized that D&D is supposed to be fun.
I don't disagree with you here, because I have this problem with three players in a campaign I'm in, but I don't really want to hear about your problems.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Seems like this is the sort of thing that should have been ironed out in session zero. While the GM could have laid things out more clearly, I think Vince also needs to speak up about his peculiarities. With decades of experience, he should know by now that he should not play with people who do not share his narrow vision of D&D. It just seems like he keeps barging into tables and groups that are clearly not meant for him. Before joining a group and starting a campaign, if he just spends fifteen to twenty minutes showing the GM his Beyond forum posts, it would save him a lot of time and headache as the GM will know right then and there whether Vince will be a good fit for the campaign and group.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >