I feel like the terms “RAW” and “Rule of Cool” are both being used pretty loosely in this thread. Makes it near impossible to argue anything in a reasonable manner.
When pavilionaire makes the statement "It's not RAW that a Nat 20 ability check is an automatic success, but it is a popular house rule, and as we've established, house rules are RAW.", there is zero common ground for discussion. First part of the statement says "it is not RAW", last part of the statement says it is.
If a person can't accept that Rule of Cool != RAW, there is nothing more can be discussed with that person.
When a DM or player badly misunderstands the mechanics of a spell, or a feature, or a base mechanic of the game, that can happen to anyone, at a RAW table or not.
When a DM or player fully understands the mechanics of said spell, feature, or base mechanic, and says "nope, I am not accepting that because it is too restrictive to what I want to do", that is rule of cool. No player EVER says "my rule of cool implementation is actually less powerful than RAW".
So, I want my physically not all that capable warlock to scale a wall, without suitable magic to help out. In order not to fall, I declare I’ll be using a grappling hook. There are no written rules for using a grappling hook, but my DM feels I should be able to so makes up some stuff. It’s clearly not RAW (even if some people in this thread think it is), but is it Rule of Cool? If yes, I don’t think it’s possible to have a decent game without. If no, then whatever rulesmongery the DM comes up with being Rule of Cool or not is subject to interpretation.
Umm...no.
Let's look at that Grappling Hook (page 150 PHB) example. Let's say your Warlock has a 8 Str, 14 Dex, and proficiency in neither, so a -1 on Athletics, and a +2 of Acrobatics. The DM says "OK, fire it over the wall", and the DM decides on the chances of the Hook actually snagging something (maybe DC 12), or simply a straight percentage chance. Let's go with the DC of 12. Warlock gets lucky, rolls a 10 on an Acrobatics check and with the +2, it snags. The DM then says "OK, now you have to climb the wall. The rope lowers the DC to also 12, and you have to make 2 Athletics rolls, as your speed is halved (climbing a wall), and the wall is 30 feet high. Warlock rolls a 13 on the first one, so gets halfway up. But on the second roll, the Warlock rolls a 12, and with the -1 to Athletics, falls. The DM says "just as you reach for the top of the wall, you lose your grip, and plummet 30 feet down. You take 3d6 damage."
That is RAW.
Now, let's say the Rogue goes up next. He has much higher chance, because this Rogue has prof in Athletics and Acrobatics both. (My Scout Rogue does, thanks to Halfling Nimbleness). So the Rogue is on the top, and decides to Hide behind a battlement from guards on the inside of the wall. The DM decides the DC is 15, and the Rogue makes a successful roll. (BTW, a Rogue should never know the DC the DM set, and can only guess if the Hide was successful).
So far, so good, all RAW.
Now, the DM says "suddenly, the Rogue sees the BBEG taking his nightly stroll around the inside perimeter of the wall."
The Rogue says "I wait until he gets close, and with a dagger in each hand, leap out into thin air, timing my jump to land on the BBEG's shoulders, as I plunge my daggers into his eyes". The DM says "wow, that sound so cool. I award you inspiration, and you don't have to worry about falling damage of a 30 foot drop, or initiative, or any kind of DC check to time your jump properly. And because you have Surprise, and Inspiration, my house rule says you auto hit and I will allow a called shot because of how you described it."
That is rule of cool, and the bane of RAW.
So what makes one instance of the DM making something up that’s not written in the rules “RAW”, and another instance of the DM making something up that’s not written in the rules “Rule of Cool”?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Regardless of whether one is talking about rule of cool or house rules or some combo of the two, one is not talking about RAW, and therefore, to the topic at hand -- using them is not playing 100% RAW.
Almost no one plays D&D 100% RAW. I'd bet even Gygax didn't.
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.
Let's look at that Grappling Hook (page 150 PHB) example. Let's say your Warlock has a 8 Str, 14 Dex, and proficiency in neither, so a -1 on Athletics, and a +2 of Acrobatics. The DM says "OK, fire it over the wall", and the DM decides on the chances of the Hook actually snagging something (maybe DC 12), or simply a straight percentage chance. Let's go with the DC of 12. Warlock gets lucky, rolls a 10 on an Acrobatics check…
Because one is grounded in established rules, in source books, using established mechanics, …
Is it though? Is that not an interpretation? Especially since it can both be an ability check or a percentage chance apparently, and none of the examples listed in the established rules for the proficiency you picked have anything to do with throwing things. How grounded is it really? And this is what I’d consider a pretty straightforward example.
I’d also point out that what the rogue player suggests that leads to all this rule of cool stuff is pretty reasonable and can actually be resolved by RAW - the only one getting extra creative in your example is the DM. Initiative and timing are, grounded in the rules, not something the PC has to immediately worry about: readied actions exist and while 5E doesn’t have surprise rounds so initiative has to be rolled before anything goes down, the Surprised condition guarantees the rogue can act first. A reaction alone won’t be enough to both jump down and attack, but at the very least he can ready the jump and hope to win initiative. Not sure why the DM would decide to get fresh with this, but the player doesn’t earn any blame here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The rule of cool is a figurative statement. The rule of fun is the same thing, but much more important. If all you have to go buy is the Rules as Written, it is very limiting and in complete violation of the Rule of Fun. Why bother to play D&D if it's not going to be fun? Some people like to follow very strict rules and allow for no interpretation. If so, what's the DM there for?
I have various ways of describing how I tell stories.
A story is a river, with sub-plots as branches and the rocks in the stream are important plot elements.
A story is a road, with sub-plots that branch off and the things you find along the road are important plot elements.
A story is a Railroad, with sub-plots at the train stations, that has no fixed destination.
It really don't matter how you think about storytelling, those are just examples. What matters is judgement and respect. The players are the ones telling the story, they need to respect the DM, so DM is the judge, and needs to respect the players enough to give them options. Let the player decide what to do with them. Railroads are actually very good for new players or DMs. Low level games are just fine if you pick how the story comes out, just leave some train stations in place so they have the chance to get off the train.
Sandbox style games are nearly impossible to run if you stick to 100% Rules as Written.
Gonna repeat this since the ardent "RAW should always be employed" supporters completely ignored it when it proved their argument to be futile:
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
The core rules literally state that there are times where there are no rules. Unless you can somehow refute this, you are arguing that the rules must all be implement, whilst arguing against the opening statements in the core rules.
Here's some other reasons why this idea of rigid adherence to RAW is nonsense:
I am the DM. I design the monsters. I can give them a million hit points if I want to.
DM's Guide, Page 118: There aren't rules for when a shipwreck happens: it happens when you want or need it to happen.
DM's Guide, Page 119:It's up to you whether a ship is available for purchase
As DM, I decide when someone can, and can not, make an ability check. The only deciding factor on this is whether I want it to. I am literally making this up as I go along.
The core rules are full of optional rules, even down to the basics of combat. PHB, p.189:Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first.
The DM regularly makes on the fly decisions about how your actions play out: PHB, p193:Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check. So RAW, "The DM just chooses what they want."
The DM sets the DC on the fly constantly for ability checks. Trying to insist on a rigid rule system when about 90% of the game (social interaction, monsters, magic items, ability checks, THE ENTIRE WORLD) is just stuff the DM is making up is bafflingly nonsensical.
DM's Guide, p194: The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target.
PHB, p204: The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.
It's sad to see players these days thinking that you can rigidly adhere to rules that even within the core rule books are so full of subjective ideas, where it's literally stated that the rules should not be rigidly adhered to, are somehow a computer game type system of cause and effect.
Regarding dragons being thrown into the sun, if you feel that somebody else's campaign that you're not playing in is somehow wrong then you don't understand D&D at all. Everyone's game is different. Those guys may well be having more fun that you, and there is no point to this game at all other than having fun.
One of the worst things about the "You must play RAW" argument is that it implies that every player needs a full and extensive knowledge of the rules to be able to play the game. This isn't right. I begin players without even explaining the rules, I just help them roll up a character and then teach them combat in the first encounter. They learn it all as they go along by doing, not by learning rulebooks by rote. This attitude is anti-casual-players. I've had a great time in a 2 year campaign with a guy who never managed to learn which dice was a d8 by sight.
You do you, play the way you want to play, but if you think that the game can be played to a strict set of rules that (a) don't exist and (b) the very rulebooks you want to adhere to tell you not to rigidly adhere to them, then maybe just say "This is how I like to play" rather than "This is better."
I begin players without even explaining the rules, I just help them roll up a character and then teach them combat in the first encounter. They learn it all as they go along by doing, not by learning rulebooks by rote.
This is the way. Well, I do explain some of the basics (essentially what the different things on the character sheet mean, what they’re used for and how), but new players should be allowed to come to their first session knowing essentially nothing about how to play. Why ask that they spend a couple of hours learning rules from a book if they don’t even know if they’ll like playing enough to keep doing it? And if they do like it and the DM and other players were helpful, when that first session is over they’ll have picked up enough of the basics that they pretty much won’t have to ask about how anything works in general anymore, they’ll have moved on to a more specific level of how things work in specific situations. Couple more sessions, bit more repetition, and regardless of how well they’ll ever learn the rules they’ll be able to play smoothly enough not to hold up the game more than anyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Gonna repeat this since the ardent "RAW should always be employed" supporters completely ignored it when it proved their argument to be futile:
I don't know any people like that, thankfully, but I'd like to take this opportunity to make my go-to argument: the core reason to distinguish RAW from not-RAW is that PCs make their role-playing game characters to play a certain role. That means they have to make assumptions about how their world works. For example, if you want to make a character who's good at persuading others, you're likely to read the rulebook, and then make a character with proficiency in the Persuasion skill, because you expect that to be how one becomes Persuasive on the tabletop. This logic extends to all build decisions. A DM can deviate from the RAW at will and this is completely fine and expected, but PCs are powerless in that regard. If a DM decides you now persuade everyone with the Performance skill instead, it's not like that PC can change their proficiency around in response.
So the most important reason to be crystal clear on the RAW is from a DM's perspective, and it's so you know what you want your house rules to be, so you can announce them up front, and your PCs can know them while making their characters. The worst way to experience most house rules as a PC is to suddenly find out a rule you were counting on to function the way you wanted to function has been modified and your character concept is now null and void. No PC wants that and no DM wants that. It's in everyone's best interest if the DM can make as many of their house rules as possible ahead of time.
My take on it all was already said more elegantly.
Something along the lines of, there's no achievement for strict rules adherence. Players remember the story, not a specific ruling.
One thing I've always stood by is, our table, our rules. There's no official book, designer, or officially employed writer (or independent writer) that understands the nuances of my table, the time things take, the preferences of my players, etc. Every official book and rule is simply a guideline upon which I create fun.
I feel like the terms “RAW” and “Rule of Cool” are both being used pretty loosely in this thread. Makes it near impossible to argue anything in a reasonable manner.
When pavilionaire makes the statement "It's not RAW that a Nat 20 ability check is an automatic success, but it is a popular house rule, and as we've established, house rules are RAW.", there is zero common ground for discussion. First part of the statement says "it is not RAW", last part of the statement says it is.
If a person can't accept that Rule of Cool != RAW, there is nothing more can be discussed with that person.
When a DM or player badly misunderstands the mechanics of a spell, or a feature, or a base mechanic of the game, that can happen to anyone, at a RAW table or not.
When a DM or player fully understands the mechanics of said spell, feature, or base mechanic, and says "nope, I am not accepting that because it is too restrictive to what I want to do", that is rule of cool. No player EVER says "my rule of cool implementation is actually less powerful than RAW".
So, I want my physically not all that capable warlock to scale a wall, without suitable magic to help out. In order not to fall, I declare I’ll be using a grappling hook. There are no written rules for using a grappling hook, but my DM feels I should be able to so makes up some stuff. It’s clearly not RAW (even if some people in this thread think it is), but is it Rule of Cool? If yes, I don’t think it’s possible to have a decent game without. If no, then whatever rulesmongery the DM comes up with being Rule of Cool or not is subject to interpretation.
Umm...no.
Let's look at that Grappling Hook (page 150 PHB) example. Let's say your Warlock has a 8 Str, 14 Dex, and proficiency in neither, so a -1 on Athletics, and a +2 of Acrobatics. The DM says "OK, fire it over the wall", and the DM decides on the chances of the Hook actually snagging something (maybe DC 12), or simply a straight percentage chance. Let's go with the DC of 12. Warlock gets lucky, rolls a 10 on an Acrobatics check and with the +2, it snags. The DM then says "OK, now you have to climb the wall. The rope lowers the DC to also 12, and you have to make 2 Athletics rolls, as your speed is halved (climbing a wall), and the wall is 30 feet high. Warlock rolls a 13 on the first one, so gets halfway up. But on the second roll, the Warlock rolls a 12, and with the -1 to Athletics, falls. The DM says "just as you reach for the top of the wall, you lose your grip, and plummet 30 feet down. You take 3d6 damage."
That is RAW.
Now, let's say the Rogue goes up next. He has much higher chance, because this Rogue has prof in Athletics and Acrobatics both. (My Scout Rogue does, thanks to Halfling Nimbleness). So the Rogue is on the top, and decides to Hide behind a battlement from guards on the inside of the wall. The DM decides the DC is 15, and the Rogue makes a successful roll. (BTW, a Rogue should never know the DC the DM set, and can only guess if the Hide was successful).
So far, so good, all RAW.
Now, the DM says "suddenly, the Rogue sees the BBEG taking his nightly stroll around the inside perimeter of the wall."
The Rogue says "I wait until he gets close, and with a dagger in each hand, leap out into thin air, timing my jump to land on the BBEG's shoulders, as I plunge my daggers into his eyes". The DM says "wow, that sound so cool. I award you inspiration, and you don't have to worry about falling damage of a 30 foot drop, or initiative, or any kind of DC check to time your jump properly. And because you have Surprise, and Inspiration, my house rule says you auto hit and I will allow a called shot because of how you described it."
That is rule of cool, and the bane of RAW.
If the rogue just jumped, sure, rule of cool (and one I would not allow either). However if they rappelled down, another story. Then the question is really allowing movement as part of a held action (and allowing held actions out of initiative).
"Rule of cool" has no set definition as far as I'm aware. It's just a term that roughly refers to the idea that if someone wants to try something, and there's no specific rule about doing it, the DM can make rulings on the fly to enable cool stuff to happen.
It would more likely go like this than the absurdist view spouted in the post:
Rogue Player: I wait until he gets close, and with a dagger in each hand, leap out into thin air, timing my jump to land on the BBEG's shoulders, as I plunge my daggers into his eyes". DM: You can try. Make an Acrobatics check. (DM secretly sets the DC at 19). If you fail, you'll plummet back down and take falling damage. Rogue Player rolls 17 and has +8 Acrobatics, so succeeds. DM: You land on his back. The BBEG is surprised. Roll initiative. Everyone rolls initiative. DM: Make an attack roll with advantage for the total surprise. Rogue Player: I want to aim specifically for his eyes The DM considers that called shots against specific body parts aren't part of the core rules, but decides that given the situation, he'll allow it. DM: If you roll a nat 20 on the attack, it will stab him in the eye and blind him as well as dealing the damage. Rogue Player makes his attack rolls, and whether or not he achieves it, combat proceeds normally.
In my example, the landing on the boss's back is not RAW. The stab at the eye is not RulesAW. The advantage granted is not RulesAW. All of it requires DM on the fly decision making, and all of it makes for a dynamic situation.
If someone wants to try something out of the ordinary, usually it's preceded in my games by an ability check of some kind.
I wouldn't really apply rule of cool to that rogue maneuver. To me that's pretty basic rogue stuff, and you can pretty much play it RAW with a little bit of interpretation.
I think rule of cool applies to outside the box ideas that can't be expressed in terms of RAW. For example, let's say we cast Enlarge / Reduce on a boulder, have the barbarian yeet it into the Purple Worm's mouth, and then end concentration so the boulder returns to normal size inside the Purple Worm's stomach, with the hope that this triggers it to vomit up our companion who it had swallowed.
RAW you might say, okay, the boulder is an improvised weapon. The range for thrown improvised weapons is 20/60, and you're at 50 feet, so you have disadvantage. You also have no proficiency. Barbarian rolls a 16 and a 20 and has +2 Dex. Lucky rolls. You hit, barely. Roll d4 + 2 damage. You can't call shots to land it in its mouth.
Rule of Cool says that if players come up with an elaborate plan that they're pretty proud of, don't just rule that the plan fails. Sorry. There's no RAW for that. Instead, come up with some kind of roll they can make where it can possibly succeed, at least partially. For example, maybe still make the barbarian make a disadvantaged attack roll with no proficiency. Maybe you apply a house rule for called shots. It might just be to add disadvantage again, which makes no difference here. On a hit, the worm swallows the rock. When it enlarges, the worm makes the same DC 21 Con save as if you do internal damage to it.
That way, they still might fail, but they don't feel like the DM rejected their idea. The dice did.
The Rogue is waiting for a chance to attack the BBEG, in order to get Surprise, they must use the Hide action.
The Rogue is Hiding, they use stealth, the BBEG gets to use their Passive perception to notice, so they need to generate a stealth total to set the target number for the check.
The Rogue has Expertise in Steath, and a Dex of 20, and is a Third level Assassin. 1d20, +2 base proficiency, +4 more for Expertise, +5 for their Dex. They roll a ten, +11 more, and end up with a 21. We will go ahead and say that the BBEG didn't detect them.
Roll for Initiative. The Rogue rolls a 4, +2 for base proficiency, +5 for their Dex. The get an 11. They don't like it, so they use a point of Inspiration, (That's where the Rule of Cool comes into this. Inspiration is inherently cool) and roll the check again, then pick which one they like best. New roll, 17 total, they only needed a 10 for that.
Now they get to attack on their initiative. The BBEG is indeed surprised, they stop moving and can take no actions, or bonus actions at all. (they may be able to take a Reaction, but they haven't set up anything that would trigger one.) If the Rogue hits, and they have a very good chance of having that happen, they automatically get a critical hit. There are no rules for targeting specific body parts, no matter how cool that might be. They already used their point of Inspiration after all.
As near as I can figure, the only part of this that isn't 100% Rules as Written is the use of Inspiration, because that's an optional rule. It's sad that when you playing 100% raw, you can't use the Rule of Cool because that violates the Rule of Fun.
Dropping on someone is in fact exactly like the movies, since this is fiction and it's supposed to be fun. It's up to the DM to decide which movies it's like. You can either make it Errol Flynn, where outrageous feats of acrobatics are commonly successful, or you can make it a gritty realistic war movie, where yeah it can be DC 30.
Specifically, when some player complains about dropping on a target, I would say, "OK, you want to turn yourself into a dead weight bomb. Fair enough. You spend much time calculating trajectories of moving targets? I don't remember your char practicing such a thing. You need to make a DC 30 Acrobatics check, just to see if you hit." Dropping on someone is not like in the movies, or something someone watched on the Internet show Critical Role which embraces stuff that is most certainly not 5e. And of course, since the Rogue is talking about making an attack, which this most certainly is, well, now we are into Initiative.
Please. Do not act like your way of playing D&D is the only true way to play D&D. You do not get to decide what is 5e and what is not. If you think you are so good because you are playing a hardcore game, you should try an antagonistic game where the GM tries to kill you and your party.
Dropping on someone is in fact exactly like the movies, since this is fiction and it's supposed to be fun. It's up to the DM to decide which movies it's like. You can either make it Errol Flynn, where outrageous feats of acrobatics are commonly successful, or you can make it a gritty realistic war movie, where yeah it can be DC 30.
You want to play a game based on The Fast and Furious movie genre, where every single one gets more ludicrous than the previous. Akula subs crashing through the ice, chasing cars...really, is that what qualifies as entertainment? The writer, producer, and continuity guys could not even get straight the difference between an SSN and an SSBN, let alone how so far removed from reality of the most basic physics such a scene was. On my channels right now is some movie in that franchise. Some girl leaps between two vehicles being driven in opposite directions by the leads, The Rock and Statham. The combined approach speed of the two vehicles is somewhere between 60 and 80 mph. Yet, The Rock grabs her by a single arm, then swings her into the cab. That Rule of Cool maneuver totally ignores the fact that even if Johnson could grab her (DC 50 Acrobatics, at best), then manage to hold on to her arm (DC 100 Athletics, at best), he would be left holding her arm and that is it, as it would be ripped from her body. And yeah, I turned on the TV, that scene ran, and I changed the channel, thinking "sorry, way too stupid for me."
I want to play a game based on the Saving Private Ryan movie setting.
Guess what setting the is the bones of what D&D is built on. You want to play Rule of Cool, at least apply the proper DC's. And don't say, the chars are superheroes, with superhuman strength and agility. Dwayne Johnson would easily have a 20 Str, probably a 14 Dex, in the D&D setting, but he is not Thor, nor the Hulk.
There are those that grew up watching Indiana Jones as their "hero" where he got his butt kicked like in the first movie. or those will watch the early Bond moves with Connery. ( I highly recommend the train fight scene in From Russia with Love, or ANYTHING in Goldfinger). Then there are those who grew up watching their "human" heroes like Hawkeye (I played golf once, shot 18, did not see the point of playing again). It does not take a trained psychologist to see the impact that has on how various people view D&D.
I don't know if the Fast and the Furious franchise really serves as a counterpoint to Errol Flynn who 1.) did his own practical stunts and 2.) well predates the era of realism or verisimilitude, or whatever it is "back in your day" that gave you more adult sensibilities or whatever. I'm not sure what you were trying to articulate there other than movies couldn't capture the hijinks of comic books until very recently in cinematic history. I mean you had all those Burt Reynolds Car movies back then, and Steve McQueen. Mythic happens.
Gritty realism is an "option" presented in the DMG, so more like suggestion than the RAW in the scope of this discussion. Otherwise, I'm really curious where in Saving Private Ryan were the parts where the characters woke up with all their hit points back.
But yeah, your thing about psychological conditioning through movies or what have you ,... you realize most every edition of D&D suggested books to read, not movies, to get what the game was getting at. A lot of the books in those lists, well there's quite a lot of literally fabulous stuff going on in them.
When it comes down to it, your position doesn't seem to be RAW so much as asserting your personal tastes are most in line with RAW and I just don't think that's true, certainly not worth complaining/ranting/antagonizing about; and it's definitely not worth casting aspersions at presumed psychology of players with whom you're engaged in discussion. Your fantasies being bound to your presumptions on the realism of blood and guts as you envision it (grounded in your perspective) isn't inherently superior to someone mid air tackling a wyvern.
But, hey, did you stat Odd Job's hat yet? I can't seem to get it to work without invoking Rule of Cool.
My sense of humor compels me to point out that you can think of rules as a sort of thing that you wear in order to guide your actions. If you are wearing a suit that provides 100% coverage, the longer you move around in it, the more likely it is to chafe and become uncomfortable.
Dropping on someone is in fact exactly like the movies, since this is fiction and it's supposed to be fun. It's up to the DM to decide which movies it's like. You can either make it Errol Flynn, where outrageous feats of acrobatics are commonly successful, or you can make it a gritty realistic war movie, where yeah it can be DC 30.
You want to play a game based on The Fast and Furious movie genre, where every single one gets more ludicrous than the previous.
We are literally using a forum to discuss a game in which an elf can cast a Wish spell to make everyone in the country have a muffin for a head. If you're trying to somehow get into 'gritty realism' then you don't understand the basics of the game you're playing. You are trying to discuss chess when the game you're playing is I Have Never.
You also said: "Sorry, those are the rules. Learn them. Embrace them. Love them."
And again, RAW: DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
You can continue to argue that "those are the rules" when the very rules you are so concerned aboutare contained in a book which states, very clearly, explicitly and inarguably, that the rules aren't in charge and the DM decides when to abide by them, but not even you can think you're right. Effectively you're saying "The DM Guide says this must happen" when the DM guide is explicit that it doesn't have to happen.
You have your position on this, which is immovable even in the face of clear, DM Guide-written proof that you are wrong. If you like to run a table like that then that's up to you, but trying to pretend that you're right, in the face of clear and definitive statements in the rules that you're wrong, is not going to convince anyone.
Dropping on someone is in fact exactly like the movies, since this is fiction and it's supposed to be fun. It's up to the DM to decide which movies it's like. You can either make it Errol Flynn, where outrageous feats of acrobatics are commonly successful, or you can make it a gritty realistic war movie, where yeah it can be DC 30.
You want to play a game based on The Fast and Furious movie genre, where every single one gets more ludicrous than the previous. Akula subs crashing through the ice, chasing cars...really, is that what qualifies as entertainment? The writer, producer, and continuity guys could not even get straight the difference between an SSN and an SSBN, let alone how so far removed from reality of the most basic physics such a scene was. On my channels right now is some movie in that franchise. Some girl leaps between two vehicles being driven in opposite directions by the leads, The Rock and Statham. The combined approach speed of the two vehicles is somewhere between 60 and 80 mph. Yet, The Rock grabs her by a single arm, then swings her into the cab. That Rule of Cool maneuver totally ignores the fact that even if Johnson could grab her (DC 50 Acrobatics, at best), then manage to hold on to her arm (DC 100 Athletics, at best), he would be left holding her arm and that is it, as it would be ripped from her body. And yeah, I turned on the TV, that scene ran, and I changed the channel, thinking "sorry, way too stupid for me."
You're entitled to your opinion, but the Rock is pretty much the definition of cool. The conclusion I've come to is that you just don't like cool.
I want to play a game based on the Saving Private Ryan movie setting.
Dropping on someone is in fact exactly like the movies, since this is fiction and it's supposed to be fun. It's up to the DM to decide which movies it's like. You can either make it Errol Flynn, where outrageous feats of acrobatics are commonly successful, or you can make it a gritty realistic war movie, where yeah it can be DC 30.
You want to play a game based on The Fast and Furious movie genre, where every single one gets more ludicrous than the previous. Akula subs crashing through the ice, chasing cars...really, is that what qualifies as entertainment? The writer, producer, and continuity guys could not even get straight the difference between an SSN and an SSBN, let alone how so far removed from reality of the most basic physics such a scene was. On my channels right now is some movie in that franchise. Some girl leaps between two vehicles being driven in opposite directions by the leads, The Rock and Statham. The combined approach speed of the two vehicles is somewhere between 60 and 80 mph. Yet, The Rock grabs her by a single arm, then swings her into the cab. That Rule of Cool maneuver totally ignores the fact that even if Johnson could grab her (DC 50 Acrobatics, at best), then manage to hold on to her arm (DC 100 Athletics, at best), he would be left holding her arm and that is it, as it would be ripped from her body. And yeah, I turned on the TV, that scene ran, and I changed the channel, thinking "sorry, way too stupid for me."
I want to play a game based on the Saving Private Ryan movie setting.
Guess what setting the is the bones of what D&D is built on. You want to play Rule of Cool, at least apply the proper DC's. And don't say, the chars are superheroes, with superhuman strength and agility. Dwayne Johnson would easily have a 20 Str, probably a 14 Dex, in the D&D setting, but he is not Thor, nor the Hulk.
There are those that grew up watching Indiana Jones as their "hero" where he got his butt kicked like in the first movie. or those will watch the early Bond moves with Connery. ( I highly recommend the train fight scene in From Russia with Love, or ANYTHING in Goldfinger). Then there are those who grew up watching their "human" heroes like Hawkeye (I played golf once, shot 18, did not see the point of playing again). It does not take a trained psychologist to see the impact that has on how various people view D&D.
But in default 5e a Barbarian can grapple and prone an Allosaurus as it is a large creature. In fact, they are likely to be very good at proning a 2.3 metric ton creature because they get ADV on STR checks while raging.
So you would draw the line at someone grabbing someone's arm? While I appreciate you running the game the way you want to but honestly the base game is not set up for the gritty realism you want from it...
Chances are you would have a better time with a more grounded base system then as it seems 5e isn't the right system for your needs as a DM.
So what makes one instance of the DM making something up that’s not written in the rules “RAW”, and another instance of the DM making something up that’s not written in the rules “Rule of Cool”?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Regardless of whether one is talking about rule of cool or house rules or some combo of the two, one is not talking about RAW, and therefore, to the topic at hand -- using them is not playing 100% RAW.
Almost no one plays D&D 100% RAW. I'd bet even Gygax didn't.
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.
Is it though? Is that not an interpretation? Especially since it can both be an ability check or a percentage chance apparently, and none of the examples listed in the established rules for the proficiency you picked have anything to do with throwing things. How grounded is it really? And this is what I’d consider a pretty straightforward example.
I’d also point out that what the rogue player suggests that leads to all this rule of cool stuff is pretty reasonable and can actually be resolved by RAW - the only one getting extra creative in your example is the DM. Initiative and timing are, grounded in the rules, not something the PC has to immediately worry about: readied actions exist and while 5E doesn’t have surprise rounds so initiative has to be rolled before anything goes down, the Surprised condition guarantees the rogue can act first. A reaction alone won’t be enough to both jump down and attack, but at the very least he can ready the jump and hope to win initiative. Not sure why the DM would decide to get fresh with this, but the player doesn’t earn any blame here.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The rule of cool is a figurative statement. The rule of fun is the same thing, but much more important. If all you have to go buy is the Rules as Written, it is very limiting and in complete violation of the Rule of Fun. Why bother to play D&D if it's not going to be fun? Some people like to follow very strict rules and allow for no interpretation. If so, what's the DM there for?
I have various ways of describing how I tell stories.
It really don't matter how you think about storytelling, those are just examples. What matters is judgement and respect. The players are the ones telling the story, they need to respect the DM, so DM is the judge, and needs to respect the players enough to give them options. Let the player decide what to do with them. Railroads are actually very good for new players or DMs. Low level games are just fine if you pick how the story comes out, just leave some train stations in place so they have the chance to get off the train.
Sandbox style games are nearly impossible to run if you stick to 100% Rules as Written.
<Insert clever signature here>
Gonna repeat this since the ardent "RAW should always be employed" supporters completely ignored it when it proved their argument to be futile:
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
The core rules literally state that there are times where there are no rules. Unless you can somehow refute this, you are arguing that the rules must all be implement, whilst arguing against the opening statements in the core rules.
Here's some other reasons why this idea of rigid adherence to RAW is nonsense:
It's sad to see players these days thinking that you can rigidly adhere to rules that even within the core rule books are so full of subjective ideas, where it's literally stated that the rules should not be rigidly adhered to, are somehow a computer game type system of cause and effect.
Regarding dragons being thrown into the sun, if you feel that somebody else's campaign that you're not playing in is somehow wrong then you don't understand D&D at all. Everyone's game is different. Those guys may well be having more fun that you, and there is no point to this game at all other than having fun.
One of the worst things about the "You must play RAW" argument is that it implies that every player needs a full and extensive knowledge of the rules to be able to play the game. This isn't right. I begin players without even explaining the rules, I just help them roll up a character and then teach them combat in the first encounter. They learn it all as they go along by doing, not by learning rulebooks by rote. This attitude is anti-casual-players. I've had a great time in a 2 year campaign with a guy who never managed to learn which dice was a d8 by sight.
You do you, play the way you want to play, but if you think that the game can be played to a strict set of rules that (a) don't exist and (b) the very rulebooks you want to adhere to tell you not to rigidly adhere to them, then maybe just say "This is how I like to play" rather than "This is better."
This is the way. Well, I do explain some of the basics (essentially what the different things on the character sheet mean, what they’re used for and how), but new players should be allowed to come to their first session knowing essentially nothing about how to play. Why ask that they spend a couple of hours learning rules from a book if they don’t even know if they’ll like playing enough to keep doing it? And if they do like it and the DM and other players were helpful, when that first session is over they’ll have picked up enough of the basics that they pretty much won’t have to ask about how anything works in general anymore, they’ll have moved on to a more specific level of how things work in specific situations. Couple more sessions, bit more repetition, and regardless of how well they’ll ever learn the rules they’ll be able to play smoothly enough not to hold up the game more than anyone else.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't know any people like that, thankfully, but I'd like to take this opportunity to make my go-to argument: the core reason to distinguish RAW from not-RAW is that PCs make their role-playing game characters to play a certain role. That means they have to make assumptions about how their world works. For example, if you want to make a character who's good at persuading others, you're likely to read the rulebook, and then make a character with proficiency in the Persuasion skill, because you expect that to be how one becomes Persuasive on the tabletop. This logic extends to all build decisions. A DM can deviate from the RAW at will and this is completely fine and expected, but PCs are powerless in that regard. If a DM decides you now persuade everyone with the Performance skill instead, it's not like that PC can change their proficiency around in response.
So the most important reason to be crystal clear on the RAW is from a DM's perspective, and it's so you know what you want your house rules to be, so you can announce them up front, and your PCs can know them while making their characters. The worst way to experience most house rules as a PC is to suddenly find out a rule you were counting on to function the way you wanted to function has been modified and your character concept is now null and void. No PC wants that and no DM wants that. It's in everyone's best interest if the DM can make as many of their house rules as possible ahead of time.
My take on it all was already said more elegantly.
Something along the lines of, there's no achievement for strict rules adherence. Players remember the story, not a specific ruling.
One thing I've always stood by is, our table, our rules. There's no official book, designer, or officially employed writer (or independent writer) that understands the nuances of my table, the time things take, the preferences of my players, etc. Every official book and rule is simply a guideline upon which I create fun.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
"Rule of cool" has no set definition as far as I'm aware. It's just a term that roughly refers to the idea that if someone wants to try something, and there's no specific rule about doing it, the DM can make rulings on the fly to enable cool stuff to happen.
It would more likely go like this than the absurdist view spouted in the post:
Rogue Player: I wait until he gets close, and with a dagger in each hand, leap out into thin air, timing my jump to land on the BBEG's shoulders, as I plunge my daggers into his eyes".
DM: You can try. Make an Acrobatics check. (DM secretly sets the DC at 19). If you fail, you'll plummet back down and take falling damage.
Rogue Player rolls 17 and has +8 Acrobatics, so succeeds.
DM: You land on his back. The BBEG is surprised. Roll initiative.
Everyone rolls initiative.
DM: Make an attack roll with advantage for the total surprise.
Rogue Player: I want to aim specifically for his eyes
The DM considers that called shots against specific body parts aren't part of the core rules, but decides that given the situation, he'll allow it.
DM: If you roll a nat 20 on the attack, it will stab him in the eye and blind him as well as dealing the damage.
Rogue Player makes his attack rolls, and whether or not he achieves it, combat proceeds normally.
In my example, the landing on the boss's back is not RAW. The stab at the eye is not RulesAW. The advantage granted is not RulesAW. All of it requires DM on the fly decision making, and all of it makes for a dynamic situation.
If someone wants to try something out of the ordinary, usually it's preceded in my games by an ability check of some kind.
I wouldn't really apply rule of cool to that rogue maneuver. To me that's pretty basic rogue stuff, and you can pretty much play it RAW with a little bit of interpretation.
I think rule of cool applies to outside the box ideas that can't be expressed in terms of RAW. For example, let's say we cast Enlarge / Reduce on a boulder, have the barbarian yeet it into the Purple Worm's mouth, and then end concentration so the boulder returns to normal size inside the Purple Worm's stomach, with the hope that this triggers it to vomit up our companion who it had swallowed.
RAW you might say, okay, the boulder is an improvised weapon. The range for thrown improvised weapons is 20/60, and you're at 50 feet, so you have disadvantage. You also have no proficiency. Barbarian rolls a 16 and a 20 and has +2 Dex. Lucky rolls. You hit, barely. Roll d4 + 2 damage. You can't call shots to land it in its mouth.
Rule of Cool says that if players come up with an elaborate plan that they're pretty proud of, don't just rule that the plan fails. Sorry. There's no RAW for that. Instead, come up with some kind of roll they can make where it can possibly succeed, at least partially. For example, maybe still make the barbarian make a disadvantaged attack roll with no proficiency. Maybe you apply a house rule for called shots. It might just be to add disadvantage again, which makes no difference here. On a hit, the worm swallows the rock. When it enlarges, the worm makes the same DC 21 Con save as if you do internal damage to it.
That way, they still might fail, but they don't feel like the DM rejected their idea. The dice did.
As near as I can figure, the only part of this that isn't 100% Rules as Written is the use of Inspiration, because that's an optional rule. It's sad that when you playing 100% raw, you can't use the Rule of Cool because that violates the Rule of Fun.
<Insert clever signature here>
Dropping on someone is in fact exactly like the movies, since this is fiction and it's supposed to be fun. It's up to the DM to decide which movies it's like. You can either make it Errol Flynn, where outrageous feats of acrobatics are commonly successful, or you can make it a gritty realistic war movie, where yeah it can be DC 30.
Please. Do not act like your way of playing D&D is the only true way to play D&D. You do not get to decide what is 5e and what is not. If you think you are so good because you are playing a hardcore game, you should try an antagonistic game where the GM tries to kill you and your party.
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 >
“You can’t land on another creature”? Really? In what world is it physically impossible for one creature to jump down and land on another one?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't know if the Fast and the Furious franchise really serves as a counterpoint to Errol Flynn who 1.) did his own practical stunts and 2.) well predates the era of realism or verisimilitude, or whatever it is "back in your day" that gave you more adult sensibilities or whatever. I'm not sure what you were trying to articulate there other than movies couldn't capture the hijinks of comic books until very recently in cinematic history. I mean you had all those Burt Reynolds Car movies back then, and Steve McQueen. Mythic happens.
Gritty realism is an "option" presented in the DMG, so more like suggestion than the RAW in the scope of this discussion. Otherwise, I'm really curious where in Saving Private Ryan were the parts where the characters woke up with all their hit points back.
But yeah, your thing about psychological conditioning through movies or what have you ,... you realize most every edition of D&D suggested books to read, not movies, to get what the game was getting at. A lot of the books in those lists, well there's quite a lot of literally fabulous stuff going on in them.
When it comes down to it, your position doesn't seem to be RAW so much as asserting your personal tastes are most in line with RAW and I just don't think that's true, certainly not worth complaining/ranting/antagonizing about; and it's definitely not worth casting aspersions at presumed psychology of players with whom you're engaged in discussion. Your fantasies being bound to your presumptions on the realism of blood and guts as you envision it (grounded in your perspective) isn't inherently superior to someone mid air tackling a wyvern.
But, hey, did you stat Odd Job's hat yet? I can't seem to get it to work without invoking Rule of Cool.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My sense of humor compels me to point out that you can think of rules as a sort of thing that you wear in order to guide your actions. If you are wearing a suit that provides 100% coverage, the longer you move around in it, the more likely it is to chafe and become uncomfortable.
<Insert clever signature here>
We are literally using a forum to discuss a game in which an elf can cast a Wish spell to make everyone in the country have a muffin for a head. If you're trying to somehow get into 'gritty realism' then you don't understand the basics of the game you're playing. You are trying to discuss chess when the game you're playing is I Have Never.
You also said: "Sorry, those are the rules. Learn them. Embrace them. Love them."
And again, RAW: DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
You can continue to argue that "those are the rules" when the very rules you are so concerned about are contained in a book which states, very clearly, explicitly and inarguably, that the rules aren't in charge and the DM decides when to abide by them, but not even you can think you're right. Effectively you're saying "The DM Guide says this must happen" when the DM guide is explicit that it doesn't have to happen.
You have your position on this, which is immovable even in the face of clear, DM Guide-written proof that you are wrong. If you like to run a table like that then that's up to you, but trying to pretend that you're right, in the face of clear and definitive statements in the rules that you're wrong, is not going to convince anyone.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the Rock is pretty much the definition of cool. The conclusion I've come to is that you just don't like cool.
Go ahead.
But in default 5e a Barbarian can grapple and prone an Allosaurus as it is a large creature. In fact, they are likely to be very good at proning a 2.3 metric ton creature because they get ADV on STR checks while raging.
So you would draw the line at someone grabbing someone's arm? While I appreciate you running the game the way you want to but honestly the base game is not set up for the gritty realism you want from it...
Chances are you would have a better time with a more grounded base system then as it seems 5e isn't the right system for your needs as a DM.
Thought this video was a good coda to this particular conversation:
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.