But friendly banter aside, when you come together to play a game of D&D, you implicitly agree to playing the same game.
This is exactly how I feel about it, thank you for putting it into better words than I could.
If the spell's effect is impacted by the scenario within in the game, cool! The DM needs to make that clear. "You draw upon as much divine magical energy as you can, and yet still the spell has no effect. This is strange; you know something is wrong." It would be a table *ruling*, which the DM is expected to constantly make at the table and has minimal expectation to explain to the players.
If the spell is going to operate in this game in a way that is differently than RAW, then we are no longer operating under the same ruleset. The DM has changed RAW, and therefore players need to know exactly what, where, and how the RAW has changed. The DM has now changed the fundamental aspects of the game we are playing, and needs to inform the players. It would be a table *rule*, and therefore is definitively not RAW.
And that is not just a DM/player issue, it is an interpersonal issue. A person who withholds information from you and sets you up for failure is just not someone I want to play a game with.
Doing this out of pure spite would be silly and I don't think that I've ever seen a DM do that. On the other hand, it's hard for a DM to envision everything, and some players come up with fairly outrageous interpretations as well. Hence my suggestion above, obviously the DM should not hide things on purpose, but it would be really nice if the players could do the same.
Unfortunately, I have experienced a DM who sat down with me, went through the rules, built a character with me, and then ruled differently in-game during play.
I have also experienced players, who took a feature, feat, or ability seemingly innocently, then sprung an edge case of interactions between special rules to disrupt an encounter.
Neither of those things are pleasant, nor do they further the idea of collaborative play.
To me that compares to playing chess, and when you corner the King, saying 'checkmate', the other player says 'no, the King is on a black square, that means you can only take him with a pawn'. You are not playing the same game, and have just wasted my time.
D&D is not chess. By a wide, wide margin. And I think this is where our interpretations differ. 4e tried to be like chess and proved to be a failure, for me in large part for this. In D&D, contrary as in chess, there will be hundreds of edge cases not covered by the rules, and even the rules are subject to interpretation whereas those from chess are not.
I did not mean to compare D&D to Chess, maybe that example was not the best. Chess does not have an arbitrator.
What I meant to express is that it is bad form to change the rules of the game when you are in the middle of playing it. You ought to address changes to the rules before you start, to give all players the chance to agree.
Maybe a comparison would be when you play Blackjack and get dealt the Ace-of-Spades and the Jack-of-Spades. You flip them over, expecting to win, and the dealer tells you nope, you only win 19 and under. (Still not a great example, but at least one without a gridded battlemat ;) )
TBH, I think the only problem here is that we are (as usual on these forums) both exaggerating, it's just that some statements like "a DM cannot change the RAW without forewarning me" raise my hackles.
True, forum discussions tend to use opposing edge cases to drive the points, when the actual 'field use' is somewhere in-between.
And I don't want to impose shackles onto a DM to drive the narrative. What I am advocating for, though, is to use language during play, that reassures the players they are not shortchanged. A phrase like 'I know usually this is done differently in RAW, but this is such a cool idea that I'll let it go this time', or describing how a spell fails unexpectedly as in my post above, do wonders for group trust.
I may be a bit more sensitive to those issues (having played under a jerk DM), but I don't think it hurts to let the players know about some of the thought processes of a DM during play.
And that is not just a DM/player issue, it is an interpersonal issue. A person who withholds information from you and sets you up for failure is just not someone I want to play a game with.
Doing this out of pure spite would be silly and I don't think that I've ever seen a DM do that. On the other hand, it's hard for a DM to envision everything, and some players come up with fairly outrageous interpretations as well. Hence my suggestion above, obviously the DM should not hide things on purpose, but it would be really nice if the players could do the same.
Unfortunately, I have experienced a DM who sat down with me, went through the rules, built a character with me, and then ruled differently in-game during play.
I have also experienced players, who took a feature, feat, or ability seemingly innocently, then sprung an edge case of interactions between special rules to disrupt an encounter.
Neither of those things are pleasant, nor do they further the idea of collaborative play.
To me that compares to playing chess, and when you corner the King, saying 'checkmate', the other player says 'no, the King is on a black square, that means you can only take him with a pawn'. You are not playing the same game, and have just wasted my time.
D&D is not chess. By a wide, wide margin. And I think this is where our interpretations differ. 4e tried to be like chess and proved to be a failure, for me in large part for this. In D&D, contrary as in chess, there will be hundreds of edge cases not covered by the rules, and even the rules are subject to interpretation whereas those from chess are not.
I did not mean to compare D&D to Chess, maybe that example was not the best. Chess does not have an arbitrator.
What I meant to express is that it is bad form to change the rules of the game when you are in the middle of playing it. You ought to address changes to the rules before you start, to give all players the chance to agree.
Maybe a comparison would be when you play Blackjack and get dealt the Ace-of-Spades and the Jack-of-Spades. You flip them over, expecting to win, and the dealer tells you nope, you only win 19 and under. (Still not a great example, but at least one without a gridded battlemat ;) )
TBH, I think the only problem here is that we are (as usual on these forums) both exaggerating, it's just that some statements like "a DM cannot change the RAW without forewarning me" raise my hackles.
True, forum discussions tend to use opposing edge cases to drive the points, when the actual 'field use' is somewhere in-between.
And I don't want to impose shackles onto a DM to drive the narrative. What I am advocating for, though, is to use language during play, that reassures the players they are not shortchanged. A phrase like 'I know usually this is done differently in RAW, but this is such a cool idea that I'll let it go this time', or describing how a spell fails unexpectedly as in my post above, do wonders for group trust.
I may be a bit more sensitive to those issues (having played under a jerk DM), but I don't think it hurts to let the players know about some of the thought processes of a DM during play.
I know for a fact that when my players are going to face certain NPC's and spell, said spells are NOT going to operate the same way for the NPC as the players (eg. Hunger of Hadar will have a larger radius, so players can't Dash out in one turn, Darkness will be larger, same reason). Players may recognize the spell, but the DM is not constrained to play by any rules the players are held to.
After reading through this thread I think I need a little clarification before I would "pick a side". I don't know the specifics of how this played out but it seems to me like the scenario came about in one of two ways (and half the people on the thread are thinking one while the other are thinking the other).
Scenario 1: *Player casts Healing Spell
DM: Roll a ____Check:
Player: *Rolls low
DM: You go to cast [healing spell] and notice that it doesn't work
Scenario 2 (The way I first interpreted OP)
Player: *Casts Healing spell DM: Roll to see if it goes off Player: "huh?"
DM: In DnD you roll to make sure spells work
Player: ??? Ok?
Player: *goes and asks people on forums thinking it sounds wrong
I think we'd all agree that in Scenario 1, The DM is doing this on purpose and there's some weird interesting effect going on. As a player I think I'd be like "oooooooooh cool! Whats going on here?!?!" When people on this thread are arguing on the side of DM changing rules, i think this is the type of situation they have in mind.
In scenario 2, I think the DM just doesn't understand how the spell works and is assuming based on how other spells work that all spells must work the same way. In this case, Even as a DM who frequently alters rules, as a player I would also question it a bit. "Are you sure? Ok, but I don't think that's how it works"
Which scenario was closer to how it actually went??
It was very much a scenario 2, I tried explaining that it says on the spell that I dont need to roll "to hit" as its an aoe effect, but then got told that all spells require a roll, which I didn't want to argue over
I'm noticing, Lyxen, that you consistently seem to be assuming that changes to RAW that aren't discussed ahead of time with the players are always the result of a unique, in-story phenomenon. But that's not what people are talking about. People are talking about when a DM deviates from RAW for how individual rules work, either through inexperience or through a conscious decision they neglected to inform the players about ahead of time.
So let's assume that a player, say... decides to use Action Surge. The DM says, "Oh, you can't do that." The player asks, "What? Is something preventing me from doing it?". "No, I just don't like that ability. I think it's unbalanced." The player might be upset that one of their most useful skills isn't available. And it's not an obscure spell or unusual skill specific to their subclass... it's a very common, well-known skill unique to Fighters. When a player is choosing to play a fighter, if the DM knows they're not going to allow the use of Action Surge, it would be unnecessarily negiligent of them not to inform the player at that time that they're not allowing that specific skill.
It was very much a scenario 2, I tried explaining that it says on the spell that I dont need to roll "to hit" as its an aoe effect, but then got told that all spells require a roll, which I didn't want to argue over
Before the discussion gets sidetracked again... your DM is wrong and is making the game unnecessarily challenging for no reason. Try not to be mean to them about it but let them know that you looked into it more and found there are some spells that outright aren't supposed to have rolls and the game is balanced under the assumption that certain spells just Happen.
We talk a lot so I plan to bring it up, hes nice enough and understands that he's not always right with his interpretation of the rules, thank you everyone for your input was definitely very helpful 😁
And that is not just a DM/player issue, it is an interpersonal issue. A person who withholds information from you and sets you up for failure is just not someone I want to play a game with.
Doing this out of pure spite would be silly and I don't think that I've ever seen a DM do that. On the other hand, it's hard for a DM to envision everything, and some players come up with fairly outrageous interpretations as well. Hence my suggestion above, obviously the DM should not hide things on purpose, but it would be really nice if the players could do the same.
Unfortunately, I have experienced a DM who sat down with me, went through the rules, built a character with me, and then ruled differently in-game during play.
I have also experienced players, who took a feature, feat, or ability seemingly innocently, then sprung an edge case of interactions between special rules to disrupt an encounter.
Neither of those things are pleasant, nor do they further the idea of collaborative play.
To me that compares to playing chess, and when you corner the King, saying 'checkmate', the other player says 'no, the King is on a black square, that means you can only take him with a pawn'. You are not playing the same game, and have just wasted my time.
D&D is not chess. By a wide, wide margin. And I think this is where our interpretations differ. 4e tried to be like chess and proved to be a failure, for me in large part for this. In D&D, contrary as in chess, there will be hundreds of edge cases not covered by the rules, and even the rules are subject to interpretation whereas those from chess are not.
I did not mean to compare D&D to Chess, maybe that example was not the best. Chess does not have an arbitrator.
What I meant to express is that it is bad form to change the rules of the game when you are in the middle of playing it. You ought to address changes to the rules before you start, to give all players the chance to agree.
Maybe a comparison would be when you play Blackjack and get dealt the Ace-of-Spades and the Jack-of-Spades. You flip them over, expecting to win, and the dealer tells you nope, you only win 19 and under. (Still not a great example, but at least one without a gridded battlemat ;) )
TBH, I think the only problem here is that we are (as usual on these forums) both exaggerating, it's just that some statements like "a DM cannot change the RAW without forewarning me" raise my hackles.
True, forum discussions tend to use opposing edge cases to drive the points, when the actual 'field use' is somewhere in-between.
And I don't want to impose shackles onto a DM to drive the narrative. What I am advocating for, though, is to use language during play, that reassures the players they are not shortchanged. A phrase like 'I know usually this is done differently in RAW, but this is such a cool idea that I'll let it go this time', or describing how a spell fails unexpectedly as in my post above, do wonders for group trust.
I may be a bit more sensitive to those issues (having played under a jerk DM), but I don't think it hurts to let the players know about some of the thought processes of a DM during play.
I know for a fact that when my players are going to face certain NPC's and spell, said spells are NOT going to operate the same way for the NPC as the players (eg. Hunger of Hadar will have a larger radius, so players can't Dash out in one turn, Darkness will be larger, same reason). Players may recognize the spell, but the DM is not constrained to play by any rules the players are held to.
Are your players aware that you routinely break the RAW of spells for your own benefit or solely to make things harder? If so then fine...But the bolded statement is not one I, and I would assume the majority of DMs and folks on this forum, would agree with.
Given the player states it appears the DM is not clear on how magic works (RAW and RAI) he needs to approach the DM (preferably in private) to discuss. Explain that you've done some homework to see and it turns out there are a LOT of spells that the caster rolls nothing on to cast, both offensive and defensive. Some require saves from the target, some simply hit (Magic Missile anyone?) Show him/her this thread, if required, even suggest this site for reference when he/she isn't sure on something, it's a great place to check and get clarity.
DM can adjust rules as they see fit. Sure, fine, but to tip the entire spellcasting mechanic on it's head like that, with NO pre-discussion would simply be a dick move. Yes, in situational spots (wild magic area, anti-magic area, chaos region, etc) it can all be part of the game and campaign. But to twist it entirely, at all times? Nope. If it's an error by the DM, make sure you both have a chuckle over it, rectify it and move on. If it's an intentional variation and nothing was said prior to starting off, it's a dick move. It is a massive change in how magic works and would likely have a huge impact on character and thereafter, spell choices. If I was faced with that, as a Life Cleric, I would let him know there are 3 options. 1. RAW will apply to spellcasting. 2. I will be switching characters, to a class I feel will be better suited (and thus fun) under these new rules. 3. You're short 1 player.
Misinterpretations of rules happen all the time and when addressed and set right can be truly memorable moments to look back at and laugh, OR to talk about actually using in a future campaign, even. Lyxen is right, a DM is under no obligation to tell players all the house rules he/she is going to use. However, a decent person IS obligated to inform players when a major core element is going to be severely twisted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Right around 3:56:40 No explanation given. It is what it is. No prior warning.
This GM is obviously a bad GM? This GM has committed some crime against his players and will lose their trust? He should have warned ahead of time that this will happen?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I fear this thread has degenerated into something that's not even about the original topic anymore. The original question was 'rules as written does healing need an additional roll to determine success'?
The question has already been answered to the satisfaction of the poster so can we all just move on?
The problem is the replies throughout this thread is turning the thread into a Players vs DMs thread which is NOT the original point of the thread now is it?
The best course of action is to chat with the DM about it in between sessions, the OP has said he is going to do that so why do we need to drag this on?
The problem is the replies throughout this thread is turning the thread into a Players vs DMs thread which is NOT the original point of the thread now is it?
The best course of action is to chat with the DM about it in between sessions, the OP has said he is going to do that so why do we need to drag this on?
These is not a help desk, it's a discussion forum. And how is this detrimental to you ?
First off. One of the site rules is to STAY ON TOPIC.
it’s blatantly obvious that you are no longer on topic. You wish to continue, start anew thread or love to Private Messages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is exactly how I feel about it, thank you for putting it into better words than I could.
If the spell's effect is impacted by the scenario within in the game, cool! The DM needs to make that clear. "You draw upon as much divine magical energy as you can, and yet still the spell has no effect. This is strange; you know something is wrong." It would be a table *ruling*, which the DM is expected to constantly make at the table and has minimal expectation to explain to the players.
If the spell is going to operate in this game in a way that is differently than RAW, then we are no longer operating under the same ruleset. The DM has changed RAW, and therefore players need to know exactly what, where, and how the RAW has changed. The DM has now changed the fundamental aspects of the game we are playing, and needs to inform the players. It would be a table *rule*, and therefore is definitively not RAW.
Unfortunately, I have experienced a DM who sat down with me, went through the rules, built a character with me, and then ruled differently in-game during play.
I have also experienced players, who took a feature, feat, or ability seemingly innocently, then sprung an edge case of interactions between special rules to disrupt an encounter.
Neither of those things are pleasant, nor do they further the idea of collaborative play.
I did not mean to compare D&D to Chess, maybe that example was not the best. Chess does not have an arbitrator.
What I meant to express is that it is bad form to change the rules of the game when you are in the middle of playing it. You ought to address changes to the rules before you start, to give all players the chance to agree.
Maybe a comparison would be when you play Blackjack and get dealt the Ace-of-Spades and the Jack-of-Spades. You flip them over, expecting to win, and the dealer tells you nope, you only win 19 and under. (Still not a great example, but at least one without a gridded battlemat ;) )
True, forum discussions tend to use opposing edge cases to drive the points, when the actual 'field use' is somewhere in-between.
And I don't want to impose shackles onto a DM to drive the narrative. What I am advocating for, though, is to use language during play, that reassures the players they are not shortchanged. A phrase like 'I know usually this is done differently in RAW, but this is such a cool idea that I'll let it go this time', or describing how a spell fails unexpectedly as in my post above, do wonders for group trust.
I may be a bit more sensitive to those issues (having played under a jerk DM), but I don't think it hurts to let the players know about some of the thought processes of a DM during play.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I know for a fact that when my players are going to face certain NPC's and spell, said spells are NOT going to operate the same way for the NPC as the players (eg. Hunger of Hadar will have a larger radius, so players can't Dash out in one turn, Darkness will be larger, same reason). Players may recognize the spell, but the DM is not constrained to play by any rules the players are held to.
Seems to me that a disclaimer that needs to precede every answer to every question ought to be a pinned thread. Or, sensibly, foregone.
After reading through this thread I think I need a little clarification before I would "pick a side". I don't know the specifics of how this played out but it seems to me like the scenario came about in one of two ways (and half the people on the thread are thinking one while the other are thinking the other).
Scenario 1:
*Player casts Healing Spell
DM: Roll a ____Check:
Player: *Rolls low
DM: You go to cast [healing spell] and notice that it doesn't work
Scenario 2 (The way I first interpreted OP)
Player: *Casts Healing spell
DM: Roll to see if it goes off
Player: "huh?"
DM: In DnD you roll to make sure spells work
Player: ??? Ok?
Player: *goes and asks people on forums thinking it sounds wrong
I think we'd all agree that in Scenario 1, The DM is doing this on purpose and there's some weird interesting effect going on. As a player I think I'd be like "oooooooooh cool! Whats going on here?!?!" When people on this thread are arguing on the side of DM changing rules, i think this is the type of situation they have in mind.
In scenario 2, I think the DM just doesn't understand how the spell works and is assuming based on how other spells work that all spells must work the same way. In this case, Even as a DM who frequently alters rules, as a player I would also question it a bit. "Are you sure? Ok, but I don't think that's how it works"
Which scenario was closer to how it actually went??
It was very much a scenario 2, I tried explaining that it says on the spell that I dont need to roll "to hit" as its an aoe effect, but then got told that all spells require a roll, which I didn't want to argue over
I'm noticing, Lyxen, that you consistently seem to be assuming that changes to RAW that aren't discussed ahead of time with the players are always the result of a unique, in-story phenomenon. But that's not what people are talking about. People are talking about when a DM deviates from RAW for how individual rules work, either through inexperience or through a conscious decision they neglected to inform the players about ahead of time.
So let's assume that a player, say... decides to use Action Surge. The DM says, "Oh, you can't do that." The player asks, "What? Is something preventing me from doing it?". "No, I just don't like that ability. I think it's unbalanced." The player might be upset that one of their most useful skills isn't available. And it's not an obscure spell or unusual skill specific to their subclass... it's a very common, well-known skill unique to Fighters. When a player is choosing to play a fighter, if the DM knows they're not going to allow the use of Action Surge, it would be unnecessarily negiligent of them not to inform the player at that time that they're not allowing that specific skill.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Before the discussion gets sidetracked again... your DM is wrong and is making the game unnecessarily challenging for no reason. Try not to be mean to them about it but let them know that you looked into it more and found there are some spells that outright aren't supposed to have rolls and the game is balanced under the assumption that certain spells just Happen.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
We talk a lot so I plan to bring it up, hes nice enough and understands that he's not always right with his interpretation of the rules, thank you everyone for your input was definitely very helpful 😁
Are your players aware that you routinely break the RAW of spells for your own benefit or solely to make things harder? If so then fine...But the bolded statement is not one I, and I would assume the majority of DMs and folks on this forum, would agree with.
Given the player states it appears the DM is not clear on how magic works (RAW and RAI) he needs to approach the DM (preferably in private) to discuss. Explain that you've done some homework to see and it turns out there are a LOT of spells that the caster rolls nothing on to cast, both offensive and defensive. Some require saves from the target, some simply hit (Magic Missile anyone?) Show him/her this thread, if required, even suggest this site for reference when he/she isn't sure on something, it's a great place to check and get clarity.
DM can adjust rules as they see fit. Sure, fine, but to tip the entire spellcasting mechanic on it's head like that, with NO pre-discussion would simply be a dick move. Yes, in situational spots (wild magic area, anti-magic area, chaos region, etc) it can all be part of the game and campaign. But to twist it entirely, at all times? Nope. If it's an error by the DM, make sure you both have a chuckle over it, rectify it and move on. If it's an intentional variation and nothing was said prior to starting off, it's a dick move. It is a massive change in how magic works and would likely have a huge impact on character and thereafter, spell choices. If I was faced with that, as a Life Cleric, I would let him know there are 3 options. 1. RAW will apply to spellcasting. 2. I will be switching characters, to a class I feel will be better suited (and thus fun) under these new rules. 3. You're short 1 player.
Misinterpretations of rules happen all the time and when addressed and set right can be truly memorable moments to look back at and laugh, OR to talk about actually using in a future campaign, even. Lyxen is right, a DM is under no obligation to tell players all the house rules he/she is going to use. However, a decent person IS obligated to inform players when a major core element is going to be severely twisted.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Right around 3:56:40 No explanation given. It is what it is. No prior warning.
This GM is obviously a bad GM? This GM has committed some crime against his players and will lose their trust? He should have warned ahead of time that this will happen?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I fear this thread has degenerated into something that's not even about the original topic anymore. The original question was 'rules as written does healing need an additional roll to determine success'?
The question has already been answered to the satisfaction of the poster so can we all just move on?
The problem is the replies throughout this thread is turning the thread into a Players vs DMs thread which is NOT the original point of the thread now is it?
The best course of action is to chat with the DM about it in between sessions, the OP has said he is going to do that so why do we need to drag this on?
First off. One of the site rules is to STAY ON TOPIC.
it’s blatantly obvious that you are no longer on topic. You wish to continue, start anew thread or love to Private Messages.