I have a question for some other DMs out there, how much have you changed up some of the rules for your game to fit your stories narrative? Furthermore, if you have someone who is very into the rules (rules lawyer) how would one combat this to restore flow and keep the fun for the other players (who don't mind some rules changing).
Talk to your group before hand, i.e. session zero. In my experience as a GM, as long as I establish what the rules are beforehand, my players go along with it and do not really question it.
When rules are unclear and we have not discussed it before hand, that is when issues of varying expectations and interpretations of the rules arise; in this scenario, you just have to put your feet down as a GM and pick a temporary ruling to move the game forward. You can always go back to the ruling after the session and adjust the temporary ruling moving forward from the next session onwards.
Yes. Session 0 is very important. And players should talk to DMs about how they plan to build their character (especially if it takes advantage of some niche rule interaction) so DMs can tell them ahead of time if any DM rulings will prevent that.
"This is how we'll run it for now and I'll look into it later" is a perfectly acceptable answer for unexpected situations. Then next session you can share the ruling going forward (possibly correcting any changes to the narrative if applicable "you would have gotten that item, so add it to your inventory")
The most important thing is to be consistent with your home rules and apply them fairly. That means consistently applying the rule among the player characters and applying the rule to your own NPCs and monsters. It also helps if you have a reason for the rules change you can articulate - it need not be a super in-depth reason, a simple “I like it better this way because X” should prove sufficient.
I think that one of the more challenging things about D&D is, that you have to agree to *which* kind of D&D you want to play with your particular group *before* you start playing.
If you have a group that plays tactical combat, you may want to stick to RAW. If you have a beer-and-pretzel group, maybe the DM needs to make up most of the rulings on the fly, as Rules of Cool or Rules as Fun
I agree with the above posters in session zero, group discussion and how to handle "things and rules the GM did not see" situations.
I also think the groups playstyle is huge in just how this comes about. In that I mean some groups like a more director/author GM that has everything mapped out and the PC's and players are following programs set by the GM (even though they think they have freedom) or have freedom in a small area or box. Note 1: to some extent most games are like this but I have seen some that the GM make rule decisions based on the room and they can switch because they want it to or because the story is not going in the direction they have planed. Note 2: Some groups love the above playstyle often as long as it is in their favor.
The problem with doing the 'guidelines' bit is that the players have made choices based upon the rules.'
Imagine you do a ton of research and can't decide between a Cleric/Rogue build and a Sorlock. In the end you go with a Sorlock, because you want to constantly be doing an Eldritch Blast combo, pushing giants around with your Repelling Blast invocation.
You finally get the ability at 8th level, and suddenly the DM rules that Giants can't be pushed by a Repelling Blast. This feels random and turns a pleasant experience into a crappy one.
The DM tells you that you can trade out your Repelling Blast invocation for something else. But your 2nd choice is not another invocation, it is a Cleric/Rogue build. Worse, you are attached to this character now, so you do not even want to abandon it and play another. The DM thinks you are being a baby, you think he is being an ahole.
I see nothing wrong with using rules as a guideline, but the players need to know the rules before you begin playing.
To make this work properly, I suggest the following:
Making absolutely SURE the players know you are doing a Guidelines game.
Talking to the players before the game starts about their builds and OKing them - or rejecting them - before game starts.
If you OK something from the early build, do not change it later, even if you realize it is overpowered. Instead come up with some other balancing factor.
Another vote for a session 0. And I think pretty much everyone house rules something. Also, there’s lots of people who think they are playing RAW, but really they aren’t. (Not directing this at any above posters, basing it off of numerous threads I’ve read). They have some way they are doing something because they swear they read it somewhere, but in reality they are misunderstanding the actual RAW. So many threads where people don’t get component rules, or bonus action spells, or a subtle change from a previous edition, or a number of other things. Then they comment in the thread about how they’ve been doing it wrong all this time. But really, as long as everyone at the table is having fun, and has the same understanding of how they are playing, that’s all that matters, not if they are playing RAW. Which gets back to session 0.
The problem with doing the 'guidelines' bit is that the players have made choices based upon the rules.'
Imagine you do a ton of research and can't decide between a Cleric/Rogue build and a Sorlock. In the end you go with a Sorlock, because you want to constantly be doing an Eldritch Blast combo, pushing giants around with your Repelling Blast invocation.
You finally get the ability at 8th level, and suddenly the DM rules that Giants can't be pushed by a Repelling Blast. This feels random and turns a pleasant experience into a crappy one.
The DM tells you that you can trade out your Repelling Blast invocation for something else. But your 2nd choice is not another invocation, it is a Cleric/Rogue build. Worse, you are attached to this character now, so you do not even want to abandon it and play another. The DM thinks you are being a baby, you think he is being an ahole.
I see nothing wrong with using rules as a guideline, but the players need to know the rules before you begin playing.
To make this work properly, I suggest the following:
Making absolutely SURE the players know you are doing a Guidelines game.
Talking to the players before the game starts about their builds and OKing them - or rejecting them - before game starts.
If you OK something from the early build, do not change it later, even if you realize it is overpowered. Instead come up with some other balancing factor.
This is why I encourage players to work with me as DM. Tell me your plans. This is advantageous in several ways:
1. I can tell you if I'm unhappy with a concept. I don't like Giants being thrown around by repellant blast? I can tell you right there and then and you can work with it (changing character concept, achieving it by different means, etc). If I OK and then change my mind? That sucks, but it's on me then. I'll have to deal with it for that campaign.
2. I can work your decisions into the campaign. You're planning on becoming a Warlock in level 3? I can work your prospective patron in and have it be part of the story rather than you just waking up one day having made a pact with a Great Old One...for some reason...
3. If I know in advance, I'll be more likely to be happy to run with it and even be more flexible in how the rules apply in order to make it work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Narratives can be a surprise. Rules can not. It doesn't matter what the rules are so long as everyone knows and accepts whatever the rules are. If you're going to change up the rules of the game to fit the narrative, then provide the rules lawyer player a lost of the changes.
As a player, if the DM doesn't agree on a rule, I'll very briefly state my case, say "but if that's not how you play it, cool" and get on with my life.
As a DM, it's rules as written in general, but I mix up the "things", particuarly if they make narrative sense:
Very few of the monsters are as per their monster manual entry, and a lot are just made from scratch.
Same thing magic items. I pretty much always give them secret unlocks, or longer term upgrades (a cracked ioun stone, for example, that does less than it might until repaired).
Class abilities get a tweak if it fits, as do feats. Talk to me and see if we can make something fun that's still balanced.
One hour rests are stupid and painful and narratively ridiculous most of the time. It's ten minutes for me, limited to 2 a day (unless it makes sense for another). I do tend to have very hectic days though.
Familiars who aren't in combat are pretty safe and even get ignored with AOE. Ones who Help or otherwise engage are fair game.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
I have a question for some other DMs out there, how much have you changed up some of the rules for your game to fit your stories narrative? Furthermore, if you have someone who is very into the rules (rules lawyer) how would one combat this to restore flow and keep the fun for the other players (who don't mind some rules changing).
I have changed quite a lot! But key thing is that it was done either up front, or in agreement with the group. Several people have already mentioned session zero - but I consider it more of an ongoing task as well - situations arise during longer campaigns that you don't necessarily have everything planned out for. Having an open dialogue about it after or between sessions is important. As DM, if a situation arise where I am either not certain on the interpretation of RAW or feel that it is deviating completely, I will make the players aware of it - make a ruling to keep a session moving, but then come back and discuss if we want to make a permanent change/interpretation. Examples of things i have added are: - Crit fails damages your (non-magical) weapon, but it can be repaired. Negative modifiers until repair - Crit hits on armor damages your (non magical) armor, but again can be repaired. - Spell foci can lose their level of attunment with a spell caster on a crit fail, and needs to be re-tuned (this effectively balances that weapons and armour can be damaged for weapons classes, while spell casters would not incur any issues - so arose through discussion with the group) - A critical hit does max damage on the first die and you roll the other one (e.g. if you roll crit with a weapon that does 1d8, the crit damage would be 8 + 1d8) - Bonus action to drink your own portion from a readily available slot in your belt/pocket, but still full action to give to others. - In certain situations where characters are surrounding by a lot of muck (swamps, filthy caves etc.) wounds may become infected if not tended to in a short rest within a short time. - We modified the size of backpacks since the children sized capacity ones in base rules just seemed...small :) - and several others.
A lot of the modifications done is to increase grittiness of the campaign, and make logistics/equipment actually matter. Most have been suggested by me as DM, but some originate from other players in the group as well - and I think the key aspect is that we assume RAW unless otherwise stated. I do hit situations where I go "I'm not 100% sure, for now we are going to resolve it like this..., but I will check up in more detail, and ahead of next session, we'll discuss how we handle this in future sessions" But key thing is that the whole group is aware and in agreement.
The problem with doing the 'guidelines' bit is that the players have made choices based upon the rules.'
Imagine you do a ton of research and can't decide between a Cleric/Rogue build and a Sorlock. In the end you go with a Sorlock, because you want to constantly be doing an Eldritch Blast combo, pushing giants around with your Repelling Blast invocation.
You finally get the ability at 8th level, and suddenly the DM rules that Giants can't be pushed by a Repelling Blast. This feels random and turns a pleasant experience into a crappy one.
The DM tells you that you can trade out your Repelling Blast invocation for something else. But your 2nd choice is not another invocation, it is a Cleric/Rogue build. Worse, you are attached to this character now, so you do not even want to abandon it and play another. The DM thinks you are being a baby, you think he is being an ahole.
I see nothing wrong with using rules as a guideline, but the players need to know the rules before you begin playing.
To make this work properly, I suggest the following:
Making absolutely SURE the players know you are doing a Guidelines game.
Talking to the players before the game starts about their builds and OKing them - or rejecting them - before game starts.
If you OK something from the early build, do not change it later, even if you realize it is overpowered. Instead come up with some other balancing factor.
This is why I encourage players to work with me as DM. Tell me your plans. This is advantageous in several ways:
1. I can tell you if I'm unhappy with a concept. I don't like Giants being thrown around by repellant blast? I can tell you right there and then and you can work with it (changing character concept, achieving it by different means, etc). If I OK and then change my mind? That sucks, but it's on me then. I'll have to deal with it for that campaign.
2. I can work your decisions into the campaign. You're planning on becoming a Warlock in level 3? I can work your prospective patron in and have it be part of the story rather than you just waking up one day having made a pact with a Great Old One...for some reason...
3. If I know in advance, I'll be more likely to be happy to run with it and even be more flexible in how the rules apply in order to make it work.
Honestly, if you make a character because of One Single Thing it can do, there are going to be all kinds of ways that One Thing will get nerfed beyond DM fiat
Don't be mad at the DM, be mad at yourself
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
In legalistic terms, that phrase is ambiguous and does imply that you can spellcast for less than an hour without negating the rest. I've certainly seen more legalistic interpretations come from Crawford and stated as the official line.
That said, saying that you can do 599 rounds of combat, which is probably more than I've ever done in my life, and it still not count as resetting your rest and having a 5 minute catnap at the end renders you fully rested and restored - even taking someone with 1HP left and no spell slots to 100% fresh and ready to go - is absurd. I'd never let that fly on my table, even if WotC declared it so. As is, I'd argue that any spellcasting negates the rest, any fighting, or a substantial amount of walking (by which I mean, you can walk around the camp, but anything that would be counted as travelling is substantial) is intended to cancel the rest.
Yet another example of where WotC needs to tighten up its wording.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
In legalistic terms, that phrase is ambiguous and does imply that you can spellcast for less than an hour without negating the rest. I've certainly seen more legalistic interpretations come from Crawford and stated as the official line.
That said, saying that you can do 599 rounds of combat, which is probably more than I've ever done in my life, and it still not count as resetting your rest and having a 5 minute catnap at the end renders you fully rested and restored - even taking someone with 1HP left and no spell slots to 100% fresh and ready to go - is absurd. I'd never let that fly on my table, even if WotC declared it so. As is, I'd argue that any spellcasting negates the rest, any fighting, or a substantial amount of walking (by which I mean, you can walk around the camp, but anything that would be counted as travelling is substantial) is intended to cancel the rest.
Yet another example of where WotC needs to tighten up its wording.
Though grammatically ambiguous, the common sense reading would be that “one hour of” only applies to the walking; any fighting, casting spells, etc. forced a restart of the rest. It could probably do a better job with the ordering of the terms so it goes “fighting, casting of spells, or one hour of walking” to avoid any confusion.
That said, the most important phrase, not set aside with the dashes, is “strenuous activity.” That gives the DM pretty big leniency in determining how to interpret what is strenuous. A mage casting a simple spell when their watch is last—say some kind of fun non-combatant thing for flavour, or something that seems rather small in context, could be ruled to not deny that mage the benefits of the long rest.
Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfectly unambiguous language - one need only look at the Magic comprehensive rules, which are the single most coherent work of legislative drafting I have ever seen - but they purposefully want to have some ambiguity in D&D. Part of what has always made D&D successful is that each table can interpret the rules to fit their playstyle, and I would bet Wizards builds in ambiguity on occasions specifically to foster an environment where interpretation is encouraged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a question for some other DMs out there, how much have you changed up some of the rules for your game to fit your stories narrative? Furthermore, if you have someone who is very into the rules (rules lawyer) how would one combat this to restore flow and keep the fun for the other players (who don't mind some rules changing).
Talk to your group before hand, i.e. session zero. In my experience as a GM, as long as I establish what the rules are beforehand, my players go along with it and do not really question it.
When rules are unclear and we have not discussed it before hand, that is when issues of varying expectations and interpretations of the rules arise; in this scenario, you just have to put your feet down as a GM and pick a temporary ruling to move the game forward. You can always go back to the ruling after the session and adjust the temporary ruling moving forward from the next session onwards.
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 >
Yes. Session 0 is very important. And players should talk to DMs about how they plan to build their character (especially if it takes advantage of some niche rule interaction) so DMs can tell them ahead of time if any DM rulings will prevent that.
"This is how we'll run it for now and I'll look into it later" is a perfectly acceptable answer for unexpected situations. Then next session you can share the ruling going forward (possibly correcting any changes to the narrative if applicable "you would have gotten that item, so add it to your inventory")
The most important thing is to be consistent with your home rules and apply them fairly. That means consistently applying the rule among the player characters and applying the rule to your own NPCs and monsters. It also helps if you have a reason for the rules change you can articulate - it need not be a super in-depth reason, a simple “I like it better this way because X” should prove sufficient.
I’m pretty much a RAW DM. I don’t have any house rules other than limiting which sources players can use to build their characters.
Professional computer geek
I think that one of the more challenging things about D&D is, that you have to agree to *which* kind of D&D you want to play with your particular group *before* you start playing.
If you have a group that plays tactical combat, you may want to stick to RAW. If you have a beer-and-pretzel group, maybe the DM needs to make up most of the rulings on the fly, as Rules of Cool or Rules as Fun
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I agree with the above posters in session zero, group discussion and how to handle "things and rules the GM did not see" situations.
I also think the groups playstyle is huge in just how this comes about. In that I mean some groups like a more director/author GM that has everything mapped out and the PC's and players are following programs set by the GM (even though they think they have freedom) or have freedom in a small area or box. Note 1: to some extent most games are like this but I have seen some that the GM make rule decisions based on the room and they can switch because they want it to or because the story is not going in the direction they have planed. Note 2: Some groups love the above playstyle often as long as it is in their favor.
Good Luck
The problem with doing the 'guidelines' bit is that the players have made choices based upon the rules.'
Imagine you do a ton of research and can't decide between a Cleric/Rogue build and a Sorlock. In the end you go with a Sorlock, because you want to constantly be doing an Eldritch Blast combo, pushing giants around with your Repelling Blast invocation.
You finally get the ability at 8th level, and suddenly the DM rules that Giants can't be pushed by a Repelling Blast. This feels random and turns a pleasant experience into a crappy one.
The DM tells you that you can trade out your Repelling Blast invocation for something else. But your 2nd choice is not another invocation, it is a Cleric/Rogue build. Worse, you are attached to this character now, so you do not even want to abandon it and play another. The DM thinks you are being a baby, you think he is being an ahole.
I see nothing wrong with using rules as a guideline, but the players need to know the rules before you begin playing.
To make this work properly, I suggest the following:
Another vote for a session 0.
And I think pretty much everyone house rules something. Also, there’s lots of people who think they are playing RAW, but really they aren’t. (Not directing this at any above posters, basing it off of numerous threads I’ve read). They have some way they are doing something because they swear they read it somewhere, but in reality they are misunderstanding the actual RAW. So many threads where people don’t get component rules, or bonus action spells, or a subtle change from a previous edition, or a number of other things. Then they comment in the thread about how they’ve been doing it wrong all this time.
But really, as long as everyone at the table is having fun, and has the same understanding of how they are playing, that’s all that matters, not if they are playing RAW. Which gets back to session 0.
This is why I encourage players to work with me as DM. Tell me your plans. This is advantageous in several ways:
1. I can tell you if I'm unhappy with a concept. I don't like Giants being thrown around by repellant blast? I can tell you right there and then and you can work with it (changing character concept, achieving it by different means, etc). If I OK and then change my mind? That sucks, but it's on me then. I'll have to deal with it for that campaign.
2. I can work your decisions into the campaign. You're planning on becoming a Warlock in level 3? I can work your prospective patron in and have it be part of the story rather than you just waking up one day having made a pact with a Great Old One...for some reason...
3. If I know in advance, I'll be more likely to be happy to run with it and even be more flexible in how the rules apply in order to make it work.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Narratives can be a surprise. Rules can not. It doesn't matter what the rules are so long as everyone knows and accepts whatever the rules are. If you're going to change up the rules of the game to fit the narrative, then provide the rules lawyer player a lost of the changes.
As a player, if the DM doesn't agree on a rule, I'll very briefly state my case, say "but if that's not how you play it, cool" and get on with my life.
As a DM, it's rules as written in general, but I mix up the "things", particuarly if they make narrative sense:
You cannot cast spells during a long rest unless you want to restart the long rest. You want to cast all your spells before you take a long rest.
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 >
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
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 >
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
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 >
I have changed quite a lot! But key thing is that it was done either up front, or in agreement with the group. Several people have already mentioned session zero - but I consider it more of an ongoing task as well - situations arise during longer campaigns that you don't necessarily have everything planned out for. Having an open dialogue about it after or between sessions is important. As DM, if a situation arise where I am either not certain on the interpretation of RAW or feel that it is deviating completely, I will make the players aware of it - make a ruling to keep a session moving, but then come back and discuss if we want to make a permanent change/interpretation.
Examples of things i have added are:
- Crit fails damages your (non-magical) weapon, but it can be repaired. Negative modifiers until repair
- Crit hits on armor damages your (non magical) armor, but again can be repaired.
- Spell foci can lose their level of attunment with a spell caster on a crit fail, and needs to be re-tuned (this effectively balances that weapons and armour can be damaged for weapons classes, while spell casters would not incur any issues - so arose through discussion with the group)
- A critical hit does max damage on the first die and you roll the other one (e.g. if you roll crit with a weapon that does 1d8, the crit damage would be 8 + 1d8)
- Bonus action to drink your own portion from a readily available slot in your belt/pocket, but still full action to give to others.
- In certain situations where characters are surrounding by a lot of muck (swamps, filthy caves etc.) wounds may become infected if not tended to in a short rest within a short time.
- We modified the size of backpacks since the children sized capacity ones in base rules just seemed...small :)
- and several others.
A lot of the modifications done is to increase grittiness of the campaign, and make logistics/equipment actually matter. Most have been suggested by me as DM, but some originate from other players in the group as well - and I think the key aspect is that we assume RAW unless otherwise stated. I do hit situations where I go "I'm not 100% sure, for now we are going to resolve it like this..., but I will check up in more detail, and ahead of next session, we'll discuss how we handle this in future sessions"
But key thing is that the whole group is aware and in agreement.
Honestly, if you make a character because of One Single Thing it can do, there are going to be all kinds of ways that One Thing will get nerfed beyond DM fiat
Don't be mad at the DM, be mad at yourself
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In legalistic terms, that phrase is ambiguous and does imply that you can spellcast for less than an hour without negating the rest. I've certainly seen more legalistic interpretations come from Crawford and stated as the official line.
That said, saying that you can do 599 rounds of combat, which is probably more than I've ever done in my life, and it still not count as resetting your rest and having a 5 minute catnap at the end renders you fully rested and restored - even taking someone with 1HP left and no spell slots to 100% fresh and ready to go - is absurd. I'd never let that fly on my table, even if WotC declared it so. As is, I'd argue that any spellcasting negates the rest, any fighting, or a substantial amount of walking (by which I mean, you can walk around the camp, but anything that would be counted as travelling is substantial) is intended to cancel the rest.
Yet another example of where WotC needs to tighten up its wording.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Though grammatically ambiguous, the common sense reading would be that “one hour of” only applies to the walking; any fighting, casting spells, etc. forced a restart of the rest. It could probably do a better job with the ordering of the terms so it goes “fighting, casting of spells, or one hour of walking” to avoid any confusion.
That said, the most important phrase, not set aside with the dashes, is “strenuous activity.” That gives the DM pretty big leniency in determining how to interpret what is strenuous. A mage casting a simple spell when their watch is last—say some kind of fun non-combatant thing for flavour, or something that seems rather small in context, could be ruled to not deny that mage the benefits of the long rest.
Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfectly unambiguous language - one need only look at the Magic comprehensive rules, which are the single most coherent work of legislative drafting I have ever seen - but they purposefully want to have some ambiguity in D&D. Part of what has always made D&D successful is that each table can interpret the rules to fit their playstyle, and I would bet Wizards builds in ambiguity on occasions specifically to foster an environment where interpretation is encouraged.