So in the campaign I'm playing, im playing a light cleric, only lvl 5 currently, after a small encounter I decided everyone needed a bit of a heal up and I would use prayer of healing, which as rules written any healing just happens and I role specified dice for the hp healed right? However my DM insists that I have to roll a d20 for "my ability to heal", upon rolling a 4 he deemed that my abilities briefly failed me and that only I could be healed and not the rest of the party, can I please get clarification on this issue?
That is weird. The spell states, "Up to six creatures of your choice that you can see within range each regain hit points equal to 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs." It is a 10 minute casting, but other than that, there is no pre-requisite for anything but for the healing to just flow out of you through Divine Power.
With that being said, I would carefully ask what rule he is referencing for that ruling, just so you can read up on it and be familiar with how Magic and Healing is working in this world. (Nothing will make a DM more entrenched than saying, "You're Wrong!"). After that, feel free to say that you were reading the spell details and you had a different interpretation, could you discuss it sometime outside of game? There is certainly provision in Skills to call for a check... but I have not heard of this being used for healing. This is certainly something that should have been mentioned in a Session 0. "Be aware... some of your abilities are dependent on your skills to work... for instance, Healing may require periodic Medicine checks and fighters, you may have to do an athletics check when swinging your weapon from time to time". I mean, honestly, a Cleric is not obligated to be skilled in any kind of Medicine or anything else for healing to be applied from a divine agency. That is why it is magic. But you want to find out what the reasoning is on that before getting into an argument.
I remember when my group first started playing my DM thought that all magic required a d20 roll to be cast. So when I cast minor illusion I had to roll to see if it happened successfully, or if I cast Vicious Mockery I had to roll to hit, then the enemy did a Saving Throw. We realized early on that's not really how the game is meant to work and we talked about it and she stopped asking for rolls on spells that don't overtly require one. I'd say ask your DM if there's a specific reason why they're asking for a d20 roll to use your spell. It's possible that, like my DM, they just assumed all spells required a roll of some kind. But, like Lyxen said, there might be an in-story reason for it, or it might be a specific additional challenge that your DM wants to include in their game. If it's the latter, they probably should have mentioned that they would include that particular hurdle in the Session Zero, but nobody's perfect, and DMs have so much to keep track of it's not unreasonable for some of their homebrew rulings to get lost in the shuffle.
So in the campaign I'm playing, im playing a light cleric, only lvl 5 currently, after a small encounter I decided everyone needed a bit of a heal up and I would use prayer of healing, which as rules written any healing just happens and I role specified dice for the hp healed right? However my DM insists that I have to roll a d20 for "my ability to heal", upon rolling a 4 he deemed that my abilities briefly failed me and that only I could be healed and not the rest of the party, can I please get clarification on this issue?
Lyxen is correct. By RAW, your DM is incorrect. Unless the DM has some mitigating circumstances that in this particular situation over-ride RAW.
He has not specified a reason other than that "its the rule" I havent discussed it at length as I didn't want to argue with him in the middle of a session but thank you
He has not specified a reason other than that "its the rule" I havent discussed it at length as I didn't want to argue with him in the middle of a session but thank you
It sounds to me like they're misunderstanding how the rule is meant to work. It's good to remind them that the game is balanced under the assumption that some spells just work when cast, although challenges might arise. I remember in a recent game I DM'd, one of the players was trying to heal an enemy who was basically trying to frame the party in front of guards, and the player basically had to land an "attack" just to be able to touch the enemy to heal them, since they were deliberately avoiding being healed to try and make the party look worse.
He has not specified a reason other than that "its the rule" I havent discussed it at length as I didn't want to argue with him in the middle of a session but thank you
That was the best way to go, it doesn't prevent you from simply asking out of the game what his exact ruling is.
Totally agree. And while you are resolving this issue in between sessions try to clear up if other spells requires a similar roll. There's nothing crappier than trying to cast a spell that consumes costly components like Revivify or Raise Dead just to "fail" because you did not know you needed to succeed a random roll first.
Lyxen and Vince, not every question asked should be responded with "The DMs rules are final". This is the RAW forum, and the RAW of prayer of healing does not require a specific check for it to accurately work. a good faith discussion between player and DM is ruined when you deprive one side of the necessary knowledge and/or discourage them to even have the discussion in the first place. Not every table is like yours, and not every DM is like you, and not every player is a power-gaming rules-lawyer hoping to one up the DM.
It is perfectly valid for a player to talk to the DM, it is also perfectly valid for them to know the RAW going into that conversation. Finally, it is perfectly valid for the DM to have a reason for their own actions (maybe there is a strong presence of an opposing deity that hindered the cleric's actions...maybe their deity was mad at them for something they did during the session...maybe another reason entirely). That said, not all DMs are good DMs, and it is not good DM'ing for the DM to say "this ability only works when I want it to" or "this ability only works this time when you succeed on this extra requirement because I don't want you to heal yet" without a strong reason behind this decision.
I agree. "Don't fight with your DM or embarrass them in front of the group" can probably be assumed as general background life advice that isn't particularly relevent to rule questions on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. If the question is, "what rule requires me to roll a d20 for my 'ability to heal'", the answer is, "either they're wrong or that's a house rule of theirs, because that's not in the PHB."
So in the campaign I'm playing, im playing a light cleric, only lvl 5 currently, after a small encounter I decided everyone needed a bit of a heal up and I would use prayer of healing, which as rules written any healing just happens and I role specified dice for the hp healed right? However my DM insists that I have to roll a d20 for "my ability to heal", upon rolling a 4 he deemed that my abilities briefly failed me and that only I could be healed and not the rest of the party, can I please get clarification on this issue?
As the rules are written, no d20 roll is required to succeed when casting a spell. This is known as a house rule. Normally a DM should share these with the players before the game starts so that the players know what to expect.
Did you play to level 5 or did you start at level 5? Has the DM imposed such rolls previously?
However, keep in mind that the house rule could be either the DM imposing something they think would be interesting or it could be that there is an environmental/storyline effect in the area that the characters are unaware of that might make it harder for your cleric to access magic granted by a diety (or if you were a wizard, accessed through the weave of magic). There are a lot of possible explanations so rather than argue you may want to have a quick chat with the DM about what's going on so you can understand what the "rules" of the game are so you can play your character appropriately.
For example, if all spells are subject to this then your character should have known already even if you did not. On the other hand, if it is new or exceptional to your current locale, your character should be equally surprised by the fact it did not work.
Finally, there other possibilities. Some DMs really want the characters to experience resource loss during the day or otherwise want the plot to run exactly how they envisaged it. It is possible that the DM had not planned for the characters to be fully healed for later encounters in the adventure they had planned and modified the rules to make sure this would not happen by making it more difficult for you to cast the spell. This is a particular style of DMing I don't agree with but I have run into some folks who bend or break the rules of the world to ensure that the story follows exactly the planned path. If the DM runs the game this way, it will become obvious after a few sessions and you can then decide if it is a play style that you can accept when playing or not.
PS On the other hand, if the DM has you roll every time you cast a spell - it is a house rule and if you want to know why the DM uses it, you'll have to ask them for an explanation (but be polite :) ).
If a thread were to ask "do I add my Constitution modifier to my HP total once, or once per level? My DM and I disagree on what my HP total is...", then answering "RAW, it's whatever your DM says it is!" would be an objectively bad answer. True I suppose in the most trivial way, but not particularly interesting to read on the Rules & Game Mechanics thread, and probably not that helpful for the original poster.
Whatever, we probably don't need pages more of arguments about how to answer questions, when the answer to the original question can so easily just be summed up as "nope, your DM is wrong." Unsubscribing :p
I will admit that your response in this thread was more diplomatic and I probably should not have used this one to call you (and Vince) out, but I have read and participated in a number of threads recently where the attitude I described was clearly evident in your posts.
Saying "The DM is right, move on" in general (especially in this particular forum) might be a "correct" response, but it is almost never a productive first response to a question about a specific game mechanic.
I'll leave it at that. I have some other thoughts on the subject, but they are unrelated to this thread.
Long answer: Could be a house rule or rule that only applies to a specific location/plane. Ask your DM, ask them to point out the rule in the books, don't argue with their decision.
Lyxen and Vince, not every question asked should be responded with "The DMs rules are final". This is the RAW forum
This answer is the right one especially in this forum, because this is a rule as well, which trumps all others: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."
So, RAW, we are 100% correct.
All due respect, Lyxen, but I don't think that the "Rule 0" (or whatever you may prefer to call the DM-as-final-adjudicator rule be called) says what you are implying it says here.
I'll clarify: The DM gets the final say on rules questions, and determines whether to use an official ruling. Neither of those happened here.
Was this a rules question? It doesn't sound like it. This was a case where something out of the standard rules (a d20 check) was imposed for an action that has well-defined rules already (casting a spell). The rules are very clear about spellcasting, and nowhere does it say a d20 check is needed unless the player was using a spell scroll, which does not seem to be the case.
Was this a decision to use an official ruling or not? No, since again there are very few cases where a d20 check is needed to cast a spell. There is no official ruling per RAW to justify this.
This was homebrew, or a misunderstanding of a rule. The DM has full control over whether that is allowed at the table or not, I completely agree with you there. However, if this is an invented rule to limit spellcasting that they are using then they are obligated to share that rule with the table before it affects gameplay.
I agree on most of what you've said here, but it irks me when "rulings" are confused with "rules". DMs can make wonky rulings all they want, but if they are making wonky rules, then they need to share that with the players.
A DM can rule a they see fit, but they have to announce any deviations from RAW before play, so that all players can make informed decisions about their character builds.
I would not continue to be part of DM's group if a ruling like that was jumped on me. I dislike 'gotcha' moments, be they initiated by DM or players.
This is not about the ruling itself, but the attitude. If healing in that setting is like that, fine, but if you don't tell me that beforehand, I'm losing trust in the DM.
they are obligated to share that rule with the table before it affects gameplay.
No, we don't.
Generally speaking rules that differ from RAW should be shared but the GM is NOT obligated to share everything. Using the above example, if somebody tried to use Revivify in Tomb of Annihilation, the GM would just say it doesn't work. He doesn't have to explain that that is a plot device of the campaign.
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?"
they are obligated to share that rule with the table before it affects gameplay.
No, we don't.
Generally speaking rules that differ from RAW should be shared but the GM is NOT obligated to share everything. Using the above example, if somebody tried to use Revivify in Tomb of Annihilation, the GM would just say it doesn't work. He doesn't have to explain that that is a plot device of the campaign.
True, but I think a good DM would make it clear that the spell not working is an unusual event within the setting of the campaign. If the DM just says, "Oh, you can't", and refuses to elaborate the player doesn't know if that means there's something unusual about the Tomb itself, or if the DM just doesn't allow revivify in their campaign because they want death to actually matter.
I totally understand that some DM's might have rules that they don't reveal to the players all up front, but it would still be a bad thing if, when their special rules come up, they don't clarify that they have special rules they're choosing to enforce and potentially allow players to make changes accordingly. Let's stick with revivify and other life-restoring spells... a DM may not mention ahead of time that they're not allowing those spells in their game, and they also might not want to micromanage their players by double checking their spells to make sure there's none that they disagree with or that they have special rules for. But when someone drops and the Cleric rushes forward and says, "I cast Revivify!", it's really crappy of the DM to just say "No," and not elaborate. Once they do explain that they just don't allow those types of spells, I think it's understandable for the Cleric to be upset that they weren't informed ahead of time and thus had a spell they could never use always wasting a space in their prepared spells. It would also be crappy of the DM to not allow them to, at the very least, swap it with a different spell as soon as possible, since the Cleric basically just had an important resource wasted without any way to know they were wasting it this whole time.
I think the problem a few people are latching onto is words like "Can't". When many people say that a DM "Can't" do something, what they really mean is that they "Shouldn't". When NVCoach says that a DM is "obligated" to share major rule changes to the players, it's meant in the sense of "Should share this vital information if they want the players to trust them". It's like a lot of our social constructs... something like "You can't just take all the money out of the leave-a-penny-take-a-penny dish". You absolutely Can, but it's frowned upon and may get you into an argument with someone.
A DM can rule a they see fit, but they have to announce any deviations from RAW before play
No they don't. You might think it is the case, but I double dare you to find a proof of this anywhere in the rules.
Rather the contrary, the rules say that a DM can make whatever ruling he wants on the fly, during a game, without any justification if the story calls for it.
so that all players can make informed decisions about their character builds.
There is no such thing as a build in the RAW. Again, I double dare you to show me how this is part of the RAW.
I would not continue to be part of DM's group if a ruling like that was jumped on me. I dislike 'gotcha' moments, be they initiated by DM or players.
That is fine, we are all entitled to our preferences, I just want to point out that the design of the game clearly and openly points in a different direction than your preferences.
This is not about the ruling itself, but the attitude. If healing in that setting is like that, fine, but if you don't tell me that beforehand, I'm losing trust in the DM.
Trust in what ? For me, I gain trust in the fact that he will stop at nothing to provide a better experience, and will not feel constrained by arbitrary rules that might be inappropriate to what he is trying to have us live.
This made me smile :)
You are technically correct (I hope everyone here understands that this is the best kind of correct), there is no rule for full disclosure.
However, let me repay in kind on your double dare challenge ;) Session Zero. Agreed that everything in Tasha's is optional, but it is in an official rulebook, and thus technically qualifies as RAW (making me technically correct, the best kind of correct).
But friendly banter aside, when you come together to play a game of D&D, you implicitly agree to playing the same game. The DM does have the 'task' to adjudicate the rules and make them fun for everyone and fit the narrative in that game, that is positively true.
I don't even flinch when a DM says "you cast the spell, the weave of magic starts to bend under your will, but suddenly lets up. The effect you normally achieve when you cast that spell does not appear, and you are not sure why magic does not follow your command".
This would be an explanation that the rules have changed due to an in-game circumstance. No contest whatsoever.
On the other side, letting me choose a spell from a spell list my character has access to, without telling me that in your game this spell is modified and does not what it says in the spell description, is just unfair.
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.
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.
So in the campaign I'm playing, im playing a light cleric, only lvl 5 currently, after a small encounter I decided everyone needed a bit of a heal up and I would use prayer of healing, which as rules written any healing just happens and I role specified dice for the hp healed right? However my DM insists that I have to roll a d20 for "my ability to heal", upon rolling a 4 he deemed that my abilities briefly failed me and that only I could be healed and not the rest of the party, can I please get clarification on this issue?
That is weird. The spell states, "Up to six creatures of your choice that you can see within range each regain hit points equal to 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs." It is a 10 minute casting, but other than that, there is no pre-requisite for anything but for the healing to just flow out of you through Divine Power.
With that being said, I would carefully ask what rule he is referencing for that ruling, just so you can read up on it and be familiar with how Magic and Healing is working in this world. (Nothing will make a DM more entrenched than saying, "You're Wrong!"). After that, feel free to say that you were reading the spell details and you had a different interpretation, could you discuss it sometime outside of game? There is certainly provision in Skills to call for a check... but I have not heard of this being used for healing. This is certainly something that should have been mentioned in a Session 0. "Be aware... some of your abilities are dependent on your skills to work... for instance, Healing may require periodic Medicine checks and fighters, you may have to do an athletics check when swinging your weapon from time to time". I mean, honestly, a Cleric is not obligated to be skilled in any kind of Medicine or anything else for healing to be applied from a divine agency. That is why it is magic. But you want to find out what the reasoning is on that before getting into an argument.
I remember when my group first started playing my DM thought that all magic required a d20 roll to be cast. So when I cast minor illusion I had to roll to see if it happened successfully, or if I cast Vicious Mockery I had to roll to hit, then the enemy did a Saving Throw. We realized early on that's not really how the game is meant to work and we talked about it and she stopped asking for rolls on spells that don't overtly require one. I'd say ask your DM if there's a specific reason why they're asking for a d20 roll to use your spell. It's possible that, like my DM, they just assumed all spells required a roll of some kind. But, like Lyxen said, there might be an in-story reason for it, or it might be a specific additional challenge that your DM wants to include in their game. If it's the latter, they probably should have mentioned that they would include that particular hurdle in the Session Zero, but nobody's perfect, and DMs have so much to keep track of it's not unreasonable for some of their homebrew rulings to get lost in the shuffle.
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
Lyxen is correct. By RAW, your DM is incorrect. Unless the DM has some mitigating circumstances that in this particular situation over-ride RAW.
He has not specified a reason other than that "its the rule" I havent discussed it at length as I didn't want to argue with him in the middle of a session but thank you
I think you need to find out.
It sounds to me like they're misunderstanding how the rule is meant to work. It's good to remind them that the game is balanced under the assumption that some spells just work when cast, although challenges might arise. I remember in a recent game I DM'd, one of the players was trying to heal an enemy who was basically trying to frame the party in front of guards, and the player basically had to land an "attack" just to be able to touch the enemy to heal them, since they were deliberately avoiding being healed to try and make the party look worse.
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
Totally agree. And while you are resolving this issue in between sessions try to clear up if other spells requires a similar roll. There's nothing crappier than trying to cast a spell that consumes costly components like Revivify or Raise Dead just to "fail" because you did not know you needed to succeed a random roll first.
Lyxen and Vince, not every question asked should be responded with "The DMs rules are final". This is the RAW forum, and the RAW of prayer of healing does not require a specific check for it to accurately work. a good faith discussion between player and DM is ruined when you deprive one side of the necessary knowledge and/or discourage them to even have the discussion in the first place. Not every table is like yours, and not every DM is like you, and not every player is a power-gaming rules-lawyer hoping to one up the DM.
It is perfectly valid for a player to talk to the DM, it is also perfectly valid for them to know the RAW going into that conversation. Finally, it is perfectly valid for the DM to have a reason for their own actions (maybe there is a strong presence of an opposing deity that hindered the cleric's actions...maybe their deity was mad at them for something they did during the session...maybe another reason entirely). That said, not all DMs are good DMs, and it is not good DM'ing for the DM to say "this ability only works when I want it to" or "this ability only works this time when you succeed on this extra requirement because I don't want you to heal yet" without a strong reason behind this decision.
Edit: Fixed Tooltip
I agree. "Don't fight with your DM or embarrass them in front of the group" can probably be assumed as general background life advice that isn't particularly relevent to rule questions on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. If the question is, "what rule requires me to roll a d20 for my 'ability to heal'", the answer is, "either they're wrong or that's a house rule of theirs, because that's not in the PHB."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As the rules are written, no d20 roll is required to succeed when casting a spell. This is known as a house rule. Normally a DM should share these with the players before the game starts so that the players know what to expect.
Did you play to level 5 or did you start at level 5? Has the DM imposed such rolls previously?
However, keep in mind that the house rule could be either the DM imposing something they think would be interesting or it could be that there is an environmental/storyline effect in the area that the characters are unaware of that might make it harder for your cleric to access magic granted by a diety (or if you were a wizard, accessed through the weave of magic). There are a lot of possible explanations so rather than argue you may want to have a quick chat with the DM about what's going on so you can understand what the "rules" of the game are so you can play your character appropriately.
For example, if all spells are subject to this then your character should have known already even if you did not. On the other hand, if it is new or exceptional to your current locale, your character should be equally surprised by the fact it did not work.
Finally, there other possibilities. Some DMs really want the characters to experience resource loss during the day or otherwise want the plot to run exactly how they envisaged it. It is possible that the DM had not planned for the characters to be fully healed for later encounters in the adventure they had planned and modified the rules to make sure this would not happen by making it more difficult for you to cast the spell. This is a particular style of DMing I don't agree with but I have run into some folks who bend or break the rules of the world to ensure that the story follows exactly the planned path. If the DM runs the game this way, it will become obvious after a few sessions and you can then decide if it is a play style that you can accept when playing or not.
PS On the other hand, if the DM has you roll every time you cast a spell - it is a house rule and if you want to know why the DM uses it, you'll have to ask them for an explanation (but be polite :) ).
If a thread were to ask "do I add my Constitution modifier to my HP total once, or once per level? My DM and I disagree on what my HP total is...", then answering "RAW, it's whatever your DM says it is!" would be an objectively bad answer. True I suppose in the most trivial way, but not particularly interesting to read on the Rules & Game Mechanics thread, and probably not that helpful for the original poster.
Whatever, we probably don't need pages more of arguments about how to answer questions, when the answer to the original question can so easily just be summed up as "nope, your DM is wrong." Unsubscribing :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Lyxen,
I will admit that your response in this thread was more diplomatic and I probably should not have used this one to call you (and Vince) out, but I have read and participated in a number of threads recently where the attitude I described was clearly evident in your posts.
Saying "The DM is right, move on" in general (especially in this particular forum) might be a "correct" response, but it is almost never a productive first response to a question about a specific game mechanic.
I'll leave it at that. I have some other thoughts on the subject, but they are unrelated to this thread.
Short answer: No, that isn't a rule.
Long answer: Could be a house rule or rule that only applies to a specific location/plane. Ask your DM, ask them to point out the rule in the books, don't argue with their decision.
All due respect, Lyxen, but I don't think that the "Rule 0" (or whatever you may prefer to call the DM-as-final-adjudicator rule be called) says what you are implying it says here.
I'll clarify: The DM gets the final say on rules questions, and determines whether to use an official ruling. Neither of those happened here.
Was this a rules question? It doesn't sound like it. This was a case where something out of the standard rules (a d20 check) was imposed for an action that has well-defined rules already (casting a spell). The rules are very clear about spellcasting, and nowhere does it say a d20 check is needed unless the player was using a spell scroll, which does not seem to be the case.
Was this a decision to use an official ruling or not? No, since again there are very few cases where a d20 check is needed to cast a spell. There is no official ruling per RAW to justify this.
This was homebrew, or a misunderstanding of a rule. The DM has full control over whether that is allowed at the table or not, I completely agree with you there. However, if this is an invented rule to limit spellcasting that they are using then they are obligated to share that rule with the table before it affects gameplay.
I agree on most of what you've said here, but it irks me when "rulings" are confused with "rules". DMs can make wonky rulings all they want, but if they are making wonky rules, then they need to share that with the players.
A DM can rule a they see fit, but they have to announce any deviations from RAW before play, so that all players can make informed decisions about their character builds.
I would not continue to be part of DM's group if a ruling like that was jumped on me. I dislike 'gotcha' moments, be they initiated by DM or players.
This is not about the ruling itself, but the attitude. If healing in that setting is like that, fine, but if you don't tell me that beforehand, I'm losing trust in the DM.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
No, we don't.
Generally speaking rules that differ from RAW should be shared but the GM is NOT obligated to share everything. Using the above example, if somebody tried to use Revivify in Tomb of Annihilation, the GM would just say it doesn't work. He doesn't have to explain that that is a plot device of the campaign.
"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
Guys relax and chill out. This is turning into a Players vs DMs thread.
True, but I think a good DM would make it clear that the spell not working is an unusual event within the setting of the campaign. If the DM just says, "Oh, you can't", and refuses to elaborate the player doesn't know if that means there's something unusual about the Tomb itself, or if the DM just doesn't allow revivify in their campaign because they want death to actually matter.
I totally understand that some DM's might have rules that they don't reveal to the players all up front, but it would still be a bad thing if, when their special rules come up, they don't clarify that they have special rules they're choosing to enforce and potentially allow players to make changes accordingly. Let's stick with revivify and other life-restoring spells... a DM may not mention ahead of time that they're not allowing those spells in their game, and they also might not want to micromanage their players by double checking their spells to make sure there's none that they disagree with or that they have special rules for. But when someone drops and the Cleric rushes forward and says, "I cast Revivify!", it's really crappy of the DM to just say "No," and not elaborate. Once they do explain that they just don't allow those types of spells, I think it's understandable for the Cleric to be upset that they weren't informed ahead of time and thus had a spell they could never use always wasting a space in their prepared spells. It would also be crappy of the DM to not allow them to, at the very least, swap it with a different spell as soon as possible, since the Cleric basically just had an important resource wasted without any way to know they were wasting it this whole time.
I think the problem a few people are latching onto is words like "Can't". When many people say that a DM "Can't" do something, what they really mean is that they "Shouldn't". When NVCoach says that a DM is "obligated" to share major rule changes to the players, it's meant in the sense of "Should share this vital information if they want the players to trust them". It's like a lot of our social constructs... something like "You can't just take all the money out of the leave-a-penny-take-a-penny dish". You absolutely Can, but it's frowned upon and may get you into an argument with someone.
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
This made me smile :)
You are technically correct (I hope everyone here understands that this is the best kind of correct), there is no rule for full disclosure.
However, let me repay in kind on your double dare challenge ;) Session Zero. Agreed that everything in Tasha's is optional, but it is in an official rulebook, and thus technically qualifies as RAW (making me technically correct, the best kind of correct).
But friendly banter aside, when you come together to play a game of D&D, you implicitly agree to playing the same game. The DM does have the 'task' to adjudicate the rules and make them fun for everyone and fit the narrative in that game, that is positively true.
I don't even flinch when a DM says "you cast the spell, the weave of magic starts to bend under your will, but suddenly lets up. The effect you normally achieve when you cast that spell does not appear, and you are not sure why magic does not follow your command".
This would be an explanation that the rules have changed due to an in-game circumstance. No contest whatsoever.
On the other side, letting me choose a spell from a spell list my character has access to, without telling me that in your game this spell is modified and does not what it says in the spell description, is just unfair.
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.
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.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules