Is some rules ambiguity a pro or con for 5e?

[MadBear]

Just looking through the threads, I've noticed that a common theme that tends to pop up revolves around either: "5e's ambiguous rules make it poorly designed" or "I like that some rules are written ambiguously so I can adjust it for my table".

So with that said, do you consider some rules not being as specific as they could be a good or bad thing?

Here's my pros/cons list:

Pros:
- Each DM can tailor the rule in question to fit the atmosphere they're going for
- It promotes the idea that DM's make rulings, and that not everything is a houserule (in a negative connotations)
- It allows flexibility if a ruling one way leads to later unforeseen consequences

Cons:
- Table variance. Now a rules that work at one table, don't necessarily translate to another table
- You need to collaborate with the DM on some rules if they're in question
- If you're interpretation conflicts with the DM & the DM doesn't let you adjust your character, you might be stuck with a bad option.

Overall, I see it as more positive then negative. (then again, I disliked the more rigid 3e that codified more rules)

[DivisibleByZero]

At the table: huge, ridiculous, best thing that has happened to DnD in decades Pro
On the internet forums: Con

[OldTrees1]

Rule ambiguity is a con where it results in the players being unable to know the rules of the game they are playing.

Rule ambiguity is a pro when either the DM or the Players needed explicit rule flexibility to realize that rule flexibility is a thing in RPGs.

Rule ambiguity is also a minor pro when the developers cannot make sufficiently reasonable baseline rulings on a topic.

Overall it is a con in 5E but it is not black and white.

[strangebloke]

Depends on what you mean by ambiguity.

If you're reffering to all the sections that read 'ask your DM,' that's a good thing IMO.

If you're reffering to genuinely ambiguous things like 'when does this reaction trigger?' that's bad, IMO.

[Kurald Galain]

So with that said, do you consider some rules not being as specific as they could be a good or bad thing?

Clearly, yes.

[MadBear]

Depends on what you mean by ambiguity.

If you're reffering to all the sections that read 'ask your DM,' that's a good thing IMO.

If you're reffering to genuinely ambiguous things like 'when does this reaction trigger?' that's bad, IMO.


I'm more referring to things like Conjure Woodland beings, that don't specifically state one way or another if the creatures are picked by the Player of DM, or how when/if/the DC's of skill checks work.

[2D8HP]

When the ambiguity makes it easier to DM (like just listing: Very easy DC 5, Easy DC 10, Medium DC15, etc., under "Ability Checks" instead of pages of tasks that the DM has to wade through) then I think it's a good thing, as the easier it is to DM the more DM's thete will be, creating more tables I may play at.

As a player figuring out how to get "Advantage" was a little bit confusing, but not a deal breaker.

[Sigreid]

It's a good thing to me. Fewer rule debates. Less time looking up obscure rules at the table. Smoother play at the table on the whole. This is from the perspective of someone who plays with friends I've been playing with for many years and we know what to expect from one DM or the other.

[Dudewithknives]

At the table: huge, ridiculous, best thing that has happened to DnD in decades Pro
On the internet forums: Con

I will completely agree with this with one little addition.

Games need to have set beforehand what those rules ambiguities will be determined as before the game starts.

It makes the game different table by table, some people like that, some don't.

[dejarnjc]

I'm more referring to things like Conjure Woodland beings, that don't specifically state one way or another if the creatures are picked by the Player of DM, or how when/if/the DC's of skill checks work.

Choices are good, ambiguity less so. I'd prefer that the spell just said something like, "The DM or the player can decide what beasts appear, DM's choice".

The wording on a lot of things in 5e is just plain sloppy and creates needless ambiguity in my opinion. I appreciate the rules being flexible and all and empower DMs but they should be more clear about where this applies and where this doesn't.

[MadBear]

Choices are good, ambiguity less so. I'd prefer that the spell just said something like, "The DM or the player can decide what beasts appear, DM's choice".

The wording on a lot of things in 5e is just plain sloppy and creates needless ambiguity in my opinion. I appreciate the rules being flexible and all and empower DMs but they should be more clear about where this applies and where this doesn't.

I wonder if this leads us back towards the road of rigid structure though, because it sets a precedent of "It doesn't say DM makes a call, therefore the DM has no input". Then again, I don't see much sloppy writing in the main books, but I do see it in the UA (which to be fair is to be expected, its test material, not official rules yet).

[Tanarii]

Cons:
- Table variance. Now a rules that work at one table, don't necessarily translate to another tableYou left out a common variation on this:
DM Variance. Or rather, DM inconsistency.

Meaning, a single given DMs who gets a little too used to making calls on the fly without putting careful thought into consistency can end up being wildly inconsistent. It's particularly noticeable when they previously ruled that a very similar task for the same character was an automatic success, or failure, or particularly low or high DC. And suddenly instead of an automatic success, it's a DC 15 with no particular rhyme or reason that you (or your character) can tell.

Obviously sometimes there is a reason in a particular case, and as a player you just don't know it. But inconsistent DMs tend to be consistently inconsistent, so to speak. It's an observable behavior pattern over time.


Overall, I see it as more positive then negative.Totally agree. At this point in time, for what I want to do with the game, it's a huge positive.


(then again, I disliked the more rigid 3e that codified more rules)Not me. I loved 3e. And every previous edition. And 4e. But not now I'm loving 5e. But now I'm past the honeymoon of finding it fun to play, then incredibly easy to DM, and able to do the style of play I wanted with it, I can keep in mind the areas I need to be mindful of.

And in return for flexibility to adapt D&D 5e to my currently preferred style (T1 old-school dungeoneering, T2 west marches-ish), I have to keep in mind the flip-side is to keep my personal rulings somewhat consistent, so players know what they're getting and can make informed decisions.

[strangebloke]

I'm more referring to things like Conjure Woodland beings, that don't specifically state one way or another if the creatures are picked by the Player of DM, or how when/if/the DC's of skill checks work.

Ah, well, I think the only source of confusion there is that previously we've been able to control what we got. That spell says you choose one of several groups of things, not the individuals.

Even the genuinely ambiguous rules under this definition aren't a serious problem in real play. They just make optimization forums like this one feel a bit confused.

[Pex]

Bad.

Very bad.

I do not want to relearn how to play the game based on who is DM that day. I should not have to ask a list of questions to the DM of how we are playing these rules this time. With so much vagueness in some cases I wouldn't know the DM will do something different than I've been playing with another DM until the instance happens. By then it's too late, and my character suffers for it.

[Regitnui]

As a DM, I find being able to wing it is so much easier. I basically ran 90% of this week's session on "let's go with that idea" and "gimme a second to find a statblock". I said "go help the kid with her parents, who are zombies". The players got two hours out of that, with more next week.


Clearly, yes.

Well played, sir.

[Sigreid]

Ah, well, I think the only source of confusion there is that previously we've been able to control what we got. That spell says you choose one of several groups of things, not the individuals.

Even the genuinely ambiguous rules under this definition aren't a serious problem in real play. They just make optimization forums like this one feel a bit confused.

Honestly, even back in the editions where the official for Monster Summoning spells was a random roll for what appears I don't think I ever played with anyone that didn't let the player pick from the list (and sometimes off of it).

[Tanarii]

Is a third active thread descending into the debate of who gets to pick for Conjure spells really necessary? :smallyuk:

[Sigreid]

Is a third active thread descending into the debate of who gets to pick for Conjure spells really necessary? :smallyuk:

Maybe even a 5th. 😛

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Ambiguity" and "openness" are not the same thing. 5e's skill system is OPEN; the rules for how it works are clear, but leave a lot of room for the DM to add their own interpretation. The rules for, oh, Conjure Woodland Beings is AMBIGUOUS, because while there is an explicit rule in place, its exact meaning is unclear.

[strangebloke]

"Ambiguity" and "openness" are not the same thing. 5e's skill system is OPEN; the rules for how it works are clear, but leave a lot of room for the DM to add their own interpretation. The rules for, oh, Conjure Woodland Beings is AMBIGUOUS, because while there is an explicit rule in place, its exact meaning is unclear.

Exactly. True ambiguity isn't actually that bad in 5e. There are a few cases, but it simply isn't that bad.

...I would say that true ambiguity is bad in general however.

[Sigreid]

Exactly. True ambiguity isn't actually that bad in 5e. There are a few cases, but it simply isn't that bad.

...I would say that true ambiguity is bad in general however.

To be fair, a big part of my job is writing documents and other communication materials and I can attest being completely clear to all or nearly all people all of the time in written text is hard bordering on impossible.

[Tanarii]

"Ambiguity" and "openness" are not the same thing. 5e's skill system is OPEN; the rules for how it works are clear, but leave a lot of room for the DM to add their own interpretation. The rules for, oh, Conjure Woodland Beings is AMBIGUOUS, because while there is an explicit rule in place, its exact meaning is unclear.
But in the case of 5e Skills and Conjure Spells, they are intentionally open. They are both open to allow adapting to the DMs personal campaign. The latter is also open to allow it to expand to include new content automatically.

Edit: This openness of course has much discussed Cons for both of them, especially for a Player who wants to know exactly how something will work in advance without asking their DM first.

[Dudewithknives]

But in the case of 5e Skills and Conjure Spells, they are intentionally open. They are both open to allow adapting to the DMs personal campaign. The latter is also open to allow it to expand to include new content automatically.

Edit: This openness of course has much discussed Cons for both of them, especially for a Player who wants to know exactly how something will work in advance without asking their DM first.

I would take whatever JC says was intentionally worded a certain way with a grain of salt, he is not going to admit he was wrong or it was not written they way they planned.

He would rather say they did it intentionally and have it not work right than to say, oops we screwed something up.

Ex:

Fast hands and donning/doffing a shield.

He has said that you can do that, which is completely wrong.

[dejarnjc]

I wonder if this leads us back towards the road of rigid structure though, because it sets a precedent of "It doesn't say DM makes a call, therefore the DM has no input".

I don't think that most reasonable people would jump to that conclusion.


Then again, I don't see much sloppy writing in the main books, but I do see it in the UA (which to be fair is to be expected, its test material, not official rules yet).

Eh, YMMV but my weekly group tends to find some sort of dumb, unclear issue in the books at least once a week. Things like, "how long can I hold a readied spell", or anything at all to do w/ invisibility and/or being obscured.

[Tanarii]

Did my post say anything about JC?

But I probably should have put IMO before "intentionally" :)

To me, the intent is pretty clear for both skills and Conjure Animals. They're open so the DM can customize them to their campaign, and for the latter can also include new content.

That's said, conjure ALSO introduces ambiguity in the process.

[Rhedyn]

I will say bad and always bad.

But that is because a theoretical perfect rules set has clear rules for every situation that are non DM dependent and are easier to understand than Checkers while being objectively the most fun game to play.

With the lack of a Platonic idea rules set, ambiguity has a place in modern gaming. I believe 5e is objectively bad in it's handling of summoning rules. If it was clearly "DM pick" from the onset, I would have never bought the game.

It's easier to argue that the "skill rules" are fine because it's how a lot of GMs ran their game anyways. But I've personally never experienced the existence of tables being a bad thing.

[PeteNutButter]

In any RPG system the DM will have to make rulings, because edge cases come up. I’m totally fine that 5e made less of an attempt to codify everything effectively expanding the area of “edge cases.”

BUT combining certain class features with other feats or class feautures should not be an edge case. These things can and should be clearly defined at least within one book. There is no benefit for the lack of clarity in these cases as a DM could always overrule/house rule if they strongly disagreed.

Anyone would disagrees with me is just flat out wrong... unless their DM says they’re right.

[Sigreid]

I don't think that most reasonable people would jump to that conclusion.



Eh, YMMV but my weekly group tends to find some sort of dumb, unclear issue in the books at least once a week. Things like, "how long can I hold a readied spell", or anything at all to do w/ invisibility and/or being obscured.

A potentially unfair observation based entirely in what I see on forums is that the confusion usually comes from trying to game the system or work an angle.

[dejarnjc]

A potentially unfair observation based entirely in what I see on forums is that the confusion usually comes from trying to game the system or work an angle.

Well, you're right but in my opinion those kinda people will always try to game the system or work an angle no matter how clear the rules.

[strangebloke]

Eh, YMMV but my weekly group tends to find some sort of dumb, unclear issue in the books at least once a week. Things like, "how long can I hold a readied spell", or anything at all to do w/ invisibility and/or being obscured.
This is the definition of an edge case. It's only going to come up in maybe one campaign out of twenty. And actually, the RAW is clear: as long as you can maintain concentration. If you take damage or get sleepy or something that might hold it off, but otherwise it's completely fine by RAW.

And obscurement is an area that's left 'open' rather than ambiguous. (I'm liking that terminology, Grod, I'm stealing it. It's mine now.) If you tried to codify all the obscurement rules, you would end up making things worse, not better.

A potentially unfair observation based entirely in what I see on forums is that the confusion usually comes from trying to game the system or work an angle.
Eyup. The kinds of questions that come up in my experience are usually of the 'really?' variety.

[dejarnjc]

This is the definition of an edge case.

Pretty sure "once a week or so" (though after further reflection it's more like once every other week) is not an edge case haha and I just gave you a couple examples and would prefer to not derail the thread arguing about interpretations of those examples.

[Eric Diaz]

I think they are a con, and I invite anyone that thinks otherwise to point to two examples where the ambiguity is useful for you, or where you used it in your advantage for your games.


Clearly, yes.

You win the thread.

[strangebloke]

Pretty sure "once a week or so" (though after further reflection it's more like once every other week) is not an edge case haha and I just gave you a couple examples and would prefer to not derail the thread arguing about interpretations of those examples.

well, edge cases do come up. The more rules a system has, the more edge cases you will have. A system as crunchy as 5e in inherently going to have lots of edgecases.

But I respect what you say. No more derail this time.

[Tanarii]

I think they are a con, and I invite anyone that thinks otherwise to point to two examples where the ambiguity is useful for you, or where you used it in your advantage for your games.
Ability check DCs.
Stealth rules.

Every single session.

Done.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But in the case of 5e Skills and Conjure Spells, they are intentionally open. They are both open to allow adapting to the DMs personal campaign. The latter is also open to allow it to expand to include new content automatically.

Edit: This openness of course has much discussed Cons for both of them, especially for a Player who wants to know exactly how something will work in advance without asking their DM first.
Ehh. Skills are intentionally open. Conjure spells listing "X beasts of CR y" is open. Conjure spells not specifying who picks said beasts is ambiguous-- the rules can be read either way, and both sides have fair arguments.

(That being said, it's not a question I'm particularly knowledgeable or opinionated about; there are probably better examples I can't think of off-hand)

[Tanarii]

Ehh. Skills are intentionally open. Conjure spells listing "X beasts of CR y" is open. Conjure spells not specifying who picks said beasts is ambiguous-- the rules can be read either way, and both sides have fair arguments.Yeah. I really wasn't disagreeing with you, so much as pointing out the ambiguity was introduced as a side-effect of (what is to me) intentional openness.

Which is the way it often goes.

[Eric Diaz]

Ability check DCs.
Stealth rules.

Every single session.

Done.

"Ability check DCs" aren't "ambiguous", IMO, they are just arbitrary. Not that I have a problem with that.

If you want me to see your point, show me the ambiguity in stealth rules, and how does it help you.

EDIT: I see how someone can say ability check DCs are ambiguous, but this is a whole different thread IMO. I was thinking more of things like "RANGED weapon attack" being different than "RANGED WEAPON attack" or some other absurdity I don't exactly recall, nor care. Or, a better example, who chooses conjured beings, etc.

[MadBear]

"Ambiguity" and "openness" are not the same thing. 5e's skill system is OPEN; the rules for how it works are clear, but leave a lot of room for the DM to add their own interpretation. The rules for, oh, Conjure Woodland Beings is AMBIGUOUS, because while there is an explicit rule in place, its exact meaning is unclear.

You're right, I meant openness when I said ambiguity. To be fair, I think there's some crossover, but I do agree openness more closely aligns with what I'm talking about.


"Ability check DCs" aren't "ambiguous", IMO, they are just arbitrary. Not that I have a problem with that.

If you want me to see your point, show me the ambiguity in stealth rules, and how does it help you.

EDIT: I see how someone can say ability check DCs are ambiguous, but this is a whole different thread IMO. I was thinking more of things like "RANGED weapon attack" being different than "RANGED WEAPON attack" or some other absurdity I don't exactly recall, nor care. Or, a better example, who chooses conjured beings, etc.

to be fair, when I created the thread I meant things like skill DC's.

Even things like Conjure Woodland beings I see as a win. For some groups, it's the players choice, others it's the DM's, for others the DM gives the player a choice between a few options.




I will say bad and always bad.

But that is because a theoretical perfect rules set has clear rules for every situation that are non DM dependent and are easier to understand than Checkers while being objectively the most fun game to play.

With the lack of a Platonic idea rules set, ambiguity has a place in modern gaming. I believe 5e is objectively bad in it's handling of summoning rules. If it was clearly "DM pick" from the onset, I would have never bought the game.

It's easier to argue that the "skill rules" are fine because it's how a lot of GMs ran their game anyways. But I've personally never experienced the existence of tables being a bad thing.

And I disagree that such a theoretical rule-set could ever exist, because people are inherently different. One mans perfect rule set would be antithetical to another mans perfect rule-set.

Also, I find it weird that a summoning spell is so make it/break it for you that it alone would turn you from the game. Ironically, it's also the fact that the rule isn't set in stone either way that allows it to vary from your table to another table. So that ambiguity apparently got you to play in a game you otherwise wouldn't have.

And tables themselves aren't a bad thing inherently. But again, because different people have different goals, you get some who hate tables, others who don't mind them if their simple, and others who find it boring to sift through.

[Rhedyn]

And I disagree that such a theoretical rule-set could ever exist, because people are inherently different. One mans perfect rule set would be antithetical to another mans perfect rule-set.

Also, I find it weird that a summoning spell is so make it/break it for you that it alone would turn you from the game. Ironically, it's also the fact that the rule isn't set in stone either way that allows it to vary from your table to another table. So that ambiguity apparently got you to play in a game you otherwise wouldn't have.

And tables themselves aren't a bad thing inherently. But again, because different people have different goals, you get some who hate tables, others who don't mind them if their simple, and others who find it boring to sift through.

I always leave possiblity of innovation.

Summoning is a mechanic I enjoyed a lot in 3e, I tend to just not be interest in an ttRPG unless it can satisfy that kind of concept. It's like a system lacking a rogue equivalent for me.

I also enjoy playing fair. If I can only enjoy summoning in 5e with a houserule that I can pick the summons, then I'm not having fun because I need to have a munchkin level houserule in my favor to play what I want. The devs admitted that picking what you want is either 'a higher level spell' or 'overpowered". So it's not right for me to ask for that houserule. That ambiguity is why I'm even on these forums

[Sigreid]

I always leave possiblity of innovation.

Summoning is a mechanic I enjoyed a lot in 3e, I tend to just not be interest in an ttRPG unless it can satisfy that kind of concept. It's like a system lacking a rogue equivalent for me.

I also enjoy playing fair. If I can only enjoy summoning in 5e with a houserule that I can pick the summons, then I'm not having fun because I need to have a munchkin level houserule in my favor to play what I want. The devs admitted that picking what you want is either 'a higher level spell' or 'overpowered". So it's not right for me to ask for that houserule. That ambiguity is why I'm even on these forums

Eh, as I said earlier I consider the player picking a benefit to the DM. One less thing to worry about.

[Rhedyn]

Eh, as I said earlier I consider the player picking a benefit to the DM. One less thing to worry about.
It technically being cheating is a problem for me as a player.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I always leave possiblity of innovation.

Summoning is a mechanic I enjoyed a lot in 3e, I tend to just not be interest in an ttRPG unless it can satisfy that kind of concept. It's like a system lacking a rogue equivalent for me.

I also enjoy playing fair. If I can only enjoy summoning in 5e with a houserule that I can pick the summons, then I'm not having fun because I need to have a munchkin level houserule in my favor to play what I want. The devs admitted that picking what you want is either 'a higher level spell' or 'overpowered". So it's not right for me to ask for that houserule. That ambiguity is why I'm even on these forums

Really, it only has one serious abuse. Pixies, and it's because of polymorph more than anything. If the DM either asks the player not to choose pixies or removes polymorph from their spell list, the spell's fine and there's no need to start making any further restrictions.

Mind you, they'd still be really, really good. Pixies have access to other fantastic spells, flight, and ranged attacks, all of which make them one of the best uses of a level 4 spell even without polymorph. But I'm fine with druids making the best summoners.

Probably would've been a less controversial Sage Advice. I get that they don't want to contradict anything RAW because of AL, but still.

[LeonBH]

On the whole, I'd say pro. The ambiguity creates a strong culture of "the DM is the last word" and I think that is far more useful than any real ambiguities that arise from the rules, granted that the DM is good.

If the DM is bad, no amount of ambiguity will fix their game. In fact, even if the rules are clear, they will mess it up anyway...

[MadBear]

I always leave possiblity of innovation.

fair enough


Summoning is a mechanic I enjoyed a lot in 3e, I tend to just not be interest in an ttRPG unless it can satisfy that kind of concept. It's like a system lacking a rogue equivalent for me.

also fair enough. If summoning is something you consider to be vital, then I can see why you wouldn't like a game that doesn't have it. It's a matter of personal taste, and there's not much I can say, the same way I can't tell my wife she's wrong for liking pineapple on pizza (she is wrong though :smalltongue:)




I also enjoy playing fair. If I can only enjoy summoning in 5e with a houserule that I can pick the summons, then I'm not having fun because I need to have a munchkin level houserule in my favor to play what I want. The devs admitted that picking what you want is either 'a higher level spell' or 'overpowered". So it's not right for me to ask for that houserule. That ambiguity is why I'm even on these forums

This is where I'm not sure if you're talking about a theoretical rule-set in which the DM has explicitly permission to deny you the use of picking the summons, or this rule-set where it isn't directly stated either way. I'm assume the ladder, but if I'm wrong ignore the rest of this post. In this case, you're not cheating, nor being a munchkin. It isn't a houserule either, because a house rule is typically a rule that overrides an existing rule to work in a different way. It's the whole "rulings not rules", where table variance will lead to different results.

[Kane0]

Tabletop game design has always faced this sort of problem. The breadth and depth of rules required varies greatly according to taste, every person has their own sweet spot. Some games pick one point on the scale and really stick to it, others try to accommodate a bundle of them or even the whole lot if they're particularly ambitious. The well designed ones generally nail their niche, offer a robust core that is easily modified to suit the individuals that play it, or both. Good marketing is a great benefit but it can't carry a poorly designed game forever.

Your opinion of 5e, other editions or even of D&D as a whole depends heavily on your sweet spot. For me 5e is great in that it's both close to the mark for me personally (enough to run a game with clarity and consistency without having to open up a book every session or two) and is also a simple and robust base system that I can easily tweak to suit me and my table even better (mass combat notwithstanding). Others will say the same for their d20 system or of choice, others for AEDU or totally different games.

The beauty of choice and competition in the market.

Edit:
Anecdotally, my 5e table has an in-joke of saying "lets just say 13" when a roll goes off the table or the DM is having trouble picking a DC or whatever. And we usually chuckle but then sort of shrug and say "Yeah, that seems fair. Lets go with that". Fun, fast, easy and nobody really disputes the specifics unless they believe the call to be far off the mark.
That would not fly at the PF game i'm also in. You can be damned sure they'd be breaking out all the modifiers they know and double checking everything. The resident rules lawyer is relied on for this in fact. In some cases a player will have trouble with all their plusses and i'll suggest they just roll to see if the rest of their bonuses even matter, but they just give me this incredulous look as if that last +1 will always, always be the deciding factor and they must know before the die is cast.
It's funny to see both sides of the coin. I have my preferences, but I don't begrudge those that prefer the number crunching and granular clarity.

[Tanarii]

"Ability check DCs" aren't "ambiguous", IMO, they are just arbitrary. Not that I have a problem with that.They're open. And has been established by the OP, this is what the thread is actually supposed to be about. Open rules, and the ambiguity they create.


If you want me to see your point, show me the ambiguity in stealth rules, and how does it help you.
What kind of obscuring is needed, and how and when is Skulker, Wood Elf or Lightfoot Halfling needed vs when it isn't?
How do I deal with visual range?
How do I deal with auditory range?
How do I deal with detection across multiple senses, like visual disadvantage (dim light) and hearing advantage (keen senses)?
How do I deal with someone that isn't trying to be stealthy, but is not noticeable by one or more senses?

I'm actually glad all these things are open. Because they let me make decisions and do things like use the Stealth and Perception ability checks to handle:
- using Stealth for a player who wants to tail someone unobtrusively through a crowded marketplace, despite them regularly being within plain view
- setting a DC to notice a battle going on 1 mile away across some wheat fields or whatever
- vanishing into light mist while standing 10 ft in front of someone (wood elf)
- require full on cover or concealment to hide from someone within 30ft in combat, and the cover or concealment to be sufficient they will lose you behind it (no 3ft wide columns or barrels). ie pop-up hiding isn't too easy.
- conversely requiring a no-action fixed DC Wisdom (Perception) check (starting at DC 10 at 30ft) to precisely target a non-stealthy character in sufficiently large concealment (Fog Cloud, Darkness Spell) at ranges of 30ft or more, or else requiring guessing the space they occupy.
- ruling that a group 30ft or more in front of the party is a "separate group" for purposes of stealth checks, and one 60ft away from the enemy doesn't need to make a stealth check at all if they aren't being super noisy
- ruling that detecting a battle is DC 10 passive perception at 60ft. (This one is probably too short, and should be DC 10 at 120ft. But I'm not changing it now.)

Just those alone let me tailor the stealth and perception systems to my particular campaign as I saw fit.

[Sigreid]

It technically being cheating is a problem for me as a player.

But it's not cheating. As it is written it's left for the table to decide. Even if it weren't, it's not cheating if the table decides that's the way they want to handle it. Cheating would be having a table to roll on and using loaded dice...

[Rhedyn]

But it's not cheating. As it is written it's left for the table to decide. Even if it weren't, it's not cheating if the table decides that's the way they want to handle it. Cheating would be having a table to roll on and using loaded dice...

The DM happening to pick what you want isn't cheating. Picking what you summon is a violation of RAI and RAW (as per how future books have written the spells).

It's effectively like telling the DM, I want the next skill roll DC to be under my roll. She could happen to do that, but it is cheating if I pick the DC. Even if the DM houserules I get to pick skill roll DCs, that's a munchkin level houserule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my opinion, open rules are inevitable, and accepting them as such and building them into the game system is a tremendous advance (over claiming that everything is closed up tight, never mind that giant heap under the rug...).

To be more precise, I see a couple different types of unclear rules, each with its own cure. All these refer to good-faith interpretations, so I'm excluding munchkins and intentional misreadings:

* Open-ended rules. There are many possible interpretations, all of which are valid. Choose one that you can all agree on but be consistent.
* Dangerously ambiguous rules. There are many interpretations, some of which invariably lead to bad results. Here, clarification is important.
* Nonsense rules. No interpretation has good outcomes, or no self-consistent interpretations are possible. These need errata.

The first set are quite common in this edition. And I'm very fond of them. The only way to avoid them is to have a closed system, where every possible action is prescribed and any others are disallowed. That works for a board game, but not for a TTRPG. I love being able to adapt things on the fly to the fictional situation. Breaking the fiction on the Procrustean bed of iron-bound rule makes me sad. The rules were made to serve the game, not the game to serve the rules.

The second set is where RAI comes in. These can be the result of poor writing, but more usually are a result of unshared assumptions. The writers believed that X was obviously true, so the RAI follows self-evidently. Not everyone agrees. These are inevitable, but less common. This is where the disputes come in, because not all the assumptions are mutually compatible.

The third set are the ones that they print errata for. Things where parts of the phrase are missing or something changed elsewhere that makes the rule meaningless (the third part of grappler). These generally are obviously broken.

[Eric Diaz]

They're open. And has been established by the OP, this is what the thread is actually supposed to be about. Open rules, and the ambiguity they create.


What kind of obscuring is needed, and how and when is Skulker, Wood Elf or Lightfoot Halfling needed vs when it isn't?
How do I deal with visual range?
How do I deal with auditory range?
How do I deal with detection across multiple senses, like visual disadvantage (dim light) and hearing advantage (keen senses)?
How do I deal with someone that isn't trying to be stealthy, but is not noticeable by one or more senses?

I'm actually glad all these things are open. Because they let me make decisions and do things like use the Stealth and Perception ability checks to handle:
- using Stealth for a player who wants to tail someone unobtrusively through a crowded marketplace, despite them regularly being within plain view
- setting a DC to notice a battle going on 1 mile away across some wheat fields or whatever
- vanishing into light mist while standing 10 ft in front of someone (wood elf)
- require full on cover or concealment to hide from someone within 30ft in combat, and the cover or concealment to be sufficient they will lose you behind it (no 3ft wide columns or barrels). ie pop-up hiding isn't too easy.
- conversely requiring a no-action fixed DC Wisdom (Perception) check (starting at DC 10 at 30ft) to precisely target a non-stealthy character in sufficiently large concealment (Fog Cloud, Darkness Spell) at ranges of 30ft or more, or else requiring guessing the space they occupy.
- ruling that a group 30ft or more in front of the party is a "separate group" for purposes of stealth checks, and one 60ft away from the enemy doesn't need to make a stealth check at all if they aren't being super noisy
- ruling that detecting a battle is DC 10 passive perception at 60ft. (This one is probably too short, and should be DC 10 at 120ft. But I'm not changing it now.)

Just those alone let me tailor the stealth and perception systems to my particular campaign as I saw fit.

Yeah, I misunderstood the intent of the OP. I agree with you - I also like "open rules".

I was thinking of ambiguity in things like "conjure...", i.e., instances where there should be a RIGHT and SIMPLE answer, but the game doesn't tell you what it is.

I agree with your examples - I don't need a written rule to tell me how to "set a DC to notice a battle going on 1 mile away across some wheat fields", nor do I think it is desirable.

EDIT: I was thinking of something like the quote below; openness is cool, ambiguity is bad.


"Ambiguity" and "openness" are not the same thing. 5e's skill system is OPEN; the rules for how it works are clear, but leave a lot of room for the DM to add their own interpretation. The rules for, oh, Conjure Woodland Beings is AMBIGUOUS, because while there is an explicit rule in place, its exact meaning is unclear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I misunderstood the intent of the OP. I agree with you - I also like "open rules".

I was thinking of ambiguity in things like "conjure...", i.e., instances where there should be a RIGHT and SIMPLE answer, but the game doesn't tell you what it is.

I agree with your examples - I don't need a written rule to tell me how to "set a DC to notice a battle going on 1 mile away across some wheat fields", nor do I think it is desirable.

Thing is, there is a right answer. It's right in the first few pages--

* The DM describes the situation
* Players describe what they attempt
* The DM decides how to resolve it. Sometimes he refers to the rules.
* The DM describes how the situation has changed.

The default is that for anything not specified, the DM chooses how it works. That's the fundamental, most general rule. All other rules make specific exceptions to that. I repeat--the most basic rule of all in 5e is that the DM chooses how to resolve attempted actions. Everything else provides specific resolution mechanisms.

[Eric Diaz]

Thing is, there is a right answer. It's right in the first few pages--

* The DM describes the situation
* Players describe what they attempt
* The DM decides how to resolve it. Sometimes he refers to the rules.
* The DM describes how the situation has changed.

The default is that for anything not specified, the DM chooses how it works. That's the fundamental, most general rule. All other rules make specific exceptions to that. I repeat--the most basic rule of all in 5e is that the DM chooses how to resolve attempted actions. Everything else provides specific resolution mechanisms.

I don't think I can discuss it in the abstract, because we might end up talking about different things at the same time.

Do you have some examples? For instance, do you think the conjuring thing is better left ambiguous?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think I can discuss it in the abstract, because we might end up talking about different things at the same time.

Do you have some examples? For instance, do you think the conjuring thing is better left ambiguous?

I'm saying that the conjuring thing is simple--if it doesn't say that the player chooses something, the DM does (but can choose to delegate to the player). Note all the times that the rules say "of your choice"? Those aren't simply extra words for the fun of it. Without those, the default is that the DM chooses. Because the default is always that the DM chooses.

Edit: And I've always let players choose their summons. Less work for me. But that's an explicit choice on my part. And remembering that is important.

[Pex]

They're open. And has been established by the OP, this is what the thread is actually supposed to be about. Open rules, and the ambiguity they create.


What kind of obscuring is needed, and how and when is Skulker, Wood Elf or Lightfoot Halfling needed vs when it isn't?
How do I deal with visual range?
How do I deal with auditory range?
How do I deal with detection across multiple senses, like visual disadvantage (dim light) and hearing advantage (keen senses)?
How do I deal with someone that isn't trying to be stealthy, but is not noticeable by one or more senses?

I'm actually glad all these things are open. Because they let me make decisions and do things like use the Stealth and Perception ability checks to handle:
- using Stealth for a player who wants to tail someone unobtrusively through a crowded marketplace, despite them regularly being within plain view
- setting a DC to notice a battle going on 1 mile away across some wheat fields or whatever
- vanishing into light mist while standing 10 ft in front of someone (wood elf)
- require full on cover or concealment to hide from someone within 30ft in combat, and the cover or concealment to be sufficient they will lose you behind it (no 3ft wide columns or barrels). ie pop-up hiding isn't too easy.
- conversely requiring a no-action fixed DC Wisdom (Perception) check (starting at DC 10 at 30ft) to precisely target a non-stealthy character in sufficiently large concealment (Fog Cloud, Darkness Spell) at ranges of 30ft or more, or else requiring guessing the space they occupy.
- ruling that a group 30ft or more in front of the party is a "separate group" for purposes of stealth checks, and one 60ft away from the enemy doesn't need to make a stealth check at all if they aren't being super noisy
- ruling that detecting a battle is DC 10 passive perception at 60ft. (This one is probably too short, and should be DC 10 at 120ft. But I'm not changing it now.)

Just those alone let me tailor the stealth and perception systems to my particular campaign as I saw fit.

If I were a player in your game I'd have this wonderful system of how skills works. Then I go play another game and that DM does it differently, and I wouldn't know until after I created my character so it's too late to do anything about it. I have to relearn how to play the game and deal with the consequences of not being knowledgeable how stuff works. My choices in creating my character are meaningless.

[Tanarii]

For instance, do you think the conjuring thing is better left ambiguous?I think the specific creatures it can conjure must be left open, and must be subject to DM approval. I think that allowing the DM to customize available creatures to their campaign setting*, or even to location you are when you cast the spell**, as well as add new creatures to the list as new Beasts are published, are required.

I think that the result being ambiguous as to "who picks which creature appears" is a natural result of this openness, and cannot be globally answered. The DM must have input, so you can't say "player picks". But neither does that require "DM picks", because there are plenty of other options that allow DM input without requiring that.


* for example "No Dinosaurs".
**this might mean different lists for Faerun vs Maztica vs Zhakara, which is effectively different settings. Or it might mean different lists for Chult vs High Moor vs Anauroch Desert, areas within a setting. Or it might mean different lists for Swamp vs Desert, ie generic by terrain.


If I were a player in your game I'd have this wonderful system of how skills works. Then I go play another game and that DM does it differently, and I wouldn't know until after I created my character so it's too late to do anything about it. I have to relearn how to play the game and deal with the consequences of not being knowledgeable how stuff works. My choices in creating my character are meaningless.Given that your "choices" in 5e are ability scores, race, class, background and skills, it's pretty hard to make meaningless choices. Even if you don't know what your DM is going to do in terms of automatic success/failre, vs DC 10, 15 or 20 checks. And you still know your odds of succeeding on each of those for each ability score and skill.

Honestly, I don't know how you survived AD&D 2e. :smalltongue:

Edit: That said, yes, customizing for 5e and making your own little sub-rulings is one of the nice things about 5e. Inconsistency for any one given DM isn't so much. But having to learn when you play with a new DM is situation normal. I did it in official play all the time in 4e and 5e, and it wasn't a big deal.

[JakOfAllTirades]

If the rules are ambiguous because the designers decided (rightly) that a rule wasn't needed and left it out for brevity, that's a definite pro.

But if a necessary rule was written ambiguously, that's sloppy writing/editing, and it's definitely a con.

Fifth Edition D&D has a great many of both, and the latter are a constant annoyance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But if a necessary rule was written ambiguously, that's sloppy writing/editing, and it's definitely a con.


Here's the thing. Even the most carefully-written, technically-worded documents contain substantive ambiguities. It's inevitable (cf technical rulings in the legal profession and many other such places). Ambiguity is an essential part of natural language. Something written for lay audiences, especially to be interpreted by brand new players, will of necessity have many more ambiguities. That's what the DM is for, in part. To be the arbiter of the rules. To decide that this is the correct interpretation, not that in this case.

I've seen very few (and those mostly only in edge cases) where the intent was strongly ambiguous. There are lots where I could see it either way, but one was clearly more in keeping with the rest of the text (at least to me).

[Tanarii]

Here's the thing. Even the most carefully-written, technically-worded documents contain substantive ambiguities. It's inevitable (cf technical rulings in the legal profession and many other such places). Ambiguity is an essential part of natural language. Something written for lay audiences, especially to be interpreted by brand new players, will of necessity have many more ambiguities. That's what the DM is for, in part. To be the arbiter of the rules. To decide that this is the correct interpretation, not that in this case.As someone who participated in FAR more extended rules debates in the 3e forum than I have in the 5e forum, this is abundantly clear. 3e had a more complex rule set, so RAW debates were MORE common. Not less.

In addition, rulings at the tables for edge cases were more common. OTOH that's not necessarily a fair statement, because if you like, you can look at every ability check called for as an "edge case" in 5e. :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

As someone who participated in FAR more extended rules debates in the 3e forum than I have in the 5e forum, this is abundantly clear. 3e had a more complex rule set, so RAW debates were MORE common. Not less.

In addition, rulings at the tables for edge cases were more common. OTOH that's not necessarily a fair statement, because if you like, you can look at every ability check called for as an "edge case" in 5e. :smallwink:

The number of possible interactions goes as the square of the number of interacting rules. Thus, more "cohesive" rule systems (where each rule is built on exactly the same foundation, using the same terms and everything is presumed to interact unless said otherwise) have way more possible rule interactions and scope for ambiguity and breakage. 5e's philosophy of "things interact when they say they do and not otherwise" (and drastically simplified rule hierarchy in general) cuts out a lot of scope for ambiguity and dispute.

Ability checks aren't an edge case, but the DC for doing this, under those conditions is certainly one where consistency is rarely found. Mainly because those conditions aren't exactly replicated many other times.

I'm thinking more of the "invisible gnome wizard sitting perfectly still..." debates.

[Tanarii]

I'm thinking more of the "invisible gnome wizard sitting perfectly still..." debates.Me too, as should be clear from my post about Stealth/Perception upthread. That debate was the one that really cemented me on the flexibility of the 5e system to handle so many different situations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Me too, as should be clear from my post about Stealth/Perception upthread. That debate was the one that really cemented me on the flexibility of the 5e system to handle so many different situations.

Yeah. I'm so glad that 5e is flexible (and honest about its flexibility and the limits thereof). Sometimes the fiction says one thing should work, other times it says something different. The fiction comes first, the rules are just there to help it be playable as a game. That gets forgotten a bit, especially on these forums.

[Sigreid]

The DM happening to pick what you want isn't cheating. Picking what you summon is a violation of RAI and RAW (as per how future books have written the spells).

It's effectively like telling the DM, I want the next skill roll DC to be under my roll. She could happen to do that, but it is cheating if I pick the DC. Even if the DM houserules I get to pick skill roll DCs, that's a munchkin level houserule.

We will have to disagree on a few counts. First, if it's a table rule and not a rule just to make you happy, I can't see it as cheating. Second, I use FG and they keep everything updated with the latest official stuff and it still doesn't specify. Third, were a few years from publishing and given the nature of memory I'm not convinced that RAI now in Crawford's head is necessarily RAI at time of release.

[MadBear]

If I were a player in your game I'd have this wonderful system of how skills works. Then I go play another game and that DM does it differently, and I wouldn't know until after I created my character so it's too late to do anything about it. I have to relearn how to play the game and deal with the consequences of not being knowledgeable how stuff works. My choices in creating my character are meaningless.

I find the difficulty you're describing to me sounds more like a pro rather then a con, because DM 1 can run a super powered adventure where the heroes kick butt and take names, while DM 2 can use the same system to run a low magic gritty survival game. That's something that you wouldn't happen as easily with more codified rules like you find in 3.x.

But alas, it looks like were on opposite sides of preference here.

[Eric Diaz]

I'm saying that the conjuring thing is simple--if it doesn't say that the player chooses something, the DM does (but can choose to delegate to the player). Note all the times that the rules say "of your choice"? Those aren't simply extra words for the fun of it. Without those, the default is that the DM chooses. Because the default is always that the DM chooses.

Edit: And I've always let players choose their summons. Less work for me. But that's an explicit choice on my part. And remembering that is important.

Well, the answer is not as clear as you think, as proved by the innumerable threads posing this exact question. If it were, it wouldn't be a case of ambiguity - so I'd ask again examples of positive ambiguity.

But - assuming this is ambiguous - what is the upside of not simply saying "DM picks the creature" in the spell description?


I think the specific creatures it can conjure must be left open, and must be subject to DM approval. I think that allowing the DM to customize available creatures to their campaign setting*, or even to location you are when you cast the spell**, as well as add new creatures to the list as new Beasts are published, are required.

I think that the result being ambiguous as to "who picks which creature appears" is a natural result of this openness, and cannot be globally answered. The DM must have input, so you can't say "player picks". But neither does that require "DM picks", because there are plenty of other options that allow DM input without requiring that.

* for example "No Dinosaurs".
**this might mean different lists for Faerun vs Maztica vs Zhakara, which is effectively different settings. Or it might mean different lists for Chult vs High Moor vs Anauroch Desert, areas within a setting. Or it might mean different lists for Swamp vs Desert, ie generic by terrain.


What is the upside of not simply saying "DM picks the creature based on setting, location etc." in the spell description?

This is, assuming you agree with SA... Your wording makes it seem like you think there is no clear answer for DM picks/PC picks.


If the rules are ambiguous because the designers decided (rightly) that a rule wasn't needed and left it out for brevity, that's a definite pro.

But if a necessary rule was written ambiguously, that's sloppy writing/editing, and it's definitely a con.

Fifth Edition D&D has a great many of both, and the latter are a constant annoyance.

Basically, this.


Here's the thing. Even the most carefully-written, technically-worded documents contain substantive ambiguities. It's inevitable (cf technical rulings in the legal profession and many other such places). Ambiguity is an essential part of natural language. Something written for lay audiences, especially to be interpreted by brand new players, will of necessity have many more ambiguities. That's what the DM is for, in part. To be the arbiter of the rules. To decide that this is the correct interpretation, not that in this case.

I've seen very few (and those mostly only in edge cases) where the intent was strongly ambiguous. There are lots where I could see it either way, but one was clearly more in keeping with the rest of the text (at least to me).

I disagree - but since I cannot remember all good examples, this is mostly personal opinion.

At the moment, only things that come to mind is arguments about GWF applying to Smite, Lucky feat turning disadvantage into super-advantage (although that might just be a matter of taste), Crossbow Expert shenanigans (half a page of SA to explain RAI), improvised weapons/unarmed attacks, bonus action timing, melee weapon attack versus melee-weapon attack (!), etc. Anyway, I think they are doing a decent job with SA - at least until the counterspell absurdity, I would agree that most of SA is clearly RAI, if not exactly RAW.

Except when Mearls and Crawford disagree, of course.

BTW, if RAW and RAI get too different, that means the game is badly written (specifically, not WRITTEN as INTENDED). 5e IMO is so-so in this regard - not great but not that bad either.

[Asmotherion]

I enjoy it.

D&D should not be an experiance of "we all hold our hard copies of our books in order to make sure not to be tricked by the DM", rather than "rules are a guidline for the DM and the Players to make a Balanced and Interactive Story".

When I play as a player, I like to sit back, and let my DM handle the rules, forgetting I am playing a game, and getting completelly into his story.

When I DM I want my players to do the same. I don't want my players to interupt me about rules, I'll be the one to handle the mechanics, altering anything on-the spot despite RAW, if I feel it's appropriate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, the answer is not as clear as you think, as proved by the innumerable threads posing this exact question. If it were, it wouldn't be a case of ambiguity - so I'd ask again examples of positive ambiguity.

But - assuming this is ambiguous - what is the upside of not simply saying "DM picks the creature" in the spell description?



What is the upside of not simply saying "DM picks the creature based on setting, location etc." in the spell description?

This is, assuming you agree with SA... Your wording makes it seem like you think there is no clear answer for DM picks/PC picks.



Basically, this.



I disagree - but since I cannot remember all good examples, this is mostly personal opinion.

At the moment, only things that come to mind is arguments about GWF applying to Smite, Lucky feat turning disadvantage into super-advantage (although that might just be a matter of taste), Crossbow Expert shenanigans (half a page of SA to explain RAI), improvised weapons/unarmed attacks, bonus action timing, melee weapon attack versus melee-weapon attack (!), etc. Anyway, I think they are doing a decent job with SA - at least until the counterspell absurdity, I would agree that most of SA is clearly RAI, if not exactly RAW.

Except when Mearls and Crawford disagree, of course.

BTW, if RAW and RAI get too different, that means the game is badly written (specifically, not WRITTEN as INTENDED). 5e IMO is so-so in this regard - not great but not that bad either.

Adding more rules produces more edge cases. See the point about rules interactions going as the square of interacting rules. That was the trap of 3e--trying to nail down everything made things more ambiguous and fed the arguments more than it squelched them.

Honestly, maybe it's just that my base assumptions match those of the devs, but I've really never been surprised by a Sage Advice. In fact, 99% of them are exactly how I read it the first time. Most of the push-back seems to come from people trying to run the legalistic "everything interacts with everything" mentality of 3e using 5e rules. And the number of questions isn't a good measure--most of that comes from the same group of people who have very strong opinions and most of the rest are coming from earlier editions and importing their thought processes. That, or are over-parsing the text. Proof-texting (picking out small chunks of text without considering the rest of the sentence or paragraph) is a real problem around here.

That's my take, anyway.

[Rhedyn]

I'm not convinced that RAI now in Crawford's head is necessarily RAI at time of release.Oh neither am I. I believe the devs changed the game with that Sage Advice not that the game was always that way. They doubled down on that change with the release of the new book and demon summoning.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mostly pro, and a little bit con.

I am still less than happy with how the surprise thing works, but it mostly works out at our tables.

On the balance, good with some annoying exceptions.

[Telok]

I think that whether the hand wavy nature of the non-combat rules is good or bad depends on how much assistance the DM needs in making decisions.

Good DMs, those with a grasp of probability and a solid idea of the genera of fantasy they want to emulate, don't need much help making decisions. For them it reduces the number of rules that get in the way of what they want to do. DMs who are new(ish) to the game or new to being a DM, who read 'average difficulty' as 'normal difficulty' (outside of D&D average usually is normal), or otherwise need a bit more guidance than is found in the books seem to suffer quite a bit.

I played with a couple new DMs, the lack of guidelines and examples was a problem for them. When all swimming checks are DC 15, players find ways to not go swimming. Likewise climbing, survival, arcana, religion, perform, bluff, acrobat, etc., etc. There was also a lot of "if the books don't say you can, then you can't", because they were inexperienced at winging it and didn't have a solid rule to follow.

[Tanarii]

What is the upside of not simply saying "DM picks the creature based on setting, location etc." in the spell description?Because that closes off one of several options where the player picks, and saves me the trouble of picking.

As a DM I'm perfectly happy with I veto, or with I ban categories (dinosaurs), or with I pregenerate a list ... and the player picks. Because that's a bunch of workload off my plate. But I potentially still need some input, depending on what I'm trying to do with my campaign.


This is, assuming you agree with SA... Your wording makes it seem like you think there is no clear answer for DM picks/PC picks.
I do not agree with the SA. I think there is no clear answer for DM picks/PC picks, and the SA should have said so, and said its up to each table to decide how to make it work.

AL has its own rule anyway so there was no need for the answer SA gave.

Edit: but if they really did intend it to be straight out DM picks, the RAI really was to increase DM workload ... then at least it's an honest SA. I'd rather they give a true answer than decide on the answer and then tell us that was originally the RAI when they wrote it, or tell us "you decide" when they really did have a specific intent when they wrote it.

[ad_hoc]

Edit: but if they really did intend it to be straight out DM picks, the RAI really was to increase DM workload ... then at least it's an honest SA. I'd rather they give a true answer than decide on the answer and then tell us that was originally the RAI when they wrote it, or tell us "you decide" when they really did have a specific intent when they wrote it.

It is in keeping with how 5e is designed.

This is also why the DM picks when Tides of Chaos triggers a wild surge. There are times when a wild surge would be distracting/boring for the table so the DM can choose to not have it happen.

I don't find the workload of picking the creatures to be terribly high. At least after the first time. I actually constrain those spells to only allow a couple creatures for combat purposes as having 8 extra creatures slows down the game too much.

As for the thread:

Given that writing clear and concrete rules for an RPG is impossible, it is better to not try. Trying and failing will just cause frustration and time wasting. This was a big issue for me in 3x. There was a lot of unnecessary time spent in the name of simulation which both didn't add to the game, and ultimately, failed at being a simulation. Shortcuts must be taken, so it is better to write them into the rules to begin with.

[2D8HP]

I enjoy it.

D&D should not be an experiance of "we all hold our hard copies of our books in order to make sure not to be tricked by the DM", rather than "rules are a guidline for the DM and the Players to make a Balanced and Interactive Story".

When I play as a player, I like to sit back, and let my DM handle the rules, forgetting I am playing a game, and getting completelly into his story.

When I DM I want my players to do the same. I don't want my players to interupt me about rules, I'll be the one to handle the mechanics, altering anything on-the spot despite RAW, if I feel it's appropriate.


Preach it Asmotherion!

Can you be my DM?

[Tanarii]

It is in keeping with how 5e is designed.

This is also why the DM picks when Tides of Chaos triggers a wild surge. There are times when a wild surge would be distracting/boring for the table so the DM can choose to not have it happen.Another one that should have been written as "player picks, with DM override". But yes okay, fair enough that it's generally simpler to just write that as "DM picks" and let the DM choose to have the player pick, under constraints, instead.

[ad_hoc]

Another one that should have been written as "player picks, with DM override". But yes okay, fair enough that it's generally simpler to just write that as "DM picks" and let the DM choose to have the player pick, under constraints, instead.

Yeah, some advice given within the rule would have probably been appreciated in this case. Though a rule of 'player picks, with DM override' conflicts with the theme of wild magic. It's difficult to an ability that the wild sorcerer gets to choose to use to produce wild surges. They're not very wild if the character chooses when they happen.

Ultimately the whole table has to work together to make a fun and enjoyable game. If a Wild Sorcerer is at a table with a DM that refuses to trigger it then that is just a symptom of the real problem. Just as with a DM who chooses to have octopuses or sharks summoned.

[LeonBH]

When I DM I want my players to do the same. I don't want my players to interupt me about rules, I'll be the one to handle the mechanics, altering anything on-the spot despite RAW, if I feel it's appropriate.

What would you do if you made a genuine mistake by the RAW though, which could be seen as unfair towards the players? Are your players discouraged from bringing it up?

For example, what if you hypothetically said that Counterspell can't be used during the player's own turn? By RAW it can, but if you made that mistake and your player knows it's a mistake, how would you handle that?

[MadBear]

What would you do if you made a genuine mistake by the RAW though, which could be seen as unfair towards the players? Are your players discouraged from bringing it up?

For example, what if you hypothetically said that Counterspell can't be used during the player's own turn? By RAW it can, but if you made that mistake and your player knows it's a mistake, how would you handle that?

I can speak for my group. In this case we'd roll with it, and double check the correct rules later. This only works if the DM and players trust each other though.

edit: Trying to type a reply on my phone leads to very sloppy misspellings.

[DeadMech]

Con. I like making meaningful decisions as a player. Neither of my first two campaigns of 5e left me feeling like I was making meaningful choices precisely because the DM was on a power trip and choose to invalidate anything I tried to do. Meanwhile he's the biggest powergamer in the group the moment someone else takes up DM'ing.

[ad_hoc]

Con. I like making meaningful decisions as a player. Neither of my first two campaigns of 5e left me feeling like I was making meaningful choices precisely because the DM was on a power trip and choose to invalidate anything I tried to do. Meanwhile he's the biggest powergamer in the group the moment someone else takes up DM'ing.

That doesn't sound like a problem with 5e.

[Luccan]

Yeah, some advice given within the rule would have probably been appreciated in this case. Though a rule of 'player picks, with DM override' conflicts with the theme of wild magic. It's difficult to an ability that the wild sorcerer gets to choose to use to produce wild surges. They're not very wild if the character chooses when they happen.

Ultimately the whole table has to work together to make a fun and enjoyable game. If a Wild Sorcerer is at a table with a DM that refuses to trigger it then that is just a symptom of the real problem. Just as with a DM who chooses to have octopuses or sharks summoned.

Wild Magic Sorcerer has a host of problems, not the least of which is most anecdotal accounts seem to be "I/My DM forgets about my (players) powers that I/they have to activate it". Seriously, I get it's "wild" but it's also a mechanic the player can't influence on a weak subclass. The player having no input on it actively hurts them.

A better solution would have been a d20 roll whenever you cast and on a number less than or equal your Charisma bonus, it activates. At your best natural Charisma, it activates roughly 20% of the time. Yeah, this is an extra roll when you cast, but it both keeps it random and means your unique class feature isn't wholly DM dependent.

[ad_hoc]

Wild Magic Sorcerer has a host of problems, not the least of which is most anecdotal accounts seem to be "I/My DM forgets about my (players) powers that I/they have to activate it". Seriously, I get it's "wild" but it's also a mechanic the player can't influence on a weak subclass. The player having no input on it actively hurts them.

A better solution would have been a d20 roll whenever you cast and on a number less than or equal your Charisma bonus, it activates. At your best natural Charisma, it activates roughly 20% of the time. Yeah, this is an extra roll when you cast, but it both keeps it random and means your unique class feature isn't wholly DM dependent.

Every class is bad with a bad DM. Or to put it another way, the game is bad with a bad DM. Having or not having a specific subclass won't change that.

The Wild Sorcerer is very strong.

Being able to get advantage on any d20 roll up to your spells per day +1 is huge.

And they can absolutely influence it. They choose when to get advantage and they choose when to cast a spell of 1st level or higher. Your suggestion would highly weaken them.

[Rhedyn]

That doesn't sound like a problem with 5e.
Most powergamers whose campaign I've played in tend to be very LN DMs who act merely as an arbiter for the rules rather than a shaper of the story. They create NPCs. They set up the world. They role-play everything and then the rules and players decide how everything works out.

When 5e lacks rules, their love of rules can no longer chain them and they get left to their own devices.

[Sigreid]

I can speak for my group. I'm this case we'd roll with out, and double check the correct rule later. This only works if the DM and players trust each other though.

In our group a player might question at the time. DM either adjusts or the party rolls with it and then we look things up and talk about what future decisions would be.

[KorvinStarmast]

There was also a lot of "if the books don't say you can, then you can't", because they were inexperienced at winging it and didn't have a solid rule to follow. And have been raised in an overly legalistic social setting. (This can be a problem with people who are immersed in computer code thinking: computer code works very much on the basis of "it only works if it is written into the code" ... I've run into this in the workplace IRL)

New DM's need to be mentored, and nurtured IMO, not throw out there with "sink or swim" as their training method. At new tables, however, if the group are in it together, it's a shared growing experience.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, some advice given within the rule would have probably been appreciated in this case. Though a rule of 'player picks, with DM override' conflicts with the theme of wild magic. It's difficult to an ability that the wild sorcerer gets to choose to use to produce wild surges. They're not very wild if the character chooses when they happen.

Ultimately the whole table has to work together to make a fun and enjoyable game. If a Wild Sorcerer is at a table with a DM that refuses to trigger it then that is just a symptom of the real problem. Just as with a DM who chooses to have octopuses or sharks summoned.
The problem is, unlike "summon sharks on land" it's not immediately obvious that a DM is supposed to trigger a Tides of Chaos triggered Wild Surge close to 100% of the time. If they're unaware that a Wild Sorcerer wants Wild Surges to be triggered, that they (and refreshing Tides) are a part of the classes power and needed to bring them up to par, then they can easily be operating under a misunderstanding.

Whereas something like choosing to summon sharks on land should be pretty obvious it's a negative thing to anyone.

And Tides wild surges triggered 100%, or under player control (which should amount to 100%) are plenty wild. There's this table you roll on and everything ...

[Luccan]

Every class is bad with a bad DM. Or to put it another way, the game is bad with a bad DM. Having or not having a specific subclass won't change that.

The Wild Sorcerer is very strong.

Being able to get advantage on any d20 roll up to your spells per day +1 is huge.

And they can absolutely influence it. They choose when to get advantage and they choose when to cast a spell of 1st level or higher. Your suggestion would highly weaken them.

If you have a DM that gives it out more than 20% of the time. The problem is, there's no guideline for how often it's "fair" to activate and give the player access to their ability. I'd be happy to raise it. Maybe add Prof bonus or half prof bonus to the total you roll equal-to-or-under?

Here's the thing, if your DM does it consistently, it isn't random either. And if they don't, that is a terrible way to do random, because that could mean you don't get it in a session (even a good DM can forget).

[Tanarii]

(even a good DM can forget).Especially likely in an open table group of 5+ players, where they either haven't seen the characters before, or they run so many sessions for so many characters it's hard to keep details of everyone's subclass and features/spells in mind.

Which is why my philosophy is:
- Openness that reduces my workload as DM, good
- openness that increases my workload as DM, bad

Same goes for anything regarding rules. Complexity or a lack thereof is judged primarily by how easy it makes running a game.


I'll never run GURP or shadowrun again, for example. I could probably deal with 4e, but no way I'd ever be willing to run 3e again. Conversely I'd run BECMI in a heartbeat if I could find enough willing players at the game stores I run out of.

[Mikal]

For the most part for me, Con.

This is a game. Games require rules and structure. If I'm forced as the DM to make most of them up on my own, then why am I paying WotC?

I can always easily modify an existing ruleset if I find that it's lacking or that it doesn't fit my game.
I can't always easily make rulings on ambiguous rules, especially if they don't come up until actual play, and instead of having time to consider and make the changes, I have to ad hoc it.

With 3e, most discussions were around advanced mechanical questions and combinations, as well as fluff.

Now, at least to me, a lot of threads are "how does this basic rule work?", and that's not super healthy.

[Telok]

And have been raised in an overly legalistic social setting. (This can be a problem with people who are immersed in computer code thinking: computer code works very much on the basis of "it only works if it is written into the code" ... I've run into this in the workplace IRL)

New DM's need to be mentored, and nurtured IMO, not throw out there with "sink or swim" as their training method. At new tables, however, if the group are in it together, it's a shared growing experience.

I'm really uncertain about sweeping generalizations like that. I work in a room full of programmers, professional coding is more about understanding the rules of the code and finding ways to make that accomplish your goal. We've done some twisty things to get code to do what the client needed, even though the code wasn't intended to be able to do that. We also prefer old AD&D for there being fewer rules to get in the way of the game.

But yeah, the books don't have a lot of guidance and help for novice DMs in several places.

[ad_hoc]

Now, at least to me, a lot of threads are "how does this basic rule work?", and that's not super healthy.

I think the vast majority of players find the rules intuitive. One of the design goals was to be able to have the table guess at the rules mid session and likely be right.

It's just when players are looking to stretch them or find loopholes to gain power that being loose causes them problems. I would argue though that the problems lie elsewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the vast majority of players find the rules intuitive. One of the design goals was to be able to have the table guess at the rules mid session and likely be right.

It's just when players are looking to stretch them or find loopholes to gain power that being loose causes them problems. I would argue though that the problems lie elsewhere.

This is my experience as well. My WAG is usually right. The issues stem from (one or more of)

a) loophole hunting
b) old-edition assumptions
c) misreading (exacerbated by pride in not wanting to be wrong).

[Rhedyn]

This is my experience as well. My WAG is usually right. The issues stem from (one or more of)

a) loophole hunting
b) old-edition assumptions
c) misreading (exacerbated by pride in not wanting to be wrong).
My experience is that exasperated players ask the DM if a spell is really this broken, the DM says yes, and then after the encounter is ruined, the spell gets houseruled.

Or a DM getting frustrated that investigation and perception work basically the same in some situations.

I've personally found it difficult to play anything that doesn't run into a poorly written loophole.

[ad_hoc]

This is my experience as well. My WAG is usually right. The issues stem from (one or more of)

a) loophole hunting
b) old-edition assumptions
c) misreading (exacerbated by pride in not wanting to be wrong).

Oh yeah, old edition assumptions are the vast majority of misunderstandings.

[DivisibleByZero]

Oh yeah, old edition assumptions are the vast majority of misunderstandings.

That, and reading things too literally via legalese when the intent is obvious. Those are the top two in my opinion.

[Tanarii]

I think the vast majority of players find the rules intuitive. One of the design goals was to be able to have the table guess at the rules mid session and likely be right.

It's junst when players are looking to stretch them or find loopholes to gain power that being loose causes them problems. I would argue though that the problems lie elsewhere.There's also the point that for any edition since online forums became a thing, there are less questions about how rules interactions work than ever before.

And if a question does come up, the answer is usually "ask your DM". Although it took some of us used to stricter rules ... like me ... a while to realize that.

[ad_hoc]

That, and reading things too literally via legalese when the intent is obvious. Those are the top two in my opinion.

Yeah, though those can go hand in hand as some previous editions were written that way.

I think this board in particular has many problems with 5e because of its history with 3e.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm really uncertain about sweeping generalizations like that. Yeah, fair point, it's not a universal thing, but it's something that I've seen crop up in odd ways in social and work situations. Maybe it can only be "a contributing factor" in "some cases" ... your points are all taken.

Oh yeah, old edition assumptions are the vast majority of misunderstandings.
I made a couple of mistakes like that in our first few months of 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, though those can go hand in hand as some previous editions were written that way.

I think this board in particular has many problems with 5e because of its history with 3e.

Very much agree. There's less OD&D thinking or 4e thinking--3e's the main culprit because it was legalistic and very common.

[Xetheral]

That, and reading things too literally via legalese when the intent is obvious. Those are the top two in my opinion.

Out of curiousity, how do you personally resolve the situation where two people both think the intent is obvious, but they nevertheless disagree on what the intent is? Do you have a fallback resolution method for determining whose opinion regarding the obvious intent is superior? (During play, of course, the DM's opinion is the one that matters. I'm asking in the abstract.)

[DivisibleByZero]

Out of curiousity, how do you personally resolve the situation where two people both think the intent is obvious, but they nevertheless disagree on what the intent is? Do you have a fallback resolution method for determining whose opinion regarding the obvious intent is superior? (During play, of course, the DM's opinion is the one that matters. I'm asking in the abstract.)

I ask myself which makes more sense within the confines of what we already know about the design philosophy of the game. Not a previous edition of the game, but this one. 5e.
One of them usually falls within those confines, and one without.

[Tanarii]

Out of curiousity, how do you personally resolve the situation where two people both think the intent is obvious, but they nevertheless disagree on what the intent is?
I thought you knew: each poster knows his interpretation is the right one. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I ask myself which makes more sense within the confines of what we already know about the design philosophy of the game. Not a previous edition of the game, but this one. 5e.
One of them usually falls within those confines, and one without.

And which one does least violence to the rest of the text. If one requires significant parsing, it's probably wrong. If one requires special pleading (this applies here, but not every other place this construction is used), it's probably wrong. If it requires reading the lack of a prohibition as permission ("It doesn't say I can't!"), it's probably wrong.

These are the same basic canons of construction used in all rule-based texts. All of these are probabilities, not certainties. A couple others, 5e specific:

If it requires a bunch more dice rolled to resolve, it's probably disfavored. If it encourages or allows a character to not adventure, it's probably not intended.

[Xetheral]

I ask myself which makes more sense within the confines of what we already know about the design philosophy of the game. Not a previous edition of the game, but this one. 5e.
One of them usually falls within those confines, and one without.

Presumably the other person is doing the same? If so, that doesn't provide a method for choosing between them if they still disagree.


I thought you knew: each poster knows his interpretation is the right one. :smallbiggrin:

:P

[DivisibleByZero]

And which one does least violence to the rest of the text. If one requires significant parsing, it's probably wrong. If one requires special pleading (this applies here, but not every other place this construction is used), it's probably wrong. If it requires reading the lack of a prohibition as permission ("It doesn't say I can't!"), it's probably wrong.

Precisely. The correct answer usually presents itself if you look at it through these eyes.
If there is still disagreement, then ask your DM.

[JakOfAllTirades]

As for the thread:

Given that writing clear and concrete rules for an RPG is impossible, it is better to not try.

Why should this be "impossible"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why should this be "impossible"?

Because ambiguity is inherent in natural language? Because writing a complete rule set for an open ended game is an exercise in futility? Because even clear writing can be ambiguous to motivated reasoning?

[Xetheral]

And which one does least violence to the rest of the text. If one requires significant parsing, it's probably wrong. If one requires special pleading (this applies here, but not every other place this construction is used), it's probably wrong. If it requires reading the lack of a prohibition as permission ("It doesn't say I can't!"), it's probably wrong.

These are the same basic canons of construction used in all rule-based texts. All of these are probabilities, not certainties. A couple others, 5e specific:

If it requires a bunch more dice rolled to resolve, it's probably disfavored. If it encourages or allows a character to not adventure, it's probably not intended.


Precisely. The correct answer usually presents itself if you look at it through these eyes.
If there is still disagreement, then ask your DM.

So, since you both rely on other analytical principles to resolve conflicts when people disagree over the "obvious intent", is it fair to say that looking to the "obvious intent" is not itself a method for resolving ambiguity in the rules?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, since you both rely on other analytical principles to resolve conflicts when people disagree over the "obvious intent", is it fair to say that looking to the "obvious intent" is not itself a method for resolving ambiguity in the rules?

90+%, the obvious intent solves the problem. The rest of the time, we have to go to other methods. Once we're at "people fixedly disagree", we're in the 10%. We just don't usually worry about the 90% (since the squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that).

Edit: That, or there's nothing to be solved. There can be multiple "right" answers, just for different circumstances. False consistency is false, after all.

[Sigreid]

So, since you both rely on other analytical principles to resolve conflicts when people disagree over the "obvious intent", is it fair to say that looking to the "obvious intent" is not itself a method for resolving ambiguity in the rules?

At that point you either trust the DM to make a reasonable and consistent call or you accept that you don't always get your way. If you don't believe the DM is operating in good faith, you're at the wrong table.

[ad_hoc]

Presumably the other person is doing the same? If so, that doesn't provide a method for choosing between them if they still disagree.



:P

The one that is better for the game is the correct one.

[Asmotherion]

What would you do if you made a genuine mistake by the RAW though, which could be seen as unfair towards the players? Are your players discouraged from bringing it up?

For example, what if you hypothetically said that Counterspell can't be used during the player's own turn? By RAW it can, but if you made that mistake and your player knows it's a mistake, how would you handle that?

As a DM I make sure to remember how RAW works, and have a fair understanding of it. That's my responsibility. However I'm not perfect, and I don't mind a polite reminder if my player genually thinks I forgot how his ability works, but most times I have already calcutated some parameters that would not allow them to do so. In those cases, I simply thank them for reminding me, and continue with my description; If it is affected or not, they are informed in the narrative.

All in all, what I value most is my players to stay focused in their RP instead of getting distracted by mechanics. A good description of an actions is more probable to allow them to do mostly anything than explaining to me the game mechanics with which they do it.

Preach it Asmotherion!

Can you be my DM?
XD Thanks.