D&D 5E How cognizant are you of the rules of the game?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MechaPilot]

Players can certainly play how they want! But I think you can understand that, from someone else's perspective-

Allowing a person to play a cleric with full abilities; and
Allowing them a minimum 16 AC unarmored (equivalent of chain mail); and
Not suffering any of chain mail's effects (because you're not going to be at disadvantage for stealth, it weighs nothing, no minus if your dexterity is good, no strength minimum);
Allowing them to do unarmed strikes for d6 + CHA modifier....

Might seem a little much? To give you something to compare to, if someone actively chooses a monk, then they will likely have an equal or worse AC until level 8 (assuming they take 2 ASIs), and equal to or less damage with their unarmed strike until level 11; and Monks are supposed to be unarmed, unarmored fighters that don't have cleric abilities.

Again, all table are different, and you can play as you want; but if there was no "tax" for that, I would find it hard to play a monk since unarmed and unarmored abilities are no big deal?

The divine grace replacing armor was a direct mechanical replacement. We applied the mechanics of armor and just called it something else.

We still had "weight" from it, we just didn't say that it was weight that was carried. Instead, we said that it was the result of simply not training to carry that weight. So we basically lowered the capacity instead of adding to the amount carried.

We still had the Dex restriction from it, we just didn't say that the armor was inhibiting movement. Instead, we said that it was the reliance on the belief that one's deity will protect you dulling your evasive reflexes.

Disadvantage on stealth? Why can't that be a faint aura that hints at your divine grace and makes you easier to see?


The 1d6 + ability mod attack is sort of the same thing. It was a direct mechanical replacement for the use of weapons and it also meant the loss of proficiency with all weapons. After all, if you're a prophet-like character able to prayerfully touch someone and smite them with divine might why would you even bother training with mortal weapons? That could be offensive to the deity that gifted you with such power.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, and this idea may seem foreign to you, but other people might reasonably believe that there is a colorable difference between (for example) simply calling one thing another (I am calling this "Bastard Sword" a "Long Sword" or even "I am calling this Mountain Dwarf" a "Human") as opposed to changing armor and weapons to unarmed strikes and unarmored defense. Given that those have very specific mechanical meanings in the game.

But as I said, it's your game! If it makes people happy, go for it. I think the pushback was because you described incredulity that anyone would think of this as anything other than concept fluffing, and that you had called it a "concept tax." If I was a DM, I wouldn't allow that as a simple re-skinning, but that's okay- I'm not your DM.

The idea that others have opinions and make assessments that differ from my own is certainly not foreign to me. If you recall, in my first response to Maxperson (which you quoted in a reply to me) I opened with the following:

You're not the first to disagree with me about that, and I doubt you'll be the last. . . .

That said, yes, concept taxes still piss me off. I think you probably don't care for concept taxes either if we're going by my previous definition of a concept tax as "having to permanently spend a limited resource to do something that is no more powerful than something that you can already do". We certainly have different opinions on what things fall into that definition based on different opinions of what is or is not more powerful, but I don't think you would like things that fall into that definition according to your own opinion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MechaPilot]

Fair enough.

 

[Mephista]

I just realized this thread was nearly a month old, and suddenly revived. I'm amused.

 

[Magil]

This seems a good a place as any to ask this...

I just recently started playing lots of games (on roll20) with various DMs. Before this point I had played only with a handful of other people, over a period of several years, and aside from that I've DM'd a campaign for a long time. I have a pretty good grasp of the rules, I think, even though my 5th edition binge just started a few months ago.

I like to know rules. If I want to accomplish a task (or one of my players does), I like to know how the rules say to do it and I'll try to accomplish it using existing rules before I start making up my own stuff. Something I'm starting to notice is other DMs and players don't seem to know (or use) the rules as well as I do. Like, not nearly as well. They'll say something about making a grapple using an unarmed attack, or not being able to use my mount's action to Disengage, then use its full movement, and use my own action to Attack, and I'm a little flabbergasted because I know that's not right, but at the same time I don't want to be that guy who always tries to tell the DM how to run their game.

What's the etiquette here? I don't want to be a "rules lawyer", as it's generally something used in a negative context, but if the DM says something like "you had a random encounter during your long rest, now you don't get the benefit of the long rest", should I be pointing out that the long rest rules specifically say you'd need to be fighting for at minimum 1 hour for our long rest to be interrupted, and a typical encounter is less than a minute? In some situations I imagine DMs are just houseruling things they don't like, but there are also times when I just feel that the DM is genuinely ignorant of the rules (or using the rules for an interaction that were right in a previous edition but are not right in this one).

I suppose part of the problem is that these aren't people I know terribly well, given we're playing over roll20 and I'm "the newbie". But what's the best way to bring these issues up to a DM, as a player? Or should I just be "rolling with the punches", as it were? Maybe other DMs would like to tell me how they'd like players to bring such issues up--because if I were a DM, I would want my players to point out whenever I make a rules-related slip-up. But then there is that negative stigmata of "rules lawyers" which makes me think that others don't feel comfortable being "undermined" as it were by their own players.

 

[werecorpse]

Excellent (off topic) question Magil and the answer (as I suspect you know) isn't straightforward. Here's my view, use it as you see fit.

I Gm about 80-90% of the games in our group and tend to know the rules better than anyone else so I am in this position quite frequently - I usually assume (incorrectly) the GM knows the rules and is choosing another path. If it's not an egregious error I let it go - if it is I might point it out. I am aware that as the default GM my comments can be taken as not letting others have a go/being too controlling so I am less forward than I would otherwise be.

In the games I run where I get a rule wrong it's mostly because either I don't know it and am making up a rule because I just want to keep the game moving or I have plain forgotten it. In both of these circumstances I am more than happy to have the player point out what the rules books say. On rare occasions I will say that I don't agree with or like that rule and wish to go with my own version/interpretation. At that point it's best etiquette to let the game flow and have the discussions after the game (this happens about 30% of the time in my games but we have all known each other for at least 25 years so I put up with their insubordination). Part of the reason it's great to have a player remind you of the rules if you get it wrong is so you know you can rely on someone else to have read the rule book.

My suggestion is that you ask the GM what to do in this instance - helping the GM (and everyone else) learn an unknown rule is a good thing. If they don't want to play that way let it go and raise it after the game.

- now I'm gonna have to go look up that disengaging with a mount

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This seems a good a place as any to ask this...

I just recently started playing lots of games (on roll20) with various DMs. Before this point I had played only with a handful of other people, over a period of several years, and aside from that I've DM'd a campaign for a long time. I have a pretty good grasp of the rules, I think, even though my 5th edition binge just started a few months ago.

I like to know rules. If I want to accomplish a task (or one of my players does), I like to know how the rules say to do it and I'll try to accomplish it using existing rules before I start making up my own stuff. Something I'm starting to notice is other DMs and players don't seem to know (or use) the rules as well as I do. Like, not nearly as well. They'll say something about making a grapple using an unarmed attack, or not being able to use my mount's action to Disengage, then use its full movement, and use my own action to Attack, and I'm a little flabbergasted because I know that's not right, but at the same time I don't want to be that guy who always tries to tell the DM how to run their game.

What's the etiquette here? I don't want to be a "rules lawyer", as it's generally something used in a negative context, but if the DM says something like "you had a random encounter during your long rest, now you don't get the benefit of the long rest", should I be pointing out that the long rest rules specifically say you'd need to be fighting for at minimum 1 hour for our long rest to be interrupted, and a typical encounter is less than a minute? In some situations I imagine DMs are just houseruling things they don't like, but there are also times when I just feel that the DM is genuinely ignorant of the rules (or using the rules for an interaction that were right in a previous edition but are not right in this one).

I suppose part of the problem is that these aren't people I know terribly well, given we're playing over roll20 and I'm "the newbie". But what's the best way to bring these issues up to a DM, as a player? Or should I just be "rolling with the punches", as it were? Maybe other DMs would like to tell me how they'd like players to bring such issues up--because if I were a DM, I would want my players to point out whenever I make a rules-related slip-up. But then there is that negative stigmata of "rules lawyers" which makes me think that others don't feel comfortable being "undermined" as it were by their own players.

My suggestion:

"Hey, I noticed that you've done some things differently than the 5e rules I read. Are we using some house rules, or do I just spend way too much time scouring the books? I don't care either way, I'm just more comfortable if I know what's going on."

If they say, "Yeah, I have some house rules/like to rule some things on the fly..." then you know.

If they say, "To be honest, I haven't really memorized the books, so I just kind of go with what makes sense," I might respond with:

"Yeah, it's a pretty new system for all of us. If I notice something is going differently than the rules, would you like me to bring it up, or just keep my mouth shut?"

That ought to be enough to get things worked out in most situations without upsetting the DM. The main goal is to actually find out what the DM is doing (not specifics, just in general) and find out what he's okay with you doing.

Personally, when I'm the DM I like people to bring up rules corrections to me 99% of the time. In this particular edition, I'm more familiar with the rules than anyone else, because I have spend all that time scouring the books. So it usually isn't needed. But occasionally I learn something new about the rules from one of my knowledgeable players.