rules RAW vs RAI vs the almighty DM RING.

[thedmring]

So I've been browsing this forum for a while and the conversations interest me. You guys seemed so focused on rules. To me I am the DM I have the ring. Should I not be allowed to change the rules to suite the campaign? For example, I'll use something I read earlier, though I don't remember the thread, a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10 a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage. I say it should be denied. He has no where to go so he takes the damage. To me I don't care what the rules say. It hits. Rules are meant as a guideline but not the be all end all. IF RAW was perfect why else would so many people house rule stuff?

My two cents.

[DragonSinged]

Well, I think on the forums people try to follow RAW as much as possible because you can't account for DM decisions in a forum post, and what one person thinks is obviously RAI might not be so obvious to someone else.

At the table? Yeah, I don't think many people will argue against the DM having the final say - in my opinion, that's with the caveat that the players don't hate every one of the DM's decisions, and leave the game. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Regarding the Rogue's evasion -
Does it necessarily make sense that a Rogue can evade a fireball? Maybe, maybe not, depending on circumstance, but as far as the rules are concerned, by saying that the Rogue can't evade it, even though his class feature says that he can, you're seriously nerfing a class feature of that character, in a way that may or may not result in character death. This sort of thing, in my opinion, definitely needs to be discussed with the player of that Rogue before it ever comes up during a session. I know that if I was playing a Rogue, and my DM hadn't mentioned this to me ahead of time, and then I get hit with a fireball and she says, "Nope, sorry, Evasion doesn't work because it doesn't make sense, you take full damage" I'd be pretty choked.

[eggynack]

RAW isn't perfect, and there are a lot of examples beyond the one you've posted. You have the prerogative, as the DM, to change the rules as you see fit, though I would advise making those changes sparingly, and making clear what you're changing before the game begins, if possible. However, RAW is necessary in the context of online discussion. I may have some personal RAI, and someone else might have a different RAI, and some third person might play in a game that's nothing but houserules. It's just not much to go on.

There needs to be some central set of rules to work off of, at least in a vacuum, lest we end up with a mass of people, all talking in different languages. That central set of rules is the RAW, and unless someone explicitly states in a thread that the RAW is being altered in a particular way, we assume that things are as they are. As I've been known to say, RAI is only useful when it's less ambiguous than RAW, and it's rarely less ambiguous than RAW. This is not one of those cases, as the RAW is very clear with regards to a rogue in a box. RAW isn't perfect, but it's really all we have, in the end.

[ryu]

Well, I think on the forums people try to follow RAW as much as possible because you can't account for DM decisions in a forum post, and what one person thinks is obviously RAI might not be so obvious to someone else.

At the table? Yeah, I don't think many people will argue against the DM having the final say - in my opinion, that's with the caveat that the players don't hate every one of the DM's decisions, and leave the game. :smallbiggrin:

In other words the DM only has power in so much as the players agree to their decisions. Also The actual evasion doesn't have the rogue actually leaving his square at any point. Therefore it never had reason for an arbitrary space limitation to begin with. I think the best explanation involved uneven explosions and going for the least forceful points. It even went so far as to provide a visual representation based on Tohou.

[Actana]

RAW is the common ground for people to start a discussion on, which was already addressed. It also colors people's expectations in-game too. For example, in that 10x10x10 room rogue fireball example, if I were the rogue I might expect Evasion to work in the room if nothing prior had been said, because that's how the rules work. If I knew there was a fireball coming inside the room, I might go into it regardless, confident I'd be able to evade it with Evasion, a class ability specifically made for evading attacks like that. And then the GM says it hits regardless and I take full damage, possibly dying at the same time, you could bet I'd feel cheated.

Things like this need to be communicated beforehand in-game. And on a forum it's nearly impossible to communicate every single GM ruling before making every post, so you see a lot more RAW discussion, with occasional RAI which usually comes from the intended use from the devs (often with actual quotes being possible), not the people who run individual games unless the issue is being actively discussed how it should work.

[Sir Chuckles]

You have to remember that the DM is not almighty.

No matter how much fuss over the rules the DM has, the players can make every single one of his decisions worthless by standing up and walking away. This is why the DM has the second to last word, not the final.
What, exactly, the players stand up and walk away over is incredibly subjective, but it can happen.

I'd be pretty miffed you up and said "no evasion", if it was a spur of the moment issue. I've actually had a DM do that to me, though in a different scenario. I made my reflex against a group of Vrocks and their Dance of Ruin and my DM went all "You just dodged a massive wave of 20d6 energy with no harm! That's stupid!" After I shrugged, he said "You take 1 damage, I won't be that mean. 1 damage for my self-satisfaction and sanity."
You see, it wasn't that bad, because it was 1 damage on a Rogue 4/Sorcerer 12 Afflicted Weretiger-Human.

As DragonSinged said, you can't account for DM discretion in a forum post, and we can't put 87 asterisks on every statement we make.

[ryu]

Or rather that is a physical possibility, but nobody here is going to bother going quite that far with it.

[Zanos]

Changing things from how they're printed or how players expect them to work to their disadvantage on the fly is regarded as bad form. If players were informed prior than you can house-rule as you please. I might still disagree with you, but at least you're being reasonable. But if you said "no evasion" in the middle of a session, then players have every right to be irritated.

Also, there are many ways you can explain things that don't seem to make sense at first glance. Maybe the rogue, being quicker and more agile than his friends, manages to dive under the fireball so he takes minimal damage. Maybe there's a small foxhole he dropped into and popped back out of that caused the explosion to pass over him. The rules are intentionally silent on many of these issues so you can roleplay them as you please. I guess you can still say it doesn't make sense or whatever, but you better not drop that on a player in the middle of a session. Make sure they understand you hate rogues before having them roll one.

[TiaC]

One thing to remember is that when the players know you are changing rules it opens the door to accusations of unfairness. Even if your decisions are impartial, it can be easy for a player to feel like they aren't.

Some good GM advice I came across on this topic recently:

There are some situations where you ought to follow the rules carefully - not just because they're good rules, but because the players are counting on you to be impartial. Any time a character might die permanently or be evicted from the campaign, make sure that the player can do anything that the rules allow, and knows that you are not sending him unfairly to death.


Some players are rule lawyers. They know the rules better than you do, and use every sentence to their advantage. It's dreadfully annoying. Unfortunately, they have a good point. The rules (as written, or as you have modified them) are all they have to go on. If the rules aren't solid, then all your players are lost and have every right to be upset with you.

As a player, the rules are all I have to make decisions by. When you change them without warning, I will have made decisions using different physics than the rest of the world.

[HammeredWharf]

It's all about expectations. If your players expect to play by the rules, they'll be pissed about Evasion not working and rule 0 doesn't help with that. If your players expect to play a game that's realistic, I'd tell them to play another game, because D&D is anything but realistic. In D&D a Rogue can evade a 200 feet wide explosion on a featureless plain because he's so ninja, a level 8 Barbarian can survive falling from the stratosphere because he's that angry and a Hurking Hurler can throw mountains because he's awesome. "B-but you can't lift mountains in real life!" True, but that's why you play D&D and not Secretaries & Coffee.

[BWR]

True, but that's why you play D&D and not Secretaries & Coffee.

You can always play Existential Crisis and Dragons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137Ei0C3Vdg).

[Ravens_cry]

As a player, the rules are all I have to make decisions by. When you change them without warning, I will have made decisions using different physics than the rest of the world.
That's a very good point. If you make a ruling, stick to it. Write it down even, because consistency is the only way players can make informed decisions. Like in Common Law, rulings set precedent.

[ryu]

You can always play Existential Crisis and Dragons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137Ei0C3Vdg).

I'd play it.

[shadowseve]

You can always play Existential Crisis and Dragons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137Ei0C3Vdg).


That was kinda funny.

[Tokiko Mima]

So I've been browsing this forum for a while and the conversations interest me. You guys seemed so focused on rules. To me I am the DM I have the ring. Should I not be allowed to change the rules to suite the campaign? For example, I'll use something I read earlier, though I don't remember the thread, a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10 a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage. I say it should be denied. He has no where to go so he takes the damage. To me I don't care what the rules say. It hits. Rules are meant as a guideline but not the be all end all. IF RAW was perfect why else would so many people house rule stuff?

My two cents.

It would be impossible to take into account every possible house rule. The only immutable authority we have on what the rules are is what the rules say.

Individual DMs can run their games however they like: they don't have to obey the rules. But I think it's a sign of a lazy DM to make blanket sweeping changes to rules without taking the time to (A) know what the actual rule is so they can (B) understand the implications of what they are changing.

For example, you state that a rogue should not be able to escape a 10'x10'x10' fireball. Are you aware that that comprises only four 5' squares of area? Even a 5' step would be enough movement to get out of that radius safely. Evasion is meant to represent a rogues quick reflexes and thinking, beyond the ken of their adventuring peers. Maybe they pop behind a rock, or just get lucky that the explosive force is happens not to be very bad in their direction. Maybe the rogue has a lucky rabbits foot that sometimes absorbs magic? There are infinite rationalizations possible.

The implications are that you have effectively house ruled Evasion into not working in most cases. This gives a tremendous advantage to classes like DFAs who can now guarantee that their damage will always hit for at least partial damage, and there is now one less reason to select classes with Evasion.

[HighWater]

So I've been browsing this forum for a while and the conversations interest me. You guys seemed so focused on rules. To me I am the DM I have the ring. Should I not be allowed to change the rules to suite the campaign? For example, I'll use something I read earlier, though I don't remember the thread, a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10 a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage. I say it should be denied. He has no where to go so he takes the damage. To me I don't care what the rules say. It hits. Rules are meant as a guideline but not the be all end all. IF RAW was perfect why else would so many people house rule stuff?

My two cents.

Remember that "a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10" is in no way less ridiculous "In Real Life" than "a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage".
The spell may be Magic and therefore "spell-like" (it technically is a spell), but a Rogue's Evasion is "Extraordinary (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Special_Abilities_Overview)", meaning that he simply gets to break the laws of physics "just because".
DnD is a game of fantasy and imagination. It is a game of characters who can snap the laws of physics with their bare hands (or bear-hands if they want to). Also, DnD physics only vaguely resembles Real World Physics. Don't shoot the mundanes because a guy at the gym (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy) couldn't do what they do. Nobody can do what the magic-users can do either!

As for the "You always discuss RAW". Yes "we" always discuss RAW, because that's the only common ground. We start discussing RAI when RAW seems to be making less sence than usual, or just doesn't function mechanically. (See the threads on RAW dysfunction (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5)) Nobody will say in their right mind that RAW is perfect. Heck, in most cases people aren't even aware of some of their houserules not being RAW. We can only start discussing DM-shenanigans whenever DM-shenanigans are offered for discussion. It is impossible to guess the DM-shenanigans of DMs that we have no information on, so until such information is provided, we will be massively quiet on the subject.

You can always try to subvert or alter the ruleset of D&D (3.5 or other), in fact, most people do this as 100% RAW is not 100% functional. If your players are not aware of your alterations before they see play and those alterarions negatively impact their survival-chances, they can call shenanigans with just cause: they thought the rules in the book were the rules to be followed and adjusted their tactics accordingly. Be careful when you apply "common sense" or "realism" in DnD. DnD is not a game of realism, nor common sense. It's a game of fantasy. You may be the All-Powerful DM, but it greatly helps if you at least explain your reasoning to the players, and listen to their counterpoints as well. The DM-Ring doesn't trump "nobody wants to play with you anymore".

[thedmring]

considering the players consist of my boyfriend, and his friends, and I'm usually dressed almost half naked I've heard no complaints so far.:smallbiggrin:

yes I am a girl I picked the wrong avatar on creation.

[DragonSinged]

considering the players consist of my boyfriend, and his friends, and I'm usually dressed almost half naked I've heard no complaints so far.:smallbiggrin:

yes I am a girl I picked the wrong avatar on creation.

So what you're saying is that RAW is not actually all that important because you don't wear much clothing?
I suppose that's an argument I haven't heard before on this particular topic.
I'm glad we cleared things up here, then.

[Agamemmnoth]

considering the players consist of my boyfriend, and his friends, and I'm usually dressed almost half naked I've heard no complaints so far.:smallbiggrin:

yes I am a girl I picked the wrong avatar on creation.

I'm game.:smallbiggrin:

[thedmring]

So what you're saying is that RAW is not actually all that important because you don't wear much clothing?
I suppose that's an argument I haven't heard before on this particular topic.
I'm glad we cleared things up here, then.


Wow it was a joke :smallbiggrin:. Can't a girl have a little fun? :smallbiggrin: Guys of course I discuss stuff with my players first. I just tend to add a little more reality and common sense into the game is all. I guess I came off a liitle harsh; then again I like seeing peoples reactions. My point was I guess we're a little more lose on the rules than here. I figured most people weren't so tight.

[Kamin_Majere]

considering the players consist of my boyfriend, and his friends, and I'm usually dressed almost half naked I've heard no complaints so far.:smallbiggrin:

yes I am a girl I picked the wrong avatar on creation.

Your DM ring sounds MUCH different than mine :smalleek:

But as to RAW vs RAI vs DM choice... that will be different in most every group. I like playing RAW, but I'm quite content tossing it out for my players to have something creative if it fits their character or it fits a thematic element i'm trying to portray. But saying that my players know that I do this so it isn't generally a shock to them.

I give my players a lot of latitude, but I expect the same courtesy from them trying to weave a story that they find interesting and engaging.

But yeah on forums and net discussions you kinda have to go by RAW (except where it breaks) because no DM will be the same as another so it would be next to impossible to have any meaningful discussion on a subject with out knowing all the differences

[thedmring]

Your DM ring sounds MUCH different than mine :smalleek:

But as to RAW vs RAI vs DM choice... that will be different in most every group. I like playing RAW, but I'm quite content tossing it out for my players to have something creative if it fits their character or it fits a thematic element i'm trying to portray. But saying that my players know that I do this so it isn't generally a shock to them.

I give my players a lot of latitude, but I expect the same courtesy from them trying to weave a story that they find interesting and engaging.

But yeah on forums and net discussions you kinda have to go by RAW (except where it breaks) because no DM will be the same as another so it would be next to impossible to have any meaningful discussion on a subject with out knowing all the differences

I guess you have a point "batman" :smallbiggrin: We're a pretty laid back kinda bunch anyways, we usually have a few drinks, kill stuff and laugh. But we do use the rules I guess more loosely than what some do here.

[Ansem]

So I've been browsing this forum for a while and the conversations interest me. You guys seemed so focused on rules. To me I am the DM I have the ring. Should I not be allowed to change the rules to suite the campaign? For example, I'll use something I read earlier, though I don't remember the thread, a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10 a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage. I say it should be denied. He has no where to go so he takes the damage. To me I don't care what the rules say. It hits. Rules are meant as a guideline but not the be all end all. IF RAW was perfect why else would so many people house rule stuff?

My two cents.
Then beforehand houserule that Evasion does as you intend to and everyone agrees on it.
Else you'll be one of those scrubs that changes rules on the fly just to annoy his players.
Like I said in the same topic, it's 100% fair that things are according to the rules unless agreed upon otherwise, so you can't pull off those kind of pranks.
Because it's completely fair players are expected that things function as they function.

[HighWater]

Wow it was a joke :smallbiggrin:. Can't a girl have a little fun? :smallbiggrin: Guys of course I discuss stuff with my players first. I just tend to add a little more reality and common sense into the game is all. I guess I came off a liitle harsh; then again I like seeing peoples reactions. My point was I guess we're a little more lose on the rules than here. I figured most people weren't so tight.

Jokes are pretty hard to spot in forum posts. The custom on this board is to turn your text blue when you're being sarcastic/ironic or otherwise not serious.

Something like this:

It sure makes a great deal of common sense and is definitely realistic that a character in a make-believe game can summon up a great ball of exploding fire at his whim, but some superhuman who specialises in not getting hit, managing to avoid it in a closed off room? That's just ridiculous.

You're free to add "common sense" and "realism" to the game, just be aware that it's a game of make-believe, where common sense just doesn't necessarely apply (there is no ACCELERATION in DnD, for instance, if you start applying the "realism" and "common sense" implications of that, your world will be unplayable).
Just be careful not to strip characters of powers without giving anything in return, especially characters that are deemed pretty weak to begin with (such as the Rogue), when instead you can just make up a fluff-explanation that allows the Rogue to avoid damage on a succesful save: he winked out of existence at the precise time the fireball went off, and then came back, because he's just THAT good at dodging, he can dodge reality! Doesn't seem too ridiculous in a game where spellcasters can alter reality and make it their slave...

[Curmudgeon]

a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10 a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage. I say it should be denied. He has no where to go so he takes the damage.
The problem with this reasoning is that Fireball includes a proviso that it doesn't actually fill the whole space: a Reflex save for half damage. Given that the effect is already unevenly distributed, Evasion just lets the Rogue move within the space as the Fireball blooms to avoid even more (all) of the effect.

Everyone can avoid half the damage from Fireball (or not, depending on the save).
A Rogue can avoid all of the effect because they're using Evasion (or not, depending on the save).

You can end up with the Rogue taking the full damage while others take only half the amount. The dice determine how successful everyone (whether practiced in evading or not) is at flinching out of the way of the blast.

[torrasque666]

Just be careful not to strip characters of powers without giving anything in return, especially characters that are deemed pretty weak to begin with (such as the Rogue), when instead you can just make up a fluff-explanation that allows the Rogue to avoid damage on a succesful save: he winked out of existence at the precise time the fireball went off, and then came back, because he's just THAT good at dodging, he can dodge reality! Doesn't seem too ridiculous in a game where spellcasters can alter reality and make it their slave...

Or he manipulates his weapon so quickly(due to, ya know that massive Dex rogues build off of) that he creates a vacuum that prevents the fireball from hitting him.

[Kamin_Majere]

I guess you have a point "batman" :smallbiggrin: We're a pretty laid back kinda bunch anyways, we usually have a few drinks, kill stuff and laugh. But we do use the rules I guess more loosely than what some do here.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing, the whole point of playing is to have fun. So if you and your group enjoy playing fast and loose with the rulings then it works for you perfectly. So long as the bending is known about before hand then there usually isn't a big problem on either side of the screen I've found.

But yeah on forums with out prior knowledge of how and why you bend/break certain rules everyone else can only really go by the RAW of the mechanics. But giving more background to the ruling you use and the situations where its applicable its easily possible to discuss just about anything.


Or he manipulates his weapon so quickly(due to, ya know that massive Dex rogues build off of) that he creates a vacuum that prevents the fireball from hitting him.
From here on I shall now allow rouges to use jazz hands around enemies faces to apply Evasion based vacuum damage... because Jazz Hands :smalltongue:

[Windstorm]

As others have said, houseruling games is perfectly fine and acceptable, however please please please don't do it in the name of "balance", do it because it fits a theme or amplifies the fun. balance is usually evoked as an excuse to ban or change something you don't like or don't fully understand.

for me personally, I have a short checklist whenever I consider houseruling something:

Why am I wanting to houserule this?
does it increase the fun being had by the group, even if it is against current known rules? (rule of cool is usually my style)
If I make this change, what impacts does it have based on my knowledge of the game system?
what NPCs that I have in the world can make use of this? :smallamused:
make sure its written down in my rulings list so as to be consistently observed.


so far the actual number of cases where I've had to houserule anything is minimal, however my players know that if they want to rule of cool something, they're able to ask about it but it applies to the whole game world, even NPCs.

[Gemini476]

As others have said, the reason that we focus on RAW rather than houserules and RAI and such is because everyone plays it differently.

If someone asks whether or not Vampires are viable, it wouldn't be right for me to say "no they are not, because if you go outside then you get vaporized at midnight because of Ragnorra's Greater Turning and you can't get any spawn because Atropus zombifies corpses the instant they hit the ground." It would, however, be alright for me to say "no, Vampires are not viable because LA+8 is painful."

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about realism in D&D. A DC 30 Jump check would let you beat the world record, for instance, and I could make a build in core that could beat that at level one.
If he manages to avoid the fireball, simply assume that there was some reason for that - perhaps the blast was weaker in his direction, and he managed to shield himself with his clothing? Perhaps there was some hole in the ground, or a rock that deflected the blast? Perhaps, since a Fireball is a sphere rather than a cube, he simply avoided it by being in the one-third or so of his square that wasn't affected?

You should always make all of the important house-rules obvious before you start the game. If the Cleric does not know that he has a 20% chance of failing to prepare spells, or the Wizard does not know that Conjuration(Calling, binding, and teleportation) spells do not function? They might not have made those characters if they were aware of those limits, because those are things that you should know before you start! A Rogue should similarly be aware of whether or not Evasion works and who exactly is immune to Sneak Attack, and a Ranger should be told how his Animal Companion will be handled.

[Togo]

considering the players consist of my boyfriend, and his friends, and I'm usually dressed almost half naked I've heard no complaints so far.:smallbiggrin:

yes I am a girl I picked the wrong avatar on creation.

You're certainly correct that maintaining the right atmosphere is more important than sticking to the rules. This is a very rules heavy forum, in part because it's much much easier to discuss things if there is something solid and immutable to discuss.

I frequently run diceless D&D, eitehr literally a game that uses the themes and powers from D&D but no dice rolls, or just a game session that doesn't involve any combat or social skills, and thus doesn't need any dice. It works fine with the right group.

[Telonius]

RAW is the common ground for people to start a discussion on, which was already addressed. It also colors people's expectations in-game too. For example, in that 10x10x10 room rogue fireball example, if I were the rogue I might expect Evasion to work in the room if nothing prior had been said, because that's how the rules work. If I knew there was a fireball coming inside the room, I might go into it regardless, confident I'd be able to evade it with Evasion, a class ability specifically made for evading attacks like that. And then the GM says it hits regardless and I take full damage, possibly dying at the same time, you could bet I'd feel cheated.

Things like this need to be communicated beforehand in-game. And on a forum it's nearly impossible to communicate every single GM ruling before making every post, so you see a lot more RAW discussion, with occasional RAI which usually comes from the intended use from the devs (often with actual quotes being possible), not the people who run individual games unless the issue is being actively discussed how it should work.

This is pretty much THE reason people on the boards are so rules-focused. It is (or at least, should be) assumed that any DM can make any houserule for whatever reason they want. I have a whole sheet of them myself. But I can't expect every poster to know what they all are.

If somebody posts, "I'm playing a [Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Truenamer, etc], do you have any tips?" - unless they tell us what the DM's going to allow or shoot down, all we have to go on is the rules as they're written. We don't know whether or not the DM is fond of stealing spellbooks and component pouches, or has banned Divine Metamagic and moved Divine Power to the War domain only, or that he's giving monks full BAB, or has somehow fixed Truenamer so it's useful. Those are local conditions that general advice can't address.

[Shining Wrath]

About Evasion - in a world where someone can take a pinch of guano, mutter and wave their hand, and fill a 10' x 10' x 10' room with flame, and creatures with a completely inappropriate ratio of wingspan to body mass can not only fly but breathe forth bolts of electricity, then a whole lot of things that don't make sense in our world, make sense.

Including the ability of someone with the agility of an Olympic gymnast whose life has depended, repeatedly, on their ability to twist their bodies out of harm's way, to somehow someway slip in between the "waves" of fire from the fireball.

In general about RAW, RAI, and DM fiat.

There's only one way a DM can "cheat". And that's to let your players build characters, and invest a lot of time and thought into those characters, and then you change RAW in a way that breaks those characters. Now different people have different ideas on exactly what RAW means; see many vigorous debates hereabout. The wise player discusses their choices in advance with the DM. But taking away Evasion without notice would, IMNHO, cheat.

[Eldest]

considering the players consist of my boyfriend, and his friends, and I'm usually dressed almost half naked I've heard no complaints so far.:smallbiggrin:

yes I am a girl I picked the wrong avatar on creation.

You are able to switch your picture in the My Profile tab.

I agree with everyone else, as fireball isn't "suddenly a uniform ball of flame appears". It is an explosion. Explosions move, really quickly. And if you're quick you can avoid some of the damage (reflex for half). And if you're really quick you can avoid all of it, while standing within the explosion all the time. That's what evasion does.

[Red Fel]

Echoing what others have said:

It is within the discretion of the DM to inform the group that certain rules will be changed or omitted. Lots of tables operate with house rules, and that's fine. However, for the sake of table cohesion, it behooves a DM not to change any rules once play has begun. Pulling the rug out from under a player by informing them that their abilities no longer work may be the prerogative of a DM, but it's hardly appropriate and certainly not a good sign.

If you want your campaign about wizards and dragons and walking, talking skeletons to be realistic, be upfront with your players about it. Tell them that certain abilities won't work, or that their operation has changed, and be sure to list what has changed and how explicitly. Otherwise, you're saving a very nasty surprise for an unsuspecting player who may well have built his character around a particular mechanic or ability, only to find it doesn't function as he expected.

And be careful with comments like "I like seeing peoples reactions." It comes across as a bit provocative.

[Firechanter]

Basically what Shining Wrath has said. What we have here is a typical case of Magic/Mundane Disconnect, which some people are prone to. Anything is fair dinkum if only you say "it's magic", but woe betide the poor sod whose abilities are not defined as magic. That's exactly the mindset that leads to the phrase "mundanes can't have nice things".

So long story short: leave the rogue alone. It's not exactly a powerful class to begin with, and taking away one of their few abilities is just adding insult to injury.

[neonchameleon]

So I've been browsing this forum for a while and the conversations interest me. You guys seemed so focused on rules. To me I am the DM I have the ring. Should I not be allowed to change the rules to suite the campaign? For example, I'll use something I read earlier, though I don't remember the thread, a sorcerer fires a fireball into a 10x10x10 a rogues evasion, by raw should allow him to avoid the damage. I say it should be denied. He has no where to go so he takes the damage. To me I don't care what the rules say. It hits. Rules are meant as a guideline but not the be all end all. IF RAW was perfect why else would so many people house rule stuff?

My two cents.

My two pennies:

Freeform is a perfectly fine way to play. Houserules are fine. But every time you houserule something in the heat (as opposed to at the outset or even between sessions) you are literally telling the PCs that they can not trust even their knowledge of the way the world works. You are shattering their immersion, and destroying any ability they have to plan. Because the actually predictable parts of the world ... aren't. And it's not as if the players have much to go on in the first place. They have a DM who can communicate at about the same rate (and normally with less clarity - they aren't professionals) than a voiceover artist can communicate to a blind man. And they have the rules.

When you take the consistency of the rules away from them, in favour of a petty concern about "realism" in a world with dragons and where bat guano, magic words, and the right person, can lead to a fireball, and a naked fighter can be hit as hard as possible by an orc with an axe (including a critical hit) and still fight on with no penalty, you are destroying their immersion. And also their understanding of the game world, and their trust in you as impartial. Do this a lot and you'll wreck the game far more than any amount of allowing evasion to work as written would.

RAW is not perfect. But like Money For Free Parking in Monopoly, most house rules just make things worse. (Especially house rules for balance - to do that you need to really understand the game first and most people don't). And changing the game in the middle of the session always harms the game although there are times where it is necessary. Changing rules at the start of the game in a way that is agreed on by all is much better. (And the Rogue certainly doesn't need a nerf).

Which doesn't mean laid back, no one takes it seriously is a bad way to play D&D. Merely that 3.X is a bad set of rules for this style.