Rules as Cool, Rules as Fun, and Rules as Logic

[RickAllison]

Beat you to it, Rusty :smalltongue:

This thread is for discussing rulings by the community that care little for what the RAW and RAI say, but what interests that table. Any rulings that are put up here are free to be discussed and debated for balance and verisimilitude purposes so that others looking for fun rules to add can use this thread as a reference. Towards that purpose, I would like to set up some terminology that posters can use (although they certainly don't have to) to describe their rulings:

Rules as Cool/Rules as Fun: Lots of overlap between these two, but this has to do with what makes the game interesting for your table. Generally the distinction is just whether its purpose is to add flair and interest or fun, which is a very blurry line. Rule of Cool might be tying a rope to a trident to climb up to a flying dragon, while Rule of Fun might be allowing Snilloc's Snowball Swarm to create actual snowballs just to use for recreation.

Rules as Logic: Anything that is relying on taking existing rules and extending those with other rules and/or the rules of our universe out to logical conclusions. Things like using water to spread a grease fire, for example.

So here we go!

Repeating Hand Crossbows (RAL from the repeating crossbow in OotA): Hand crossbow that is fitted with a cartridge that can hold up to three crossbow bolts. This weapon is similar to a hand crossbow except that it has half the range (15/60 feet) and doesn't have the loading property. It automatically reloads after firing until it runs out of ammunition. Reloading the cartridge takes an action. Price is changed to 125 gp and weighs 5 pounds.

Tridents have advantage on any attempts to Disarm an opponent using the rules in the DMG.

[mgshamster]

RAF: you can use a trident/spear at the same time as a net using the two weapon fighting rules.

RAF: You can two-weapon fight with one hand crossbow and a melee weapon. Or dual wield hand crossbows.

[Easy_Lee]

What about balance and verisimilitude? Seems to me that those are the main two competing factors when designing something new. For example: guns in D&D. Do we go with verisimilitude and have them be better than other weapons, or balance and treat them as bows?

[RickAllison]

What about balance and verisimilitude? Seems to me that those are the main two competing factors when designing something new. For example: guns in D&D. Do we go with verisimilitude and have them be better than other weapons, or balance and treat them as bows?

I usually have them treated as either gnomish contraptions that don't work as well as they really should or otherwise they are weaker than normal. For example, the gunpowder substitute may be more readily ignited (so why they are able to sustain more rapid fire by using cartridges), but deliver less bang for the buck (why they are same damage and range as arrows).

I just realized I forgot to add that part to the first post, thanks!

[R.Shackleford]

Beat you to it, Rusty :smalltongue:

This thread is for discussing rulings by the community that care little for what the RAW and RAI say, but what interests that table. Any rulings that are put up here are free to be discussed and debated for balance and verisimilitude purposes so that others looking for fun rules to add can use this thread as a reference. Towards that purpose, I would like to set up some terminology that posters can use (although they certainly don't have to) to describe their rulings:

Rules as Cool/Rules as Fun: Lots of overlap between these two, but this has to do with what makes the game interesting for your table. Generally the distinction is just whether its purpose is to add flair and interest or fun, which is a very blurry line. Rule of Cool might be tying a rope to a trident to climb up to a flying dragon, while Rule of Fun might be allowing Snilloc's Snowball Swarm to create actual snowballs just to use for recreation.

Rules as Logic: Anything that is relying on taking existing rules and extending those with other rules and/or the rules of our universe out to logical conclusions. Things like using water to spread a grease fire, for example.

So here we go!

Repeating Hand Crossbows (RAL from the repeating crossbow in OotA): Hand crossbow that is fitted with a cartridge that can hold up to three crossbow bolts. This weapon is similar to a hand crossbow except that it has half the range (15/60 feet) and doesn't have the loading property. It automatically reloads after firing until it runs out of ammunition. Reloading the cartridge takes an action. Price is changed to 125 gp and weighs 5 pounds.

Tridents have advantage on any attempts to Disarm an opponent using the rules in the DMG.

Oh, I'm busy working on my Final Fantasy 5e Hack (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r1JTO9GF), glad you started this tho. I'll look into it a bit more later.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Verisimilitude was what popped into my head as well, but mostly I'm thinking it's not very useful to distinguish - beyond RAW and RAI - between all the reasons people might rule, or house rule, or skip ruling, or fudge, or freewheel. If we need to acronymize the complementary set to RAW/RAI, a single one should do. Rules As Preference or something.

[RickAllison]

Verisimilitude was what popped into my head as well, but mostly I'm thinking it's not very useful to distinguish - beyond RAW and RAI - between all the reasons people might rule, or house rule, or skip ruling, or fudge, or freewheel. If we need to acronymize the complementary set to RAW/RAI, a single one should do. Rules As Preference or something.

I think we are getting bogged down in the technicalities of the discussion. Kind of the point of the thread is because I'm tired of rules discussions just going back and forth about whether something is allowed or not, and instead get to the fun part of rules and rulings. Making exact rules about acronyms seems... antithetical.

[Easy_Lee]

Oh, I'm busy working on my Final Fantasy 5e Hack (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r1JTO9GF), glad you started this tho. I'll look into it a bit more later.

That hack looks pretty good, so far. I can tell it's a WIP, but I like what I see. One thing, though: did you change the black belt into a berserker?

[Tanarii]

RAF: You can two-weapon fight with one hand crossbow and a melee weapon. Or dual wield hand crossbows.Personally I assumed the former was the entire point of Crossbow Expert when I first read it. Because Drow.

So yeah, sounds like a great RAF ruling for Crossbow Expert. Or just straight up allowing it feat free in the right flavor of campaign.

[RickAllison]

Personally I assumed the former was the entire point of Crossbow Expert when I first read it. Because Drow.

So yeah, sounds like a great RAF ruling for Crossbow Expert. Or just straight up allowing it feat free in the right flavor of campaign.

Actually dual-wielding hand crossbows was the main reason I pulled out the repeater in the OP. Doesn't help out fighters (who should instead maybe be using the heavy crossbow variant!), but it is great for rogues or other characters with a more limited number of attacks.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think we are getting bogged down in the technicalities of the discussion. Kind of the point of the thread is because I'm tired of rules discussions just going back and forth about whether something is allowed or not, and instead get to the fun part of rules and rulings. Making exact rules about acronyms seems... antithetical.

It seemed like that's what you were doing with your outline above. Here's how I see it: If people care about the shared context, they have no choice but to talk RAW/RAI. If people don't care about the shared context, all they need is a signal that they're not talking RAW/RAI. That's not putting rules on acronyms, it's just what I think is the best, simplest way to facilitate the communication you want. If you think it's better to maintain further distinctions, of course you are free to do so.

[R.Shackleford]

That hack looks pretty good, so far. I can tell it's a WIP, but I like what I see. One thing, though: did you change the black belt into a berserker?

Thanks :)

Yup, changed out Monk and Red Mage for Beserker and Green Mage. I love the FF Tactics and the monk works well as a secondary job (plus there will be a White, Black, and Green Monk eventually).




Personally I assumed the former was the entire point of Crossbow Expert when I first read it. Because Drow.

So yeah, sounds like a great RAF ruling for Crossbow Expert. Or just straight up allowing it feat free in the right flavor of campaign.

The only time I really thought MM had his head on straight would be his ruling on Crossbow Expert.

[Tanarii]

Actually dual-wielding hand crossbows was the main reason I pulled out the repeater in the OP. Doesn't help out fighters (who should instead maybe be using the heavy crossbow variant!), but it is great for rogues or other characters with a more limited number of attacks.combine them for a twofer. RAF & RAR (fun & reality). Or RAS Rules as Simulation if you prefer :smallwink:

[mgshamster]

Personally I assumed the former was the entire point of Crossbow Expert when I first read it. Because Drow.

So yeah, sounds like a great RAF ruling for Crossbow Expert. Or just straight up allowing it feat free in the right flavor of campaign.

Ah, you are correct. Thanks!

The only reason I think of it is because one of my players fired his hand crossbow followed by throwing a dagger for the final kill on a very challenging battle, saving the entire party (there's no way they would have survive one more round). It was a ton of fun, but technically against the rules (especially considering he didn't have crossbow expert).

[Reaper34]

RAF: you can use a trident/spear at the same time as a net using the two weapon fighting rules.

RAF: You can two-weapon fight with one hand crossbow and a melee weapon. Or dual wield hand crossbows.

only with a short spear/trident and drop the range and reach on it. the weapon is designed for thrusting not throwing. it's short to keep the extra length from fouling the net as it's readied to throw or entangle.

for the second i thought the normal rules allowed both examples. atleast for one shot with each crossbow.

enchantment crossbow only. auto-load, minor. may fire a crossbow with this enchantment every 4th round.

auto-load fire every 3rd round.

auto- load major fire every other round.

these would allow effective fighting with the hcb and a melee wep without unbalancing the game...... i think. any house rule is subject to revision after playtesting.

those would be my rulings anyway.

[mgshamster]

only with a short spear/trident and drop the range and reach on it. the weapon is designed for thrusting not throwing. it's short to keep the extra length from fouling the net as it's readied to throw or entangle.

Neither of those weapons have reach in the PHB. Not sure why you'd drop the range/thrown property - you don't need a long staff to properly throw it, or the plumbata wouldn't be a weapon at all.

Basically, I just wanted to play a retiarius. Difficult to do that with current rules.


for the second i thought the normal rules allowed both examples. atleast for one shot with each crossbow.

Normal rules only allow for melee (or thrown) weapons for two weapon fighting. With crossbow expert feat, you can kind of get it with a bonus action shot after using a one-handed weapon - functionally identical to dual wielding. May or may not be allowed after the first round depending on DM ruling (lots of arguments over it through the past two years). Hence, making it a rule as fun. :)

[Reaper34]

reality-the plumbata is made for throwing. while it is short all the weight is in the head of the weapon. for a proper short thrusting spear it has to be counter weighted on the butt of the spear (the extra length would normally counterweigh it). this provides balance to the weapon. the plumbata would tire out most people trying to use it as a thrusting tool due to the weight of the point and the leverage of the shaft (unless you held it right behing the point). a thrusting spear on the other hand tends to have a balance point closer to the butt of the spear making it tumble if thrown since the butt is heaver than the point.

rule of cool: you end with a spear that looks more like a zulu spear/short handled trident designed for one hand use.

rule of balance: you allow the player 2 weapons while reducing his range with the damaging one. the net can still be thrown as normal. the dm giveith the dm takeith away.

also i couldn't remember if either spear or trident had reach. the second i don't have my books with me and i'm hopelessly stuck in 3.x/rule of cool/ commonsense mode.

[mgshamster]

reality-the plumbata is made for throwing. while it is short all the weight is in the head of the weapon. for a proper short thrusting spear it has to be counter weighted on the butt of the spear (the extra length would normally counterweigh it). this provides balance to the weapon. the plumbata would tire out most people trying to use it as a thrusting tool due to the weight of the point and the leverage of the shaft (unless you held it right behing the point). a thrusting spear on the other hand tends to have a balance point closer to the butt of the spear making it tumble if thrown since the butt is heaver than the point.

rule of cool: you end with a spear that looks more like a zulu spear/short handled trident designed for one hand use.

rule of balance: you allow the player 2 weapons while reducing his range with the damaging one. the net can still be thrown as normal. the dm giveith the dm takeith away.

also i couldn't remember if either spear or trident had reach. the second i don't have my books with me and i'm hopelessly stuck in 3.x/rule of cool/ commonsense mode.

That's really cool info; thanks!

For 5e, I'm not a fan of the proposed changes, as I feel it makes the rules more convoluted. The spear and trident are both versatile, so just use them one handed with the net (also requiring the dual Wielder feat since they aren't light). Simple. .

For my RaF proposal, the issue isn't with the trident or the spear, it's with the net. Per RAW/RAI (I asked Crawford about it and he confirmed), you can't wield the net with TWF/DW because it's not a melee weapon. So I proposed a RaF change saying that you can, in order to better facilitate the cliche gladiator.

With RAW, you can already use DW to TWF with two spears or tridents as is.

[Oramac]

One great example (in my mind, anyway) of Rule of Cool trumping RAW/RAI is in Episode 54 of Critical Role (http://geekandsundry.com/critical-role-episode-54/). Scanlan and Vax decided they wanted to use Dimension Door to teleport into the dragon's stomach. By RAW, you can't do that for a couple reasons. But the DM decided to allow it because it was super creative and would make for a really cool story (spoiler: it did!).

When/if I DM, this is my basic modus operandi. Does it make for a great story? If so, I'll bend the rules to allow it. Rule of Cool/Fun, indeed.

[smcmike]

It seems pretty hard to categorize RAF, since a large part of the Fun is doing something unexpected - something that hasn't been categorized.

[Vogonjeltz]

Tridents have advantage on any attempts to Disarm an opponent using the rules in the DMG.

I'd allow a bonus action to throw a trident at a creature that you hit with a net that turn.