Clarifying Against The Player

[Pex]

Something that bugged me since 5E came out is that whenever there was a vague rule that appeared to give a player a cool thing the Powers That Be always clarified it to taking away the player's cool thing. Sometimes it becomes the official rule in a later printing.

Examples from past to present:

No, Dragon Sorcerers do not get to add CH modifier damage to all Scorching Rays.
No, Evokers cannot maximize Cantrips.
No, it's the DM not players who get to decide what creature is summoned.
No, Great Weapon Style does not work on Smites.
No, you cannot bonus action shield bash to trip before you attack with Shield Master.

There have been one or two to go the other way, such as Yes, Crossbow Expert does allow spellcasters to make a range spell attack without Disadvantage but for the most part clarifications take the toy away.

[No brains]

We can still put buffs on Gyphs of Warding, so we got that going for us.

Then again, the DM decides the diamond economy, so bad guyz could have a bunch of concentration-free buffz in their boss room as well.

[Unoriginal]

Something that bugged me since 5E came out is that whenever there was a vague rule that appeared to give a player a cool thing the Powers That Be always clarified it to taking away the player's cool thing. Sometimes it becomes the official rule in a later printing.

Examples from past to present:

No, Dragon Sorcerers do not get to add CH modifier damage to all Scorching Rays.
No, Evokers cannot maximize Cantrips.
No, it's the DM not players who get to decide what creature is summoned.
No, Great Weapon Style does not work on Smites.
No, you cannot bonus action shield bash to trip before you attack with Shield Master.

There have been one or two to go the other way, such as Yes, Crossbow Expert does allow spellcasters to make a range spell attack without Disadvantage but for the most part clarifications take the toy away.

You see it as taking things away from the player, when in fact the player never had it in the first place and just assumed it was theirs because it was cool.


There's a whole lot of cool things players have access to for their PCs, if something is interpreted in as being more powerful than intended it's perfectly normal to correct the assumption.

But eh, it's in human nature to want more. Doesn't mean that it should be given.

[NaughtyTiger]

You see it as taking things away from the player, when in fact the player never had it in the first place and just assumed it was theirs because it was cool.

But eh, it's in human nature to want more. Doesn't mean that it should be given.

the players AND the DM assumed it was the player's because it was cool. because the players can't have anything if the DM doesn't allow it.

[Unoriginal]

the players AND the DM assumed it was the players because it was cool.

If the DM assumed that, then they should not change their interpretation because the game writers precised something.

The writers can only tell the DM what is intended, not how the DM should rule at the table.

[Samayu]

I don't think it's the coolness, I think it's the power level. The power level made it both desired and nerfed.

My only problem with this is that there are still plenty of super powerful abilities. Why nerf only some? And the fewer super-powerful abilities there are, the more common (and therefore annoying) they become.

[DarkKnightJin]

Something that bugged me since 5E came out is that whenever there was a vague rule that appeared to give a player a cool thing the Powers That Be always clarified it to taking away the player's cool thing. Sometimes it becomes the official rule in a later printing.

Examples from past to present:

No, Dragon Sorcerers do not get to add CH modifier damage to all Scorching Rays.
No, Evokers cannot maximize Cantrips.
No, it's the DM not players who get to decide what creature is summoned.
No, Great Weapon Style does not work on Smites.
No, you cannot bonus action shield bash to trip before you attack with Shield Master.

There have been one or two to go the other way, such as Yes, Crossbow Expert does allow spellcasters to make a range spell attack without Disadvantage but for the most part clarifications take the toy away.

See, I'd rule in favor of the players in all thise cases you've given as things being 'taken away'.
Why? Because they seem fun.
As for the Evoker, they're still subject to the penalty for Overchanneling. Take a page from the Sorcerer's book concerning cantrips, and treat it like a 1st level spell for the purpose of the damage they would take.

AFB, so I could be WAY off base on what you meant by the maximization there.

Edit: the summoning of creatures is still subject to DM approval. I'm not allowing pixie+T-Rex shenanigans. That's not 'fun' for me, that's just a "Richard relocation". More commonly known as a "d*ck move".

[NaughtyTiger]

If the DM assumed that, then they should not change their interpretation because the game writers precised something.

i disagree with the premise of this statement.

If the DM "incorrectly" reads a rule as X, the writers clarify that Y was intended, you are saying the DMs "should not change their interpretation" cuz he realized "wrong".
doesn't have to change, okay.
should not change, is stubborness.

moreover that was Pex's point. that clarifications go against the player's favor. NOT the DMs rule against the player's favor.



If the DM assumed that, then they should not change their interpretation because the game writers precised something.
the writers only tell the DM what they intend at the moment. they have changed their intention throughout the years.


I do find it interesting that most of us on this forum are/will/have DM'd. We are often explicitly asking for rule interpretation and clarification for our table. We often state how we rule at our table.
Yet, every time a rule is read in the player's advantage, the accusation of munchkin, or cheating the system, or power player, despite that it's most commonly a DM with that interpretation.



That's not 'fun' for me, that's just a "Richard relocation".
if you have to explain the joke...

[Mordaedil]

if you have to explain the joke...
For future fun reference, a common nickname for people named Richard is that word.

[PhantomSoul]

It's probably inevitable that it be predominantly "against" the player -- the combinations, misinterpretations and shared rulings/intents are usually the result of trying to make something more powerful rather than less (and sometimes to munchkin directly), which means the main direction it's likely to go is "against" the player. The players don't usually try to come up with the weakest combination then ask to have that combination confirmed or to see if they can find out it's even worse than they thought. And in some cases, it's a direct response to something being abused and the designers trying to give a way out or to show what the intent was (which was the version they balanced against).

[Yunru]

And some of the reasoning they gave is just... transparently made up.
Like GWF. You have to work out which dice refer to your weapon, see if any are ones or twos and then reroll them, because it's supposedly... quicker than just picking up any 1's and 2's and rerolling them?

[PeteNutButter]

I’d agree with the general sentiment of the OP. There were plenty of cases where the designers intentionally post hoc nerf things. JC’s mounted combat ruling has to be among the dumbest most stretched rulings/nerf smacks I’ve ever witnessed in any game. Most UAs end up over-nerfed by the time they get published (though some needed it).

Overall the design team appears to be terrified of making things strong so things don’t get out of hand 3.5e style. IMO if they were just a little bit better at optimizing though they’d be better at balancing. All these “nerfs” to peripheral abilities while things GWM and SS destroy game balance, especially when combined with the +x magic weapons found in nearly every hard cover...

You can say the game doesn’t need magic items but when they are in every published adventure, it’s kind of implied the DM allows the players the chance to earn them.

[Spellbreaker26]

I could probably think of a few examples of the clarificiations being to the player's advantage (like Mage Armour working in tandem with normal shields).

But while some of these are a bit unfair, like the Dragon Sorcerer thing, the rest actually seem pretty fair. The Great Weapon Style thing I think makes waaaaay more sense than the reverse; you're using your weapon more effectively, not necessarily your holy power. It's not even a bother since the only weapons that you would use a 1d8 for with GWS are the Spear, the Quarterstaff and the greatclub, and those are corner cases.

I don't think they've ever managed to get Shield Master right though, which is a shame.

Also, Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter don't destroy game balance, they're just really competitive. They and stuff like PAM are what keeps martials competitive with casters in the long run. They just seem strong if you go variant human and have them from level 4 (though they level out eventually).

[stoutstien]

Something that bugged me since 5E came out is that whenever there was a vague rule that appeared to give a player a cool thing the Powers That Be always clarified it to taking away the player's cool thing. Sometimes it becomes the official rule in a later printing.

Examples from past to present:

No, Dragon Sorcerers do not get to add CH modifier damage to all Scorching Rays.
No, Evokers cannot maximize Cantrips.
No, it's the DM not players who get to decide what creature is summoned.
No, Great Weapon Style does not work on Smites.
No, you cannot bonus action shield bash to trip before you attack with Shield Master.

There have been one or two to go the other way, such as Yes, Crossbow Expert does allow spellcasters to make a range spell attack without Disadvantage but for the most part clarifications take the toy away.
Are these concerns based on your DM attempting to follow RAW/playing AL or are you generally just upset about the randomness of which rule interactions are a big enough concern to ettra?

[Man_Over_Game]

There's a few important things that aren't being said.


RAW is mostly a guideline. 5e is supposed to be more of a toolkit than a strict design scheme. If the DM doesn't like something, change it.
Some of the uses for an ability, like who chooses what gets summoned, should be an active decision, and one that could sway in the player's favor. Since the DM decides, who's to say that the DM can't just choose to summon something similar to what the player is looking for? Knocking someone prone before attacking is powerful, but it's also thematic.
Several of these could be ignored to keep the specific component as a competitive option. Great Weapon Style is notoriously bad, and maybe allowing it to work off of bonus damage would make it see more use and make the player feel more rewarded for their chosen playstyle.


Following the RAW is definitely the safest choice, but it might not always be the best one. If a Trickery Cleric, who has had some bad luck with their build, asks if he can get his Divine Strike on EVERY attack and not just his first, would that be a problem? RAW says it can't happen, but I feel like the DM has more of a responsibility to know how the game functions to make those kinds of active decisions. A decent DM can play the game, but a good DM understands it.

I think that following the rules strictly should be an active choice, not a passive one. You should be choosing to rule in favor of RAW because the player shouldn't be right, not because a book told you to.

[Guy Lombard-O]

They certainly didn't nerf PAM w/spear. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard multiple folks state that it's so overpowered that they aren't allowing it at their tables.

So that's one more to the Plus column for the Devs' edits.

[Contrast]

They made elf long rests shorter.
They formalised coffeelock.
They've never nerfed Wish/Simulacrum.

Personally I'd have preferred them to say no to those things.

I agree with all the ones you mentioned with the exception of Shield Master and even then I'm reasonably happy that attack, bash, attack is a pretty good compromise.

Can't please everyone I guess.

Edit - Hmm...the sorc one could have stayed I guess? You'd have an uphill struggle convincing me on the others though.

[Man_Over_Game]

They made elf long rests shorter.
They formalised coffeelock.
They've never nerfed Wish/Simulacrum.

Personally I'd have preferred them to say no to those things.

I agree with all the ones you mentioned with the exception of Shield Master and even then I'm reasonably happy that attack, bash, attack is a pretty good compromise.

Can't please everyone I guess.

Edit - Hmm...the sorc one could have stayed I guess? You'd have an uphill struggle convincing me on the others though.

They did nerf Wish/Simulacrum in AL games. A Simulacrum and you share the burnout effects of Wish.

[Pex]

If the DM assumed that, then they should not change their interpretation because the game writers precised something.

The writers can only tell the DM what is intended, not how the DM should rule at the table.

Exactly, and I'm ranting on what the writers have clarified. I'm already playing with DMs where the player chooses the summoned monsters, great weapon style works on smites, and you can shield bash trip as a bonus action before attacking. This is not about the DM at all. The rules were vague and before the official clarification it was perfectly valid without any sinister intent to have ruled the player got the cool thing as if they were supposed to have it.

[Contrast]

They did nerf Wish/Simulacrum in AL games. A Simulacrum and you share the burnout effects of Wish.

Kinda my point. They clearly believe it to be an issue but have, to date, declined to formally errata it.

In OPs parlance they have left it up to DMs if players get to keep their cool thing but where they have control of the DMs, they've told them to say no :smalltongue:

[Keravath]

They certainly didn't nerf PAM w/spear. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard multiple folks state that it's so overpowered that they aren't allowing it at their tables.

So that's one more to the Plus column for the Devs' edits.

PAM with spear is no more OP that PAM with quarterstaff which has always been explicitly permitted. Someone not allowing the spear didn't allow the quarterstaff before so why would anything change for them. House rules are house rules.

[Man_Over_Game]

Kinda my point. They clearly believe it to be an issue but have, to date, declined to formally errata it.

In OPs parlance they have left it up to DMs if players get to keep their cool thing but where they have control of the DMs, they've told them to say no :smalltongue:

AL is designed to have no houserules and few judgment calls, so that players can move from DM to DM and roughly expect a similar experience. It puts less pressure on having to guarantee a day of every week to play.

5e expects DMs to still make smart decisions. Crawford has said, time and again, that these decisions are not designed to strongarm anybody. Hell, they've expressed that about pretty much every rule can be modified to suit your table.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. The DM is always allowed to make decisions. Does that ever cease to be true?

[PhoenixPhyre]

AL is designed to have no houserules and few judgment calls, so that players can move from DM to DM and roughly expect a similar experience. It puts less pressure on having to guarantee a day of every week to play.

5e expects DMs to still make smart decisions. Crawford has said, time and again, that these decisions are not designed to strongarm anybody. Hell, they've expressed that about pretty much every rule can be modified to suit your table.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. The DM is always allowed to make decisions. Does that ever cease to be true?

Agreed, especially with the middle paragraph. It's a central principle of 5e, and a significant departure from some previous editions. 5e is predicated on DMs trusting players and players trusting the DM to make the right decision.

They say this over and over--all the rules (including the PHB itself) are suggestions to the table on what the actual rules should be. DMs should take "clarifications" and "rules" as starting points, not as conclusive or fixed.

Beyond that, on the real topic, I'd much rather that the starting point (the written stuff) is conservative and avoids power creep. It's easier and less painful to buff stuff in play, having to nerf things is less pleasant. So I have no problem with any of these even though I may not play them this way. The baseline should be a bottom floor, from which deviations upward are expected. Same with magic items--they're a nice bonus, not a system expectation or an entitlement. Because once they're an entitlement, they lose most of their "cool thing" status. It becomes a treadmill.

[Contrast]

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. The DM is always allowed to make decisions. Does that ever cease to be true?

I don't think any sensible DM should ever left a player do infinite Wish/Simulacrum spam.

So - the DM can just fix it! Easy.

Except as OP has demonstrated people feel worse about thinking they have something only to be told its been taken away than they do just never having had it at all. The rules should ideally try and facilitate the DMs job, not dangle carrots in front of players noses with the assumption that the DM will make sure to remember to remove the carrots before the players manage to reach them.

In an ideal world with a good DM and good players this wouldn't present an issue. However I know a number of otherwise good DMs who would never pick up on this unless it was pointed out to them because they wouldn't trawl the spell lists looking for interactions. I know a number of players who would not pre-warn a DM they were thinking of doing this until it was already done and would then sulk if the DM tried to nerf it retroactively.

Given I believe no DM should allow it, I believe the better solution would simply be to errata it so it doesn't work (honestly I feel Simulacrum is a powerful enough spell that it would still be chosen if it was level 9 which tells you something but there you go). Obviously Wizards agrees with you more than me on this though :smallbiggrin:

[Keravath]

Something that bugged me since 5E came out is that whenever there was a vague rule that appeared to give a player a cool thing the Powers That Be always clarified it to taking away the player's cool thing. Sometimes it becomes the official rule in a later printing.

Examples from past to present:

No, Dragon Sorcerers do not get to add CH modifier damage to all Scorching Rays.
No, Evokers cannot maximize Cantrips.
No, it's the DM not players who get to decide what creature is summoned.
No, Great Weapon Style does not work on Smites.
No, you cannot bonus action shield bash to trip before you attack with Shield Master.

There have been one or two to go the other way, such as Yes, Crossbow Expert does allow spellcasters to make a range spell attack without Disadvantage but for the most part clarifications take the toy away.

Why is it that all of the "cool" things you sight involve the players usually doing substantially more damage than they otherwise would?

The players can do lots of other cool things. Having Mask of Many Faces allowing casting of Disguise self at will is massively cool. Every class has lots of cool things. Smiting is cool.

However, all the situations where there have been clarifications that you cite are ones where the combat effectiveness of the class was greater than the curve (greater than other characters or greater in comparison to some baseline case) by the combination of abilities that wasn't necessarily intended in the first place (or in some cases they change their minds).

That is all that is happening here. Personally, I still think it is still cool to smite and roll lots of dice even if I can only re-roll 1,2s on the weapons dice. Dueling adds +2 to a weapon attack. Two weapon fighting adds <mod> to a bonus action attack but requires a bonus action. GWF adds something like 1.5 damage on average (a bit more for a greatsword). Having GWF affect every die on a smite makes it so much better than then comparable feature for and S&B paladin that it doesn't make sense.

Adding charisma to every ray of scorching ray makes the spell +15 damage instead of +5 ... becomes an even more amazing 2nd level spell than it was to start with.

As for maximize, adding +5 to every evoker cantrip more or less increases the damage by one dice, all day every day. They also already have potent cantrip so that all their cantrips are already save for half. Would I like it on my evoker? Absolutely! Would it be balanced against all the other wizards who don't get it? I don't think so.

Handing control of summons to the DM also makes sense since it is the DM's game. They decide what creatures are available and it prevents the players from breaking things by picking broken monsters. Summon fey for a pack of polymorphing pixies would be a great example. By allowing the player to specify strength and how many leaving the DM to decide what gives maximum flexibility to the DM while giving some control to the player. Besides, in most games I play in, as long as the request is reasonable, I haven't had any problems with the DM giving the player the summons they ask for with the exception of the broken cases like pixies.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the designers aren't "taking away cool things", they are making clear what they currently intend the rules to say to prevent certain spells or abilities from doing more damage than they expected it should.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think any sensible DM should ever left a player do infinite Wish/Simulacrum spam.

So - the DM can just fix it! Easy.

Except as OP has demonstrated people feel worse about thinking they have something only to be told its been taken away than they do just never having had it at all. The rules should ideally try and facilitate the DMs job, not dangle carrots in front of players noses with the assumption that the DM will make sure to remember to remove the carrots before the players manage to reach them.

In an ideal world with a good DM and good players this wouldn't present an issue. However I know a number of otherwise good DMs who would never pick up on this unless it was pointed out to them because they wouldn't trawl the spell lists looking for interactions. I know a number of players who would not pre-warn a DM they were thinking of doing this until it was already done and would then sulk if the DM tried to nerf it retroactively.

Given I believe no DM should allow it, I believe the better solution would simply be to errata it so it doesn't work (honestly I feel Simulacrum is a powerful enough spell that it would still be chosen if it was level 9 which tells you something but there you go). Obviously Wizards agrees with you more than me on this though :smallbiggrin:

But no reasonable player has ever expected to be able to do a Wish/Simulacrum loop. Because it's so self-evidently broken that proposing it is pure munchkinry/TO. So nothing's been taken away. Just like you don't have to clarify that you can't swing off a chandelier that doesn't exist or pick an unpickable lock, you don't have to clarify these because they're IOTTMCO (Intuitively Obvious to the Most Casual Observer).

And for just about everything else, the question is much closer and people could go either way. So errata'ing them out would anger someone.

[Contrast]

But no reasonable player has ever expected to be able to do a Wish/Simulacrum loop. Because it's so self-evidently broken that proposing it is pure munchkinry/TO. So nothing's been taken away. Just like you don't have to clarify that you can't swing off a chandelier that doesn't exist or pick an unpickable lock, you don't have to clarify these because they're IOTTMCO (Intuitively Obvious to the Most Casual Observer).

I mean infinite Wish/Simulacrum isn't some carefully parsed interpretation of how the wording of the spells worked which requires careful interpretation of the spells. It's just how the two spells work when available at the same time.

It sounds like you agree that they shouldn't work together like that and that no reasonable person should let them work together like that. So why don't you think they should just make it actually not work?


And for just about everything else, the question is much closer and people could go either way. So errata'ing them out would anger someone.

In a vain attempt to remain relevant to OPs thread, for reference some of OPs examples definitely worked RAW until they were errata'd out. :smallwink:


This also reminded me actually - onion druid is still a thing as well OP and got even better vs disintegrate :smallbiggrin:

[ZorroGames]

Onion Druid?

[Contrast]

Onion Druid?

Once you hit level 20 you have unlimited wildshape and can cast many spells in beast form. So every turn in combat you can just shift into a new form, refreshing your HP and making you almost unkillable.

Many skins = onion druid.

Previously one of the ways to kill them was get them into disintegrate range and then dust them but they Sage Adviced that the damage just carries over to the druid form rather than insta-killing them.

[Trustypeaches]

None of the listed examples except player’s choosing summons for Conjure Animals seem “fun”. They’re powerful, certainly, but is that all that makes a feature fun? This depends from person to person, I’m sure, but I wouldn’t classify most of the listed examples of “toys”.

Almost all of these features are still effective despite these changes, anyways.

[Segev]

The biggest point of oddity is the "DM chooses the summons" thing. That is entirely NOT clear from the RAW, and seems to force extra decisions on the DM for little to no reason. Does he call forth things that are useless? Useful? Unintentionally one or the other? Does he pour through the books to find several options before picking one? Pick the first he stumbles across?

Player choice means the player is responsible to have his plan in place when he casts the spell. It also means the player can actually plan around the spell being more than a round or two of distraction that will have other effects he can't predict.

If it was meant to be random, I'd have expected the spell to give a randomizing table, and maybe say, "Roll randomly or the DM can choose off this list."

So in that respect, I think the "ruling against the players" argument is the only thing that really explains the reasoning, here. "I'm afraid players will abuse the one or two very strong choices, so I'm pretending the weird reading that some have posited was intended all along."