How much rules leniency is too much?

[CheddarChampion]

When DMing, if a player asks to bend RAW, how much would you let them get away with? Do you have any guidelines you follow?

When playing, how much rules bending can you easily tolerate from other players? Is there anything specific that you aren't cool with?

To be clear, I mean rules bending as understanding that you're trying to do something RAW doesn't allow, being clear and upfront about that fact, and getting permission from the DM. I don't mean it as not understanding the rules or as trying to get away with something.
#1: Making an athletics check as part of your move to leap over/past an enemy in order to avoid an opportunity attack. Failure would have a cost, of course.

#2: A high level Cavalier using Vigilant Defender in tandem with Mage Slayer and Sword Master to make attacks at advantage against enemies that cast spells within 5' of them, once per turn.

[Segev]

Generally, your examples seem to me to be within the rules. Not only is making an ability check to do something more complicated than the basic rules state something the rules already allow, but the jumping rules explicitly give the height to which you jump with a long jump and a high jump, and permit the DM to call for an Athletics check if the character needs to exceed that. (Frustratingly sparse on guidelines for how much to let them and at what DCs, though.)

So I guess my answer is, "Pretty darn lenient," by those standards. The game is about rulings, not rules, in this edition specifically to facilitate action and ideas that are not already directly covered.

Many will tell you to be less lenient with spells. This is good advice if you find yourself permitting more creativity with spells than with Ability checks. But don't be afraid to let everyone be creative. If an action makes sense in the narrative, and especially if it is also cooler than a boring "by the run book" choice, come up with a DC and let them try to do it!

[Mastikator]

If there's a class race or feat feature that allows you do to a certain thing and they don't have it but wanna do it: I'll say no.

Jumping over an enemy is within the rules, you just gotta have the jump distance to do it. So a rogue with 8 strength? No. "Can I roll acrobatics for it", also no. A thief however? yes. But the thief gotta make an athletics move. You shouldn't be allowed to bend the rules in such a way that other people's class, race or chosen feats become irrelevant or redundant. They paid the opportunity cost and it would be unfair to give it away for free.

[Ignimortis]

If there's a class race or feat feature that allows you do to a certain thing and they don't have it but wanna do it: I'll say no.

Jumping over an enemy is within the rules, you just gotta have the jump distance to do it. So a rogue with 8 strength? No. "Can I roll acrobatics for it", also no. A thief however? yes. But the thief gotta make an athletics move. You shouldn't be allowed to bend the rules in such a way that other people's class, race or chosen feats become irrelevant or redundant. They paid the opportunity cost and it would be unfair to give it away for free.

An understandable take, but one I would disagree with. That Rogue with 8 STR cannot make the jump with 100% certainty, but an Athletics check, especially if they're proficient/have expertise, can let them do it. Class features should enable something to happen without a check, but trying to do something without explicit text saying "yes, you can do that now" should also be allowed.

One of my old DMs, who was sometimes a stick in the mud, still let me attempt a similar thing with a STR 8 Storm Sorc, and on a success said that I wouldn't have made the jump, but a sudden powerful gust of wind gave me extra distance.

[Ravens_cry]

As long as you are consistent and don't apply favouritism ("But Thaddeus the DM's Boyfriend could do it! Why can't Varlet the Pimpled!" is not something you want to hear), I think you can tweak things pretty far, as long as it's fun. Now, fun doesn't mean everything just goes off without a hitch, part of fun is challenge, but doing something cool that isn't explicitly covered by the rules? I'd probably make them make a check in something that feels related, but I'm happier to find a way to make things work in the aim of creating a fun scene than a carte blanche 'No'.

[Thrudd]

What you're describing is just house rules. Everyone does this, you just need to be consistent. If you let one person do something, like the athletics thing, anyone can do it (and so can NPCs and monsters). If you decide later that it's too powerful or unbalancing or you don't like it for whatever reason, it's also ok to change your mind and disallow it again.

That said, players generally shouldn't be suggesting house rules during the course of play too much. Usually it's a conversation for before or after the session; get everyone's opinion on the suggested house rule before you decide if it will be allowed, just in case someone has a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed. You don't want to just allow everything anyone suggests or things will quickly be out of hand. In general, players should be trying to find creative uses for the abilities the rules already give them, rather than trying to invent new rules.

[Anonymouswizard]

Considering this forum once had a campaign journal with negative leniency, where Fireball couldn't even set petrol soaked rags alight...

What I'm saying is that if dolphins are banned you've given far too little leniency.

I'd er on the side of 'let them roll'. I wouldn't allow a player to change the parameters of a spell, and rolling to will physical changes (the 'I grow wings and fly to the moon' deal) isn't something I'd do. But I might have a player roll a check if they want their Lightning Bolt to ignite something, or place their fireball in a very specific spot.

I think Burning Wheel has one of the best philosophies on when you should let a player roll, it should only happen when both outcomes lead to something happening. Jumping over an enemy is interesting, so it's accidentally whacking them in the face because you failed to jump over them, and now you're both prone with your sensitive bits disturbingly close to their teeth. But if there's a pit that the rules say one of the group could cross but not all of them, and there's nothing interesting in the pit, then just let them cross the pit.

Unless they start having plans to make a bridge out of twenty metres of rope and the Paladin's armour.

[Mastikator]

An understandable take, but one I would disagree with. That Rogue with 8 STR cannot make the jump with 100% certainty, but an Athletics check, especially if they're proficient/have expertise, can let them do it. Class features should enable something to happen without a check, but trying to do something without explicit text saying "yes, you can do that now" should also be allowed.

One of my old DMs, who was sometimes a stick in the mud, still let me attempt a similar thing with a STR 8 Storm Sorc, and on a success said that I wouldn't have made the jump, but a sudden powerful gust of wind gave me extra distance.

It's not just complexity but distance. Your running jumping distance is your strength score, so 8 strength = 8 feet. A thief adds their dex mod (probably 3 or 4) so that'd be 11 or 12.
In this scenario you're running, jumping off before entering their threatened area (assuming 15x15 feet or 3x3 squares) and landing outside it. That's 3 square jump, first from someone who can only jump past 1 square, then one who can jump past 2. Doing a running jump many times over and beyond your ability is a "no" from me, even if you roll a 20 on athletics. Jumping slightly above and beyond on the other hand is an "ok but with a athletics roll". All in all I don't think you get to double your jumping distance with an ability roll, it's too much.

Edit- if we're talking about entering their threatened area and then jumping out of it then use your action to disengage. If you can use your movement (jump) to get out of having to do disengage (action) then that would diminish the value of those that can disengage as a bonus action, it's a stealth nerf to rogues, monks, goblins, etc. Not a welcome house rule in my book.

[ciopo]

What I am most comfortable with is letting some action be bonus action, or substituting what ability modifier applies/is added to a particularly check.

I have no problem conceptualizing/accepting a cleric that uses not-wisdom as their casting stats, for example. Or a rogue that uses intelligence for their to hit and damage modifier, etc.

I'm less keen on changes that introduce new effects to existing stuff. For example I'd never rule that the restrained condition also causes spellcasting to requife a concentration check

[JonBeowulf]

What you're asking for is nearly impossible to define. It's always a quick decision based on the current situation, what the player is requesting, what the players have requested/done in the past, potential future impact to the game, and probably a few other things. A DM has to process that information and make a decision in a few seconds.

Personal bias also comes into play. For example:
- I'm strict against players who have a history of trying to cheese the system
- I'm lenient on ideas that were presented well narratively

There's also the old fallback... "It works this time, but don't make a habit of it."

[da newt]

The question by it's very nature will result in opinion based answers.

For me:
If it gives an unfair advantage - no
If I say yes to one PC then that same rule applies to all PCs and all bad guys for ever
If it's fluff - sure
If it's mechanics - only if I'm confident it doesn't change balance
I'm more prone to say yes if it's a risk reward sort of thing - you might be able to do something extra, but you might fail with consequences.

In general, I don't like to change mechanics. I want my Players to know what the rules are and that they are consistent and fair so that they can make their decisions based on that knowledge. As DM, I don't believe I should be adjusting the rules on the fly and changing the outcome of the player's choices during contests. You win or lose the contests by playing with the rules as written / agreed upon and known by all - that's fair.

But like everyone else, this is my opinion - your's may be different. There is no universal objectively right answer.

[Catullus64]

When a player wants to do something outside the boundaries of RAW, I have two questions, one to myself and one to the player.

To myself: Is this a thing that a person in the real world would be physically capable of doing?

To the player (though not in as many words): What trade-off are you willing to accept for attempting to do something that bends the rules? Often I will think of a trade-off and propose it to the player. Typically:

Allow them to do it, but warn them of a specific consequence for failure.
Ask them to spend their action in combat to make the check.
If the rule bend involves use of a spell, ask them to expend a higher level slot.
Ask for the expenditure of a class resource, where it fits.

In nearly all cases, make it clear that this is a narrative moment of the character pulling off something exceptional, and not a universal precedent for how things will work going forward. Just because I'm allowing it now doesn't mean you can now pull this trick on command.

[Jon talks a lot]

What you're describing is just house rules.

As Malifice once pointed out, Rulings are not house rules, they are a dm doing what a dm is supposed to do.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I have two guiding principles as a DM / Player that guide my ideas and it's based on the design philosophy that D&D 5e is built to empower good dungeon masters rather than protect players from bad dungeon masters.


First Rule - Verisimilitude / Simulation - When a player describes an action, or asks for something special, so long as it doesn't detract from the social contract I will do my best to facilitate their request if it could reasonably be done by a character within a D&D world.


Example: A fighter asks to gouge the eyes out of a Wizard they have grappled, I'm going to figure out how to make that happen. A Wizard wants to hijack the ritual cultists are using to summon the big bad in the middle of combat and start discharging the energy out of the ritual circle? Ill figure it out.


Second Rule - This is a game and it has rules - I will do my best to not compromise the integrity of the "game" aspect of D&D. There are rules and they form the basis of interactions the players have with the game world. It's how they "Make it Real". By making choices for their character, selecting feats, increasing stats etc... I will deny requests that will drastically bypass the rules of the game. Because at that point we aren't playing, we are communal storytelling and the choices made don't matter.

Example - The player wishes to gouge out the eye of a Wizard. I would not just let them succeed. There would be opposed ability checks, actions or attacks are sacrificed for this attempt. The Wizard will burn actions and potentially spell slots while making arcana checks to subvert the enemies ritual. They won't just auto succeed.


These are my two guiding principles for how to decide what to change, allow, or deny. If it will enhance the verisimilitude or simulation aspect of the game, without bypassing the "Game" aspect of D&D I will allow it more than likely.

[Sigreid]

Basic rule is be as lenient as you want to, but be fair. Don't let one player do something that you would balk at letting another character do. D&D is, in my opinion, most fun when it goes off the rails and people get creative. But when that happens you have to be willing to decide how you want to handle it.

[Segev]

It's not just complexity but distance. Your running jumping distance is your strength score, so 8 strength = 8 feet. A thief adds their dex mod (probably 3 or 4) so that'd be 11 or 12.
In this scenario you're running, jumping off before entering their threatened area (assuming 15x15 feet or 3x3 squares) and landing outside it. That's 3 square jump, first from someone who can only jump past 1 square, then one who can jump past 2. Doing a running jump many times over and beyond your ability is a "no" from me, even if you roll a 20 on athletics. Jumping slightly above and beyond on the other hand is an "ok but with a athletics roll". All in all I don't think you get to double your jumping distance with an ability roll, it's too much.

Edit- if we're talking about entering their threatened area and then jumping out of it then use your action to disengage. If you can use your movement (jump) to get out of having to do disengage (action) then that would diminish the value of those that can disengage as a bonus action, it's a stealth nerf to rogues, monks, goblins, etc. Not a welcome house rule in my book.

This is actually a problem I have with the Jumping rules coupled with the Skill rules in general: there is nowhere any guidance for what that athletics check should be for a DC nor for how much it should allow you to exceed this distance. Should it be a number of extra feet equal to the roll? A number of feet equal to the roll (with the base rules providing a minimum)? An extra foot for every 2 points on the roll (i.e. +5 ft for a DC 10, +10 for a DC 20)? Should it be DC 20 to make it round up to the nearest 5 ft?

Some DMs will see it as enabling epic leaps, while others might see it as only making a difference if you were really really close and roll really really well.

There is absolutely no guidance on what the writers think it should be, which, given that they provided precise scaling for how to do it without a roll, is very sloppy. Even just a little discussion on whether a game makes it a few extra feet or as much as doubles the distance based on various DC categories would be better than what we have, wherein there's no way to tell if a DM is being "lenient" or "restrictive" compared to...a non-existent norm.

[Pex]

It's not just complexity but distance. Your running jumping distance is your strength score, so 8 strength = 8 feet. A thief adds their dex mod (probably 3 or 4) so that'd be 11 or 12.
In this scenario you're running, jumping off before entering their threatened area (assuming 15x15 feet or 3x3 squares) and landing outside it. That's 3 square jump, first from someone who can only jump past 1 square, then one who can jump past 2. Doing a running jump many times over and beyond your ability is a "no" from me, even if you roll a 20 on athletics. Jumping slightly above and beyond on the other hand is an "ok but with a athletics roll". All in all I don't think you get to double your jumping distance with an ability roll, it's too much.

Edit- if we're talking about entering their threatened area and then jumping out of it then use your action to disengage. If you can use your movement (jump) to get out of having to do disengage (action) then that would diminish the value of those that can disengage as a bonus action, it's a stealth nerf to rogues, monks, goblins, etc. Not a welcome house rule in my book.

The idea is rogues, monks, and goblins can do it just because they want to where as this hypothetical player must roll, so rogues, monks, and goblins aren't shortshafted. However, it would be fair in addition to the roll it costs the player's bonus action just as rogues, monks, and goblins have to pay.

I'm not saying you're wrong to disallow. Your reasoning is fair. The opposing view is also reasonable, so it just comes down to DM preference and neither DM is wrong nor being unreasonable.

Another common rule bend is the spellcaster who wants to hide he's casting a spell, accepting having to roll a Stealth/Deception/Arcana check. Allowing it would give Subtle Spell Sorcerers the right to complain.

[Justin Sane]

A good rule of thumb that I've learned in my World of Darkness days: "I'll allow it this time".

Seriously, if the choice is between following RAW as holy scripture or letting the players be awesome for a bit, I'll let the players be awesome.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always found that an easy way to tell how much leeway you can give is by requiring either:

Circumstances that allow the scenario (You can use Athletics to avoid this OA because of your elevation advantage)
A temporary cost that allows the scenario (You can use Athletics to avoid this OA because you're enhanced with Haste)


Requiring one of the two ensures that creativity doesn't get dull, so you don't end up with situations where every mobility issue is solved with an attempt at Athletics, and so you don't have to make up additional penalties for those attempts that make your players' creativity attempts to feel worthless. You want your players to be creative, you just don't want them to turn creativity into a boring tactics solution.

So you tie those allowances to something temporary. "You're allowed to do this, because..."

What you want to avoid is allowing allowances for things that don't have a temporary cost, for example the Warlock using Mask of Many Faces to make someone afraid of him in combat when you allowed it the first time. It needs to be tied to something they can't do every single time they want to, otherwise you're just adding more bloat and making their creativity more dull.

[Keravath]

Decisions like that are completely up to the DM.

As DM, I'll allow one off events if they make sense, enhance the story and seem cool. I will not allow players to change the mechanics to benefit their characters.

1) In your case #1, allow an athletics check to avoid an opportunity attack. No.

Unless I want to extend this to all players and change the rules accordingly. Why would one character be able to make an athletics check to avoid opportunity attacks and not another? Why would I choose athletics (perhaps the character who wants this has expertise in athletics?) as opposed to acrobatics which might be more appropriate for trying to dodge out of the way of an opportunity attack?

Would I allow it as the character's action? Sure - but then I have to ask why they aren't taking the disengage action which is essentially an auto-succeed at an athletics/acrobatics check to avoid opportunity attacks.

Would I allow it as a one off in a dramatic or fun or rule of cool situation? Likely.

Would I allow a character who has built themselves with expertise and athletics the ability to avoid opportunity attacks without using the disengage action? No. Not fair to the other players since they didn't build their characters to take advantage of a rules change that the particular player would lobby for ...

2) In your #2, Vigilant Defender appears unnecessary - Sword master allows the character to have advantage on opportunity attacks while mage slayer lets you make a melee attack when a creature within 5' casts a spell. The breaking of RAW comes from the fact that the Mage Slayer attack isn't an opportunity attack. The second is that mage slayer uses your reaction and the special reactions from vigilant defender can't be used on the same turn as you use your regular reaction.

Would I modify the rules so that the mage slayer attack could be considered an opportunity attack and thus trigger sword master? Probably - considering the character requires investing 2 feats to get there it isn't likely an overpowered option considering how often it comes up. However, I would still have the attack by mage slayer require the use of the character's regular reaction (not a special reaction from vigilant defender) so it could only be used once/round and not every turn for attacks against spell casters.

Changing BOTH the melee attack to be an opportunity attack AND allowing the use of the cavalier special reactions for it so that they could attack any spell casters within 5' who cast spells would be more than I would give to a player.

----------

Basically, changing up rules is to create situations that are fun for the players and the DM without unbalancing things to the point that other players are envious or it breaks something unexpected.

[Segev]

1) In your case #1, allow an athletics check to avoid an opportunity attack. No.

Unless I want to extend this to all players and change the rules accordingly. Why would one character be able to make an athletics check to avoid opportunity attacks and not another? Why would I choose athletics (perhaps the character who wants this has expertise in athletics?) as opposed to acrobatics which might be more appropriate for trying to dodge out of the way of an opportunity attack?

Technically, I think what is being asked is if he can jump over the enemy at sufficient distance that he never enters the enemy's reach. Which is why this comes down to how much an Athletics check can add to your jumping distance, which the rules don't specify nor even hint at. Just that it can. How much? Who knows!?

[Man_Over_Game]

Technically, I think what is being asked is if he can jump over the enemy at sufficient distance that he never enters the enemy's reach. Which is why this comes down to how much an Athletics check can add to your jumping distance, which the rules don't specify nor even hint at. Just that it can. How much? Who knows!?

It actually gets really complicated to even ballpark it, since Strength determines both your Jump Height and your Athletics Check.

For example, if you decide that a DC 10 is enough to jump an extra 5 feet over your jump limit, but you can't roll less than 10, wouldn't it basically mean that you just get an extra 5 feet of jumping distance after a certain level/Strength combination?

It's one of the most bizarre cases of synergy I've seen in an RPG, since the synergy only exists at the end result, yet it grinds more and more against the system every step of the way there.
You have your default jump distance, however you can make an Athletics Check to jump that much feet instead. So there's no synergy between Athletics and Jump distance, just two ways to solve the same problem

But that has more to do with how odd Athletics is with Jumping than the actual thread topic. An easier example is figuring out how Illusions work in combat (which is kind of a cursed sentence, if you ask me).

[Amdy_vill]

I generally allow this when it's character-defining or story-driven. the two big examples I use for this are. an ally is being attacked and you are within 10ft. I generally let players jump in front and take the damage instead. tho if players are consistently using this to protect other players i tend to let i happen less. I also generally buff the damage a bit. the other is catching falling players when it's not your turn. witch is most of the time given how falling works.

[Mastikator]

This is actually a problem I have with the Jumping rules coupled with the Skill rules in general: there is nowhere any guidance for what that athletics check should be for a DC nor for how much it should allow you to exceed this distance. Should it be a number of extra feet equal to the roll? A number of feet equal to the roll (with the base rules providing a minimum)? An extra foot for every 2 points on the roll (i.e. +5 ft for a DC 10, +10 for a DC 20)? Should it be DC 20 to make it round up to the nearest 5 ft?

Some DMs will see it as enabling epic leaps, while others might see it as only making a difference if you were really really close and roll really really well.

There is absolutely no guidance on what the writers think it should be, which, given that they provided precise scaling for how to do it without a roll, is very sloppy. Even just a little discussion on whether a game makes it a few extra feet or as much as doubles the distance based on various DC categories would be better than what we have, wherein there's no way to tell if a DM is being "lenient" or "restrictive" compared to...a non-existent norm.

Agreed. The DMG should provide guidelines on how to set DCs and importantly what goes into it. It doesn't have to be Pathfinder 2e level of detail but some happy medium. Or even stipulating "no you can't jump further with an athletics roll, never ever ever!", don't leave it up to the DM with no help.

[Segev]

Agreed. The DMG should provide guidelines on how to set DCs and importantly what goes into it. It doesn't have to be Pathfinder 2e level of detail but some happy medium. Or even stipulating "no you can't jump further with an athletics roll, never ever ever!", don't leave it up to the DM with no help.

The PHB explicitly SAYS the DM can call for an Athletics check to jump further. It just has nothing, no guidance at all, beyond that. Anyway, this probably deserves its own thread if we want to keep talking about it.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Also take into account whether it'd be a cool thing to do! :smallbiggrin:

[Thrudd]

As Malifice once pointed out, Rulings are not house rules, they are a dm doing what a dm is supposed to do.

It may be quibbling, but I'd say that asking for an ability check to have a combat effect not normally allowed would be a new rule, not a ruling. Especially if that effect is one that is available to some characters as a class ability- you're creating a significant new tactical tool that will be used by everyone. If you add riders to the new ability, like special consequences for failure to discourage abuse, well that looks like a rule even more so. The same with asking to add significant new utility to a feat that is "always on". Asking for a decision on how high or far an athletics check will let you jump would be a ruling, since athletics already allows you to make jumps and the book is rather vague about it.

Now, if it is a one-time or infrequent thing in a situation that can't be purposefully or easily recreated, as other folks have mentioned, I'd call that a ruling. As in- I'm way up high and the enemy is below, I think I could jump far enough to not really come into their threatened zone at all. Ok, one time DM ruling on it. That's different than giving characters new major abilities that will be useful literally all the time.

It's fine for DMs to do both- people make house rules all the time. I'm just saying to consider the overall effect of the changes on future situations. If it's going to be something that comes up all the time and/or has an impact on combat, you should make it a codified rule that everyone is clear on, so there's no argument or confusion later. You need to be very clear about when and how the ability can be used. Is it replicating or very similar to the class ability of another class? Maybe suggest that the character multi-class to get the ability they want, rather than making a special ability just for them.

[Keravath]

Technically, I think what is being asked is if he can jump over the enemy at sufficient distance that he never enters the enemy's reach. Which is why this comes down to how much an Athletics check can add to your jumping distance, which the rules don't specify nor even hint at. Just that it can. How much? Who knows!?

That never even occurred to me since I'm not sure it is remotely possible under the 5e rules and honestly would require super human jumping ability to do assuming the character had the normal load of weapons, armor and equipment.

To jump OVER without an opportunity attack they would need to start jumping from 10' - outside the 5' reach - jump on the order of 10' above the creature (which is probably a minimum of 15' or so into the air - and then land 10' beyond the creature they were jumping over. A medium creature would be able to reach about 5' above their height with a weapon giving them an effective height to clear on the order of 10 to 12'.

"High]ump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

So with a 20 strength a character could jump into the air 8 feet if they had a 10' run up.

"When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

"At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such a s a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it."

So a 20 strength character could jump 20 feet with a run up to it - however, the rules specifically give this a DC10 to clear an obstacle of 5' height in the way and if it is taller you hit it AND the DM doesn't have to give that option.

In the jumping over a creature to avoid an op attack the jumper has to jump horizontally 15-20' and up at least 10'.

Unless the character has a ring of jumping, some other magical ability or some special circumstances - I would just gently explain to the player that this particular idea would not work and lets come up with something else that is fun but doesn't require super jumping abilities.

[Chad.e.clark]

For a homebrew game, if you want to do something outside of specific RAW, go for it, but there will be consequences for failure. Jumping over an enemy to prevent an OA? Sure, make an Athletics roll. Success means the cool thing happens, failure means you are prone, and spectacular failure means you are possibly stunned from hitting your head on the floor, make a Con save please.

For AL, gotta run it by the book.

[Witty Username]

It depends.
Why is the player asking?
What is the RAW in question?
What effect that it will have on the game?
How much work will this mean for me?
What are the other players' opinions?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It depends.
Why is the player asking?
What is the RAW in question?
What effect that it will have on the game?
How much work will this mean for me?
What are the other players' opinions?

Adding one to this:

What will it mean for the setting?

[kingcheesepants]

Considering this forum once had a campaign journal with negative leniency, where Fireball couldn't even set petrol soaked rags alight...

What I'm saying is that if dolphins are banned you've given far too little leniency.

I'd er on the side of 'let them roll'. I wouldn't allow a player to change the parameters of a spell, and rolling to will physical changes (the 'I grow wings and fly to the moon' deal) isn't something I'd do. But I might have a player roll a check if they want their Lightning Bolt to ignite something, or place their fireball in a very specific spot.


What is the difference between the DM who said no to Fireball igniting the rags and you forcing the players to make a check to see if their lightning bolt ignites something? You ask for a roll to do what the spell specifically does and the other guy just said no?

I guess your way is better than the former but I'd much rather have a DM who didn't nerf my spells. Lightning bolt (and Fireball for that matter) ignite flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried. Fireball travels to a point in range of the casters choosing. Asking for a check to ignite something with lightning bolt or put your fireball in a specific spot is just a straight nerf to the spell.

Another example that I had to live through was a DM who forced me to make deception checks to see if people believed my illusions or not (since I was a wizard who dumped Cha and didn't have deception proficiency, my illusions were essentially useless) Please don't be a fun killing DM by forcing your players to make unnecessary checks or saves just to use the spells and abilities that they already have.

[Segev]

Another example that I had to live through was a DM who forced me to make deception checks to see if people believed my illusions or not (since I was a wizard who dumped Int and didn't have deception proficiency, my illusions were essentially useless) Please don't be a fun killing DM by forcing your players to make unnecessary checks or saves just to use the spells and abilities that they already have.

Do you mean you'd dumped Charisma, not Intelligence? If you did dump Intelligence as a wizard...why, and what did you get instead?

[kingcheesepants]

Do you mean you'd dumped Charisma, not Intelligence? If you did dump Intelligence as a wizard...why, and what did you get instead?

Yes I meant Charisma. Just a typo. I'll fix the original post now.

[Segev]

Yes I meant Charisma. Just a typo. I'll fix the original post now.

Thought so, but didn't want to assume. Condolences. Making you MAD without telling you in advance was uncool. Especially since your spell DC is supposed to set the Investigation difficulty.

[Pex]

It depends.
Why is the player asking?
What is the RAW in question?
What effect that it will have on the game?
How much work will this mean for me?
What are the other players' opinions?

The bold question is my concern. Obviously the player asking wants to gain a benefit. Because he wants to gain a benefit that should not mean an automatic No because the DM thinks the player wants to get away with something. I'm not saying it must be Yes, but I caution DMs not to knee jerk react negatively the player is trying to Win D&D. A passive aggressive Yes is worse than a No. A passive aggressive Yes is allowing the Thing but applying so many penalties and costs the player regrets doing it or takes it back to not do it at all.

It's fine for it to be a one time thing for Rule of Cool or being caught up in the excitement of action the player honestly forgot the rules don't work that way. It likely should be a one time thing, but don't admonish the player for it. If you want to say No, say No. The player was not Wrong to ask, even if you say Yes. If a player repeatedly asks for this leniency, that's when it's a player problem to be handled out of game.

[Skrum]

I'm pretty open to reasonable-ness. If a player makes a good case, essentially some form of "it would make sense for X, Y, Z reasons," then I'd be fairly inclined to let 'em do it.

[Osuniev]

I'm happier to find a way to make things work in the aim of creating a fun scene than a carte blanche 'No'.

Uh, what does this mean in English ? Because in French, carte blanche means "blank map" or "blank sheet", (blank as in "no instructions/restrictions written on it") as in "do things the way you want, you have full power and freedom to get them done" (which sounds like the opposite of what you seem to say).

[Segev]

Uh, what does this mean in English ? Because in French, carte blanche means "blank map" or "blank sheet", (blank as in "no instructions/restrictions written on it") as in "do things the way you want, you have full power and freedom to get them done" (which sounds like the opposite of what you seem to say).

In English, we transliterate it to mean "blank check," and use it as you indicated: free reign to do whatever you want.

In this case, I think he meant "hard no" or "unchecked no," neither of which is a typical use of the phrase, but I can see where he would take how it's used and extrapolate a meaning that makes sense.

[rel]

If I want to have every situation carefully spelled out in the big book of rules I play 3.5

The big draw of 5e is that the rules are simpler and a lot is left up to the GM to determine.
I will allow a lot to be achieved with a gamble and an ability check.

But it will be a gamble and the price of failure will be as high as the boon of success.

For the first example:
You want to jump over someone?
Tricky, but I've seen starship troopers. Do a backflip! Athletics or acrobatics with a difficulty based on circumstances like what kind of monster it is, the terrain, lighting, how much gear you're carrying and so on. Failure will not be pretty.

For the second example:
I'm not sure what you're trying to do. Explain again and this time don't reference the specifics of your build.

[Osuniev]

It actually gets really complicated to even ballpark it, since Strength determines both your Jump Height and your Athletics Check.

For example, if you decide that a DC 10 is enough to jump an extra 5 feet over your jump limit, but you can't roll less than 10, wouldn't it basically mean that you just get an extra 5 feet of jumping distance after a certain level/Strength combination?

It's one of the most bizarre cases of synergy I've seen in an RPG, since the synergy only exists at the end result, yet it grinds more and more against the system every step of the way there.
You have your default jump distance, however you can make an Athletics Check to jump that much feet instead. So there's no synergy between Athletics and Jump distance, just two ways to solve the same problem

But that has more to do with how odd Athletics is with Jumping than the actual thread topic. An easier example is figuring out how Illusions work in combat (which is kind of a cursed sentence, if you ask me).

Hey ! I use a similar houserule ! I mostly came up with it because the PHB rules are annoying to convert in meters, and I play with people who don't know instinctively what feet represent....

For those of you are using the metric system, here is the rule I suggest (I took a reaaaally long time to come up with them. I checked average jumping distances with and without momentum. I checked Jumping distances of 5 YEARS OLD to get a sense of what would not be too absurd for a Gnome jumping distance..).

High Jump (with a running start): you can always Jump your Strength in dm (so 2.0 m if you have 20 Strength, 0.8 if you have STR 8), that"s your minimum. You can replace that with an Athletics check in dm (so at level 1, a Human with 17 STR and Proficiency in Athletics can reach... the world record, but not reliably, which I think is fine for an "action movie" heroics like DnD, and a lucky player with 8 STR has a 5 % chance to jump a 1.9m obstacle, which is fine . Yes, at higher levels you can do better, which makes sense if you are Hercules. You still cant reliably jump over 2 meters, which is realistic I believe (a guaranteed 8 feet High Jump/2.10 m seemed a bit high to me)

Long Jump (with a running start): you can jump a minimum of 1 m every 3 points of STR. To jump farther, you do an Athletics check (DD 3x(length in meters) ). Means with 16 STR, a natural 20, and Expertise in Athletics, a tier 1 character can just beat the world record... Without Expertise, you need at least 5 levels and an ASI,in Strength.

It also means someone who has athletics can do decent jumps most of the time, even if they didn't invest in Strength. However, the High Strength character will always be the one who can reliably jump the furthest.

[Segev]

I will say that, while I understand the impulse to make jumping distances as realistic as you can, that ~6 feet is not particularly far on a battlemat, and will generally mean jumping...doesn't happen. There's never a point. The nigh-inhumanly-strong champion athlete can only reliably jump as far as twice his normal stride? What's he doing, skipping? At best, a level 20 super-athlete can possibly get just over 12 feet? (That's rolling a natural 20 with 20 strength and expertise in Athletics, giving you 37 as your result.)

World records for running long jumps exceed 8m, which is about 26 feet. A "realistic" approach to that seems to me to be to have that Strength 20 individual be able to make that 6m (~20 feet) jump regularly, and with a roll get another 2m/5 feet out of it. I am not fond of "merely" letting a successful athletics roll add another 5 feet, but it's a not-unreasonable approach, and gets us the high-strength character being able to match world record long jumping.

[Osuniev]

I will say that, while I understand the impulse to make jumping distances as realistic as you can, that ~6 feet is not particularly far on a battlemat, and will generally mean jumping...doesn't happen. There's never a point. The nigh-inhumanly-strong champion athlete can only reliably jump as far as twice his normal stride? What's he doing, skipping? At best, a level 20 super-athlete can possibly get just over 12 feet? (That's rolling a natural 20 with 20 strength and expertise in Athletics, giving you 37 as your result.)

World records for running long jumps exceed 8m, which is about 26 feet. A "realistic" approach to that seems to me to be to have that Strength 20 individual be able to make that 6m (~20 feet) jump regularly, and with a roll get another 2m/5 feet out of it. I am not fond of "merely" letting a successful athletics roll add another 5 feet, but it's a not-unreasonable approach, and gets us the high-strength character being able to match world record long jumping.

I think you misread me. 2.0 meters is the minimum HEIGHT a 20 STR character can jump, these are high jumps. I changed the High Jump rules because in meters, the official rule is annoying (dividing by 3 your STR bonus). So the minimum, guaranteed high jump is lower by that rule, which IMO helps verisimilitude, whilst heroic jump are still possible but the Athletics check provides tension.

(World record of high jump is 2.45 m. This is only reliably doable by a lvl 20 barbarian with 24 Strength, which I think is ok given that 1. PCs have lots of equipement most of the time, unlike olympians 2. a PC with + 9 in STR (Athletics) can jump that 1 out of 4 times).

The Long Jump rules are almost the same as the PHB rules (rounding up 3 feet to one meter, they are even a bit more lenient), they offer in addition the possibility of jumping further with a successful Athletics check. Meaning even a low STR character can do a good long jump sometimes, which I think makes for tense moments at the table instead of boring calculations and a conclusion of "nope, cant do it".

So your 20 strength individual can reliably jump (20/3=) almost 7 meters. If they want to jump farther, they'll need an Athletics check, which, ven if they are not proficient, gives them a chance to reach (20+5)/3= 8 m on a natural 20. To beat world record, they need Athletics proficiency (at high levels, they'll break the world record often, which is pretty impressive considering, again, worn equipment). With Expertise, at 10th level and 20 STR, they need only a 12 of the dice.

One rule I completely forgot (and shamelessly stole from someone on the internet) : whilst a minimum of 3m is needed for a full high jump, a character that has more of a running start (say 6 meters or more) would get Advantage on the roll.

Note that in combat, a character cannot jump more than their speed anyway, meaning they'll need to Dash for their Long Jump to matter, since they also need the running start.

[Segev]

I think you misread me. 2.0 meters is the minimum HEIGHT a 20 STR character can jump, these are high jumps. I changed the High Jump rules because in meters, the official rule is annoying (dividing by 3 your STR bonus). So the minimum, guaranteed high jump is lower by that rule, which IMO helps verisimilitude, whilst heroic jump are still possible but the Athletics check provides tension.

(World record of high jump is 2.45 m. This is only reliably doable by a lvl 20 barbarian with 24 Strength, which I think is ok given that 1. PCs have lots of equipement most of the time, unlike olympians 2. a PC with + 9 in STR (Athletics) can jump that 1 out of 4 times).

The Long Jump rules are almost the same as the PHB rules (rounding up 3 feet to one meter, they are even a bit more lenient), they offer in addition the possibility of jumping further with a successful Athletics check. Meaning even a low STR character can do a good long jump sometimes, which I think makes for tense moments at the table instead of boring calculations and a conclusion of "nope, cant do it".

So your 20 strength individual can reliably jump (20/3=) almost 7 meters. If they want to jump farther, they'll need an Athletics check, which, ven if they are not proficient, gives them a chance to reach (20+5)/3= 8 m on a natural 20. To beat world record, they need Athletics proficiency (at high levels, they'll break the world record often, which is pretty impressive considering, again, worn equipment). With Expertise, at 10th level and 20 STR, they need only a 12 of the dice.

One rule I completely forgot (and shamelessly stole from someone on the internet) : whilst a minimum of 3m is needed for a full high jump, a character that has more of a running start (say 6 meters or more) would get Advantage on the roll.

Note that in combat, a character cannot jump more than their speed anyway, meaning they'll need to Dash for their Long Jump to matter, since they also need the running start.
I did misunderstand you, yes. That's more reasonable.

[Witty Username]

The bold question is my concern. Obviously the player asking wants to gain a benefit. Because he wants to gain a benefit that should not mean an automatic No because the DM thinks the player wants to get away with something. I'm not saying it must be Yes, but I caution DMs not to knee jerk react negatively the player is trying to Win D&D. A passive aggressive Yes is worse than a No. A passive aggressive Yes is allowing the Thing but applying so many penalties and costs the player regrets doing it or takes it back to not do it at all.

It's fine for it to be a one time thing for Rule of Cool or being caught up in the excitement of action the player honestly forgot the rules don't work that way. It likely should be a one time thing, but don't admonish the player for it. If you want to say No, say No. The player was not Wrong to ask, even if you say Yes. If a player repeatedly asks for this leniency, that's when it's a player problem to be handled out of game.

Looking back on it, I think my thoughts require clarification. I have encountered situations where a player asks for a homebrew something or to do a thing and their is an existing rules solution for it that they have not thought of, the primary way this has come up is a player asking for a homebrew class that functionally already exists.
So my thoughts are more is the players wants better served by existing systems they aren't aware of, and will what they are asking actually accomplish what they want.

[Pex]

Looking back on it, I think my thoughts require clarification. I have encountered situations where a player asks for a homebrew something or to do a thing and their is an existing rules solution for it that they have not thought of, the primary way this has come up is a player asking for a homebrew class that functionally already exists.
So my thoughts are more is the players wants better served by existing systems they aren't aware of, and will what they are asking actually accomplish what they want.

It's not a problem to err on the side of official published stuff instead of homebrew. Saying No is fine. My concern is about why the DM is saying No. I don't want DMs to be suspicious of the player who does the asking. If the player has a consistent history of asking for outrageous stuff, sure go ahead and be suspicious and you can still say Yes once in a while. If the player finds this one particular Thing to be not fun for him while everything else is and wants a change it shouldn't be suspect the player is being sinister. For example, a player may be whole heartedly playing a single class Hexblade but doesn't like the Specter because he feels it will quickly become obsolete as the levels progress. Rather than have an ability he'll never use he wants it replaced. He asks for resistance to necrotic damage. You can say Yes, you can say No, but don't say No because you think the player is being a whiny baby power hungry munchkin or say Yes anyway while still thinking it. Mainly, don't admonish a player for asking for a Cool Thing. Players who truly are whiny baby power hungry munchkins will let you know all on their own.

[ad_hoc]

In this specific case? No, the game already has a mechanic to determine whether someone avoids an OA. The creature makes the OA and the character avoids it if their AC is high enough.

This reminds me of a game I played where one of the players described their attack: "I raise the axe over my head and then bring it down with all my might!." And then after hitting he asked the DM how much extra damage he gets for raising it over his head first.

Not how that works.

[Witty Username]

@Pex
Alright, I think we are essentially in agreement.