That’s not raw

[CMCC]

Treantmonk’s latest. “The Rules Don’t Say I Can’t”

https://youtu.be/ImL3gA-4puM

[Dork_Forge]

Okay, but why are you posting his latest video?

What are the cliffnotes and points of interest for the forum?

[x3n0n]

High-level bullet points from the video:

* RAW means "there is a rule that explicitly says this".
* Almost all 5e RAW is permissive: it describes things you *can* do. (Exceptions are things like conditions that say you can't do something.)
* If something is not in the RAW, then it's not RAW.
* "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" ("TRDSIC") is often conflated with RAW by players who explicitly want to game the system.
* The DM and players always need to come to an agreement about how things work, which often starts from the DM's combination of common sense, interpretation of RAI, and the "Rule of Cool" can all come into play.
* TRDSIC by itself means nothing: sometimes it makes sense to allow them, sometimes not. If the rules don't say, then you need to build a common agreement.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I've always been curious about this and whether this is RAW.

There are numerous times this is explicitly stated within the PHB.


IMPROVISING AN ACTION

Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

I've always felt that the numerous instances where this is explicitly stated within the PHB means that within reason of course, that I as a player can say things like

I try to prevent spell casting by grabbing their hands and stopping somatic components
I disarm their sword via the Athletics grab/shove rules per PHB "Contests in Combat"
I attempt to armbar someone
I pocket Sand someone


And those are all RAW even if they aren't. I don't quite know what to call this grey area.

[Demostheknees]

I've always been curious about this and whether this is RAW.

There are numerous times this is explicitly stated within the PHB.


IMPROVISING AN ACTION

Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

I've always felt that the numerous instances where this is explicitly stated within the PHB means that within reason of course, that I as a player can say things like

I try to prevent spell casting by grabbing their hands and stopping somatic components
I disarm their sword via the Athletics grab/shove rules per PHB "Contests in Combat"
I attempt to armbar someone
I pocket Sand someone


And those are all RAW even if they aren't. I don't quite know what to call this grey area.


I would call that wildcard RAW, where there is a rule that gives you permission to do X, but X can really be anything as long as it can be mapped to a different resolution mechanic provided by the game. Its probably the best you can do at codifying the "rulings not rules" philosophy within 5e.

[Dr.Samurai]

I've always been curious about this and whether this is RAW.

There are numerous times this is explicitly stated within the PHB.


IMPROVISING AN ACTION

Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

I've always felt that the numerous instances where this is explicitly stated within the PHB means that within reason of course, that I as a player can say things like

I try to prevent spell casting by grabbing their hands and stopping somatic components
I disarm their sword via the Athletics grab/shove rules per PHB "Contests in Combat"
I attempt to armbar someone
I pocket Sand someone


And those are all RAW even if they aren't. I don't quite know what to call this grey area.
In my experience, you can call this "Not Allowed" :smallsigh::smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would call that wildcard RAW, where there is a rule that gives you permission to do X, but X can really be anything as long as it can be mapped to a different resolution mechanic provided by the game. Its probably the best you can do at codifying the "rulings not rules" philosophy within 5e.

And thankfully there's no command that we have to stick to RAW. Or even, IMO, expectation. RAW is deliberately underspecified and deliberately calls out for DM judgement. Any decision that the DM makes is "within RAW", although it may not be what is most fun for the table (that being an utterly orthogonal consideration that IMO is more important).

[Dante]

I've always felt that the numerous instances where this is explicitly stated within the PHB means that within reason of course, that I as a player can say things like

I try to prevent spell casting by grabbing their hands and stopping somatic components
I disarm their sword via the Athletics grab/shove rules per PHB "Contests in Combat"
I attempt to armbar someone
I pocket Sand someone


And those are all RAW even if they aren't. I don't quite know what to call this grey area.

As DM I'd let you do any of these, except that I don't know what "pocket Sanding" is and would need an explanation. For armbars I'd say, "based on what I understand of how arm bars work, this will cost you an attack, and will trigger an Athletics contest similar to grappling. If you win, you'll be prone and both of your hands will be occupied with the arm bar, but the opponent will be both prone and restrained until he breaks your grapple. This will only work against human-shaped opponents, although you may be able to improvise similar techniques on other shapes. Does that sound reasonable?"

[Stangler]

I feel like his RAW example he started with was really weird because it really just boiled down to what I consider an extremely unusual reading of the way the rules describe the action cost of abilities. My take is that any reference to saying something like "can use an action to" is just how the rules describe the requirement. To act like this is open ended or not explicit is ridiculous.

[RSP]

I've always been curious about this and whether this is RAW.

There are numerous times this is explicitly stated within the PHB.


I've always felt that the numerous instances where this is explicitly stated within the PHB means that within reason of course, that I as a player can say things like

I try to prevent spell casting by grabbing their hands and stopping somatic components
I disarm their sword via the Athletics grab/shove rules per PHB "Contests in Combat"
I attempt to armbar someone
I pocket Sand someone


And those are all RAW even if they aren't. I don't quite know what to call this grey area.

Just pointing out the RAW doesn’t say you can do these things; it says you can do these things if your DM allows it.

Those aren’t equivalent statements.


As DM I'd let you do any of these, except that I don't know what "pocket Sanding" is and would need an explanation.

If I’m DMing, I’d allow the following:


I try to prevent spell casting by grabbing their hands and stopping somatic components: I’d allow grappling to take place. This “action” is explicitly trying to do quite a bit more than what grappling does.


I disarm their sword via the Athletics grab/shove rules per PHB "Contests in Combat": no issue with this.


I attempt to armbar someone: again, this is explicitly “I want to do more than grapple”, and is pretty much covered by what I think the Grappler feat encompasses.


I pocket Sand someone: not sure what this is either.

[Keltest]

Pocket Sand typically means "i throw a pocketfull of sand in somebody's face to blind and possibly incapacitate them in the very short term."

Frankly, its something thats enough of a trope that I'm really surprised it isnt already flat out an item, and I would readily allow it. Attempting to blind somebody seems like a fair value for your action.

[Dante]

I attempt to armbar someone: again, this is explicitly “I want to do more than grapple”, and is pretty much covered by what I think the Grappler feat encompasses.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I was assuming the target was already grappled before the arm bar attempt.

If a player were interested in Grappler, I'd look into different benefits for it. Probably something asking the lines of letting you grapple creatures that would otherwise be too big. Maybe I'd also let you arm bar with only one hand free, or without falling prone, or maybe giving you some Tavern Brawler-style improvised weapon benefits against anyone you've grappled (maybe beating their head against the floor for d6 damage, with proficiency?).


Pocket Sand typically means "i throw a pocketfull of sand in somebody's face to blind and possibly incapacitate them in the very short term."

Frankly, its something thats enough of a trope that I'm really surprised it isnt already flat out an item, and I would readily allow it. Attempting to blind somebody seems like a fair value for your action.

Yeah, me too. Like a Help action with higher risk/reward and an equipment dependency. One-round blindness (DC 10 Dex save to avoid) for an action seems in line with PHB caltrops and ball bearings.

[Kane0]

If these were to come up at my table i'd usually go with the 'if you have multiple attacks this replaces one of them' direction

[GooeyChewie]

Re: Pocket sand. I would treat it as a fluffed Help action. It’s a fun interaction once, but if it gives the party too much of a mechanical benefit they’ll keep using it and the joke will get very old very quick.

[CMCC]

Okay, but why are you posting his latest video?

What are the cliffnotes and points of interest for the forum?

Watch it. Post your opinion.

Don’t comment without watching the whole thing.

[Waazraath]

The difficulty is that if you allow an armbar, and we assume that D&D humans work more or less the same as real world humans (without the rules specifying otherwise, for instance regarding 'holding your breath' and 'how far you can jump'), it should be trivially easy for the person who made the arm lock to break said arm. And that opens a whole can of worms.

Cause if you allow this, this becomes broken (hur hur) good, and every martial will get expertise in athletics to disable enemies relatively easy. And we need rules for "what you can do with a broken arm" or "two broken arms" or (with sadistic players) "with two broken arms and two broken legs". And if you do not allow this, you are running an inverted 'guy in the gym' where any average bloke in real life with a few years of wrestling, jiu jutsu, bjj, mma or similar can do something what your super heroic fanasy super strength barbarian can not.

I think grappling is a very good example of something which is covered rather abyssmal by the rules, but which I don't have a suggestion to do it better, because you don't want a huge subset of rules for what is often a minor thing in d&d (3.5's grappling was already annoying for lots of folks, and not even that complicated).

Another thing: for all these "improvising an action" moves goes: they are cool, they make combat more lively, and give martials more options (which some players want), so I want to allow them as a DM. But as soon as an action is improvised that is easily repeated (say, poke somebody in the eyes, contrasted with "swing on a chandelier and then kick somebody" which requirers said chandelier), there is no reason not to keep doing it. So you need to balance it. And that needs rules. Which 5e doesn't provide, so it comes down to extra work for the DM, or players not abusing something which is allowed once. Cause else you risk getting one of these 'one trick pony' builds you saw in 3.5, where all a fighter did was tripping people (but tripping them really good), or charging them (but charghing really hard), etc. So effectively, it's only 'safe' to allow improvised actions in specific circumstances which rarely occur, for instance with something in the environment.

The 'solution' would be lots of extra rules (just as with grappling), but lots of players don 't want that either. And 5e decided anyway not to go that way.

/end of not really coherent stream of thoughts more or less related to the topic

[RSP]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I was assuming the target was already grappled before the arm bar attempt.

If a player were interested in Grappler, I'd look into different benefits for it.

My point is: you’re asking to do something that’s already covered by the rules, just without the requirement.

One way to view this is: if you want to have a character skilled at armbars, take the Grappler feat to show that.

As a DM, if you want to houserule different benefits for Grappler and thouserule “everyone can armbar” and then define what that does in the game, go for it.

But that doesn’t seem to be what your earlier post was indicating.

[Floogal]

Watch it. Post your opinion.

Don’t comment without watching the whole thing. Usually when I'm browsing this forum, I'm not in a position where I can watch videos.

I recall Treantmonk used to share document guides, is there a non-video version of his discussion? I'm having trouble imagining what could be discussed on this topic that needs a video specifically.

[Rynjin]

It's just the modern trend of making a 20 minute video out of what could have been a 30 second read. You get paid more for the former.

[meandean]

I think it's a point worth making. I looked through my own posts and found an example of myself misusing it. I was talking about using minor illusion to give yourself cover during combat. I said that some DMs will essentially soft-ban this strategy and target you regardless, even though it's "RAW". But that's a misnomer. What's RAW is that you can't hit someone in total cover. It isn't RAW that enemies can't shoot into what appears to them to be total cover.

The distinction is important, because a discussion about which interpretation is more logical, is going to proceed a lot differently than a discussion about whether to overturn an explicitly stated rule. The burdens of proof are different. In this example, I can tell my DM that I subjectively don't think that NPC behavior makes sense. I can't tell him that he objectively is breaking the rules and hurting my character by doing so.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's just the modern trend of making a 20 minute video out of what could have been a 30 second read. You get paid more for the former.
I'm inclined to agree that the video isn't exactly necessary.

If you are a forum poster that engages in many in-depth conversations that hinge on "RAW", I suppose this may be helpful. But it strikes me as painfully obvious, similar to when Tempest posted the Stormwind Fallacy way back in 3rd edition.

[strangebloke]

Watch it. Post your opinion.

Don’t comment without watching the whole thing.

Nope. I won't.

This is a discussion forum, not a youtube comment section.

[PhantomSoul]

Watch it. Post your opinion.

Don’t comment without watching the whole thing.

It would have been good for you to do that in posting the thread. As is, the OP gives me no reason to click the link anyway; there's more content in a youtube comment than in the OP!






It's just the modern trend of making a 20 minute video out of what could have been a 30 second read. You get paid more for the former.

I'm inclined to agree that the video isn't exactly necessary.


This is largely what I expect from Treantmonk videos (even the build ones go on for way longer than they have any reason to, to the point that I've given up watching them, particularly tacking on assumptions or interpretations that don't hold for my tables).

[Dork_Forge]

Watch it. Post your opinion.

Don’t comment without watching the whole thing.

No thank you, this isn't the YT comments or a Treantmonk subforum, you basically plugged his latest video with no explanation of why or of what benefit it is to the forum. When I want to watch D&D YT vids I go to YT, not a text forum.

[x3n0n]

FWIW, I found this particular video more insightful than most of its genre.

That said, I agree that this would have been more significantly valuable as an article than it is as a video; the medium added very little while making it hard to reference, and I'm making these notes from memory after watching it yesterday.

The key distinction is that RAW is literally the Rules As Written, which in 5e are almost always "permissive": for example, "as an action, you can...".
This is VERY often conflated with (Treantmonk's new-to-me acronym) TRDSIC: The Rules Don't Say I Can't.
A particular argument form from some players is "According to RAW, I can (fill in the blank)", but actually the RAW has nothing explicit about that thing--it's a case of TRDSIC instead.
One particular example given is dropping an item: the practice of dropping an item without spending the turn's object interaction is apparently not RAW, but is based on a Jeremy Crawford tweet from a long time ago saying something like "I'd allow it". (The tweets in question are screenshotted in the video, but I don't feel like finding the timestamp. Sigh wrong medium.)
One particular pet peeve of TM's is the player practice of complaining that JC is always wrong, giving lots of examples, and then using his tweets as reference when he says "I'd allow it" to some specific thing they want to do.

It feels like the biggest intended takeaways are:
* Don't call it RAW if it's not RAW; if you can't cite rules in the rulebooks that directly say "you can", it's not RAW.
* Don't argue in bad faith, and don't be a hypocrite, citing JC and/or Sage Advice as useful sources for Rules As Intended for support when it suits you and then saying JC is stupid and SA/RAI are pointless on the next topic.
* Everything at the table must be adjudicated by a common agreement among all of the participants. RAW is one of the ways that happens, but less so than you'd think.

[Unoriginal]

I'm grateful that OP warned us this is a Treantmonk video, but it gives us negative reasons to click on the link.

On the subject of "The rules don't say I can't", the entire topic can be (and IMO should be) covered in 30 seconds:

Player: "The rules don't say I can't."
DM: "It doesn't matter. *I* say that you can/can't."

The DM is the master of the rules, not mastered by the rules.

[Psyren]

I quit about 10 minutes in. I like his mechanical insights (even when I disagree with his interpretations) but spending 25+ minutes dissecting community minutiae ain't it.

[Dante]

My point is: you’re asking to do something that’s already covered by the rules, just without the requirement.

One way to view this is: if you want to have a character skilled at armbars, take the Grappler feat to show that.

As a DM, if you want to houserule different benefits for Grappler and thouserule “everyone can armbar” and then define what that does in the game, go for it.

But that doesn’t seem to be what your earlier post was indicating.

You're not wrong, but (1) it's a rule so weak that it typically goes unused and unpicked, (2) I view the base combat rules as more important and more fundamental to the game. If that means other rules like the Grappler feat need to change to get better abilities, that's fine. Grappler already needs a change anyway even if you don't allow armbars.

[Keravath]

I think it's a point worth making. I looked through my own posts and found an example of myself misusing it. I was talking about using minor illusion to give yourself cover during combat. I said that some DMs will essentially soft-ban this strategy and target you regardless, even though it's "RAW". But that's a misnomer. What's RAW is that you can't hit someone in total cover. It isn't RAW that enemies can't shoot into what appears to them to be total cover.

The distinction is important, because a discussion about which interpretation is more logical, is going to proceed a lot differently than a discussion about whether to overturn an explicitly stated rule. The burdens of proof are different. In this example, I can tell my DM that I subjectively don't think that NPC behavior makes sense. I can't tell him that he objectively is breaking the rules and hurting my character by doing so.

It is an important distinction. Many calls are up to the DM. However, in your example, I'd say that the player's subjective opinion that it should work might need some modification :). NPCs firing through the illusion makes perfect sense from the NPC perspective and the issue here is that the player thinks a cantrip in combat should do more than it says it does.

- you are in combat, everyone is paying attention
- if the NPCs can see you, they can see anything you create in front of you
- a crate suddenly appears in the middle of combat blocking you from view. The NPCs (if intelligent) may not know whether you conjured it or if it is real. However, they are a bit busy to take an action to inspect it.
- so what does the NPC do? It fires through the crate at where it thinks you are. The attack is at disadvantage since it can't see you. This attack will tell the NPCs whether the crate is real or not. After the first arrow goes through the illusion - the nature of the illusion becomes obvious and everyone can see through it. "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

For an intelligent opponent, the approach used by the NPCs makes a lot of sense and results in one attack being made at disadvantage.

-------------

Characters can try to do anything - that is the nature of the game and it is explicitly stated as cited above. Whether something works or not is entirely up to the DM to decide.

- armbar? - DM can say no if they wish. The bad guys as well as the PCs are trained adventurers - maybe they all know what to do in the middle of a fight to prevent it. Maybe everyone wears collars that prevent it? The gorget of a suit of armor is likely to prevent it. Or maybe the DM decides that trying to adjudicate individual martial arts moves requires too many new rules and just Nopes the idea.

- disarming an opponent? Doesn't the opponent know how to hold onto their weapon? How do you avoid getting stuck with the weapon as you dive in to take it away? Maybe the DM decides the defender gets an op attack on a failed disarm attempt? Sounds reasonable to me. (there are optional rules in the DMG for disarming if I recall).

- prevent spell casting by grabbing someone's hands - so many rulings necessary - a turn is 6 seconds - in that 6 seconds a spell caster could cast an action spell, a bonus action spell and move 30' (or whatever their movement is). Casting a spell is thus a fraction of 6 seconds. Maybe it is 1 second, 1.5 seconds? How big are the hand movements required? Do they only need to gesture with a single finger? What if you don't grab the right one? Do they need to wave a hand? Does it matter which one? If you are already grappling a caster, one of your hands is holding onto them - so if they start to cast a spell - which of their hands do you try to grab if they caster is waving both around? If you aren't already grappling them, then you have to react to the spell being cast, cross a distance of ~5 feet, and try to grab BOTH hands, at the same time, while the caster tries to avoid you grabbing the important hand. The bottom line is that, in a game I was running, I probably would rule that you can't interrupt a spell by grabbing the caster's hands - it is a cool idea that sounds neat up front but would be practically almost impossible to achieve unless you had some other circumstances that would make it possible.

Anyway, players make a lot of cool suggestions that might seem to make sense at first glance but when you take them apart are actually really unlikely to work. The DM gets to decide for their game how it works and whether these ideas actually make enough sense to be possible.

P.S. ... and then apply rule of cool if they think it would be narratively fun but won't break the immersion too much.

[Dante]

- prevent spell casting by grabbing someone's hands - so many rulings necessary - a turn is 6 seconds - in that 6 seconds a spell caster could cast an action spell, a bonus action spell and move 30' (or whatever their movement is). Casting a spell is thus a fraction of 6 seconds. Maybe it is 1 second, 1.5 seconds? How big are the hand movements required? Do they only need to gesture with a single finger? What if you don't grab the right one? Do they need to wave a hand? Does it matter which one? If you are already grappling a caster, one of your hands is holding onto them - so if they start to cast a spell - which of their hands do you try to grab if they caster is waving both around? If you aren't already grappling them, then you have to react to the spell being cast, cross a distance of ~5 feet, and try to grab BOTH hands, at the same time, while the caster tries to avoid you grabbing the important hand. The bottom line is that, in a game I was running, I probably would rule that you can't interrupt a spell by grabbing the caster's hands - it is a cool idea that sounds neat up front but would be practically almost impossible to achieve unless you had some other circumstances that would make it possible.

I'll suggest that one mark of a good ruling here would be if it's cheaper/easier to prevent somatic components for a caster who already has one occupied, e.g. with a shield. Taking control of two hands should be more difficult than taking control of one. (I think I'd probably charge one attack per attempt per hand. Use grappling rules, but unlike grappling it won't impair movement; and I'd let you upgrade to a grapple with the same hand that you're already using to control an opponent's hand.)

[Keravath]

I'm grateful that OP warned us this is a Treantmonk video, but it gives us negative reasons to click on the link.

On the subject of "The rules don't say I can't", the entire topic can be (and IMO should be) covered in 30 seconds:

Player: "The rules don't say I can't."
DM: "It doesn't matter. *I* say that you can/can't."

The DM is the master of the rules, not mastered by the rules.

Agreed. Sometimes I wish this forum had the ability to like posts :)

[Dante]

Treantmonk’s latest. “The Rules Don’t Say I Can’t”

https://youtu.be/ImL3gA-4puM

I watched the first few minutes of this video. Treant seems to be making an unnecessary distinction between "you cannot by RAW" and "by RAW you cannot." As in, he argues that "an Astral Monk cannot create an astral visage for free" is "not RAW" because the rules just say you can create one by spending ki, not that you cannot create one without spending ki.

Like, who cares? In what context is that a useful distinction to make?

The more interesting divide is between those who use "RAW" as an appeal to authority, as in "RAW says I can XYZ", and those who view RAW as a sort of a put-down and a way of making fun of technicalities, as in "by RAW, a vampire who changes into mist can never change back, because that takes an action and vampires in mist form are explicitly incapacitated."

I lost interest and stopped watching after a few minutes. If Treantmonk has something insightful to say on the subject, he missed his chance to say it to me.

Edit: another amusing example is that by RAW, Giant Rocktopuses all die within minutes of leaving the water even though they're supposed to be a land predator, since it doesn't lose its Water Breathing trait (The octopus can breathe only underwater.). Oops. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/146788/by-raw-is-the-giant-rocktopus-from-the-out-of-the-abyss-adventure-unable-to-bre

[stoutstien]

RaW is only relevant as a reference point to make decisions and to help DM's maintain a certain level of consistency with their rulings. You don't need a 30 minute video to tell you that you could make a ruling using raw but you can't play the game using raw alone.

[PhantomSoul]

RaW is only relevant as a reference point to make decisions and to help DM's maintain a certain level of consistency with their rulings. You don't need a 30 minute video to tell you that you could make a ruling using raw but you can't play the game using raw alone.

Nor to distinguish between "RAW says you can" and "RAW fails to say you can't" from, uh, him xD (Given his stuff has often resulted in a "yeah... as if that's flying at an actual table I'm a player or DM in" reaction from me)

[Dr.Samurai]

The treant hate is strong in this thread lol.

But didn't he do that Phantom build that required interpreting moving via mount as not having moved this turn for the purposes of using Steady Aim? Doesn't seem very RAW to me...

[PhantomSoul]

The treant hate is strong in this thread lol.

To offset: his (written) wizard guide had some good info to use as a starting point when narrowing down spell selections, even if there are going to be table differences and some differences in interpretation/interaction.

[Dante]

To offset: his (written) wizard guide had some good info to use as a starting point when narrowing down spell selections, even if there are going to be table differences and some differences in interpretation/interaction.

Also, it was text! Instead of a long Youtube video.

Text is much more accessible than Youtube videos, although it's not as good at bringing in the ad revenue.

[PhantomSoul]

Also, it was text! Instead of a long Youtube video.

Text is much more accessible than Youtube videos, although it's not as good at bringing in the ad revenue.

Yeah, text is WAY better, especially for this sort of content. Things you might want to reference, just around through, search within, skim, etc., just do better with text even before dealing with the fact that you might have other audio going or might not like the presentation style, pace or general delivery.

[stoutstien]

Nor to distinguish between "RAW says you can" and "RAW fails to say you can't" from, uh, him xD (Given his stuff has often resulted in a "yeah... as if that's flying at an actual table I'm a player or DM in" reaction from me)

Aye RTMS>RAI> somewhere way down below is RAW. I always get a giggle when I see someone say they play at at table that's strictly RaW. It has to lead to some just absurd moments.

[Rynjin]

The treant hate is strong in this thread lol.

I'm not gonna begrudge the man for chasing that bag wherever he can, but I will still call it like I see it.

[Leon]

Okay, but why are you posting his latest video?


Typical for the fawning fanbase of youtubers to get people to go watch the video and garner more metrics on it. Given who the video is referenced to in this case no its not raw, its half baked.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not gonna begrudge the man for chasing that bag wherever he can, but I will still call it like I see it.
I agree. I don't care that he is making videos now and is able to make money doing so; he clearly has viewers that want to watch and more power to him and Kol Korran bless! I also watch his videos at times because some of them I find informative. But as I said earlier, there's not much here that we don't already know in this particular video, and I'm surprised CMCC linked the video and ordered others to watch and comment but didn't provide any sort of commentary themselves. Seems a bit strange :smallconfused:.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm surprised CMCC linked the video and ordered others to watch and comment but didn't provide any sort of commentary themselves. Seems a bit strange :smallconfused:.

And further, despite having complained that people weren't watching and commenting/summarising, continued to absolutely never do so in this thread.

From that, kind of seemed like trolling to some extent (knowing how people might react to a treantmonk video, and all the more that it's treatmonk saying that).

[animorte]

I watched the first few minutes of this video. Treant seems to be making an unnecessary distinction between "you cannot by RAW" and "by RAW you cannot." As in, he argues that "an Astral Monk cannot create an astral visage for free" is "not RAW" because the rules just say you can create one by spending ki, not that you cannot create one without spending ki.

Like, who cares? In what context is that a useful distinction to make?
The entire purpose is to be aware of how many people attempt to abuse the system by that precise phrasing. Yes, it’s common sense to a lot of us, but look out for it at your tables/online. As already stated, doesn’t take that long to say.


Yeah, text is WAY better, especially for this sort of content. Things you might want to reference, just around through, search within, skim, etc., just do better with text even before dealing with the fact that you might have other audio going or might not like the presentation style, pace or general delivery.
Precisely. This is what keeps me alive!


I'm surprised CMCC linked the video and ordered others to watch and comment but didn't provide any sort of commentary themselves. Seems a bit strange :smallconfused:.
I didn’t see any post where CMCC ordered anything of anybody…?

Though I do somewhat agree about participation points. First, thanks to x3n0s for giving us a bit of summary points to work with. I did this exactly (in the OP) when I linked a treantmonk video a couple months ago.


Given who the video is referenced to in this case no its not raw, its half baked.
That was darn clever, you!

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn’t see any post where CMCC ordered anything of anybody…?
There are three directives in post 15 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25483175&postcount=15), and still no indication that CMCC themselves have in fact watched the video.

Though I do somewhat agree about participation points. First, thanks to x3n0s for giving us a bit of summary points to work with. I did this exactly (in the OP) when I linked a treantmonk video a couple months ago.
Agreed. This is a discussion forum so if someone thinks something is worthy of discussion, they should provide some conversation starters. Posting the video link without any commentary, and then giving out commandments when asked for further information seems like the OP is entitled to our time and opinions. I actually defended CMCC in a previous thread when they posted a link to their own video, but this seems different to me.

That said, we're all free to do as we please and some will engage (as I have) and watch the video and others won't. Hence why I commented that it was strange rather than that CMCC has committed a crime against humanity lol.

Everything I have said here is RAW, by the way...

[animorte]

There are three directives in post 15 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25483175&postcount=15), and still no indication that CMCC themselves have in fact watched the video.

That said, we're all free to do as we please and some will engage (as I have) and watch the video and others won't. Hence why I commented that it was strange rather than that CMCC has committed a crime against humanity lol

Ah, missed that.

I’ve always liked CMCC, not that anyone said they didn’t. I agree on the “strangeness” mainly in that expecting comments only upon video completion thoroughly limits overall discussion on the topic at hand.

[Dante]

The entire purpose is to be aware of how many people attempt to abuse the system by that precise phrasing. Yes, it’s common sense to a lot of us, but look out for it at your tables/online.

If it's so common, why was the best example Treantmonk could come up with "it doesn't say I can't cast Astral Visage without spending ki"?

I mean, I shouldn't complain because maybe he does have an actual point later on in the video, but my point is that by being boring and irrelevant for the first few minutes, he lost his chance.

There should have been a text summary.

[animorte]

If it's so common, why was the best example Treantmonk could come up with "it doesn't say I can't cast Astral Visage without spending ki"?

I mean, I shouldn't complain because maybe he does have an actual point later on in the video, but my point is that by being boring and irrelevant for the first few minutes, he lost his chance.

There should have been a text summary.

Not that it’s terribly common, but it does happen. Agreed, that’s not the best example, but I don’t let it take away from the concept entirely.

Some prefer his style, good for them. I like a lot of the points he does bring up, just not the way he travels around it unnecessarily. I also greatly appreciate text summary, but I don’t demand it. Us as a community typically work together to provide it eventually.


Other notes on the topic:
- I think of it this way…
- The first thing we do upon starting a new game is learn how to play it. (What CAN I do?)
- The second thing a lot of us gamers do is testing our limits. (What CAN’T I do?)
- It is, quite frankly, absurd to expect that everything is going to have very precise guidelines at every step, especially in a game such as this. Video games are a bit more clear (it’s built into the code), but even then they can’t be expected to cover everything.

The problem is that there are - every once in a while - those that hunt the loopholes and will rip them open for the smallest advantage, ruining the experience for others along the way.
This is seen everywhere in life, people taking advantage of the system…

[Easy e]

Player: The rules don't say I can't!
DM: <insert Judge Dredd gif: "I am the Law" here>

[Witty Username]

The treant hate is strong in this thread lol.

But didn't he do that Phantom build that required interpreting moving via mount as not having moved this turn for the purposes of using Steady Aim? Doesn't seem very RAW to me...

Mounts and riders move on the same initiative, which by RAW is at the same time.
Normally only DM controlled monsters share initiative, as when initiative is determined by Dex checks creatures that make separate dex checks are not allowed to have the same initiative but need to resolve who goes first (either by gentleman's agreement or a reroll).
And a mount wouldn't be able to move on the turn its mounted if it couldn't move on the rider's turn.
It only doesn't sound RAW because of how obtuse the RAW is.

[Witty Username]

The entire purpose is to be aware of how many people attempt to abuse the system by that precise phrasing. Yes, it’s common sense to a lot of us, but look out for it at your tables/online. As already stated, doesn’t take that long to say.


Precisely. This is what keeps me alive!


I didn’t see any post where CMCC ordered anything of anybody…?

Though I do somewhat agree about participation points. First, thanks to x3n0s for giving us a bit of summary points to work with. I did this exactly (in the OP) when I linked a treantmonk video a couple months ago.


That was darn clever, you!


Watch it. Post your opinion.

Don’t comment without watching the whole thing.

This bit over here, whichever side you're on we can probably agree CMCC is a bit lacking in tact.

I agree with with Treantmonk's discord server, this was primarily a challenge for how many times Chris here could say "TRSIC" in a video without laughing.
But the point pairs well with a Pack Tactics video suggesting that a Genie warlock uses a ring of wishes for its pact item.
Kobold's conclusion: Never play by RAW
Treantmonk's conclusion: That's not RAW

[Chronic]

The difficulty is that if you allow an armbar, and we assume that D&D humans work more or less the same as real world humans (without the rules specifying otherwise, for instance regarding 'holding your breath' and 'how far you can jump'), it should be trivially easy for the person who made the arm lock to break said arm. And that opens a whole can of worms.

Cause if you allow this, this becomes broken (hur hur) good, and every martial will get expertise in athletics to disable enemies relatively easy. And we need rules for "what you can do with a broken arm" or "two broken arms" or (with sadistic players) "with two broken arms and two broken legs". And if you do not allow this, you are running an inverted 'guy in the gym' where any average bloke in real life with a few years of wrestling, jiu jutsu, bjj, mma or similar can do something what your super heroic fanasy super strength barbarian can not.

I think grappling is a very good example of something which is covered rather abyssmal by the rules, but which I don't have a suggestion to do it better, because you don't want a huge subset of rules for what is often a minor thing in d&d (3.5's grappling was already annoying for lots of folks, and not even that complicated).

Another thing: for all these "improvising an action" moves goes: they are cool, they make combat more lively, and give martials more options (which some players want), so I want to allow them as a DM. But as soon as an action is improvised that is easily repeated (say, poke somebody in the eyes, contrasted with "swing on a chandelier and then kick somebody" which requirers said chandelier), there is no reason not to keep doing it. So you need to balance it. And that needs rules. Which 5e doesn't provide, so it comes down to extra work for the DM, or players not abusing something which is allowed once. Cause else you risk getting one of these 'one trick pony' builds you saw in 3.5, where all a fighter did was tripping people (but tripping them really good), or charging them (but charghing really hard), etc. So effectively, it's only 'safe' to allow improvised actions in specific circumstances which rarely occur, for instance with something in the environment.

The 'solution' would be lots of extra rules (just as with grappling), but lots of players don 't want that either. And 5e decided anyway not to go that way.

/end of not really coherent stream of thoughts more or less related to the topic

An armbar is made to hyper extend an arm, but of you are talking about a choke, then a choke has nothing to do with being able to go without breathing for a while, since it's an interruption of the bloodflow to the brain that cause the shut down. It sometime take as little as 3 second to work, and rarely takes more than 7 or 8.

[Dante]

Another thing: for all these "improvising an action" moves goes: they are cool, they make combat more lively, and give martials more options (which some players want), so I want to allow them as a DM. But as soon as an action is improvised that is easily repeated (say, poke somebody in the eyes, contrasted with "swing on a chandelier and then kick somebody" which requirers said chandelier), there is no reason not to keep doing it. So you need to balance it. And that needs rules. Which 5e doesn't provide, so it comes down to extra work for the DM, or players not abusing something which is allowed once.

One of my groups uses the Rule of Yes, which is that the first time someone improvises an action which has never been done before at this table, it pretty much works the way they were hoping it would. If they do it again (or decide that they eventually intend to), the DM will come up with actual rules for it.

First eyepoke? Okay, that enemy is now blind for the next couple of rounds. Play on!

Subsequent eyepokes? It's an attack, enemy gets a DC 10 Con save to resist, no HP damage but blinds enemy for a round unless enemy would be immune to your damage. In most ways just shoving prone will be better unless the enemy has high Athletics and low Con saves. That's pretty balanced with existing options even if you spam it.

That way the onus isn't on the players to inexplicably avoid good tactics which work. They can be creative without slowing down play, and if something logically would be a good move they can keep using it.


Mounts and riders move on the same initiative, which by RAW is at the same time.
Normally only DM controlled monsters share initiative, as when initiative is determined by Dex checks creatures that make separate dex checks are not allowed to have the same initiative but need to resolve who goes first (either by gentleman's agreement or a reroll).
And a mount wouldn't be able to move on the turn its mounted if it couldn't move on the rider's turn.
It only doesn't sound RAW because of how obtuse the RAW is.

It's even more obtuse than that. Per PHB 189, "The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so every member of the group acts at the same time." If you summon eight kangaroos via Conjure Animals, apparently the DM is supposed to roll initiative for them and they all act on the same turn (apparently?).

The RAW are a mess.

[PhantomSoul]

It's even more obtuse than that. Per PHB 189, "The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so every member of the group acts at the same time." If you summon eight kangaroos via Conjure Animals, apparently the DM is supposed to roll initiative for them and they all act on the same turn (apparently?).

The RAW are a mess.

Clearly the solution is to have all players create identical PCs!