But you’re not correcting me. I am using a rule correctly and you don’t like it. You’re not being helpful, you’re being entitled.
I was in the middle of a monologue, and you tried to divebomb the BBEG. That’s highly disrespectful, but I’m accommodating and give you a chance to succeed using the existing rules. It doesn’t work out the way you want, so you tell me not to use those rules because they’re dumb. And you call ME disrespectful for calling you out?
There’s a lot of things I can say about this. To summarise:
All of that hardly matters, because you responded to a DM ruling by saying “nope”. No shit we’re incompatible. At the VERY least, I want my players to respect me.
No matter what the real world laws of physics are, the GM is the final arbiter of the rules. That’s not an ego thing. That’s just how it works. Everyone’s roleplaying game works the same, even if they have different rulings.
Now, let’s quickly picture this scene where the GM instead rolls 14. The BBEG is making his speech, then a shadow falls over him, he looks up, and gets crushed by a brontosaurus. He’s resiliant, having taken only half the fall damage, but he’s knocked prone and at a serious disadvantage as everyone rolls initiative.
Would anyone complain about the optional rule being used? Would anyone argue there should be no shadow because “the sun wouldn’t be there” or “I hadn’t transformed yet”? And if they decided to make that check to transform right before impact and succeeded, would they complain about the high DC due to the high speed?
I don’t think they would. I think they’re only complaining because the GM didn’t give them what they wanted. They don’t care about the game, they just care about getting their own way.
I agree. I am not compatible with that playstyle.
To continue the quote, physics are what I allow them to be.
Going by the pure rules, you don’t have enough time to wildshape. You just splatter. I’m being kind by giving you the opportunity at all.
First of all, if I’m the DM, you don’t get to tell me not to use a rule.
Second of all, there will not be a situation where I use the 2024 ruleset. The 2014 ruleset is still around, and still usable, and anyone calling it outdated is an idiot.
Third, this is the only official rule given for this situation. If we don’t use it, there is no rule for falling on someone and we resolve it however I like. And since you just tried to interrupt my monologue, I’m not inclined to be generous.
This isn’t a physics sim. This is a roleplaying game. Physics are what I allow them to be and it’s funnier for falling creatures to have a drop shadow.
Nope. The rules for falling on a creature don’t factor in size, except for if it knocks the target prone. The check is DC15 to dodge.
At terminal velocity? You’re gonna need to make a damn good check to time that right.
“Okay, so he gets to make a dexterity saving throw… That’s a 16, so he manages to sidestep you and you take the full damage. …No, he doesn’t have disadvantage, you made a huge shadow above him, he knew you were coming. Anyway, he continues his monologue, using your actions as an example of the foolishness of humanity.”
Jack Horner did that in Puss in Boots 2: “Excalibur! I couldn’t get this rock off of it, but it’s still pretty cool, right?”
I’m making a campaign set in fantasy Vegas, so I took the floorplan of a casino and made it into a map of the city.
Ah, so you’re in denial about your vore fetish!
We can certainly modify rules that have proven abusive in the past, but…
There are good reasons to change rules. People breaking social norms is not one of them.
We may want to change the rule, or…
You may not be paying attention to me, but I thought you might want to pay attention to yourself. We absolutely CAN change rules at the table. It’s called a house-rule. You keep pretending the issue is one that can’t be improved with a rule change, but yes it fucking can.
…hope the official rules are changed at some point.
Are you just going to “thoughts and prayers” approach that? Or are you going to post online about the exploit to mitigate damage while letting the company behind the game know about the potential exploit? I’m going to assume the first, since you said “nothing needs to be done” unless there’s a person to kick from the table.
Check the other comments. They are absolutely in the room with us.
Oddly enough, they don’t defend it by saying it’s good. They defend it by tearing down everything else, or brushing the flaws under the carpet with “well, you can just ignore the bad stuff, so they don’t count.”
Prevention is better than cure, dude. Take your vaccine so you don’t get the disease. Set up a fire escape so you don’t burn to death. Lock your door so people don’t walk in and steal your TV. Avoid Stabby Johnson so he doesn’t stab you.
And if you notice a flaw in a game system, do what you can to fix it.
If you are aware of a potential problem and do nothing to stop it, then you are responsible for it if it happens. You can’t expect to avoid tragedy entirely, but you reduced the risk of THAT tragedy by a good amount, and that’s not worthless. A seatbelt won’t always save you, but you’re absolutely fucked without one.
For someone trying to keep all options on the table, you sure are quick to remove all options from the table.
There’s a thing in D&D forum spaces called the Oberoni Fallacy. The fallacy goes that, if someone says there’s a problem with a D&D rule, they’re wrong because they can just Rule 0 it away. It’s a fallacy because they have just proposed a solution to what apparently isn’t a problem.
People constantly saying “the rules are just guidelines” to any D&D problem is the same sort of idea. Yeah, I know you can ignore them, but I paid for the damn book, so I want what’s IN the book to actually matter.
Quick question: Who do you mean by “them”? Who are you saying to kick?
Because the only information given is that an exploit exists. Nobody has said, at any point, that anyone has used an exploit at a table where the others found it to be detrimental. You invented that scenario. You invented the person acting badly, and you specifically imagined them to be toxic and ruining everyone’s fun.
A person who doesn’t exist cannot be kicked. A ruleset that exists can be changed. And changing a ruleset doesn’t mean I can’t also kick a person.
Once again, nobody has done anything. There is no bad behaviour anyone needs to stop. You don’t even know what the exploit is, or how the group feel about using it. You are inventing a hypothetical person to punish for a hypothetical misdeed while the actually flawed rules (by WotC’s admission, as proven by the erattas and rules revision) are right in front of you.
If D&D isn’t a set of rules, why do they charge so much for their rulebook?
It’s also worth noting that nobody has said an actual exploit. Nobody has DONE anything toxic. Someone just noticed a POTENTIAL exploit and suggested fixing it before any problems occur. Yet ostracizing people is a more acceptable position than a rules patch?
If the rules aren’t something to be changed, why do they charge so much for the rules revision they just put out?
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a human should be able to fly.