Lino Frank Ciaralli

DMG pg.5 under the section Master of Rules.

I've been that guy before. It's not fun for anybody else. It's really good at killing groups. If the player only wants to focus on rules lawyering with no respect to the fact that the game is by design collaborative and requires compromise, then you're going to keep running into conflict. I'll provide you reference below to the section of the DMG for your own edification. /6

instance. I'm not interested in assigning points, simply pointing out a perspective that Rules as Fun and Rulings over Rules are also two of the rules that rules lawyers often conveniently discard in favour of creating conflict. To me, that tends to scream attention seeking behaviour because the game isn't focusing on them, so they feel they need to interject or contribute. /5

part of the game and effectively comes across as a player side-DM'ing or rules-lawyering. As to their feelings, they're entitled to feel like the game shouldn't reward somebody when there's mechanics specifically for combat. Alternately, the DM doesn't HAVE to make it a combat situation. As you already pointed out, this group already appears to be on the same page by and large, except in this specific /4

> but that still wouldn't make it fair or appropriate to out-of-nowhere award someone a bunch of points for drawing a pretty picture on their test - Not the analogy I used and not applicable to the context of this discussion. OP's picture painted a tapestry of effort put into ace'ing that test. Problem player decided to add in a new check and balance that the DM didn't see require, and took issue that they weren't doing it. That ignores the efforts that the other player had put into their /3

I appreciate somebody who wants it to be predictable operating strictly on Rules as Written, but even Rules as Written includes the Rules as Fun and the Rulings over Rules concept that's a core feature of 5e. So much so that it's quite literally one of the first things stated in the DMG. Since the context of OP's discussion is with a group that does want to engage with all of these aspects, I'm less concerned with what the individual player wants. /2

>they're not allowed to have fun in this way, they are only allowed to have fun in this other way that I command, and also that would ultimately be for their own good - No part of my response said, "They have to have fun in only my way. Please don't bring your personal projections into it. If you think that's what I've said, just ask me to clarify and I'll happily do so. The game has two rules that are prominently written into the very first paragraphs of the DMG that often get ignored. /1

So if they want to really understand the world, they should take a moment to appreciate that part of it means that it won't all respond to the formula and math. And that specific beats general. In this case, the specific scenario beats out the general combat mechanic because the amount of effort the assassin put in to getting the outcome can be compared to the amount of effort somebody put in to study and get those high marks. Not that it needs to be, but I hope that frames it sufficiently. 3/3

They'll learn a valuable lesson in what creation and being satisfied with what they've built without needing to compare it to others to establish a measure of validity. The min-maxer, while I agree with the assessment is trying to understand the rules of the universe, is IGNORING a rather key set of rules that the game is purpose built around: Rules as fun, and rulings over rules. These are the first things brought up in the DMG. /3

People failed after pouring an entire weekend into it. Should I be penalized because I didn't have to put in even 1/100th the effort? People feel they get cheated because they think hard work should pay off. That's a personal problem they have to surmount. I recommend they write a poem, doesn't matter if it's good or not, then after they spend some time enjoying their creation, just burn it and never show it to anybody else. /2

I'm going to chime in on something here. "The person who studies and understood might get high marks but if everyone else does based on some hidden criteria they wonder why they bother to study." - That's a personal problem. Some people don't need to bother studying at all. They learned the material and picked it up for any number of reasons. I have a natural affinity for electronics and electronic theory. I've never even had to crack a book to crush my tests. /1

@KorvinStarmast - Yeah, they would fall under beasts. Wasps, fire beetles, and scorpions are considered beasts in the MM.

This answer requires an update due to the changes in the errata which have since clarified that unarmed strikes are not weapons. This negates the need for a "free hand" in order to utilize an unarmed strike.

I think if you're being as strict in wording so that you can't intercept a projectile with the Darkness spell on a readied action, then you have to ask yourself when you can ever cast Counterspell since the triggering mechanism is a spell being cast. By the logic in the comments here, the casting would have to be complete for the trigger, but if it's complete the spell goes off, where is the intervening reaction taking place? The answer for that would be the same for this. The reaction occurs during the specified action in order to achieve the desired result.

Roger that. I'm pretty sure this will have to just sit with the voters. I think we both have solid arguments here. For what it's worth, I'll be pitching yours an upvote since I definitely see your point, although I still disagree mechanically, I agree in essence.

If it's logical, you can do it. If not, then it takes an action.

For instance, there are no "One item interactions"

I houserule like crazy to allow for a lot of common sense stuff

Honestly, I use maybe half the rules at my table

Alright mate. Wonderful chat, but it's 2 in the morning for me and I have a rememberance day ceremony to get to tomorrow.

But then again, a level 1 Elf is immune to level 9 sleep..... so......

I mean I GET it. It's a 6th level spell vs a racial feature

Right? I NEVER would have expected him to rule that the target is disintegrated

Remember the Disintegrate/Relentless Endurance edge case presented to Crawford?

Hell it could also be entirely what was intended in this scenario

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't see your point

They lead to creative discussions about spell usage

Those are always the best though

And since it doesn't, that's where the RAW vs RAI arguments come in

Whereas DW isn't

Yeah

That's a different one entirely. As is command

Here's a more specific effect from the Sympathy spell

But it's SUPER thin

This kind of implies reactions are a willing type of movement

I just found something that may support your argument better

Otherwise I'd be right there with you

That's a specific override to the general rule

It doesn't say, "You move away," it says, "You use your reaction to move away..."

I get that. But the spell specifies, which is the point of contention.

Ok, then why does it specify reaction and not your movement.?

But for some reason you've drawn a line at a reaction doing the same?

You understand that Action and Bonus Action can both be used to enhance Movement.

Ok. So why have you drawn an arbitrary line?

They're distinct in that they have individual functions with specific parameters, even though they may overlap

They're not mutually exclusive.

These are separate and distinct

Action, Bonus, Reaction, Movement, Interact with Object