Is one of the implicit goals of the AL/OP program to create consistency of rulings/rule interpretation? Does the explicit statement of DM as final arbiter of rulings forgive all variation among tables?
I figured this was a better place to discuss these questions than the thread that inspired it.
Also from that thread, is it "AL legal" to rule that cantrips scale by class level, rather than character level, since that is allegedly a "ruling" and not a "rule"
Nevvur wrote:
As I have seen it explained by a different Admin. (any mistakes in the paraphrase is mine.....)
For things that are explicit (like the greataxe), the DM is expected to follow the rules.
For anything that is implicit, (requires some level of adjudication) is wthin the purview of the DM to adjudicate.
IME, the admins make a concerted effort to avoid discussions of interpreting rules.
Makes me wonder where one draws the line between a house rule and a ruling.
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
My only beef is with a dm who wont go back and check on their rules source. Im primarily a dm and Ive done this several times, but Ive also heard of dms who 'dont have the time for that' or 'its how its done on MY table' seems to cut it for them.
I know some AL DM, who claim that the "golden rule" stating to do everything to increase the fun at the table trump all other rule. So he believe that if making a greataxe deal 1d3 damage he his allowed to do so.
Then since he is not being paid, that his DM as a volunteer, and there is no one willing to take his place, the player have 2 choice, play with his house rule, or not play DnD at all. (and the LC agree with this since the LC do the same thing a well)
What would be the recourse of player in that situation?
I don't even believe the RC would have any kind of authority since he live so far away (24hours+ of road) that I don't see him coming here any time soon (which also sucks, since we'll never get a trading fair at our local convention)
Only recourse is to hope DM is looking to learn..
if not, not much one can do but volunteer to DM and do it "right" 
Kalani wrote:
I meant for example replacing the attacks made as part of a multiattack with different Attacks*, or swapping a monsters slam Attack with a rock throw from a different creature
* lets use a bear for example. It's multiattack must be a claw + bite. You can't change that to two claws. Likewise a humanoid NPC with a multiattack entry of two attacks with their longsword and one with a dagger cannot be changed to making 3 longsword attacks.
Kalani wrote:
Improvised weapon (anything) is ready covered by the rules. No need to change anything as all creatures can use any action available to all creatures from the PHB (including improvised weapons if they are capable, grapple/shove etc). This is specifically stated in the MM and DM Basic Rules.
Swapping one Manufactured weapon for another is a grey area but should be fine. Swapping the attacks made as part of a multiattack however is not swapping weapons. It's swapping the monsters abilities.
Well, let's look at the cantrip scaling by character/class level specifically, since another player/dm and I are in disagreement about that being a house rule or an interpretation. I feel like it's a house rule because it adds text. If you rule that cantrips scale by class level, you are adding the word "class" to the cantrip spell description, thereby changing it. We are even provided an example of a multiclass character (green box, p163 PHB) referred to as 6th level, which aligns with the wording of cantrip scaling ("when you reach 5th level...").
The rest of the multiclass section goes on at length about character and class level, and the other player/DM feels that since the spell description lacks either the character or class qualifier, the DM must determine for himself which is intended, making it an interpretation.
The rule/ruling seems explicit to one person, and implicit to another.
The rules do make a distinction between the two - but not in those words.
Character level: is simply written as "level", eg. When you reach 5th level.
Class level: is written as "level in the X class" (or similar language). Most instances of this are within the class descriptions themselves. Take for example the Ability score increases. Regardless of class they each say "when you gain levels in this class" (or similar).
Exception: Due to an editing oversight - invocations lacked this class-specific terminology. This has been corrected in the new printing of the PHB and mentioned in the errata.
So the rules imply that it is by character level. But it is not explicitly stated.
I would highly recommend using it as character level, but it is up to the DM in this case. (You can point out the Sage Advice article if that will help influence him)
the other 'reason' to assume class level, is that spells are associated with a specific class. So that Cantrip is not just a spell, it is a Wizard Spell. So when that cantrip refers to 'level', it seems reasonable to treat it as Wizard Level.
I disagree, but not my table...
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
The cantrip question was already answered in Sage Advice:
Yes, and Sage Advice has been declared as "official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules." And also not required to be followed by AL DMs, however heartily recommended that they do.
I stand corrected on cantrip scaling being a ruling, and find myself even more dismayed that AL lacks the will to take an official stance on certain rulings. I believe that structure is a DMs friend in organized play (compared to home games), and providing it improves the program.
I was interested to re-read The Role of Rules. Sure enough, it's right in there that the extent of the AL staff's power to enforce rulings excludes system mechanics. What bothers me is this notion that taking an official stance somehow isn't worth it because it cannot be enforced (Skerrit: " No. Its not enforceable, so we don't really try.") It may not be enforceable, but (I hope!) more people would follow an official statement than willfully ignore it.
If wishes were horses...
Coredump00 wrote:
Nevvur wrote: