We are expected, in 5e, to interpret the rules however we think is reasonable and not to let the rules get in the way of having fun at the table. Seems good to me.
Sometimes situations arise where the rules are unclear, or several rules might seem to conflict, and we have to decide somehow, on the basis of common sense. That's what DMs are for, after all.
Here's a trivial example: there were some large cobwebs in the roof of a cave about 25ft up and it was possible that a giant spider might be lurking there. The wizard cast Mage Hand, used it to take a lighted torch from the rogue and lift it up to the cobwebs to set fire to them. Now technically this was an attack on the cobwebs which Mage Hand isn't allowed to do, but common sense said "of course you can do it".
Do you have examples from play where common sense overruled RAW? Perhaps if we collect enough examples, something interesting might emerge.
I don't want this thread to degenerate into people arguing that other people were wrong, so please, just post your own examples rather than commenting on other peoples'.
When I DM off-grid and you attack or cast a spell, I assume you're targeting the creature or creatures most advantageous to target within a group.
Ex, if there's 5 archers on a balcony and 3 on another balcony, I'm assuming you go for the 5. I assume you aim your effect to net the most possible monsters.
If there are 5 Orcs in a squad and one is damaged, when you run up and attack that squad, I apply your damage to the Orc with the lowest HP.
I employ target-assistance so we don't have to keep absolute position in mind as a table.
bawylie wrote:
The problem is that "common sense" is:
1. Not very common
2. Often wrong
Now that said, I agree it's unreasonable to expect a rule for every edge case (down that road lies GURPS, HERO, and a game with so many rules it's almost unplayable), but on the other simple baseline rules or at least a firm guideline to make those rules should be available especially for new DMs. Naturally we can ignore or change rules we don't like (that's always been true) but for something as fundamental as stealth and hiding (esp for a rogue), there shouldn't be a debate on if murderholes actually work [which a very reasonable reading of the stealth and hiding rules RAW indicate that murderholes can't work].
-Polaris
BoldItalic wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
No, you can't dual-wield hand crossbows.
"Common sense", IMO, can mean a number things. For example, are we talking about it from a metagame point of view ("No, you can't do that because it's abusing the rules."), or an in-world point of view ("There's nothing in the fiction preventing me from doing so.")?
And let's not forget that what is considered "common sense" will vary a lot from one person to another, based on their personal experiences.
NineInchNall wrote:
There's a couple of saying in the military: "Common Sense isn't always issued" and "Common sense isn't always common."
When it comes to a game, I'd rather have a good rule where GM A and GM B and GM C can all read it and get the same result, and leave their more creative energies to thinking up new and nifty encounters and sessions, instead of GM A and B and C all think up different results on the same question. Or, for what I gleaned from browsing through the D&D 5th Edition rulebook at my LGS, Common Sense is what's used to deflect "these rules don't make sense/are broken."
Oh yeah, and anyone who says "You can't dual weld hand crossbows?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EflAV7-99FA
Duel weld and reload 'em, even.
Hell, you can reload a hand crossbow one handed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6KKJTRRZ-8
Because common sense says that stuff's cool, and sometimes you gotta run your game on that.
Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
Common sense is generally bad science - no testing, just raw assertion that X would happen without trying to disconfirm the theory. Very few GM's seem to realise this.
Further the concept falls into a false binary - that you are either having fun or you are not having fun. That you can't have rules getting in the way of fun a little bit but it's still fun (which, rather like alchohol that has a bitter/not sweet taste, can become enjoyable in itself because sacarine gameplay (always raw fun) gets tiresome after awhile like sugery drinks do)
Further...wait, no, that's two disagreements so I'm already over budget by one...
Brock_Landers wrote:
One must use common sense in determining the extent of what common sense means.
Wuzzard wrote:
The problem is that in this instance the social contract and common sense are one and the same. If a player new to a table has only played in Monty Haul campaigns and another player new to the table only familiar with "Combat Vietnam", they have no common sense with one another. They are familiar with signing different social contracts, and in a game that mechanically focuses on common sense rulings could be so unrelatable to each other that it could cause problems at the table.
Divorcing your mechanics from such relative, subjective minutia allows the table to come to a concensus about the rules, as opposed to everyone taking a subjective stance and arguing from their own entrenched positions.
It isn't about whether or not one person does or doesn't care. It is about how it can impact the game as a whole. The game as a whole is bigger than any one person's opinion or concept of common sense. Shouldn't the game be built in part around that relatively easily proven premise?
Thank_Dog wrote:
Hand crossbows wouldn't be impossible to dual wield, but it would not be easy. Small hand crossbows are easily pulled back by hand, so the use of a pair of typical crossbow cocking hooks would take care of a lot of those issues. Likewise, these lower pound test crossbows have a much more limited range, so we're not talking about crossbows that use a lot of arcing shots. Really, the biggest issue comes down to getting the bolts loaded. I could see an expert alternating crossbows, cocking while holstering and quick bolt loading right before firing.
It seems at the edge of, but within, fantasy norms for me. I'd make it a hell of a lot more "taxed" than giving it away in just one Feat though. I'm talking more along the lines of a subclass dedicated to this kind of art.
Noon wrote:
Common sense is a means to an end, so some would use common sense to play the rules as written, while others would play the game for the experience and common sense would dictate the rules are malleable. What we can not agree on is the context of when it applies.
BoldItalic wrote:
All good responses, folks. Keep them coming 
Of course, if there are no rules as written, then why are we buying the book to begin with? An entire game that is simply a set of guidelines isn't a game. Calvinball is extraordinarily fun, but I'd never buy Calvinball for Dummies. Rulebooks are what they are for a reason. Form follows function, after all. They're not advicebooks. D&D isn't a TTRPwhatever-you-want-it-to-be. It is a game. Games have rules. This isn't rocket science.
I reckon you could craft special hand crossbows to be able to reload while dual wielding them. If each has a rack of 3 or so bolts underneath that slots into the top of the other crossbow, you could place one on top of the other to insert a bolt then pull back in the same motion to have the rack load it, and possibly drop the next bolt to the bottom of the rack for the next time.
Also, touching a torch to a web is definitely not an attack. If it was, then any sort of contact with a stationary object is an attack so mage hand can't do anything.
Whenever a situation comes up that makes sense in the story but happens to be contrary to the RAW, I side with the story almost every time.
Examples:
Playing Lost Mine of Phandelver, and the party was in Cragmaw Castle. Since the castle is described as generally falling apart, with many caved in sections, the Heroes wanted to collapse part of the ceiling onto the monsters they were fighting. The Heroes worked together on this one. The Arcane Trickster Rogue used his whip weapon and his Mage Hand holding a crowbar. The Druid used his Thorny Vines cantrip spell. The cleric used her Thaumaturgy cantrip causing trembles in the stone walls. Due to their combined efforts, they managed to pull down a few sections of loose rocks on top of the BBEG. In the process it crushed some mooks and damaged the boss. Now that's some nice creative thinking!
Psikerlord wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Common sense says that if a vampire flashes her eyes at a superstitious lizardman, he'll be scared of her even if she isn't trained in intimidation. It also suggests that if said vampire is also both a noblewoman and an archdeacon of a fairly rich church, that she'd be wearing jewelry that she can use to buy off a mercenary even though she doesn't actually have any money, per se.
Chakravant wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
"Don't you think that might be a slight problem, especially when you're running hundreds of official games and actually want your game to be played in pick-up games at conventions? How can you expect the same game to be played at the same table with 5E?"
You can't. More so, you shouldn't.
Exciting, isn't it?
Chakravant wrote:
I think this thread is wandering off-topic a bit.
Do you have examples from play where common sense overruled RAW? Perhaps if we collect enough examples, something interesting might emerge.
I don't want this thread to degenerate into people arguing that other people were wrong, so please, just post your own examples rather than commenting on other peoples'.
BoldItalic wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
I apologize to BoldItalic directly for not being able to convince other posters to obey the directives they set forth in the very first post of this thread, very clearly asking for this thread not to degenerate into people arguing. As I cannot control their behavior nor shame them into compliance, I will do what I can by leaving this thread now.
Again, my apologies for the actions of others.
@Chakravant
Apology accepted. Very noble of you.
Thunaer wrote:
One time I'd like to see someone ask for a vote from players (at the start of the campaign, just the once) on whether rules should be circumvented for story.
There'd be no harm in it if they want that, because they'd all vote yes.
But good GM's don't use votes, of course. They know better.
Noon wrote: