D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Flamestrike]

So what...I use that rule and it says to me when I stand there and let the frost giant swing with a -15 power attack auto crit for 124 damage I survive if I have 125+hp

But if the rules expressly provided for such an attack to kill you regardless of your HP, you wouldnt do it.

In other words, you are openly meta-gaming the system using player knowledge (of the rules, of your hit point total and of the likely numerical value of damage the axe deals) in exchange for an absurd result. Good for you. If that works at your table, then go for it. It wont work at mine.

Im not saying youre 'wrong' mind you. If that kind of playstyle works for your group, then it works for your group.

 

[Celtavian]

You say that as if Saelorn hadn't just said the exact same thing in the paragraph you quote immediately after. Saelorn also discusses the implications of that approach, such as having to metagame healing because you don't know how much "luck" you've used up.

There is no need to metagame healing. You know what I do? I say, "He's barely standing and looks to be staggering." The player knows that means he needs healing. I come up with some narrative variation when it is needed. It doesn't matter. Never has, never will.

Anyway, as said previously, as long as you're open about your approach so players who don't like it can avoid your table, it's fine. Obviously those of us posting to disagree wouldn't play at your table, for various reasons, but there are others who would.

None of that matters. The only rule is to make it fun. 99% of players don't care about anything else.

You make it sound like this would even be a discussion if people were playing. Most wouldn't give a rat's patootie how you were doing things as long as you make the game fun. It's really the only thing that matters. All the semantics of how you go about this don't matter a bit. Just fun little discussions for people on forums like this.

I've played at so many different tables with so many different rules as to be beyond count at this point. I doubt the discussion we're entertaining now would even be brought up at the table. I have never had someone argue that they get to jump in lava on purpose just because the mechanics allow it. Never in all the thirty plus years I've played. Just like I've never had anyone expect me to roll a bunch of times to hack their head off if they are on the headman's block regardless of how many hit points they have had. I wonder if any player has actually argued this with you when you DM. It seems more the case that you like to take a contrarian point of view for the sake of doing so.

It's ridiculous. I'd love to see if any of this crap being discussed even happens at any of the tables any of you play at. You just don't seem to like that the DM will make a death ruling for a player doing something stupid because the RAW says otherwise.

 

[Flamestrike]

Me too I just let them be cool and not waste time on things... My game plays out much closer to your second example then your first...without auto killing pcs

I dont view interacting with the fictional world around them, coming up with plans to make tasks easier, or having motivations over and above 'kill stuff, get xp, be optimal, win' to be wasting time.

It increases immersion with the fictional world the players minds are engaged with. They see the room. They see the trap.

I've lost count of how many times I've rocked up to a new table and in my minds eys, the enironment around me is a grey blob, and it all becomes an exersize in maths. If I wanted that kind of experience I would play a very different game to a fantasy roleplaying game.

Not getting all stormwind here either. I encourage optimised characters. I just ask that they also be fleshed out personalities with realistic motivations for what they do, and be compelling characters to better interact with the world around them.

Edit I do wonder how you handle players who don't know how to lick or disarm? "Um my character know as that stuff but I don't I just want to disarm the trap but I do t know how"

You dont need the player to do anything technical. Just to be specific. The technical skills are in the proficiency - its the planning and description of the event that helps me as the DM (and the other players) visualise the event occuring.

Think of social skills like persuasion. They might be possessed by a charismatic character and played by a socially awkward player. Im happy if the said player simply tells me the strategy he intends on using to convince the king to help the party (Player: I mention that our success in this task of ending the monster incursions will help the king with loyalty among the local peasants in the region. Me as the DM decides that this strategy will work - and further notes that unknown to the players, the King is secretly worried about an imminent revolution; accordingly I award advantage on the check).

It's as much of an art as a science. I feel a lot of 'gamist' players who rely on 'RAW' kind of miss this point (and in my view miss a big part of the tabletop roleplaying experience and immersion).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But if the rules expressly provided for such an attack to kill you regardless of your HP, you wouldnt do it.

In other words, you are openly meta-gaming the system using player knowledge (of the rules, of your hit point total and of the likely numerical value of damage the axe deals) in exchange for an absurd result. Good for you. If that works at your table, then go for it. It wont work at mine.

Im not saying youre 'wrong' mind you. If that kind of playstyle works for your group, then it works for your group.

If the rules where different the world would be different but My character in game knows I survived being hit x times by a giant... He knows his luck and skill and toughness and will to live has in the past let him survive as they will now... He can take the hit by the giant then say "now remember that"

I don't understand what you are not getting... We both play the same game until you add a rule where instant death can acure. I just don't add that rule you do that is the entire idea of house rules you added something I didn't.

I added bloodied from 4e in to my 5e game. It is the same thing as you adding instant death effects...somethin added not in the game

 

[Flamestrike]

If the rules where different the world would be different but My character in game knows I survived being hit x times by a giant...

No, he doesnt.

When he survives an encounter with the giant, losing half his HP in the process, he probably hasnt even been physcially struck once. He cant tell the difference between the Giant missing his AC or hitting his AC. 'Hits' on attack rolls represent attirtion of his hit points (which by RAW represent attrition of his luck, vitality, stamina, mental fortitude and the will to live) and not 'physical blows to his body'. Those 'hits' are not him always getting physically struck by the giants weapon, and are certainly not him copping a 2 ton axe to the head and walking away alive.

He cant possibly know how many hit points he has, or how much damage the axe does to those hit points any more than an experienced cop 'knows' why he got shot at 20 times and walked away alive. It's not because the person shooting at the cop rolled a lot of 1's on the attack rolls (although it could be). It could also be a case that the shooter rolled really well to hit, reducing the Cop's hit points considerably, but the Cop is lucky, gritty, experienced and resolved enough in the gun fight to not get physically hit despite losing a lot of hit points in the process).

Your character knows as much about how much damage a sword does, as that cop knows about how much damage a bullet does. He knows if he gets shot, he probably dies. He has no idea that he just got 'hit and his hit points reduced' (reducing his buffer of luck, experience and grit) several times, despite never actually taking a bullet.

Hit points are an abstraction of lucky and experienced dodges and parries and other events, vitality, stamina, resolve and grit. Youre treating them as meat. Which they are not.

He knows his luck and skill and toughness and will to live has in the past let him survive as they will now... He can take the hit by the giant then say "now remember that"

He may be roughly aware of his skill; his martial might is now enough to go toe to toe with a Balrog and survive. But he but he still knows that if that Balrogs molten razor sharp 20 foot long sword hits him, he most likely dies.

I don't understand what you are not getting... We both play the same game until you add a rule where instant death can acure. I just don't add that rule you do that is the entire idea of house rules you added something I didn't.

Youre playing a different game than I am. Best of luck to you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I dont view interacting with the fictional world around them, coming up with plans to make tasks easier, or having motivations over and above 'kill stuff, get xp, be optimal, win' to be wasting time.

It increases immersion with the fictional world the players minds are engaged with. They see the room. They see the trap.

I've lost count of how many times I've rocked up to a new table and in my minds eys, the enironment around me is a grey blob, and it all becomes an exersize in maths. If I wanted that kind of experience I would play a very different game to a fantasy roleplaying game.

Um... I don't think this is at all what I suggested...

I am in no way a numbers guy...I'm a story guy and I am disagreeing with you on the fluff and mechanic it has nothing to do with powergaming...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Youre playing a different game than I am. Best of luck to you.

How dismissive of you... I am sick and tired of this I really am... This is stupid I PLAY D AND D 5E what do you play?

 

[Flamestrike]

Um... I don't think this is at all what I suggested...

I am in no way a numbers guy...I'm a story guy and I am disagreeing with you on the fluff and mechanic it has nothing to do with powergaming...

I wasnt accusing you of grey blob campaigns. It does seem you have a more 'Gamist' style that I am accustomed to however. Of course, it may just be that in your worlds, hit points represent mystical physical damage absorbtion, or the laws of physics are different and inertia from falling or sharp objects jabbed into the body, or energy transferrance from lava are significantly reduced from real world expectations.

Its your game bro; I just roll differently.

How dismissive of you... I am sick and tired of this I really am... This is stupid I PLAY D AND D 5E what do you play?

No, youre playing your interpretation of DnD 5e. I'm playing mine. Again, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I'm just saying that its different from mine, and expressing the reasons why (and why I prefer my interpretation).

Chill out brother.

 

[Hriston]

Given the latest Sage Advice and the thread it spawned, I would suggest errata are needed for the hand crossbow.

Either delete the light property from the hand crossbow on the weapon table, or remove the word "melee" from the description of the two weapon fighting rule (p. 195).

I haven't read that thread, and I know the rules are confusing, but in light of the third bullet of Crossbow Expert, I think it's intentional. The intention being that you can't two-weapon fight with the hand crossbow unless you have the feat, and if you do have the feat, hand crossbow is light to let you know that you can do more with the feat than just fire the same crossbow twice.

 

[spinozajack]

No, he doesnt.

When he survives an encounter with the giant, losing half his HP in the process, he probably hasnt even been physcially struck once.

Says who? Not the rules. When you lose over half your HP, you do show visible signs of bleeding and injury. And the only logical way that could have happened, given that the immediate cause of that loss of HP was an attack with that axe that hit your character, is because the attack actually landed. I don't know why people insist on playing the game in such a silly way, but you're welcome to do that. However you aren't actually narrating HP loss according to the rules if you think characters never get injured unless they are killed. That is not what's happening in D&D combat. When your character falls down the stairs or into a pit trap and comes within an inch of his life, barely conscious, do you imagine that nothing touched him? Quite a trick, avoiding the rapidly approaching ground slamming against him like that. Maybe he's flying, so he didn't actually fall, and so didn't touch the ground, and so his HP loss didn't result because the ground mangled his body.

If that's how you imagine the game, go ahead, but I've never once met someone, at any table who imagines their PCs never getting physically injured unless they dropped to 0 HP.