D&D 5E Paralyzation rules tweak

[Psikerlord#]

Great. So instead of criticizing me for writing down a ruling extending the PHB condition rules for paralyzing, we now know that you guys (not just Psikerlord, the ones who have made this a four-page thread about a semantic argument about the difference vel none between "creature auto-fails checks" and "DM never call for checks") should really be writing WotC to criticize them for writing any rules for paralyzation in the first place. In fact, you should probably be criticizing them for writing the PHB. Who needs rules when you've got a DM? Who needs dice either?

Ah I dunno, I was just saying how I do it. It makes sense to me to do it that way. But actually I agree the devs didnt need to specify how paraylzation works, etc - they could have left all the conditions for GMs to rule on. I mean paralzation, petrification, unconscious, incapacitated are all the same in my book - the guy cant defend himself and is in deep, deep trouble. If someone wants to kill him, and there is no-one nearby who can prevent it, it just happens.

 

[iserith]

Who needs rules when you've got a DM?

The DM.

Who needs dice either?

The DM and players.

 

[Satyrn]

Great. So instead of criticizing me for writing down a ruling extending the PHB condition rules for paralyzing, we now know that you guys (not just Psikerlord, the ones who have made this a four-page thread about a semantic argument about the difference vel none between "creature auto-fails checks" and "DM never call for checks") should really be writing WotC to criticize them for writing any rules for paralyzation in the first place. In fact, you should probably be criticizing them for writing the PHB. Who needs rules when you've got a DM? Who needs dice either?

I have not been criticizing you. I have been offering you constructive criticism related to your proposed house rule.

I'm sorry that you didn't see it that way.

Now: You suggested that I was a control freak. I don't understand how you got that idea, but I do think that you meant it to be slightly insulting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I though about that rule myself and I don´t really want it that easy to hit an unarmored character critically that easily.

So my rule will be: If you attack someone who is paralyzed in non-heavy armor, you may chose to try for a critical hit or not. Only if you don´t make a critical attempt you attack vs Dex=0. If you try to make a critical hit, you attack vs dex=10 (-5 penalty). The reasoning behind that is that it is not that easy to aim for the most vulnerable parts.
I rule stunned to just drop to dex=10. Down to 0 may be realistic, but advantage and dex=0 may be a bit too good.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I have not been criticizing you. I have been offering you constructive criticism related to your proposed house rule.

I'm sorry that you didn't see it that way.

Now: You suggested that I was a control freak. I don't understand how you got that idea, but I do think that you meant it to be slightly insulting.

I apologize. But I also don't appreciate your repeated attempts to derail the thread into a semantic argument. You and iserith haven't given any actual feedback at all on the ruling itself.

 

[iserith]

You and iserith haven't given any actual feedback at all on the ruling itself.

I thought my feedback was implicit in my responses: There is no ability check or contest in the first place, therefore your ruling doesn't make a lot of sense - at least to me. It attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist in my view.

 

[Satyrn]

[
My feedback was the same, and explicit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I though about that rule myself and I don´t really want it that easy to hit an unarmored character critically that easily.

So my rule will be: If you attack someone who is paralyzed in non-heavy armor, you may chose to try for a critical hit or not. Only if you don´t make a critical attempt you attack vs Dex=0. If you try to make a critical hit, you attack vs dex=10 (-5 penalty). The reasoning behind that is that it is not that easy to aim for the most vulnerable parts.
I rule stunned to just drop to dex=10. Down to 0 may be realistic, but advantage and dex=0 may be a bit too good.

[strikethough]Hmm. I like that the complexity is optional. But I don't understand what is physically happening with this rule. If Stan the Nimble (Dex 20) and Klutzy Bob (Dex 3) are both paralyzed and naked this round, and their nasty orc attackers are attempting to cut their throats via auto-crit, why is Stan still AC 15 and Bob AC 6? What about Stan makes him so much harder to hit?[/strikethrough]

Edit: never mind, I can't read. I understand and quite like your rule, now that I understand it.

 

[S'mon]

I just have paralysed/sleeping characters lose any DEX AC bonus; dropping AC to 0 in addition to Advantage feels like double-counting. Out of combat with no time pressure I'd allow an auto-hit (& thus auto-crit).

 

[S'mon]

Whereas the benefit to making a rule instead of an hoc ruling is that it enhances player agency.

Maybe, for a certain sort of rules-bound player who likes to complain about "Mother May I?". My Classic D&D group feel they have plenty of agency, despite the lack of rules, because they can have their PCs attempt to do anything that a real person could do, plus some classes get special powers a real person couldn't do on top. Obviously they can pick up & carry around paralysed characters, limited only by their STR, no roll needed - and of course that's equally true in 5e, 4e, 3e/PF et al.