D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Guest 6801328]

Exploit, gaping, punish players, blah, blah...

"blah blah"?

Am I detecting snark?

If my sorcerer throws a quick fireball then follows right there with his twinned chill touch on the two who seemed very hurt by it, it creates a serious tactical issue for that other side. That is even more true if the target was one who "dropped".

I am sure from one table to the next, this can be given lots of names.

I really have no idea what argument you are making here.

And I'm suspecting you misinterpreted my argument, as well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's kind of a lame answer. You're basically saying that anybody who uses the rules as written is...a douche?

Maybe.

But that doesn't change the fact that there's this really weird hole in the rules.

The hell are you on about? I’m saying no such thing, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Try again?

 

[Guest 6801328]

The hell are you on about? I’m saying no such thing, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Try again?

Oh? Hmm. I guess I completely misunderstood your point. Here's what you wrote:

The rules allow PvP, but that doesn’t make I any less a table issue if someone engages in PvP when the rest of the table isn’t into that.

So the way I read that is that the rules don't distinguish between PC and NPC targets, so in theory you can apply all of your attacks against other players. Thus the rules "allow" PvP.

But to then attack your party members (without them agreeing to do it) would be very uncool.

And thus, as I read it, to use something permitted by the rules but not necessarily in the spirit of them, such as exploiting the "heal from zero" effect and initiative order, would be similarly uncool.

In other words, "That's not a flaw because the social contract will prevent it from being exploited."

Is that not correct?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh? Hmm. I guess I completely misunderstood your point. Here's what you wrote:


So the way I read that is that the rules don't distinguish between PC and NPC targets, so in theory you can apply all of your attacks against other players. Thus the rules "allow" PvP.

But to then attack your party members (without them agreeing to do it) would be very uncool.

And thus, as I read it, to use something permitted by the rules but not necessarily in the spirit of them, such as exploiting the "heal from zero" effect and initiative order, would be similarly uncool.

In other words, "That's not a flaw because the social contract will prevent it from being exploited."

Is that not correct?

You overthought it.

Being allowed by the rules doesn’t make something a rules issue. Plenty of things are allowed by the rules, but are pretty inarguably table issues. I made no particular judgements about anyone being “douches” or any of that stuff you’re projecting on to my post.

Further, I was directly replying to statements about whether this is a rules issue or a table issue, so my statements only have meaning in that specific context. Since I didn’t speak on, or reply to, anything about who is or isn’t a jerk, or being “uncool”, my statements clearly aren’t about those things.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You overthought it.

Being allowed by the rules doesn’t make something a rules issue. Plenty of things are allowed by the rules, but are pretty inarguably table issues. I made no particular judgements about anyone being “douches” or any of that stuff you’re projecting on to my post.

Further, I was directly replying to statements about whether this is a rules issue or a table issue, so my statements only have meaning in that specific context. Since I didn’t speak on, or reply to, anything about who is or isn’t a jerk, or being “uncool”, my statements clearly aren’t about those things.

Ah, ok. I guess since you are calling it an "issue" I assumed you meant it is a bad thing, and then extrapolated that to pvp. But maybe you meant either of those things is only an issue if people at the table make it an issue?

In any event, I could strip out the value-judgment-laden language and I think the point still stands.

Where I disagree with you is that, to me, the healing-from-zero exploit is a purely mechanical loophole that could have been closed. To me a "table" issue is something like how you are going to portray sensitive issues, or whether using out-of-character-knowledge is ok, etc.

But, whatever. I wish the loophole weren't there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, ok. I guess since you are calling it an "issue" I assumed you meant it is a bad thing, and then extrapolated that to pvp. But maybe you meant either of those things is only an issue if people at the table make it an issue?

In any event, I could strip out the value-judgment-laden language and I think the point still stands.

Where I disagree with you is that, to me, the healing-from-zero exploit is a purely mechanical loophole that could have been closed. To me a "table" issue is something like how you are going to portray sensitive issues, or whether using out-of-character-knowledge is ok, etc.

But, whatever. I wish the loophole weren't there.

I replied directly to a discussion of whether it is a table issue or a rules issue. I don’t understand why you keep overthinking my statements beyond that context.

 

[Hurin70]

In general, predators stuck in a fight for food (very few predators want to be in that position at all) will very rarely try to slink off with the food while a creature is attacking them. They are most vulnerable while carrying or dragging something away. Immediate survival pretty much always trumps long term survival, for non-sapient animals. They’ll either keep attacking dangerous animals to try to secure the food and drive off what they can’t secure, or flee if they’re overwhelmed, or circle around and look for an opportunity to take down another creature quickly. A bleeding out creature is just fresher food when they’re done.

Point taken. I think I will make my predators a little less likely to try to drag characters off if they feel they might be attacked when doing so.

As for tactical creatures, only the cruel or those who are already winning, or who can’t reasonably simply harm the cleric should see CDG as better than putting the hurt on the cleric. IDK about you, but I don’t fill fights with creatures that can’t hurt the party’s back line. A CDG doesn’t even guarantee a death unless they can do it twice, and the same hobs know that some casters can just revivify. The smart hob tries to kill the still standing enemies before wasting actions on the ones that are already down.

Yes, and I didn't want to imply that my Hobgoblins are always trying to CDG. But there are situations when it makes sense for a Hobgoblin to finish a downed opponent: if the players are retreating or not actively attacking, or if the Hobgoblin doesn't know if there is a cleric in the party, or if the Cleric is the one on the ground. I find that some groups just assume that monsters will move on to the next player rather than finishing a downed one, and there are circumstances when cruel or smart foes would choose instead to finish the Cleric or give vent to their cruelty.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Point taken. I think I will make my predators a little less likely to try to drag characters off if they feel they might be attacked when doing so.



Yes, and I didn't want to imply that my Hobgoblins are always trying to CDG. But there are situations when it makes sense for a Hobgoblin to finish a downed opponent: if the players are retreating or not actively attacking, or if the Hobgoblin doesn't know if there is a cleric in the party, or if the Cleric is the one on the ground. I find that some groups just assume that monsters will move on to the next player rather than finishing a downed one, and there are circumstances when cruel or smart foes would choose instead to finish the Cleric or give vent to their cruelty.

Absolutely! I tend not to play a lethal game, because I’d rather explore the characters than have a new one show up because of an unlucky die roll, but there are certainly times when CDG is either in character or tactically sound. I’ve seen a few DMs seed the defeat of the monsters by wasting a monster’s turn killing an unconscious PC while equally dangerous PCs still stand, so I wanted to clarify that!

 

[S'mon]

I’ve seen a few DMs seed the defeat of the monsters by wasting a monster’s turn killing an unconscious PC while equally dangerous PCs still stand

With 5e heal potions so ubiquitous, I think it basically always makes sense to CDG PCs. But not all monsters know this. My Red Hand hobgoblins certainly do though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

With 5e heal potions so ubiquitous, I think it basically always makes sense to CDG PCs. But not all monsters know this. My Red Hand hobgoblins certainly do though.

It only makes sense if,
a) you want PCs CDGing your guys too, and
2) your Action isn’t better spent elsewhere to ensure victory

Because if you win the fight, their healing potions become yours, and you can CDG them then. But I have absolutely seen fights turn from bad news for the PCs to a decisive victory and a quick revivify because the DM decided that a CDG was more in character than dealing with the very deadly remaining PCs, essentially wasting that enemy’s entire turn.