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

[S'mon]

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.

It could be a waste, eg if the lone monster only has 1 attack and it's not enough damage to kill outright. Usually it's several foes with ca 2 attacks each. Healing potions are only 50gp so nice but not great loot. Anyway CDG prevents use of healing potion, keeping it safe for the monster!
PCs rarely need to CDG NPCs since they usually die at 0. I tend to apply the PC rules to NPCs brought exactly to 0; though.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Wait...you still think I'm misunderstanding you?

In that case, any possibility that maybe your point isn't as clear as you believe?

EDIT: Scratch that. On second thought, it's not important. Let's drop it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wait...you still think I'm misunderstanding you?

In that case, any possibility that maybe your point isn't as clear as you believe?

EDIT: Scratch that. On second thought, it's not important. Let's drop it.

Seriously? Lol okay.

I mean, you were still trying to tie what I said to some value judgement about using the rules as written when I was literally talking about whether it’s a rules issue or a table issue, but sure.

Like, you know that “that’s a table issue” doesn’t imply any value judgement about any behavior, right? You presented the issue (a word which here means, a point of contention) of whether or not the healing rules in 5e are a problem. I didn’t weigh in on whether it’s a problem, I spoke on the difference between a rules issue and a table issue.

You previous reply still didn’t seem to understand the difference.

 

[Undrave]

Feels rot me like the 'Heal from 0' rules work as the designer intended. They would have put penalty on that if they really wanted to make it less optimal, or make bonus action healing better so healing before the ally drops to 0 would be a better move.

But, if you think its too easy, you could always just deny the healed character an action on its first turn. They're not defenceless or anything (staying down would be just as dangerous at low HP than at 0 because of the advantage) and they could get up, but they would still be shaken enough not to be able to just smack a dude right away. I think adding more complications would lead to more bookkeeping than is necessary and just cause the Heal Bot play style to come back, with paranoid players spending their turns making sure no one drop instead of contributing to ending the fight faster.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Feels rot me like the 'Heal from 0' rules work as the designer intended. They would have put penalty on that if they really wanted to make it less optimal, or make bonus action healing better so healing before the ally drops to 0 would be a better move.

But, if you think its too easy, you could always just deny the healed character an action on its first turn. They're not defenceless or anything (staying down would be just as dangerous at low HP than at 0 because of the advantage) and they could get up, but they would still be shaken enough not to be able to just smack a dude right away. I think adding more complications would lead to more bookkeeping than is necessary and just cause the Heal Bot play style to come back, with paranoid players spending their turns making sure no one drop instead of contributing to ending the fight faster.

Yeah, maybe it's as the designers intended but too often I've seen it result in tactical choices that just feel like gaming the system. Going to 0 should (in my opinion, anyway) be something you want to avoid more than you do. If there's a (better) chance that letting somebody drop to zero takes them out of the fight completely, or at least reduces their effectiveness, it would change that calculation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seriously? Lol okay.

I mean, you were still trying to tie what I said to some value judgement about using the rules as written when I was literally talking about whether it’s a rules issue or a table issue, but sure.

Like, you know that “that’s a table issue” doesn’t imply any value judgement about any behavior, right? You presented the issue (a word which here means, a point of contention) of whether or not the healing rules in 5e are a problem. I didn’t weigh in on whether it’s a problem, I spoke on the difference between a rules issue and a table issue.

You previous reply still didn’t seem to understand the difference.

Yeah, like I thought, this is turning toxic. I'll pass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, the rules allow a lot of things.
For some tables those things may be seen as issues. For others, not.
Those are what makes them "table issues."

That's essentially saying there are NO 'rules issues,' only table issues, because a hypothetical table might ignore (or enjoy or exploit) a given rule issue, no matter how heinous it might be, and at any that don't, the DM can just override/change/ignore the rule that's an issue.

If we were talking any game other than 5e D&D, that'd be a pointless tautology, at best, at worst a disingenuous dodging of the point.

But, since we are talking a possible 6e relative to 5e, it's a solid point. Unless the idea is that 6e should abandon DM Empowerment, there's no need for it to 'fix' any perceived rules problems from 5e, since that's the role of the DM.

 

[Harzel]

That will be when they abandon backward compatibility and rebuild D&D on a Unix core.

It'll be fine. VMdungeon (TM) will let you run them both at once.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, maybe it's as the designers intended but too often I've seen it result in tactical choices that just feel like gaming the system.

That's just it - there's a few elements of 5e design, of which this is one*, where it very much looks like the designers approach was a completely gamist** outlook and their specific intent was that players would in fact be somewhat expected to exploit these loopholes. Were this not the case, either these design elements would have been changed before release or some big errata would have come out soon after.

* - another is full h.p. recovery on a long rest (carryover from 4e) no matter how badly bashed around you'd gotten during the preceding day's adventuring.
** - small-g, not the Forge version.

Going to 0 should (in my opinion, anyway) be something you want to avoid more than you do. If there's a (better) chance that letting somebody drop to zero takes them out of the fight completely, or at least reduces their effectiveness, it would change that calculation.

Agreed.

 

[Nebulous]

Some mighty argue that the period in which it was the Greyhawk Roleplaying Game was also the "roots" of the game, but I agree with you. I really don't like FR.

I've never understood the FR vs. Greyhawk hate. They're both generic fantasy worlds that have the same monsters, heroes, land formations and in many cases the same gods, just reskinned. Now I don't personally follow the LORE of the Forgotten realms, we don't read the novels (I did read a few years back, and maybe the first 5 Drizzt novels) but the Realms for me has also been a nice vanilla backdrop to insert whatever adventure I'm running, either homebrew or not. If it was Greyhawk maps and gods and whatnot, it would be the exact same thing with a different name.

What do people find so vastly different between these two fantasy setting that it garners so much dislike??