D&D (2024) Rules that annoy you

Ah OK. So your issue wasn’t with how long people remained knocked out for so much as how you go about knocking someone out?
Yeah. If I've narrated how you've cut the bugbear's arm off at the shoulder and it drops to the ground, the last of its lifeblood spilling out, it's too late to be like, "Can I knock it out?" It's out alright.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Care to explain how, in considerably more detail than "it's possible"?

And I'm talking about reality here. If you can explain to me how this is possible in reality, then I'll accept it's possible in the game while at the same time being rather surprised.
You unstrap the armour, put the medicine on them,wrap the wounds in the bandages strap the armour back on.

All of those can be done in liek... less than 6 second.
 


Yeah. If I've narrated how you've cut the bugbear's arm off at the shoulder and it drops to the ground, the last of its lifeblood spilling out, it's too late to be like, "Can I knock it out?" It's out alright.
Yes, in my games you have to declare you plan to knock out as soon as you hit and before you do damage. If the damage would not be enough to drop them to 0 or less then the blow only does 1/2 damage. This also means you can accidentally kill or drop them to dying if you don't declare it.

However we do play with a system where I describe foes as lightly/moderately/seriously/critically injured (each represented by 1/4 hit point max) - so you might not try if I have not described them as critically injured unless you think you totally outclass them.
 

Yes, in my games you have to declare you plan to knock out as soon as you hit and before you do damage. If the damage would not be enough to drop them to 0 or less then the blow only does 1/2 damage. This also means you can accidentally kill or drop them to dying if you don't declare it.

However we do play with a system where I describe foes as lightly/moderately/seriously/critically injured (each represented by 1/4 hit point max) - so you might not try if I have not described them as critically injured unless you think you totally outclass them.
We play that you have to declare before the swing. The default is swinging to kill, since that's what the overwhelming number of swings are intended to do.

Speaking of accidentally killing. One time we were playing 3e and one of the players was a rogue. He broke into a house to rob it and snuck in the bedroom window. An 80 or 90 year old woman was reading in bed. He snuck up successfully and declared he was hitting her over the head with a sap. So far so good, it's a weapon intended to knock people out. But then he asked, "Can I add sneak attack damage to this?" The DM said he could and one broken skull later she was dead and he was trying to tie a bandage around her head.
 


Sounds like exactly what you have been doing in this discussion from the start. I said what annoys me, and you demand the solution for everything while making nonsensical, self-contradictory statements along the way.


if it is poor form for me, then it is poor form for you, yet you have been doing nothing else this whole time


Please don't act as if limiting them to spell slots has no impact on the disparity. That it in itself does not fix it does not mean that it is not a step towards fixing it

I'd still like to hear your solution, but we know where asking for it leads...
So now we have a combination of "no, u!" and still trying to goad me into the changing of terms of debate in a way that would let you feel in control. It's clear you are not approaching this with respect for the other side and are not debating with good faith, making the whole thing pointless.
 

It's clear you are not approaching this with respect for the other side and are not debating with good faith, making the whole thing pointless.
yeah right, got anything but insults? I agree that I am not interested in having a discussion, I never claimed what I wrote would fix everything, in fact in some posts I explicitly said just that, so I am not sure why you insist that it has to.

I posted what annoyed me about the current rules just like everyone else, that was not up for discussion, yet you drag me into this for no reason at all… You think the rules I mentioned annoy me any less just because you like them?

And to top it all off, your arguments made no sense at all, they were self-contradictory. I am really not sure what you think this will ever accomplish, but I am perfectly fine with you stopping. I basically asked you to in pretty much every post, and you just keep on ignoring it. Well, I guess / hope now you actually will, finally
 

Sorry. Let me clarify: I don’t think the designers were arguing that the proficiency die made the result too swingy. It was that the die itself was too swingy to represent something like proficiency. Having a static number represent proficiency while the d20 roll represented your effort made more sense to them.
I think this is more a perception problem than an actual problem. The actual mathematical effect of a proficiency die is to reduce the swinginess of the d20. And the larger the proficiency die (so the more proficient you are), the larger the reduction in swinginess.

To me, this makes sense. If you are very skilled in something, luck are confounding variables are less likely to impact your work.
 


Remove ads

Top