D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[Crimson Longinus]

Only if you're a totem with bear, right so you only take 1/4 damage (damage halved for rage, halved for reistance)? In that case they survive because the earth is afraid of being punched by them.

Problem is that it would take 3 rounds to fall that far and you can't maintain your rage in 5E unless you attack.

Of course after a certain point I'm just going to go back to that 1% chance of survival.

At max level they have persistent rage and primal champion (+4 to Con, up to 24.) So let's say they have Con of 22, that gives them 265 HP, taking the flat number. 150d6 has average damage of 525, 262 when halved due the damage resistance. So they have about fifty percent chance of making it.

Not that I would see this as any sort of a problem as 20th level characters are basically demigods. I however find it to be silly that by the normal rules falls from any height become easily and reliably survivable far earlier.

 

[mellored]

Only if you're a totem with bear, right so you only take 1/4 damage (damage halved for rage, halved for reistance)?

Nope.
Rage is resistance.

In that case they survive because the earth is afraid of being punched by them.

Problem is that it would take 3 rounds to fall that far and you can't maintain your rage in 5E unless you attack.

Of course after a certain point I'm just going to go back to that 1% chance of survival.

At max level they have persistent rage and primal champion (+4 to Con, up to 24.) So let's say they have Con of 22, that gives them 265 HP, taking the flat number. 150d6 has average damage of 525, 262 when halved due the damage resistance. So they have about fifty percent chance of making it.

Be a dwarf with the Tough feat and you get an extra 50HP.
Plus the epic boon for another 40.
= 355.

 

[Lanefan]

It shouldn't be dice-based damage for falling long distances at all, it's a nonsense to use dice for that, because that's simply not how falling works, and the more extreme examples we go with, the more obvious it becomes.

It should make it a saving throw that's harder based on how far you fell, probably with Advantage/Disadvantage depending on hitting water/loose snow/etc. vs. solid rock/stone (this is fantasy, it doesn't need to be super-realistic, just make sense in the fiction, which the current approach definitely does not).

If you fail the save you're reduced to 0 HP, and are having to make Death Saves etc, pass you're prone and stunned but miraculously don't take damage. I could see something more generous for falls of less than 50ft (maybe extend it to 100ft for the sake of heroism, like 50% of current HP and prone + stunned on a fail, lose 10 HP on a pass). The trouble is with D&D's combat - this would make dropping someone far enough into a save-or-die, which would mean fighting most big monsters or serious opponents, you'd really want to drop them - obviously Legendary Resistance would work on this save though so I'm not sure that would be a huge problem. But I do think if falling was reworked this way you'd probably want some class/subclass and monster abilities to make the save easier and/or negate damage/increase distances. Which is probably why they haven't done it - it would take actually considering quite a few rules.

Terminal velocity means infinite damage scaling isn't reasonable, and people have survived falls of any height on to a variety of surfaces (always more due to luck than judgement), and just having low-level people always die if they fall like, 50ft is also not great.

You know, you could be on to something here with the idea of it being a hit point percentage (maybe with a variable attached) per x-distance fallen. There'd also have to be a minimum value to account for those with very few hit points.

So, something like 5% per 10 feet fallen, with a minimum of 1 point per 10 ft. There could be class features (Monks front and centre, please) that could mitigate this, along with situational variables e.g. soft/hard landing surface. But otherwise, it evens the playing field and makes falling a significant nuisance (or worse) for even the highest-level types. To vary it up, maybe put a small +/- modifier on the actual damage dealt e.g. d8-5.

After 200 ft each 20 feet beyond that puts a -1 on any death saves but a natural 20 always succeeds to the point of giving you another save, meaning you've still got the very slight chance of someone surviving a very high fall by rolling three consecutive natural 20s.

 

[Lanefan]

Be a dwarf with the Tough feat and you get an extra 50HP.
Plus the epic boon for another 40.
= 355.

What was I saying just now about hit point inflation?

 

[Oofta]

What was I saying just now about hit point inflation?

You would have to put a lot of effort into having that many HP while also being 20th level. I'm not too worried about any of my players being that cheesy.

 

[ECMO3]

Agreed but....

I think whatever powers that be at wotc/hasbro who decided what the company line for him to tout have completely erased any value the GM might find in RAI since 2014. Worse the 2024 edition looks to have simply taken that erasure of RAI's value up a notch with so many obvious problems that seem very much like the RAI is one intended to suit the needs of a video game with CPU driven AI monsters.

But here is the RAW it does not say you can do it.

RAW only the player grappling can move the other creature AND something else moving the grappler breaks the grapple.

There is no RAW argument for the horse being able to drag someone when another creature mounted on the horse is grappling.

 

[Daztur]

Grapple (in game) should be called Grabbed.

Because the only thing it did in 2014 was stop you from moving.

2024 adds disadvantage when attacking other, but both still allow you to swing a Glaive at them without any problems.

5e grappled also allowed you to drag them around, but yeah, Grabbed would've been a clearer way of expressing the condition than Grappled. Often had newbies be surprised at how little the Grappled condition did.

 

[ECMO3]

I agree the capstone is hot garbage. However, the game generally goes from levels 1 to 10. In the vast majority of tables it is a single feature, a feature that was requested extensively and one that is better than the non-spell version that did the exact same thing that they decided not to go with.

I get that most tables go 1 to 10, but I play regular games that go to 20 and have for the last 2+ years.

So sure if you want to say this is no problem under level 10 I would agree with you. I still prefer Tasha's version, but the new one is fine. But that is fundamentally different than saying the class is fine overall.

Yes, you can't stack concentration. We don't know if that's a problem yet. You are just assuming that since they have Hunter's Mark features that everyone will be compelled to always use Hunter's Mark no matter what in the name of... efficiency I guess? I've had abilities I've never used before. And there isn't a reason to assume that you will NEVER use it, you just won't use it every fight.

We do know it is a problem when the best Ranger spells use concentration and the Ranger by definition is a caster.

Since they have hunters mark features they have class features they won't be able to make use of.

And except Foe Slayer they take away NOTHING that you were using on your two builds. Not a single thing.

Not true.

Primal Awareness IS A THING
Favored Foe IS A THING
Vanish IS A THING
Nature's Veil coming later IS A THING for any character between levels 10 and 13 IS A THING

This is objectively NOT true.

Happens later? Yes.
Conflicts with HM? No, not at all. Edit: I do not count "both things take a bonus action" as conflicting"

What do you mean you don't count it as conflicting? If I am attacking someone I can cast Hunter's Mark on him or I can ?use Misty Step to get to him ... or I can use NAture's Viel to go invisible ... or I can use Two wepaon fighting and attack him.

This is a direct conflict.

You know what else conflicts - If I have a Fey I am concentrating on running around doing things.

So... you are going to tell me that you only made four attack rolls during the entire day, and that since you only made four attacks, an ability that gave yoIu a maximum of 4d8 to 6d8 damage is better than one which can give, even on a low estimate 21d6 damage over a day?

Not 6 actually. I hit 5 all day when I was not concentrating on a spell. I hit I hit him three times the first round and twice the next round using 4 uses of Favored Foe. I had 2 uses left when we finished for a short rest.

Keep in mind concentration prevents you from using favored foe or Hunters Mark. If you are a character that is going to be casting concentration spells (as the Fey Wanderer is designed to do) you are not going to be able to add either of these a lot and that means at high level the uses of favored foe you have will be PLENTY. I never ran out of favored foe after 8th level. Never.

Facts are facts.

And not keeping the ability that only was more powerful for a ranger unlike what anyone else uses a ranger to do, that was specifically built exactly like you built it, is bad design that forces rangers into a specific niche?

For any Rangers who don't want to "hit it with a stick"

Like I said Hunter's Mark is not a powerful spell and even with the Hunter's Mark buffs most PCs will be more powerful at high level if they use their concentration on something else.

And I'm sure every ranger constantly finds themselves fighting in an anti-magic field after never attacking for the entire first half of the day, so they can use and drop concentration on an ability they got at 1st level. That is just the normal, almost required ranger experience.... /s

At medium to high levels they do find them concentrating on other things A LOT.

Turns out, other people play other rangers. THe designers did not design to make Lena and Chromescale the archetypical ranger outline.

Actually they did when they made Tasha's rules and that is what enabled those characters and made Ranger one of my favorite classes to play.

I will also add that Druidic warrior is specifically in there to support a Wisdom first ranger and that Ranger is not going to benefit a lot from Hunter's Mark.

And yeah, instead of 4d6+20, a ranger would cast hunter's mark and deal 6d6+15 that turn. losing a whole negative two damage, or in other words.... doing more damage.

Ok your math is all screwed up. At 20th level Hunter's Mark is a D10 not a d6 on the 2024 Ranger

And the point is the Wisdom stacks with Hunters Mark, so with the old foe slayer a PC could get 5 Wisdom + 3.5 Hunters Mark if he had concentration available.

The new Ranger gets 5.5 Hunter's mark only. 3 points less.

That is of course if the character does not need to use concentration for a better spell, which he usually will at this level unelss he is out of spells. If using concentration for something else it is 5 points less.

Most ranger players make more than four attack rolls a day. IF that isn't your playstyle, I'm sorry. You can always beg your DM to give you the Tasha's ability instead. It is still compatible with the game.

At high level few Rangers make lots of attacks while they are not concentrating on a good spell.

Even for Rangers that want to "hit it with a stick" you can find dozens of posts about the Swift Quiver builds.

"I want my playstyle supported, not the normal playstyle other people use"

How much high level play have you done as a Ranger?

Few people are using HM at high level. A lot are attacking, but they are concentrating on something else typically. Not always but typically.

Also, let's be clear here. They gained a bunch of abilities too.



At level 13 the 2014 ranger gained 4th level spells. In 2024 they gain Relentless Hunter and 4th level spells. Nothing was lost

No Favored foe, Primal Awareness and Nature's Viel were all lost before 13th level

At level 15 the 2014 ranger gained 5th level spells. In 2024 they gain Precise Hunter and 5th level spells. Nothing was lost.

I don't think the new Ranger gets precise Hunter at 15th level. Maybe I am wrong, but I think PH is at 17th level .... and no they did not lose anything at 17th level, but they did lose Vanish at 14th.

I could be wrong because I don't have a copy of the book, but that is my understanding.

Not unless that wisdom ranger wants to hit something with a stick and spam two or three uses of Favored Foe. Otherwise, it is unchanged per your own argument. Because nothing you have been complaining about has anything to do with being a caster ranger, you even dismissed the loss of the extra spells as not mattering.

This is just objectively false.

The Ranger lost Primal Awareness spells
The Ranger lost Vanish

I don't mind a debate but stop lying.

So, overall, the ranger is stronger and better designed. Just not for an unusual playstyle that very few people ever used.

Just not for the playstyle encouraged by Druidic Warrior and Fey Wanderer subclass.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because grappling is not melee as the game defines it. Melee as the game defines it involves hitting things with weapons (including fists), an action which usually requires the combatants to be separated enough that those weapons can be brought to bear.

Grappling (in reality) requires the combatants to not be separated, which is what makes it materially different from melee and abstracting that is why it has its own rules subsystem. Problem is, they're married to this silly idea that two people can't both be in a 5x5' square at the same time (hint: they can, with ease!), which makes nonsense of the grappling rules.

So nothing that hasn't been a truth we've played with for the last 20+ years. Got it.

The game defines grappling as melee. Therefore it is melee. There is no "closer than melee" distance in the game.

 

[Daztur]

So nothing that hasn't been a truth we've played with for the last 20+ years. Got it.

The game defines grappling as melee. Therefore it is melee. There is no "closer than melee" distance in the game.

Yeah, at the most basic level if you're playing on a grid with minis its annoying to have to jam two minis onto the same square if one is grappling the other. This is one case where playability should come before realism. Fine to imagine things like Hulk grabbing a dude and holding him in one hand at arm's length, even though that's not how real grappling works. Calling it "grab" also makes the flavor better align with the rules, so that would help.