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

[TheSword]

I’m running a ranger for our first game using full 2024 rules.

As best as I can tell it with dual wielding, two weapon style and Nick weapon in the off hand at level 5 he can make four attacks at level 5 without using that precious bonus action and Hunters Mark will give an extra 1d6 damage to every attack.

That feels pretty darn good and well worth a concentration slot. Though very easy to recast if you want to use concentration for something else for a few rounds.

I did have a question though. The Fey Wandered extra damage states a creature can only take the extra damage once per turn. But if you attacked multiple creatures would they each take 1d4 extra?

 

[mellored]

As best as I can tell it with dual wielding, two weapon style and Nick weapon in the off hand at level 5 he can make four attacks at level 5 without using that precious bonus action and Hunters Mark will give an extra 1d6 damage to every attack.

Nick is once per turn.
So 3 attacks, 4th bonus action attack with the feat.

The Fey Wandered extra damage states a creature can only take the extra damage once per turn. But if you attacked multiple creatures would they each take 1d4 extra?

If that's the wording, then yes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The ranger now casts rituals. That makes them so much stronger.

 

[TheSword]

Nick is once per turn.
So 3 attacks, 4th bonus action attack with the feat.


If that's the wording, then yes.

Still good, considering you probably wouldn’t need to use a new hunters mark every round.

Does that mean that Nick and Dual Wielding is less useful now as you would need to use your bonus action for the two weapon attacks anyway and so you might as well take a different weapon property? l other than Nick.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I haven't implemented this yet, but I've been toying around with the idea of using percentile dice to see if you are killed outright. A roll of 100 or higher kills you. I'd then add 5% per 10 feet fallen, so your 50 foot fall would add 25% to the roll. That leaves a 75% chance of survival. If survival is indicated, then damage would be rolled as normal.

That would make falls scary, while still allowing a good chance of survival from falls that would typically kill folks here in the real world.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

5.5e allows them to maintain it without attacking, but I forget the exact mechanics.

 

[Nefermandias]

What kind of consequences did you want for people who took true strike?

When I said "consequences" I was thinking about the overall design philosophy of the current version of the game. It's just like the designers are going out of their way to protect players from experiencing failure or having to think about meaningful trade-offs.

For example, ranged combat main downsides should be having to deal with cover and being disadvantaged whenever there's an enemy close to you. Guess what? Both can be easily ignored by just picking two feats.

Now, you brought up True Strike as an example of "improvement" and that just serves to reinforce my point. The perceived improvement in this case, was a buff to a spell.

 

[Maxperson]

What was I saying just now about hit point inflation?

It's even worse than that. It's not hard to have 61+ hit points by 6th level if you are a fighter or barbarian. In order to be killed outright while at full hit points, it would take a single source of damage dealing 122+ points of damage, which a 200 foot fall can't do.

 

[mellored]

It's just like the designers are going out of their way to protect players from experiencing failure or having to think about meaningful trade-offs.
...
Now, you brought up True Strike as an example of "improvement" and that just serves to reinforce my point. The perceived improvement in this case, was a buff to a spell.

So you like the old true strike better because players can experience failure if they pick it?

 

[Nefermandias]

So you like the old true strike better because players can experience failure if they pick it?

No.