D&D (2024) PHB 2024 Is Hilariously Broken. Most OP of All Time?

[Oofta]

AKA: "martials can't do cool things because realism"

I'm pretty sure it's intentional in the rules that a fighter can grapple an ogre and drag it around. A grappled creature isn't a sack of potatos, it's a creature that's moving by itself, and a skilled wrestler can force it to move in the direction he is pulling.

AKA: "I prefer a game with simulationist tendencies not a glorified board game where rules are there to be exploited."

I'm pretty sure I disagree with what you think the intent is. I think the intent is that people play the game the way that works for them and their group. But yes, a creature is not a sack of potatoes. A sack of potatoes isn't struggling and kicking with all their might against being dragged. Unless it's a sack of living Mister Potato Heads of course.

 

[tetrasodium]

Actually, not true: what's been suggested is that 'the gm add & define drag in a way (that defies physics!)' that creates the broken mechanic. Dragging to the side? I mean, I get the imagery being evoked, but come on...

It's a blank spot in the rules, I agree. It relies on common sense to fill that gap, which is admittedly not great, but these gaps are bound to happen. If one chooses to fill that gap with something besides a realistic/sensible approach, then complain that the result is a mess, that person is on their own. Make mess, clean up after yourself.

Sorry. I'm not interested ithe application ofspaghetti code houserules attempting to fix obvious problems in RAW that were reported early on in the playtest for the edition wotc thought "Frustrating for Dungeon Masters but fantastic for your party" was reasonable to both design and brag about.

RAW and RAW alone is the problem, largely because 5e uses an unfortunate mix of technical writing with specific terms woven through "natural language" that pretends the words are meaningless. The solution is one of many errata elements because ignored reports of obvious problems to be during the playtest,... not an endless avalanche of spaghetti code "frustrating" dungeon masters.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Sorry. I'm not interested ithe application ofspaghetti code houserules attempting to fix obvious problems in RAW that were reported early on in the playtest for the edition wotc thought "Frustrating for Dungeon Masters but fantastic for your party" was reasonable to both design and brag about.

RAW and RAW alone is the problem, largely because 5e uses an unfortunate mix of technical writing with specific terms woven through "natural language" that pretends the words are meaningless. The solution is one of many errata elements because ignored reports of obvious problems to be during the playtest,... not an endless avalanche of spaghetti code "frustrating" dungeon masters.

That made no sense whatsoever. Slow down and parse those thoughts. I detect a deeper issue at play here, so I think I can make something of the 'spaghetti code' of words I just read. Not attacking you, got it?

Are you saying that RAW should have spelled out how drag works? As in, not allowing a 'dragger' to drag a 'draggee' beside them as opposed to behind them?

Looking at the rules with a cooler head, and not assuming that the writers of those rules are idiots, will lead to better results for you. That's my hot tip.

 

[clearstream]

And maybe more importantly dragging And carrying are still subject to the carrying capacity rules. Neither the feat nor the grappled condition overrides that.

Per "Carrying Objects"

If you try to haul an unusually heavy object or a massive number of lighter objects, the DM might require you to abide by the rules for carrying capacity​

(Emphasis mine.) To my reading that strongly implies that carrying capacity rules needn't be in play. DM can exercise the fiat implied by "might" - i.e. to not require you to abide by carrying capacity - or rule that an ogre isn't "unusually heavy" so that the "if" condition isn't met.

I agree with you that neither the feat nor the condition overwrite carry capacity (if in force), because they're not in conflict. The feat mitigates an extra movement cost, whilst being over-burdened prevents your speed being more than 5'. Something you already pointed out up-thread.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

AKA: "I prefer a game with simulationist tendencies not a glorified board game where rules are there to be exploited."

I'm pretty sure I disagree with what you think the intent is. I think the intent is that people play the game the way that works for them and their group. But yes, a creature is not a sack of potatoes. A sack of potatoes isn't struggling and kicking with all their might against being dragged. Unless it's a sack of living Mister Potato Heads of course.

This is D&D; the horror of angry anthropomorphic potatoes cannot be ruled out.

 

[FrogReaver]

Should DM rule that carrying capacity rules are always in force, then "if the creature is your size or smaller" the Grappler feat ought to form an exception that beats that general. Even so, an ogre is unlikely to be "your size or smaller" for many characters.

The grappler feat is not what allows you to drag or carry a creature. The only exception in the grappler feat for moving creatures is that 'your speed is not halved when moving a grappled creature'.

Zard has been misquoting the rules (easy to do for a new edition), so you might want to take that with a grain of salt.

 

[FrogReaver]

I did not read every page of this (currently) 26 page discussion! What is this referring to?

There's an argument that the grapple rules (not feat) override the the carrying capacity rules. Gets into 2014 hand crossbow reloading without a hand pre errata territory. The rule doesn't say I need X so I don't. The rule doesn't say I need to follow the carrying capacity rules so I don't.

 

[FrogReaver]

Per "Carrying Objects"

If you try to haul an unusually heavy object or a massive number of lighter objects, the DM might require you to abide by the rules for carrying capacity​

(Emphasis mine.) To my reading that strongly implies that carrying capacity rules needn't be in play. DM can exercise the fiat implied by "might" - i.e. to not require you to abide by carrying capacity - or rule that an ogre isn't "unusually heavy" so that the "if" condition isn't met.

Wanted to tackle this separately.

If we are going to get super technical and emphasize specific words and talk about implications then I'm going to emphasize this is talking about objects, not creatures, which would make any points from it applying to grappled creatures moot.

*Note: the same page a few sections earlier defines an object as 'inanimate'

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There's an argument that the grapple rules (not feat) override the the carrying capacity rules. Gets into 2014 hand crossbow reloading without a hand pre errata territory. The rule doesn't say I need X so I don't. The rule doesn't say I need to follow the carrying capacity rules so I don't.

I see. I think I understand the sidebar issue now. Thanks!

 

[Oofta]

This is D&D; the horror of angry anthropomorphic potatoes cannot be ruled out.

Well, we had vegepygmies, I guess vegepotatoes isn't much different.