D&D (2024) What is With Poison?, and Other PHB Conundrums.

[Reynard]

Comparing 5e to like 3e characters, it absolutely is.

Damage stacking is WAY less prevalent now than it was in previous editions, so in that context being able to add in +1d4 damage to your attacks without concentration is quite powerful.

Not if you look at hit point totals.

 

[Stalker0]

Not if you look at hit point totals.

Not sure what to tell you. If your attack does 1d8 + 7 (longsword, max strength, dueling style), that's 11.5 damage, 2.5 added on is a 22% buff in your damage.

I mean if that's not a solid increase I don't know what is.

 

[Reynard]

Not sure what to tell you. If your attack does 1d8 + 7 (longsword, max strength, dueling style), that's 11.5 damage, 2.5 added on is a 22% buff in your damage.

I mean if that's not a solid increase I don't know what is.

I didn't say it wasn't an increase. I said that 5Es flat math and reduction in modifiers does not extend to hit points. WotC worked to keep bonuses small and then still decided to make inflated hit points the measuring stick of combat effectiveness.

 

[Chaltab]

I didn't say it wasn't an increase. I said that 5Es flat math and reduction in modifiers does not extend to hit points. WotC worked to keep bonuses small and then still decided to make inflated hit points the measuring stick of combat effectiveness.

Except monster hit points in 5E are lower than any previous WOTC Edition.

3E Tarrasque: 858 HP
4E Tarrasque: 1140 HP
5E Tarrasque: 676 HP

 

[TravDoc42]

Hey, whatever's fun for you. In my personal experience though-

1) When you're not familiar with the PCs' abilities beforehand, you get to disrupt the story and make everyone else at the table wait while you figure them out upon use during play. On top of all the other things a DM needs to be concentrating on...

2) Balance problems are far more than the PCs merely being able to unexpectedly trivialize a few encounters. They're also the interminable slog against an enemy that isn't seriously dangerous but takes FOREVER to defeat; or the foe that one-shots a PC unexpectedly. Or if you mess up badly enough causes a disruptive TPK. 5e is exceptionally forgiving so one might not experience balance problems that often regardless. But they WILL happen more frequently if you don't know PC abilities. And the difference between a "threatening" encounter, a trivial encounter, and a lethal encounter still all too often come down to a fairly narrow range of power differences.

3) Players will still find plenty of ways to surprise you regardless of whether you know their character abilities.

I agree! As a forever DM, I love making encounters that both accentuate and challenge the PCs abilities. I find it helps the players be more invested in their characters and learning their abilities.

This is just my two cents, though! Everyone is different!

 

[TravDoc42]

How terrible is Crown of Madness?

Crown of Madness. Level 2 Enchantment (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
Casting Time: Action.
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
One creature that you can see within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Charmed condition for the duration. The creature succeeds automatically if it isn’t Humanoid. A spectral crown appears on the Charmed target's head, and it must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. The target can act normally on its turn if you choose no creature or if no creature is within its reach. The target repeats the save at the end of each of its turns, ending the spell on itself on a success. On your later turns, you must take the Magic action to maintain control of the target, or the spell ends.

... And why doesn't it just say "One Humanoid that you can see..." like Hold Person does, if non-humanoids are immune?

I was honestly expecting them to fix CoM with the 2024 rules! A lot of people had commented on the degree to which that spell is ... less than useful...

 

[TravDoc42]

I really don't like how Sleep got changed from having a unique mechanic in 2014, to being another "save or suck" spell in 2024. I've commented about it before, and I'm sure I will again, but I love how 2014 Sleep has no save, and the hit points mechanic rewards PCs whittling away at monster HP before sending them into insta-snooze.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Except monster hit points in 5E are lower than any previous WOTC Edition.

3E Tarrasque: 858 HP
4E Tarrasque: 1140 HP
5E Tarrasque: 676 HP

I will counter with more common foes

A 1e & 2e troll was 33hp (hd6+6), 3e was 68hp (6d8+36) and a 5e troll is 84hp (8d10 + 40).

Kobolds in 5e have 5hp (2d6-2) vs 1e 2.5hp (1/2 d8), or 3e 4hp (d8)

Hit points inflation is the norm, of not a rule.

 

[Stalker0]

I didn't say it wasn't an increase. I said that 5Es flat math and reduction in modifiers does not extend to hit points. WotC worked to keep bonuses small and then still decided to make inflated hit points the measuring stick of combat effectiveness.

Yeah but this doesn't argue the original point, which is why poison is so expensive. Its expensive because its actually a very large damage bonus to a character, and so were it cheap, players would be heavily incentized to use it constantly.

Regardless of whether monster hp has gone up or down in 5e....a lot of PC damage is relatively flat, and so those damage boost are pretty substantial.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Discovering that something that looks and acts human is not in fact human is way more interesting than whatever benefit I was planning to get from charming or holding them.

...it's literally just any kind of goblin. Or any gith.

These are not sudden amazing revelations. It's much more "...wait, why are these human-shaped, human-behaving, mortal, otherwise ordinary beings somehow 'not human'?"

Don't make me get on my "they changed all the Humanoids to other types!" horse again.

I mean, I'm right there with you. If they were going to change anything, why not dragonborn? Y'know, the ones that actually ARE different from all other humanoids in a few pretty obvious ways...

Or aasimar/tieflings/genasi/planetouched. Or...yeah. I could come up with a lot more examples. But I've already been asked not to make an argument spill over from another thread, so I'll stop there.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of DMs probably won't care or even remember goblins are now fey and will let the spell work anyway because why not? What's the harm? And also... even if the DM does not allow it to work, it only takes one time for a player to try and charm a goblin for the DM to shout "Ha ha! Doesn't work! FOOLED YOU!!! LOSE YOUR SPELL!!!" for the player to just roll their eyes and then remember for next time. Assuming of course the DM felt the NEED to be a jerk about it-- because in truth what would most likely happen would be either the player and DM would have already talked together about which creatures are now no longer classified as Humanoid (so they'd know going in whether these spells would work)... or the DM would alert the player at the time of casting, and let them choose a different target or choose a different spell.

We're in 'mountains out of molehills' territory right now it seems.

Zero 5e DMs I have ever had--literally actually zero--would allow the spell to work if it specified humanoids and you targeted it at a fey or an aberration or an undead etc., etc. The vast majority would actively check for such things, if relevant.

Given how absolutely, profoundly DM-dependent 5e is, no, I don't think this is "mountains out of molehills." Even good 5e DMs would--and have!--done this in my experience.