D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[Maxperson]

I quoted the only time you mention the word stingers.

No matter how many times you claim you've said this three times, you really didn't. I challenge you to find it more than once. You can't because you didn't. And the one post you did say it, which I quoted, isn't nearly as clear as you seem to think it is.

First off, I said that I said it twice and wouldn't say it a third time. Second, in the first quote I mentioned stingers and shouldn't have had to mention it again. Just quoting the actual quote says EXACTLY what he asked for. A reason why stingers worked. If he can't be bothered to try and understand what I am saying, I can't be bothered to say it more clearly multiple times. Once is enough.

 

[ECMO3]

Twice I've quoted where it says very clearly that typically you show no signs before 50%. That's there so that stingers and such will still inflict poison, which I stated straight out the first time I quoted it.

Niether your earlier posts, nor the rules actually say what is in red. There is some wording about cuts and bruises but not this. Ignoring that for a moment:

So you have a stinger or something with poison, then the hit causes damage, but if you don't there is no damage until you get to 0 hps. So you have a poisoned dagger and hit an enemy once then yes it that really hits him, and does "actual damage" but if you hit him a second time with the same dagger it doesn't do any actual damage ..... even if say the second hit is a critical hit.

Is this what you really think the rules are?

Oh and what if it is poison damage caused by the poison and not the poisoned condition?

 

[Maxperson]

Niether your earlier posts, nor the rules actually say what is in red. There is some wording about cuts and bruises but not this. Ignoring that for a moment:

Ignore it all you like, it's what the rules say. It's called context. It helps if you can recognize it.

"you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum , you show signs of wear"

Context is your friend. You can play internet lawyer with your "Aha! I got you on a technicality that really isn't!!!!!111!!!!11!," but it's not going to change the rules or the context. You don't show signs until below 50% unless there's an exception that would cause it. Now what sort of exception would necessitate signs before you hit 50%? I know! A stinger with poison!

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sure. The original question "do you think DnD ought to try implement anything that curbs the 'the only hit point that matters is the last one' mentality where you run at 100% effectiveness right up until you're making death" is extremely different depending on how you interpret a few things like those underlined bits.

Take for example these two rephrasings
1: "Do you think d&d ought to eliminate the elements like death saves and overly certain rest/recovery mechanics to bring back the thrill of dancing the razor's edge of low HP knowing that your party members have your back despite the death spiral risk if they drop the ball to curb the feeling of only the last hp nattering?"
2:"do you think d&d ought to implement some kind of secondary effectiveness mechanic based on current HP % or something to curb the feeling of only the last hp nattering?"
The first would be an improvement while the second likely convoluted and weird to the point that I can't even imagine such a subsystem functioning

mostly something closer to the latter than the former, a PC 'bloodied' mechanic in a similar vein of exhaustion inflicting distinct penalties, i don't think death saves ought to be removed wholesale but perhaps something that disinclines people from wanting to be taking them in the first place, nothing too harsh for either but just, SOME motivation to treat their character's health with a somewhat realistic level of concern.

 

[tetrasodium]

mostly something closer to the latter than the former, a PC 'bloodied' mechanic in a similar vein of exhaustion inflicting distinct penalties, i don't think death saves ought to be removed wholesale but perhaps something that disinclines people from wanting to be taking them in the first place, nothing too harsh for either but just, SOME motivation to treat their character's health with a somewhat realistic level of concern.

Going by the latter=last rormer=first rule of thumb people often forget, ugh.... An idea like "A PC 'bloodied' mechanic in a similar vein of exhaustion inflicting distinct penalties" feels like it's oozing with the kind of cognitive dissonance and cross purpose design that you get when the "theater geek" side of the hobby tried to design a mechanic to suit their personal "I'm a R O L E RoLePlAyEr not a [dirty] R O L L rollplayer" mindset because they think doing so can also happen to fit the exact letter of a complaint they think that the wargaming side of the hobby has voiced without actually impacting elevated species of RoLePlAyEr's in with BadWrongFun. I say that because such a mechanic would either be completely pointless with no meaningful impact or so impactful that nobody can use it without some kind of extreme meat grinder vibe becoming the primary theme and tone of the game

Most infuriatingly that theater geek desire can be totally suited in all but one way by designing the wargamer mechanics like death dying and recovery from the mindset of wargamers first foremost and exclusively then adding an optional sidebar like ke the hovering a death's door death at neg10 from the old days or something like the single 5.24 variant rules for PC's can't die unless the player chooses it in 5.24dmg. that totally unreasonable single point driving design through all of 5e so far is the ability to force it upon the table and poison the group dynamic in frustration over a nerf if not given that optional rule unconditionally with no discussion. The reverse can not be added through an optional sidebar to suit the wargaming side because too many other mechanics and abilities hook into death dying and recovery for any sort of quick bolt on optional patch job to cover without inviting endless edge cases on top of the toxic social cloud caused by what appears to be an overt need to players who feel "it can't be fun & play in ways that ensures that assessment is proven true.

 

[ECMO3]

Ignore it all you like, it's what the rules say.

No they don't say that. It is what you cliam they say and it is preposterous.

If they really said what you claim you would be able to provide the exact wording supporting that claim and you can't.

"you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum , you show signs of wear"

Again you avoid posting what you are actually claiming. Being injured and showing signs of injury are not the same thing, no matter how many times you post this over and over again.

Also the wording is actually contradictory to your claim. You claim is only the hit that causes 0 hps does actual damage, yet any hit point that takes you to 50% would cause you to show cuts and bruises. Are cuts and bruises not "actual damage"?

How do explain cuts and bruises on someone who has taken no damage?

How can something be "bloodied" when it has taken no actual damage?

While I am at it a few more questions:

1. why do casters need to make Concentration saves repeatedly when they are taking no damage?

2. How does a spell like Magic Missile actually miss you when the spell says it strikes a target?

I Now what sort of exception would necessitate signs before you hit 50%? I know! I stinger with poison!

It is not an exception and I posted an example of a monster that goes into "blood frenzy" against enemies that do not have all their hit points. So a PC gets hit by a dagger, that does no actual damage, and a half hour later he jumps into water and the Shark he is facing goes into blood frenzy .... even though he has taken no actual damage.

Context is your friend.

So then stop quoting something out of context! The wording you keep quoting is there as a framework to describe the abstraction of hit points, it is not there to be an arbiter of when someone has or has not taken "real damage".

You keep using that wording out of context!

Just face it you are wrong, and admit you were mistaken.

 

[Maxperson]

No they don't say that. It is what you cliam they say and it is preposterous.

If they really said what you claim you would be able to provide the exact wording supporting that claim and you can't.


Again you avoid posting what you are actually claiming. Being injured and showing signs of injury are not the same thing, no matter how many times you post this over and over again.

Also the wording is actually contradictory to your claim. You claim is only the hit that causes 0 hps does actual damage, yet any hit point that takes you to 50% would cause you to show cuts and bruises. Are cuts and bruises not "actual damage"?

Stop deliberately misstating my words. I never claimed that only the 0 hit point strike does actual damage. Not once.

Further the word "typically" means not always.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Give this man a kewpie doll! Which is why what I said covered stingers.

Without that "typically" poisonous(and other exceptions) creatures would not be able to use their abilities prior to getting PCs to 50%. Typically means usually or most of the time.

It is not an exception and I posted an example of a monster that goes into "blood frenzy" against enemies that do not have all their hit points. So a PC gets hit by a dagger, that does no actual damage, and a half hour later he jumps into water and the Shark he is facing goes into blood frenzy .... even though he has taken no actual damage.

Which it is a bad rule. It has no attack that actually causes bleeding prior to 50% damage on PCs. They needed to give it a an exceptional ability like poison stingers that would warrant blood before 50%, or else make the ability take effect when PCs are bloodied and buff it so that it still effective.

 

[ECMO3]

Stop deliberately misstating my words. I never claimed that only the 0 hit point strike does actual damage. Not once.

Yes you did, right here (at the very bottom of the post):

D&D 5E (2024) Post in thread 'Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?'

Yesterday at 8:47 PM

If we are talking RAW laying down and letting someone stab you in the heart will not kill you.

Yes it will, because if they have hit points left, it does not strike the heart or even the body if they have enough hit points. The person rolls over in their sleep and the attack "misses" for the amount of damage the attack does, or some other luck, skill, divine intervention hp damage description. The only time you get struck for huge gory wounds like a stab in the heart is when you drop to 0.

It is disingenous to bring up RAW to defend part of your hypothesis and then ignore RAW...

• Maxperson

So I guess you admit you are wrong now?

Which it is a bad rule. It has no attack that actually causes bleeding prior to 50% damage on PCs. They needed to give it a an exceptional ability like poison stingers that would warrant blood before 50%, or else make the ability take effect when PCs are bloodied and buff it so that it still effective.

But it is a rule that speaks directly and is IN CONTEXT to what we are talking about, unlike what you keep posting.

Also you missed a couple of my questions:

How do explain cuts and bruises on someone who has taken no damage?

How can something be "bloodied" when it has taken no actual damage?

Why do casters need to make Concentration saves repeatedly when they are taking no real damage?

How does a spell like Magic Missile actually miss you when the spell says it strikes a target?

 

[AlViking]

mostly something closer to the latter than the former, a PC 'bloodied' mechanic in a similar vein of exhaustion inflicting distinct penalties, i don't think death saves ought to be removed wholesale but perhaps something that disinclines people from wanting to be taking them in the first place, nothing too harsh for either but just, SOME motivation to treat their character's health with a somewhat realistic level of concern.

Your players aren't concerned when they drop to 0? Mine are, but one thing I might be doing differently is that I roll their death saves in secret. I started that a while back and now all but 1 character in my main campaign have a periapt of wound closure which means the character automatically succeed on death saves at the cost of an attunement slot. On the other hand, it's a pretty significant investment as well as an indication of how often I drop characters to 0 in my game. If it really bothered me I'm only have it work X times of day or even 1/day but no attunement but I can still have enemies double tap of course because that causes 2 failed death saves. Having a monster run away with the unconscious character is still frequently a valid option.

As far as @tetrasodium's complaint about players deciding if their character dies, that's still optional and has been a widespread house rule for quite some time now. I think the lethality of the campaign should be up to the group as a whole, the game can still be as lethal as the people at the table want. If you're a DM that thinks the characters should face a high risk of death and the players want to decide whether their character dies that seems like a mismatch of what people want and I doubt removing the mention of the optional rule in the DMG is going to fix anything.

 

[ECMO3]

Here is some more on this:

2014 DMG
"These optional rules make it easier or harder for adventurers to recover from injury, either increasing or reducing the amount of time your players can spend adventuring before rest is required ..... this optional rule prolongs the amount of time that characters need to recover from their wounds without the benefits of magical healing and works well for grittier, more realistic campaigns.

Another sentence:

"Characters can go toe-to-toe with deadly foes, take damage to within an inch of their lives, yet still be ready to fight again the next day."

How is any of this possible since anyone above 0 hps is not really injured or wounded anyway?

It is not just Hunter Sharks that have what you call "bad rules" for Blood Frenzy. It is multiple monsters - Sahaugin, multiple sharks, Quippers ......

I guess you think all if this is "bad rules"?

No, it is your interpretation of what you are quoting is both bad and out of context.

Do you finally admit you are wrong?