D&D (2024) Anyone else dislike the "keyword" style language of 5.24?

[EzekielRaiden]

So here's the problem with what you're suggesting.

You want to use the Bloodied condition to trigger a creature feature. You then want to be able to impose the Bloodied condition under special circumstances to make that feature more threatening. So you hit a PC with an attack, they fail a save and are now "Bloodied" without being below half HP—

—oh, and now they're regenerating HP up to their maximum, because they have a feature that allows them to recover HP each turn when Bloodied and is meant to only be able to heal them up to half HP.*

There's nothing that couldn't simply be written as "if creature is below half HP" rather than introducing a rarely-relevant keyword for such, and you can't do something that imposes the Bloodied condition under abnormal circumstances that doesn't consequentially trigger other effects tied to being Bloodied having the Bloodied condition and normally balanced around the typical circumstances of the condition.

*But to be frank, given other changes to the rules and features/magic items to allow egregious exploits, it wouldn't surprise me if something like this eventually became possible.

You say "rarely relevant", but one of the few things even most haters of 4e liked about it was the Bloodied condition because it was useful. Creatures that gain or lose benefits while at or below half HP. Features which become more powerful at half HP. Transforming "boss" monsters. PCs getting a reminder that they're less sturdy than they think. Etc.

You dismiss it as near-useless. I've seen how useful it can be in action. Have you, in fact, actually played with it?

Or are you, to use the term so many people love throwing around on here, merely complaining about it in a white room without any actual experience with it?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So here's the problem with what you're suggesting.

You want to use the Bloodied condition to trigger a creature feature. You then want to be able to impose the Bloodied condition under special circumstances to make that feature more threatening. So you hit a PC with an attack, they fail a save and are now "Bloodied" without being below half HP—

—oh, and now they're regenerating HP up to their maximum, because they have a feature that allows them to recover HP each turn when Bloodied and is meant to only be able to heal them up to half HP.*

There's nothing that couldn't simply be written as "if creature is below half HP" rather than introducing a rarely-relevant keyword for such, and you can't do something that imposes the Bloodied condition under abnormal circumstances that doesn't consequentially trigger other effects tied to being Bloodied having the Bloodied condition and normally balanced around the typical circumstances of the condition.

cool. What’s the problem?

From experience, bloodied regen features usually explicitly say something like “up to half your hp total” in the wording. Eg, “When you are Bloodied, you gain regen 2 until you reach half your hp total, at which point the effect ends.” Or something like that.

or a boss can automatically engage a lair action when bloodied, or all kids of other stuff. “When the [critter] is at or below half its hit point total” isn’t egregious, but it is more writing than “Bloodied: Gains regen 2.”

 

[MothMayI]

You say "rarely relevant", but one of the few things even most haters of 4e liked about it was the Bloodied condition because it was useful. Creatures that gain or lose benefits while at or below half HP. Features which become more powerful at half HP. Transforming "boss" monsters. PCs getting a reminder that they're less sturdy than they think. Etc.

You dismiss it as near-useless. I've seen how useful it can be in action. Have you, in fact, actually played with it?

Or are you, to use the term so many people love throwing around on here, merely complaining about it in a white room without any actual experience with it?

I say it's rarely relevant because that's accurate.

From the sound of it, 4e had more things that ran off of the Bloodied condition. How many things run off of Bloodied in 2024 5e?

Of the 12 classes and 48 subclasses in the PHB...only two features in total apply to a Bloodied creature. Both of these features are identical in function to how they worked in 2014 5e, simply changing the wording.

Of all the feats in the 2024 PHB...none of them are affected by being Bloodied.

I'm not going to count up the 2024 Monster Manual, but of features that either weaken or strengthen an enemy below 50% HP...those existed with 2014 monsters. There were monsters with such features, and the statblock itself told you when these effects applied, rather than giving you a word and expecting you to know the specific rules meaning.

The reality is that making "Bloodied" a condition does not actually make 5e design more complex than it previously was. It does not add something to the game that did not previously exist, or create the potential for greater depth. But there are people who genuinely think it does, and that alone is almost certainly the reason for the increased Prevalence of Keywords.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not a big deal for me they probably got the balance almost right.

Mostly slightly annoyed through to relief. Index is a lot better.

 

[Yaarel]

I prefer the approach of using technically precise gaming mechanics, then refer to these in way that is a natural as possible.

Toward that goal both 5.0 and 5.5 are fine.

(Heh, when weirdness shows up, such as 'melee' 'weapon' 'attack', probably it is the mechanics itself that need to be doublechecked.)

 

[Yaarel]

Sentences like this are pretty dire:

"When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn."

So romantic.

Even so, the cited text needs to be precisely clear mechanically, and for this, the sentences succeed.

 

[Yaarel]

Oh, don't even get started on the mess that is stuff relating to those terms.

Remember that a melee attack, a melee weapon attack, a weapon attack, and an Attack are four completely different things.

("A melee attack" is a single instance of making an attack roll specifically as a melee thing, regardless of why you're making it, e.g. some spells have melee spell attacks. A melee weapon attack is a single instance of striking an opponent with a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is for normally. A weapon attack is any attack, ranged or melee or spell, that uses a weapon. An Attack is the use of the Attack action, which may involve up to five attacks, presuming a dual-wielding 20th level Fighter with the Nick mastery.)

5.0 has a vestigial keyword system, and it uses that system very clumsily in several places. 5.5 has an aggressively-pushed keyword system, and it uses that system very clumsily in several places.

Heh. Thanks for reminding me about the differences between the different uses of 'melee' 'weapon' 'attack' − because I was in process of needing to look up their differences − AGAIN!

 

[Puddles]

Keywords are great. They should be used to lower word counts in rules' wordings, not extend them.

Saying "You are Blinded and Deafened" is using keywords correctly (in particular if you are capitalizing the words).

Saying "You have the Blinded and Deafened conditions" is just being needlessly verbose with your rules.

Nicely said

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Of course both approaches have pros and cons, and the initial post was stating my preference rather than asserting one method being correct.

I like this reply because I am not against keywords in principal, it’s more their deployment in 5.24 that has irked me - with sentences becoming bloated with jargon-esque turns of phrase, where they didn’t need to be.

 

[Yaarel]

I say it's rarely relevant because that's accurate.

From the sound of it, 4e had more things that ran off of the Bloodied condition. How many things run off of Bloodied in 2024 5e?

Of the 12 classes and 48 subclasses in the PHB...only two features in total apply to a Bloodied creature. Both of these features are identical in function to how they worked in 2014 5e, simply changing the wording.

Of all the feats in the 2024 PHB...none of them are affected by being Bloodied.

I'm not going to count up the 2024 Monster Manual, but of features that either weaken or strengthen an enemy below 50% HP...those existed with 2014 monsters. There were monsters with such features, and the statblock itself told you when these effects applied, rather than giving you a word and expecting you to know the specific rules meaning.

The reality is that making "Bloodied" a condition does not actually make 5e design more complex than it previously was. It does not add something to the game that did not previously exist, or create the potential for greater depth. But there are people who genuinely think it does, and that alone is almost certainly the reason for the increased Prevalence of Keywords.

For my gaming style, the term Bloodied happens very many times in each session. It is an important narrative marker. It signifies the moment a solid hit lands. Before it, almost all damage is nonphysical. Meanwhile it is a headsup notification, half the hit points have depleted. It helps players get a sense of how tough an opponent is, in a narrative way.

5e hasnt taken advantage of this marker yet, but it will. There is a meaningful difference between nonphysical fatigue and sloppiness, versus bruises and scrapes that require bandages. Of course, damage that causes 0 hit points is a potentially fatal wound, narratively.

In my own rulings, encounter-ending tactics such using Intimidation to force surrender, can only work after Bloodied. These are important for nonlethal scenarios.

I would prefer features such as Stun and other encounter ending mechanics likewise only become possible after Bloodied.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Natural English" leads to far more confusion and ambiguity. I greater prefer the emphasis on Keywords for clarity.

Your argument does make sense; I hadn't thought about this before but I agree that the newer style provides more constant reminders that you are reading game rules and is less conducive to immersing yourself in the fantasy. I still prefer my game rules to focus on being as unambiguous as possible though, even if it's more ugly to read.

I spend considerably more time reading game books than playing games. Having that be as enjoyable an experience as possible is important to me.