• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Bug Reporting Thread


log in or register to remove this ad



How is this an "error" and not simply opinion?
As I described in the intro, I consider it an error because it is unequivocal and glaring. There is no situation where Half-Elf is a better choice than Elf (except a debatable corner case where you're a melee-only Fighter who rolled an even number for strength, doesn't care about 5 feet of movement, doesn't mind sleeping 4 extra hours, isn't worried about charm or sleep effects, etc.). Even though it's not a typo or anything, I can't imagine that's functioning as intended.

I'm surprised you picked me up on that and not the Gnome one.
 
Last edited:

I just mention it because it seems like an opinion based purely on mechanics and combat mechanics at that.

In a non-competitive game like D&D there's more, to me, that goes into character choice than simply mechanics. I'd play a half-elf, cause I want to role-play one. in fact Sunday night I rolled one up just for the heck of it. As friends of mine said, "if you never play class X or race Y because they're "not good enough" -- then you're missing the point of D&D." and "should every race be equally good in a non-competitive game?" YMMV.
 
Last edited:

In a non-competitive game like D&D there's more, to me, that goes into character choice than simply mechanics. I'd play a half-elf, cause I want to role-play one. in fact Sunday night I rolled one up just for the heck of it.
I agree that a game can be fun despite being imbalanced. I do not accept it as a justification for creating an imbalanced game (nor do I believe that was the designers' intention, hence it's on the list).
 
Last edited:


Then you should probably rename the thread to "Things I have problems with" or redefine "actual errors" to mean something different. ;)
I do have a section for stuff like that, and I'm considering putting the gnome issue into that section, but I don't think the half-elf belongs there. I can't believe that it's anything other than a mistake (or, more likely, a "we'll fix it later" thing).

I suppose, philosophically, it depends what the purpose of the list is. If the purpose of the list is to point out errors so that the editor can just go "oh, I didn't see that" and fix it, then only typographical errors, version inconsistencies, and so on belong on the list. That was the original purpose of the list, and it still is, but the scope has expanded over time in very fuzzy ways.

For example, the thing about cloudkill (it doesn't say what happens if the target doesn't breathe it in). Is that an omission, a design issue, or a flavor issue? Is it an issue at all? If someone was underwater while someone else cast cloudkill, any DM would rule that the swimming creature isn't affected. We don't need rules for that. But the cloudkill spell says it damages creatures passing through it, and the rules for swimming say that a character can hold their breath for several minutes, so why wouldn't a character just hold their breath before running through the cloud? This potentially invalidates a major part of the spell (and players will definitely ask). This could be a design fix (say that you can decide to hold your breath at the start of your turn, like averting your eyes for gaze effects), a flavor fix (say that the poison attacks your eyes, skin, etc., and is not dependent on breath), or no fix (leave it up to DM interpretation).

Does it belong on the list? I don't know. I err on the side of putting it on the list, since more data never hurts, and even the question of "is this an issue?" is something I want to bring up with this thread.
 



Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top