D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[UngeheuerLich]

How is that different than the jiggling caused by a critical hit.

This kills it instead of applying a status effect that equals prone...

One is cutting it with an edge. One is applying the right amount of force to get resonance from their natural frequency...

 

[James Gasik]

It would be pretty simple to just leave the hard weight limit on spells (i.e. drop the "huge-or-smaller-creature" clause) and not touch grapple.

Then again, if two opponents are each heavier than the other can carry, no problem: they fight in place unless one moves voluntarily. And don't forget you can drag half again your carry cap (at least I think that's still true in 5e), meaning your Str 18 guy could still move his doppleganger at least to a small extent.

If you are beyond your carry cap you can move 5 ft.. When you drag with grapple your speed is halved. I read that as you could drag someone 2.5 ft. which is fairly useless if you play on a grid (as my group does).

 

[James Gasik]

Snakes can constrict, which seems close enough for rock'n'roll.

That's sad. Wonder why they dropped it.

The same reason Detect Evil and Good no longer detects....evil or good, I imagine.

 

[James Gasik]

What if the ooze happens to be a Plasmoid while they're in a more humanoid form?

Plasmoids aren't immune to prone.

 

[Oofta]

My earliest memory of D&D is having a green slime fall on my fighter's helm and me having to cut the chin-straps and toss the helm aside. Getting close to 40 years ago. Good times.

I still remember Binkley our Elven thief(?) screaming for us to get the torches and burn it off. Good times.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So lets take a look at the ad&d one...

What is a gelatinous cube?

Illustration from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition - Monstrous Compendium - Volume one - 1989 From Wikipedia article: A gelatinous cube is a fictional monster from the Dungeons & Dragons...

gelatinouscubes.tumblr.com

It specifies that it can be hit by any weapon woth normal effect. So how exactly is WotC obsessed with simplicity?

It seems you are obsessed to blame WotC for things you don't agree with.

I never said TSR was perfect. Just generally better for what I want than WotC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I never said TSR was perfect. Just generally better for what I want than WotC.

You implied WotC was the reason for leaving out weapon immunities because their obsession for simplicity while it was probably just tradition.

 

[Faolyn]

...this: sticking a leg or stick or sword out and causing the target to stumble and fall; an action and visual we know just doesn't apply to a host of non-legged creatures.

My problem is I can't think of a better word. 'Stun' is already in use and kinda means something different anyway, ditto 'confuse' which is more a mental effect. 'Disorient' is close-ish but also implies mental confusion rather than just physical.

Hinder.

 

[Hriston]

It is not about the work involved, it is about whether it makes sense for your feature to work... this also is not adversarial, in a pretty open campaign there can be situations that were not considered before, so the DM cannot tell you about it in session zero

If the feature possibly not working is too much for you, oh well...

Well @Scott Christian claims it would be some amount more than "very little" extra work for the DM unless they are allowed to have all kinds of secret reasons to tell the player they were wrong about what their feature does, so that's what I was responding to.

 

[Lanefan]

The same reason Detect Evil and Good no longer detects....evil or good, I imagine.

Detect Evil and Detect Good would logically have gone away at the same time alignments (mostly) did.

But that same rationale doesn't apply to determining whether something is alive or not. As far as I know, the game still distinguishes between "alive" and "dead" for various reasons.