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

[Stormonu]

If I can knock a flying creature prone to make it fall, I don't see what the problem is with knocking a gelatinous cube on it's side.

Roll the die!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Any ability like this is going to work on a regular basis or no one will take it. If it does in my opinion it's supernatural.

I suspect you're really not going to prefer this, and that's fine:

To me, those kind of abilities aren't supernatural, they're meta. It's not that the PC mind-controls the bad guys, it's that the PC's player story-controls what happens.

I don't prefer the story the way you tell it above, either - the idea that the fighter is somehow, at that moment, menacingly luring the badguys toward themselves and then bashing them. I don't think it's a very good fit, most of the time.

However, in an actual, at-the-table use of the power, that is only one (minor and not great) way to describe what's happening. There's a near-infinite way that "guys surround fighter, fighter bashes them" could happen, and it's all dependent on, primarily 1) The fighter (and everything about them); 2) The bad guys (and everything about them; and 3) The exact scenario - the location, the reason for the battle, the weather, what came before, what's likely to come after, etc, etc.

When you take all those factors holistically and come up with a reason (beyond mind control) that results in, in that moment, those bad guys surround the fighter and get bashed for that act? To me, that's part of the fun of the game.

I can use my creativity to come up with reasons why all sorts of D&Disms are stupid. I'd rather use it to come up with ways that it's awesome. It's expansive rather than reductive.

 

[Oofta]

If I can knock a flying creature prone to make it fall, I don't see what the problem is with knocking a gelatinous cube on it's side.

Disrupting flight, to me, is completely different than knocking an amorphous creature prone. One is relying on maintaining movement speed and proper form most of the time. The other doesn't distinguish front from back much less up and down.

 

[Oofta]

I suspect you're really not going to prefer this, and that's fine:

To me, those kind of abilities aren't supernatural, they're meta. It's not that the PC mind-controls the bad guys, it's that the PC's player story-controls what happens.

I don't prefer the story the way you tell it above, either - the idea that the fighter is somehow, at that moment, menacingly luring the badguys toward themselves and then bashing them. I don't think it's a very good fit, most of the time.

However, in an actual, at-the-table use of the power, that is only one (minor and not great) way to describe what's happening. There's a near-infinite way that "guys surround fighter, fighter bashes them" could happen, and it's all dependent on, primarily 1) The fighter (and everything about them); 2) The bad guys (and everything about them; and 3) The exact scenario - the location, the reason for the battle, the weather, what came before, what's likely to come after, etc, etc.

When you take all those factors holistically and come up with a reason (beyond mind control) that results in, in that moment, those bad guys surround the fighter and get bashed for that act? To me, that's part of the fun of the game.

I can use my creativity to come up with reasons why all sorts of D&Disms are stupid. I'd rather use it to come up with ways that it's awesome. It's expansive rather than reductive.

It's preference on style of play and I don't see the difference what label you put on it. I'd rather play the game I want, not be told that I'm not playing the game right or trying hard enough because we don't want the same experience.

 

[James Gasik]

Disrupting flight, to me, is completely different than knocking an amorphous creature prone. One is relying on maintaining movement speed and proper form most of the time. The other doesn't distinguish front from back much less up and down.

So we have this condition for disrupting movement that you can use any creatures that fly or swim (even ones that fly in a position that is effectively laying down, like Superman) but we can't see applying it to things that lack traditional limbs or body types?

Well, I suppose the problem is that "prone" is meant to reflect one thing (the position of a character) but the rules also use it as a stand in for being off balance as well as only being able to crawl. Better terminology is needed.

It's like a few sessions back where I had my character kneel to do something, and I found myself asking if that meant I was prone by the rules, and if I had to use up half my movement to stand up from a kneeling position, lol. There should be a difference between laying down and kneeling, but according to the rules you're either prone or not prone!

 

[mamba]

It's like a few sessions back where I had my character kneel to do something, and I found myself asking if that meant I was prone by the rules, and if I had to use up half my movement to stand up from a kneeling position, lol. There should be a difference between laying down and kneeling, but according to the rules you're either prone or not prone!

well, you are either prone or not, what you aren’t is either standing or prone

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Because flipping the thing over and discombobulating it until it reorients is unimaginable?

This is one of those many cases in D&D arguments where it's just a matter of people being far, FAR too stuck on D&D's use of certain "best-fit" words. They see "Trip" and "Prone" as the only way to imagine what is happening.

It's not their fault, really - the game uses "trip" and "prone" for cause and effect.

But, I think that it's pretty clear that nearly every word in D&D (conditions especially, but also anything the game uses as a descriptor) is meant to mean "Usually and often this is the case, but there are many corner-cases where this word is not meant to be taken literally, and many other adjacent ideas would often fit better".

You don't "trip" an ooze and have it "fall prone". You "flip, smoosh, shake, splat, spin, splatter, etc, etc" an ooze and have it "take some time to reorient itself - anything where it is slightly less able to move and/or defend itself momentarily".

Words in D&D are usually meant to inspire, not to straight-jacket. IMO, we often get stuck on them.

 

[Raiztt]

This is one of those many cases in D&D arguments where it's just a matter of people being far, FAR too stuck on D&D's use of certain "best-fit" words. They see "Trip" and "Prone" as the only way to imagine what is happening.

It's not their fault, really - the game uses "trip" and "prone" for cause and effect.

But, I think that it's pretty clear that nearly every word in D&D (conditions especially, but also anything the game uses as a descriptor) is meant to mean "Usually and often this is the case, but there are many corner-cases where this word is not meant to be taken literally, and many other adjacent ideas would often fit better".

You don't "trip" an ooze and have it "fall prone". You "flip, smoosh, shake, splat, spin, splatter, etc, etc" an ooze and have it "take some time to reorient itself - anything where it is slightly less able to move and/or defend itself momentarily".

Words in D&D are usually meant to inspire, not to straight-jacket. IMO, we often get stuck on them.

I think this is a very good take, however...

...conditions also usually have an unstated logic to how they are achieved. While I would allow an amorphous creature to "become prone" in a manner of speaking the way that you cause that to happen would not be 1:1 with the way you make other creatures prone even if it has the same mechanical effect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I can knock a flying creature prone to make it fall, I don't see what the problem is with knocking a gelatinous cube on it's side.

Because...it's a cube. One side's as good as another IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of those many cases in D&D arguments where it's just a matter of people being far, FAR too stuck on D&D's use of certain "best-fit" words. They see "Trip" and "Prone" as the only way to imagine what is happening.

It's not their fault, really - the game uses "trip" and "prone" for cause and effect.

But, I think that it's pretty clear that nearly every word in D&D (conditions especially, but also anything the game uses as a descriptor) is meant to mean "Usually and often this is the case, but there are many corner-cases where this word is not meant to be taken literally, and many other adjacent ideas would often fit better".

You don't "trip" an ooze and have it "fall prone". You "flip, smoosh, shake, splat, spin, splatter, etc, etc" an ooze and have it "take some time to reorient itself - anything where it is slightly less able to move and/or defend itself momentarily".

Words in D&D are usually meant to inspire, not to straight-jacket. IMO, we often get stuck on them.

This is straight-up demeaning to anyone who doesn't share your preference. Please try to find a way not to insult those who disagree with you in your rhetoric.