D&D General If you had to choose between quality of story or combat

[Maxperson]

I did not want to be toxic or mean, or downvalue him in telling that. And in the end there is no RAW forbidding that stuff, but 5e with all its flaws is still the best D&D ed for PnP on the table, but my best experiences were when i played it with CoC and DSA Players, games without hitpoint inflation and real bound accuracy, for me personally that is simply the better RP immersive experience.

There is 5e RAW to stop metagame thinking. It's in the 5e DMG on page 235.

 

[Maxperson]

Aside from the sheer arrogance of deciding that you get to narrate what happens in other people's games, that's simply not true. The giant is not strong enough to smash a (5.0, obviously) druid wild shaped into an earth elemental into paste with one hit - the 80 damage becomes 40 damage (resistance to nonmagical B/P/S) which is less than a third of the health of just the wild shape. The druid can stand there, take 3 hits from the giant, then shrug off that damage with a bonus action in the next round.

Eh, no. No arrogance or deciding how you do your game. I'm talking about how RAW works. By RAW you aren't even truly hit until 50% hit points, and then it's scratches and bruises until you hit 0 where the solid hit happens. Thems the rules.

If you guys want to play Dragonball Z PCs where boulders thrown by giants are bouncing off of your PCs because you have 200 hit points, go for it.

Without any bruise at all, because rock doesn't have a circulatory system or skin, both of which are required for bruising.

"DESCRIBING THE EFFECTS OF DAMAGE
Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."

Give me a break. Then some OTHER sign of wear and tear.

Until you reach half hit points, there are no signs of damage on your elemental form. At half hit points down to 1 hit point, it's minor wear and tear WITHOUT a direct hit. At 0 you are hit directly by the crossbow bolt which cracks you in half or something, causing you to shift back to your normal form if playing 5e, or are knocked unconscious/killed if playing 5.5e

P.S. You are also not truly rock in 5.5e. You retain your creature type and do not become an elemental, so you would still have your blood and circulatory system.

 

[Azzy]

P.S. You are also not truly rock in 5.5e. You retain your creature type and do not become an elemental, so you would still have your blood and circulatory system.

I don't think that that can be inferred given that 5.5e isn't simulationalist like that.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Eh, no. No arrogance or deciding how you do your game. I'm talking about how RAW works. By RAW you aren't even truly hit until 50% hit points, and then it's scratches and bruises until you hit 0 where the solid hit happens. Thems the rules.

Er, yes you do have the sheer gall to tell other people not only that they have to describe damage in their game, but to claim your description is RAW when the material you quoted says it's definitely not RAW.

If you guys want to play Dragonball Z PCs where boulders thrown by giants are bouncing off of your PCs because you have 200 hit points, go for it.

"DESCRIBING THE EFFECTS OF DAMAGE
Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."

As your own quote says "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways," and if we're going to treat that as rule text, then RAW if you claim that one was is universal you're simply wrong. Literally nothing in the quote supports 'you aren't even truly hit until 50% hit points', it only talks about what signs of injury you show. It does say that an attack that reduces you to 0 strikes you directly, but does not say that other attacks do not. Further, the fact that it says 'typically' is important, since a typical PC is made out of flesh and blood and is not an elemental, so this specific case is clearly atypical for PCs.

This thread keeps producing wild takes!

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I don't think that that can be inferred given that 5.5e isn't simulationalist like that.

If we use that 'creature type doesn't change' logic, then even if you cast flesh to stone on someone and turn them into rock, they still have a circulatory system because their creature type didn't change!

 

[Maxperson]

Er, yes you do have the sheer gall to tell other people not only that they have to describe damage in their game, but to claim your description is RAW when the material you quoted says it's definitely not RAW.

The only one here telling anyone what they are saying is you. You are trying to tell me that I told you how to play your game, and I did not.

As your own quote says "Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways," and if we're going to treat that as rule text, then RAW if you claim that one was is universal you're simply wrong. Literally nothing in the quote supports 'you aren't even truly hit until 50% hit points', it only talks about what signs of injury you show. It does say that an attack that reduces you to 0 strikes you directly, but does not say that other attacks do not. Further, the fact that it says 'typically' is important, since a typical PC is made out of flesh and blood and is not an elemental, so this specific case is clearly atypical for PCs.

Yeah. Different ways as in, "You get scratched" or "You get bruised" and so on. The rule is typically(because of poisons and other effects that need a difference) show no damage before 50%, light until 1, and solid hit when taken to 0.

Feel free to ignore RAW, though. It sure seems like you will and more power too you.

Stop telling me what I said when I didn't say it, though. It's a bad look for you.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that that can be inferred given that 5.5e isn't simulationalist like that.

You literally keep your old creature type. That indicates that the change is mostly just appearance. Also, remember that in 5.5e, Moon Druids don't get elemental shapes, so it makes it easier to reconcile when all you can become are beasts.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

The only one here telling anyone what they are saying is you. You are trying to tell me that I told you how to play your game, and I did not.

No. Your druid does not shrug off things that would smash an elephant. Let's say that a giant swings a club at an elephant and crits it for 80, bashing in it's skull and killing it. Now let's say that same giant swings a club at your druid and crits for 80, but you have 90 hit points. That club did not hit you solidly anywhere. Instead you ducked or something and it barely glanced off of you for 80 damage, leaving a bruise and you with 10 hit points. If it had hit you solidly, even at 20th level you'd have been paste. Hitting you solidly is what happens when you get taken to 0 and knocked out.

Aside from the sheer arrogance of deciding that you get to narrate what happens in other people's games, that's simply not true.

I said that you decided you get to narrate what happens in other people's games, in response to you narrating what happens in another person's game. The second quote about is quite clearly you declaring what did and didn't happen in a game you're not involved in, and the third quote is the specific wording I used in direct reply to it.

Yeah. Different ways as in, "You get scratched" or "You get bruised" and so on. The rule is typically(because of poisons and other effects that need a difference) show no damage before 50%, light until 1, and solid hit when taken to 0.

Feel free to ignore RAW, though. It sure seems like you will and more power too you.

"Not adding in Maxperson's house rules for how to describe hits on an elemental" is not ignoring RAW.

 

[Remathilis]

If we use that 'creature type doesn't change' logic, then even if you cast flesh to stone on someone and turn them into rock, they still have a circulatory system because their creature type didn't change!

Well, if you fail your perception check, the DM can tell you that you find a pulse!

 

[Coroc]

I said that you decided you get to narrate what happens in other people's games, in response to you narrating what happens in another person's game. The second quote about is quite clearly you declaring what did and didn't happen in a game you're not involved in, and the third quote is the specific wording I used in direct reply to it.


"Not adding in Maxperson's house rules for how to describe hits on an elemental" is not ignoring RAW.

I am no native English speaker but take pride in being able to communicate quite well in that language and even can think in English. At first i thought that by mistake, i used some so called loaded language because i seemed to constantly insult you with my very abstract posts.

Buddy, please try to understand, no one is trying to devalue your preferences of the game, or accusing you of anything, or narrating things out of your experiences at the table in another way than they really happened.

If @Maxperson or me, or whoever considers something metagaming or taking away players agency or whatever, by all means we are not the final judges of the universe, it is our personal opinion. You got a different one? Well go on and post it in an abstract and argumentative way with few emotions. Maybe you got a good idea, maybe i or someone else oversaw something important.

Second: Partially you were accusing some of us of metagaming inside the forum (whatever that would be) and criticizing when we brought examples of our own games that this would not belong into a forum and prove nothing. (I am accumulating now i cannot be bothered to cite several postings atm). Well it does belong exactly here. Same if we our selves talk about something including the stats, then it is for clarification, not how we do it on our tables but to explain something within the forum.

Really do not take everything posted in a debate directed at you personally or as personal critics. No one does this because what worth or joy would i get out of it?