D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[Maxperson]

Yes, because a mindflayer that mind blasts you, or a Red Dragon that breathes on you or a Cleric that Guiding bolts you will "bloody" you but will not cause "cuts or bruises"

The mind flayer would cause no physical damage. The dragon will not even hit the PC until half hit points or lower, and won't directly strike until 0. Same with guiding bolt. It misses until half hit points, doing luck/skill/etc. damage, then causes minor things until 0.

Do you have a real citation that says the only hit that does actual damage is the one that takes you 0?

I quoted it. Don't ask for citations if you are going to ignore them when provided.

So how is it that a Hunter Shark has "Blood Frenzy" and advantage against targets that don't have all their hit points if those targets are not actually injured?

Bad rules.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Nobody is saying you're wrong that it COULD have been better managed. If it had WotC never would have been able to buy TSR in 1997. Gary and Lorraine Williams both screwed up managing the company during the 90's. This isn't exactly a hot take or a new one.

What YOU are missing is the fact that they WERE in those sphere's. There were at least a dozen PC and console games based on the IP. There WERE attempts to get into other media. Ultimate the problem was that TSR was a family run business from Lake Geneva, WI a city of 4,000 people. I literally grew up 20 mins from there my friends dad who was also my Boy Scout leader who WORKED for TSR. They didn't have the business acumen nor experience to properly take advantage and profit off brand or license the IP into other media. The closest they got was when Gary went to Hollywood and got the cartoon on air and the video games that did make it to market.

But I'm NOT missing that part, as I've said repeatedly, and I have also said that I didn't think that I'd have to defend my postion, which as you say, "isn't exactly a hot take or a new one".

I said something that I thought was obvious and generally agreed with, and I've had to defend it ever since.

Clearly there's a lot of circular misunderstanding going on here, so I think I'll just let it lie now.

 

[ECMO3]

The mind flayer would cause no physical damage. The dragon will not even hit the PC until half hit points or lower, and won't directly strike until 0.

I am talking about after 50% hit points.

I have 20 hit points at full, the mind flayer mind blasts me and does 12, leaving me with 8 hps.

The [small] Dragon breathes fire on me for 12 hit points, leaving me with 8 hps.

RAW in both these cases I am "bloodied" meaning I have taken real, physical damage but have no "cuts or bruises"

Same with guiding bolt. It misses until half hit points, doing luck/skill/etc. damage, then causes minor things until 0.

No it causes "bloodied" well before 0.

I quoted it. Don't ask for citations if you are going to ignore them when provided.

I am looking for the exact words "the hit that drops you to 0 is the one that does actual damage"

If that does not exist then please just admit it doesn't exist.

Bad rules.

Yeah bad only because it does not agree with your flimsy argument.

 

[Maxperson]

I am talking about after 50% hit points.

I have 20 hit points at full, the mind flayer mind blasts me and does 12, leaving me with 8 hps.

The [small] Dragon breathes fire on me for 12 hit points, leaving me with 8 hps.

RAW in both these cases I am "bloodied" meaning I have taken real, physical damage but have no "cuts or bruises"

This is what I mean by you just reading to argue and not understand. And I quote..........................again!

"you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."

Do you understand what "such as" means?

I am looking for the exact words "the hit that drops you to 0 is the one that does actual damage"

If that does not exist then please just admit it doesn't exist.

And I quote.......................again!

"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."

Don't ask me to quote it again. I'll just tell you to go look yourself.

Yeah bad only because it does not agree with your flimsy argument.

No, it's bad because it contradicts other RAW.

 

[ECMO3]

And I quote.......................again!

"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."

Don't ask me to quote it again. I'll just tell you to go look yourself.

And I say again provide the EXACT WORDING:
"the hit that drops you to 0 is the one that does actual damage"

This is not the same words and not the same literal meaning as what you keep providing. "An attack" does not literally mean the same thing as "the one".

Don't say again that you provided a citation saying this when you didn't, just admit you were wrong.

No, it's bad because it contradicts other RAW.

No it doesn't, you are wrong.

 

[ECMO3]

"you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises."

Do you understand what "such as" means?

But how can that be when things "such as cuts and bruises" are not "actual damage" according to you.

 

[tetrasodium]

And I say again provide the EXACT WORDING:
"the hit that drops you to 0 is the one that does actual damage"

This is not the same words and not the same literal meaning as what you keep providing. "An attack" does not literally mean the same thing as "the one".

Don't say again that you provided a citation saying this when you didn't, just admit you were wrong.



No it doesn't, you are wrong.

While You're technically correct that the rules don't explicitly spell out the thing max has been claiming... He is entirely correct that in actual play the turn by turn action by action result is that only the last hit has any meaningful impact. The whole demand for exact wording shows the damage caused by 5e spending years pretending that any R o l e roleplay" veneer deserves extra credibility no matter how much of an obvious thinly dressed up munchkin metagaming thing it actually is

 

[Maxperson]

And I say again provide the EXACT WORDING:
"the hit that drops you to 0 is the one that does actual damage"

This is not the same words and not the same literal meaning as what you keep providing. "An attack" does not literally mean the same thing as "the one".

Don't say again that you provided a citation saying this when you didn't, just admit you were wrong.

Provide me a citation saying "ECMO3 is right" and I will concede.

What I provided was sufficient. I'm not going to play your silly game of finding the exact wording you choose to put down or else you're right.

 

[AlViking]

The argument of what hit points "really" are - or why the vast majority of combat oriented video game treat them exactly the same - is one that will never be resolved except "they are simple and they work for purposes of the game". I don't see any way to have anything particularly close to reality when it comes to combat and I don't think it would make for a fun game even if we could. You can certainly make more complex options, and some games have, I just don't see how they're any better. Same with parrying blows, disengaging or any number of decisions made for the game.

The choices were not made because they were more realistic. They were chosen because they were close enough to what people imagine combat would be like and because they keep the game flowing without excessive overhead.

 

[ECMO3]

What I provided was sufficient. I'm not going to play your silly game of finding the exact wording you choose to put down or else you're right.

What you provided does not support your claim. You are simply wrong, whether you admit it or not and if you could provide something that actually supported your claim you would.

I am still waiting to find out why someone who gets stabbed by a poison weapon, or clawed by a Quasit or similar can have the poisoned condition when the weapon or other attack completely misses them and causes no actual damage.