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

[Maxperson]

I quoted the only time you mention the word stingers.

No matter how many times you claim you've said this three times, you really didn't. I challenge you to find it more than once. You can't because you didn't. And the one post you did say it, which I quoted, isn't nearly as clear as you seem to think it is.

First off, I said that I said it twice and wouldn't say it a third time. Second, in the first quote I mentioned stingers and shouldn't have had to mention it again. Just quoting the actual quote says EXACTLY what he asked for. A reason why stingers worked. If he can't be bothered to try and understand what I am saying, I can't be bothered to say it more clearly multiple times. Once is enough.

 

[ECMO3]

Twice I've quoted where it says very clearly that typically you show no signs before 50%. That's there so that stingers and such will still inflict poison, which I stated straight out the first time I quoted it.

Niether your earlier posts, nor the rules actually say what is in red. There is some wording about cuts and bruises but not this. Ignoring that for a moment:

So you have a stinger or something with poison, then the hit causes damage, but if you don't there is no damage until you get to 0 hps. So you have a poisoned dagger and hit an enemy once then yes it that really hits him, and does "actual damage" but if you hit him a second time with the same dagger it doesn't do any actual damage ..... even if say the second hit is a critical hit.

Is this what you really think the rules are?

Oh and what if it is poison damage caused by the poison and not the poisoned condition?

 

[Maxperson]

Niether your earlier posts, nor the rules actually say what is in red. There is some wording about cuts and bruises but not this. Ignoring that for a moment:

Ignore it all you like, it's what the rules say. It's called context. It helps if you can recognize it.

"you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum , you show signs of wear"

Context is your friend. You can play internet lawyer with your "Aha! I got you on a technicality that really isn't!!!!!111!!!!11!," but it's not going to change the rules or the context. You don't show signs until below 50% unless there's an exception that would cause it. Now what sort of exception would necessitate signs before you hit 50%? I know! I stinger with poison!

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sure. The original question "do you think DnD ought to try implement anything that curbs the 'the only hit point that matters is the last one' mentality where you run at 100% effectiveness right up until you're making death" is extremely different depending on how you interpret a few things like those underlined bits.

Take for example these two rephrasings
1: "Do you think d&d ought to eliminate the elements like death saves and overly certain rest/recovery mechanics to bring back the thrill of dancing the razor's edge of low HP knowing that your party members have your back despite the death spiral risk if they drop the ball to curb the feeling of only the last hp nattering?"
2:"do you think d&d ought to implement some kind of secondary effectiveness mechanic based on current HP % or something to curb the feeling of only the last hp nattering?"
The first would be an improvement while the second likely convoluted and weird to the point that I can't even imagine such a subsystem functioning

mostly something closer to the latter than the former, a PC 'bloodied' mechanic in a similar vein of exhaustion inflicting distinct penalties, i don't think death saves ought to be removed wholesale but perhaps something that disinclines people from wanting to be taking them in the first place, nothing too harsh for either but just, SOME motivation to treat their character's health with a somewhat realistic level of concern.