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

[ECMO3]

The main problem, though, is that I have someone who outright refuses to understand what is being said to him.

The first problem is in an attempt to defend your position you take a statement from a dated manual out of context and interpret it in a way that is quite arguable and certainly not explicit. Then when it is pointed out that your odd interpretation is refuted multiple places (3 places in the DMG, 4 different monster stat blocks and more in the Basic rules and PHB) you claim those places are just "bad rules", when a logical approach when presented with such evidence would be: maybe I am interpreting this thing wrong, or maybe it is the bad rule.

The second problem is you refuse to admit you said something, followed by quitting the conversation instead of admitting you said it after I linked the very thread you said it in.

 

[AlViking]

The first problem is in an attempt to defend your position you take a statement from a dated manual out of context and interpret it in a way that is quite arguable and certainly not explicit. Then when it is pointed out that your odd interpretation is refuted multiple places (3 places in the DMG, 4 different monster stat blocks and more in the Basic rules and PHB) you claim those places are just "bad rules", when a logical approach when presented with such evidence would be: maybe I am interpreting this thing wrong, or maybe it is the bad rule.

The second problem is you refuse to admit you said something, followed by quitting the conversation instead of admitting you said it after I linked the very thread you said it in.

To me the real issue is arguing about something that is really just a game mechanic that grew out of war gaming that does not need any in-world justification or explanation. Do attacks do physical damage from the first hit or only the last one? Yes to both or something in between depending on how the people at the table envision it working. We've been having this argument since the inception of D&D, there is no better answer.

 

[TiQuinn]

While that might scratch a specific "realism" itch, I believe that these mechanics were not included in the game very deliberately.
If you think that D&D has an issue with people going nova, or just deleting monsters with "save or die" equivalent spells, I think that it is a given that these will become even worse if these two concepts were introduced.
If it is reasonably possible to bypass a monster's hit points, then manufacturing a situation where you can do so will become the optimal strategy for killing them.
Likewise introducing death spiral rules pushes parties into the nova strategy even harder, as every combat becomes a race to push the other side further down the death spiral before they get the chance to respond and start pushing the party into theirs. The party will be even further incentivised to ensure that the DM gets to actually act as little as possible.

The emphasis on ambushes and surprise attacks that this would lead to was just viewed as a tactical exercise when a lot of D&D was about exterminating your way through an area, killing the inhabitants as you come across them. However the general slant of D&D has changed, and many groups will try to talk before resorting to combat, which is likely to be fewer and more difficult set-piece encounters rather than lots of more minor ones degrading the party through attrition.

The flip side is that you could end up with a more OSR style game where bypassing combat is expected, whether that’s by stealth, parlay or some other means because combat becomes the thing you don’t want to do unless it’s a last resort.

That can be fine IF that’s the kind of game you want, but I think for most fans of 5e, that’s not what they’d want.

 

[ECMO3]

something that is really just a game mechanic that grew out of war gaming that does not need any in-world justification or explanation ....... Yes to both or something in between depending on how the people at the table envision it working. We've been having this argument since the inception of D&D, there is no better answer.

Yep and that is more or less what I said way back on the first post I made about this before I was told I was wrong and RAW only the hit that takes you to 0 does damage and there is no other way to interpret it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The flip side is that you could end up with a more OSR style game where bypassing combat is expected, whether that’s by stealth, parlay or some other means because combat becomes the thing you don’t want to do unless it’s a last resort.

That can be fine IF that’s the kind of game you want, but I think for most fans of 5e, that’s not what they’d want.

That is generally the preferred strategy in 5e as well IME. The combat mechanics haven't changed the kind of characters people play, other than somewhat more freedom of variety.
Now when I first played Basic and 2e, the assumption in our games was that we were going to have to fight our way through most encounters. But I've found these days, whether it is cyclopedia or 5e24 D&D, parties tend to only fight for specific goals, generally defence of themselves or others.