Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9574693" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Yup.  I think Joshua's right that there are times when Dazed isn't that interesting because the choice is obvious, but even if you are still going to use the same Standard action (spell, Twin Strike, whatever), losing your Move and Minor actions is still a cost, and can prevent you from moving out of an AOE, moving into an ally's AOE or setting up a flank, etc.  If the choice is obvious, at least that means you can still execute your turn quickly and combat is sped up.No spit.  Yes, I think most of us are well aware of how Stun is treated in1E, despite that edition hilariously not defining the condition anywhere (the closest it comes is in the Power Word: Stun spell description; the DMG only tells you the bonuses to attack which people get against you, and you have to look under the Symbol spell description to find out that stunning also causes the person to drop held items).We're talking about prospective alternate rules. Hence the words "if" and "meant" in my post which you're replying to.If you spend your entire life locked into the context of only viewing rules or proposed rules through the lens of your (personal, house-ruled) version of 1E, it's going to continually hinder you from having productive dialogue with other people about the rules of OTHER versions of D&D or even other RPGs.This seems like another example of you being trapped in the assumption that the way things have been in the past and the way things are in your game is an inevitable baseline reality of the universe rather than... not the way things are in other people's games or the way things have to be.1. Why would you assume that everyone's games have characters with 50 hit points?  Why would you think you have to point out that with a 50% chance of it ending each round the odds of it continuing for a long time are low? Given how simple the math is, you should be able to infer that this is an intentional feature, not a bug.2. Why do you assume that ghouls should always be as devastatingly lethal and notoriously overpowered as Ghouls have classically been in AD&D? So that, e.g., they're still a terrifying threat even to higher level characters with 50 hp?  Everyone who's experienced with old school D&D is familiar with how ghouls break the routine power curve of the encounter charts, and tons of people in OSR spaces have discussed (for well over a decade now) variants to make them less busted.  (Or advocated for keeping them busted and scary, of course.  They do have their supporters.)  My usual house rule for Ghouls in old school is simply that they can't force more than one save against paralysis per round. If they hit you at all you have to make the save, but they can't force 2 or 3 saves on someone in the same round with their three attacks.  That still keeps them super scary and nasty, but in my current game I'm trying something different and downgrading them a bit more.  It's not like "Hey, maybe ghouls should be toned down a little" is a novel or controversial concept.</blockquote>

Verification