D&D (2024) PHB 2024 Is Hilariously Broken. Most OP of All Time?

[clearstream]

Here is the information in 5e:

I mean the table of weights of creatures, not how much they can carry.

 

[clearstream]

You are still missing the problem though... Where in the rules are you getting the idea that the grappled target must be dragged behind the grappler or cannot be dragged keeping the same adjacent squares arrangement? The entire premise of your support for the RAW seems to be structured atop a rules element that does not exist.

You may be slightly mistaking my premises, I argue that per RAW

grappler can "drag" or "carry" their victim​

I think we agree that the game abstraction says that in most cases their victim occupies a separate adjacent square​

"drag" isn't defined in RAW, neither as drag-behind nor drag-beside​

there is a natural meaning of "drag" that is indeed drag-behind​

a group can validly choose that meaning​

there is a (to my mind tenuously, but I think you would say equally) natural meaning of drag that is drag-beside​

that meaning produces unwelcome results, so why use it?​

So as to your proposal that my argument is structured atop a rules element that does not exist. It is factual that "drag" appears in RAW. It is factual that "drag" is not defined in terms of the game abstraction. Your choice of drag-beside as a meaning for "drag", rests atop those same facts.

 

[Zardnaar]

You may be slightly mistaking my premises, I argue that per RAW

grappler can "drag" or "carry" their victim​

I think we agree that the game abstraction says that in most cases their victim occupies a separate adjacent square​

"drag" isn't defined in RAW, neither as drag-behind nor drag-beside​

there is a natural meaning of "drag" that is indeed drag-behind​

a group can validly choose that meaning​

there is a (to my mind tenuously, but I think you would say equally) natural meaning of drag that is drag-beside​

that meaning produces unwelcome results, so why use it?​

So as to your proposal that my argument is structured atop a rules element that does not exist. It is factual that "drag" appears in RAW. It is factual that "drag" is not defined in terms of the game abstraction. Your choice of drag-beside as a meaning for "drag", rests atop those same facts.

That's basically what I'm arguing.

 

[tetrasodium]

You may be slightly mistaking my premises, I argue that per RAW

grappler can "drag" or "carry" their victim​

That's not all. They can do so with basically zero investment & in some cases literally zero opportunity cost in addition to their normal attack & move an absurd distance without triggering extra saves. Most (maybe all?) of those are new to 2024 rules

I think we agree that the game abstraction says that in most cases their victim occupies a separate adjacent square​

Yep

"drag" isn't defined in RAW, neither as drag-behind nor drag-beside​

Yes and no. It's not that drag is not defined by raw, drag is reprehensibly used in RAW by listing it as a thing that a PC can simply do to a target they have grappled. All of the mechanical details are stacked in favor of the player except the gaping void of how the grappler/grappled actually move about on the grid. That's a toxic combo because the player has ample reason to believe that the gaping void should be interpreted as favorably to them as possible due to everything else being stacked so far in their favor.... I'll get back to that though.

there is a natural meaning of "drag" that is indeed drag-behind​

Here is where things break down & require an errata to fix the whole mess originally reported during the playtest. "Natural Meaning" is a meaningless phrase. There are two actually defined linguistic terms that could apply. The first is "Natural Language", which is defined as "the language of ordinary speaking and writing". The second is "Technical Writing" , it may not have a dictionary definition (that I can find), but indeed & wikipedia define it as "Technical writing is a form of communication that professionals use to convey information about specialized topics" & "a specialized form of communication used by many of today's industrial and scientific organizations to clearly and accurately convey complex information to a user.".

Knowing when to use one style of writing over another & how much to use☆ is an important part of conveying information like rules & directions. In the case of grapple rules I found flowcharts for multiple TTRPG systems (and a MUSH!!) in the first few resaults for ttrpg grapple flowchart. Given that grapple flowcharts were once well known valuable tools for d&d it should be obvious that grapple is a subsystem that needs well structured rules or none whatsoever beyond fiat & "hey GM, can I try to....?".

☆ The [Thing] for dummies books are well known examples of extremely well done technical writing that gets the balance right. Ikea directions are an extreme (and generally poor example) of technical writing that gets the balance wrong by being too dry & technical. The grapple & drag rules we are discussing are an example of technical writing that is a complete failure in the other directionby failing to be technical enough.

a group can validly choose that meaning​

That's not how d&d works & it's not how this kind of rules conflict gets solved because there are two parties who feel they have significant say in how this whole thing works.

• First you have the player(Bob) who may have built their PC expecting a certain result, they are going to feel justified in pushing for the most PC friendly interpretation both for personal benefit as well as the fact that everything else in the deck of grapple mechanics is stacked so far in their favor.
• Second is the GM (Alice) who is responsible for adjudicating the rules in a generally fair & impartial way, for the mutual enjoyment of everyone at the table
• Finally you have all of the other players at the table who are generally going to be strongly incentivized to see things Bob's way & turn any dispute over this poorly constructed rule into a firehose of 2:1 to 5:1 or more peer pressure. That is where all of the things Alice needed to do in order to increase difficulty, create challenge, & generally run a fun game by making things more difficult than RAW guidelines comes back to bite Alice by giving the other players a personal reason to empathize with Bob's position due to being negatively impacted on some other thing they would have liked the group to have their back on

there is a (to my mind tenuously, but I think you would say equally) natural meaning of drag that is drag-beside​

that meaning produces unwelcome results, so why use it?​

There is that completely meaningless grouping of words again. The 5e ruleset abuses natural language in places that should obviously require technical writing to the point that the resulting obfuscation & confusion doesn't even get nailed down for what it is

So as to your proposal that my argument is structured atop a rules element that does not exist. It is factual that "drag" appears in RAW. It is factual that "drag" is not defined in terms of the game abstraction. Your choice of drag-beside as a meaning for "drag", rests atop those same facts.

Yes, I've never (deliberately & knowingly) tried to claim otherwise. The very fact that we are even having this discussion is why the grapple & drag rule itself should be totally redesigned, rewritten with proper technical writing, & updated by wotc via errata.

 

[clearstream]

Yes and no. It's not that drag is not defined by raw, drag is reprehensibly used in RAW by listing it as a thing that a PC can simply do to a target they have grappled. All of the mechanical details are stacked in favor of the player except the gaping void of how the grappler/grappled actually move about on the grid. That's a toxic combo because the player has ample reason to believe that the gaping void should be interpreted as favorably to them as possible due to everything else being stacked so far in their favor.... I'll get back to that though.

Here is where things break down & require an errata to fix the whole mess originally reported during the playtest. "Natural Meaning" is a meaningless phrase. There are two actually defined linguistic terms that could apply. The first is "Natural Language", which is defined as "the language of ordinary speaking and writing". The second is "Technical Writing" , it may not have a dictionary definition (that I can find), but indeed & wikipedia define it as "Technical writing is a form of communication that professionals use to convey information about specialized topics" & "a specialized form of communication used by many of today's industrial and scientific organizations to clearly and accurately convey complex information to a user.".

Knowing when to use one style of writing over another & how much to use☆ is an important part of conveying information like rules & directions. In the case of grapple rules I found flowcharts for multiple TTRPG systems (and a MUSH!!) in the first few resaults for ttrpg grapple flowchart. Given that grapple flowcharts were once well known valuable tools for d&d it should be obvious that grapple is a subsystem that needs well structured rules or none whatsoever beyond fiat & "hey GM, can I try to....?".

I agree that seeing as "drag" is in effect a key word for a mechanic, there is a motive for elaborating on it in terms of the game abstraction. Where I disagree is with any contention that not so defining it inevitably produces an OP mechanic. I find the OPness in this case trivially evitable.

That's not how d&d works& it's not how this kind of rules conflict gets solved because there are two parties who feel they have significant say in how this whole thing works.

• First you have the player(Bob) who may have built their PC expecting a certain result, they are going to feel justified in pushing for the most PC friendly interpretation both for personal benefit as well as the fact that everything else in the deck of grapple mechanics is stacked so far in their favor.
• Second is the GM (Alice) who is responsible for adjudicating the rules in a generally fair & impartial way, for the mutual enjoyment of everyone at the table
• Finally you have all of the other players at the table who are generally going to be strongly incentivized to see things Bob's way & turn any dispute over this poorly constructed rule into a firehose of 2:1 to 5:1 or more peer pressure. That is where all of the things Alice needed to do in order to increase difficulty, create challenge, & generally run a fun game by making things more difficult than RAW guidelines comes back to bite Alice by giving the other players a personal reason to empathize with Bob's position due to being negatively impacted on some other thing they would have liked the group to have their back on

(Bolding mine.) The three bullet points contradict the conjecture that I bolded. They show that what I describe is exactly how D&D works, which is that groups proceed on the basis of shared norms and that where there are ambiguities or an exact meaning is crucial, they settle that between them. You picture that players will prefer an interpretation that I have until now understood you as characterising as undesirable. If you are right that the strategy interpreting "drag" as drag-beside would be OP, and if to say that it is OP is to say that it is undesirable, then your imagined players appear to desire the undesirable. But the RAW does not say "drag-beside"... it says "drag": what precisely is envisioned is down to norms at the table.

It's plausible that some players will take a constructive approach to which norms they endorse (constructive toward the result they want). If they prevail, that normalizes the meaning for the group. If that jars with notions of play considered desirable, an official pronouncement could be beneficial; because recognised authorities and institutions have a powerful role to play in settling norms. If they say that "drag" means "drag-behind" then for many groups that will settle the norm.

One possible reason I don't share your concerns is that while I find your pictured players plausible, they don't match my actual players. Nor does Alice's supposed helplessness match the actual social negotiations that I experience.

There is that completely meaningless grouping of words again. The 5e ruleset abuses natural language in places that should obviously require technical writing to the point that the resulting obfuscation & confusion doesn't even get nailed down for what it is

When I use a term like "natural language" I'm referring to where words have their meanings from a reader's context rather than a formal definition in the game text serving the game abstraction. One reason for comfort with that (or in a sense, a reason for discomfort all through) is that technical definitions of words in a game text will themselves be composed of words... resulting in the obvious regress.

The word "drag" appears within such a technical definition - of the word "grappled". Suppose the web of technical definitions included a sub-definition for "drag" that included the word "beside". What does "beside" mean? The problem is not necessarily the lack of technical definition, but rather the unelaborated use of a word that doesn't pin it down sharply. But for many in this thread, "drag" pins it down well enough: they're able to picture a plausible, consistent, non-OP result without requiring a further definitional regress.

So here we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems fair to say that the group you describe may benefit from an errata. I don't feel any need for it - at least on this score - myself.

 

[tetrasodium]

When I use a term like "natural language" I'm referring to where words have their meanings from a reader's context rather than a formal definition

You did not use athe term natural language, that is literally part of what I corrected while describing the difference between natural language and technical writing in the process of explaining why game rules should not be written in a way that the "words have meaning from a reader's context". You misused that term and wrote about"natural meaning and your reply to it does nothing but continue to demonstrate the requirement for a significant errata.

 

[clearstream]

You did not use athe term natural language, that is literally part of what I corrected while describing the difference between natural language and technical writing in the process of explaining why game rules should not be written in a way that the "words have meaning from a reader's context". You misused that term and wrote about"natural meaning and your reply to it does nothing but continue to demonstrate the requirement for a significant errata.

I did not say that I introduced or formerly used the term, and I am speaking to the phrase "natural language" as it has been used in this domain, not in others. I am, for avoidance of doubt, saying what I, clearstream, mean by it. The natural meaning of a word is its meaning in natural language.

Words must be given their meaning from a reader's context. That is the only option, unless you mean to put forward some sort of platonist argument that one can pluck their meanings from an objectively real conceptual space? One may elaborate upon a word to attempt to inform that context through supporting assertions, diagrams and examples, producing a regress (as one then has to show what exactly forces a reader to associate those diagrams etc. with the word.)

An example is the text that reads "Successfully grappling a creature gives it the Grappled condition." What amounts to "gives it"? How does one understand those words? And how would one deflect a sincerely put argument that "gives" implies "offers as a gift" and thus the condition can be refused? Would you then advocate for errata to explain "gives"?

I can see that you are committed to a belief that errata is necessary. I require no errata to understand the word "drag" in the context of grappled. (You can see the irony in these sorts of norm-buttressing assertions.)

 

[tetrasodium]

I did not say that I introduced or formerly used the term, and I am speaking to the phrase "natural language" as it has been used in this domain, not in others. I am, for avoidance of doubt, saying what I, clearstream, mean by it. The natural meaning of a word is its meaning in natural language.

Words must be given their meaning from a reader's context. That is the only option, unless you mean to put forward some sort of platonist argument that one can pluck their meanings from an objectively real conceptual space? One may elaborate upon a word to attempt to inform that context through supporting assertions, diagrams and examples, producing a regress (as one then has to show what exactly forces a reader to associate those diagrams etc. with the word.)

An example is the text that reads "Successfully grappling a creature gives it the Grappled condition." What amounts to "gives it"? How does one understand those words? And how would one deflect a sincerely put argument that "gives" implies "offers as a gift" and thus the condition can be refused? Would you then advocate for errata to explain "gives"?

I can see that you are committed to a belief that errata is necessary. I require no errata to understand the word "drag" in the context of grappled. (You can see the irony in these sorts of norm-buttressing assertions.)

You just keep adding evidence to support the need. That bold bit is why an errata is required. A table with a gm and 3-5 players is going to have as many as four to six unique interpretations and that's not a state that is conducive to anything but disagreement and frustrating debates interrupting play.

 

[clearstream]

You just keep adding evidence to support the need. That bold bit is why an errata is required. A table with a gm and 3-5 players is going to have as many as four to six unique interpretations and that's not a state that is conducive to anything but disagreement and frustrating debates interrupting play.

Seems like we're at the point it's best to agree to disagree. If you take my arguments to add evidence, then most likely you're not following them as they are intended. Whilst on the other hand, you continue to leave unexplained how readers understand any of the words, let alone "drag". You've been silent on why "gives" doesn't cause the same problem for you: reflection on that might help see what I'm driving at.

We probably agree that where the word used adequately explains itself, nothing more need be said. (As entailed by "adequately".) We simply disagree about which words adequately explain themselves.

 

[tetrasodium]

Seems like we're at the point it's best to agree to disagree. If you take my arguments to add evidence, then most likely you're not following them as they are intended. Whilst on the other hand, you continue to leave unexplained how readers understand any of the words, let alone "drag". You've been silent on why "gives" doesn't cause the same problem for you: reflection on that might help see what I'm driving at.

We probably agree that where the word used adequately explains itself, nothing more need be said. (As entailed by "adequately".) We simply disagree about which words adequately explain themselves.

so... which is it? Is the reader to find your specific RAI behind the words and use that or are they to follow your earlier position where:

Words must be given their meaning from a reader's context.

It seems that the "intent" of your words is that the reader should give their own meaning to the words they read unless it's inconvenient for you. If that is the case then it would be reasonable to expect wotc to provide an errata for everyone else.