D&D (2024) Rules that annoy you

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Everyone's got their own pet peeves with respect to the D&D rules. Some people will find that theirs have been addressed in the 2024 revision, others will find that theirs have not. Looking through the various reviews, I came across two that still kinda irk me.

1) First Aid: I know we're playing a game, and that if they made it harder to do non-magical first aid, no one would bother with it; however, the idea that you can stop someone from dying (regardless of whether they got stabbed, slashed, burned, acidified, etc) in less than 6 seconds simply by expending a "use" of a healer's kit is, frankly, miraculous! Imagine if modern battlefield medics could save their comrades lives that quickly and easily! (Think of the scene from Saving Private Ryan where the medic gets hit and his squad mates fumble about trying to save his life.)

This issue doesn't bother me as much in a sci-fi game, where you can explain it away with a quick "stimpack" injection or the like. But it does bother me in a pseudo-medieval fantasy game, where nonmagical healing techniques ought to be slow and somewhat awkward.

2) Knocking Someone Out: Again, I know we're playing a game, and this rule seems to be based on movie logic rather than reality; however, the idea that creatures remain unconscious for an hour or more* is a bit ludicrous. In reality, if someone is unconscious for more than a few seconds, they're essentially in a coma and are likely to suffer brain damage and may not ever wake up. I had been toying with the idea of changing the 2014 rule to 1d4 rounds rather than hours, and I may still do that, as I'm not sure I like the auto-short rest rule.

*In the 2014 rules, it was 1d4 hours; in the 2024 rules, it's 1 hour (because short rest).


What rules annoy you (either mechanically or conceptually)? What, if anything, do you like to do about them

I too have a problem with the fiction of using a healers kit. I’ve ruled that characters at zero HP die if not healed before the start of their next turn. Not a solution but paints a picture that they are bleeding out and need help now.

 

[pukunui]

I too have a problem with the fiction of using a healers kit. I’ve ruled that characters at zero HP die if not healed before the start of their next turn. Not a solution but paints a picture that they are bleeding out and need help now.

My only issue with that is that not every injury would cause the dying creature to be "bleeding out". If it was poison damage that dropped them to 0, then it's the poison that killing them. If it was fire, lightning, cold, etc damage, then it's likely the shock to their system that's killing them.

I can see why the game simplifies things so each damage type doesn't require a different fix, and the DM doesn't have to track what type of damage put a creature in the dying state. So in that respect, I'm happy to handwave that a healer's kit can fix anything. It's more a matter of how quickly one can fix any injury in the game.

 

[James Gasik]

One issue with "hit points are meat" are things that can kill your character that bypass hit points entirely, reducing you to 0 hit points or just plain dead, without actually dealing any physical damage.

Spells like raise dead have clauses such as: "This spell closes all mortal wounds, but it doesn't restore missing body parts. If the creature is lacking body parts or organs integral for its survival - its head, for instance - the spell automatically fails."

Similarly, AD&D had poisons that could kill you without inflicting damage (though revival magic had a clause saying that if you died of poison and were revived with the poison in your system, you'd die again, lol).

One could presume that being hacked apart by physical damage might cause complications with being revived. But if you're slain by, say, the 3.5 finger of death, you might not have those complications because rather than taking physical damage, you just dropped dead for no explicable reason ("she lost the will to live", perhaps).

(Of course, it's worth noting that said finger of death does deal damage if you save, so make of that what you will. 5e sidesteps all of this, as it's "death" magic kills you by dealing hit point damage).

 

[Emerikol]

I despise the baked in second wind for all fighters. I never played 5e though for that reason. I tried the old school rulesets. Personally C&C is a lot closer to the D&D I want. I am surprised there is anyone left playing D&D that cares about "realism" for non-magical activities. I thought that ship sailed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I despise the baked in second wind for all fighters. I never played 5e though for that reason. I tried the old school rulesets. Personally C&C is a lot closer to the D&D I want. I am surprised there is anyone left playing D&D that cares about "realism" for non-magical activities. I thought that ship sailed.

Level Up puts more effort into that area, so that's where I went.

 

[Lanefan]

One issue with "hit points are meat" are things that can kill your character that bypass hit points entirely, reducing you to 0 hit points or just plain dead, without actually dealing any physical damage.

Spells like raise dead have clauses such as: "This spell closes all mortal wounds, but it doesn't restore missing body parts. If the creature is lacking body parts or organs integral for its survival - its head, for instance - the spell automatically fails."

Similarly, AD&D had poisons that could kill you without inflicting damage (though revival magic had a clause saying that if you died of poison and were revived with the poison in your system, you'd die again, lol).

Why the 'lol' on that? It's one of the more sensible rules in the book.

One could presume that being hacked apart by physical damage might cause complications with being revived. But if you're slain by, say, the 3.5 finger of death, you might not have those complications because rather than taking physical damage, you just dropped dead for no explicable reason ("she lost the will to live", perhaps).

Or the 'damage' was internal e.g. the spell simply stopped the victim's heart, or overloaded its neural network, or (and probably much worse when it comes to attempted revival!) the body is untouched but its spirit/soul was destroyed.

 

[James Gasik]

Why the 'lol' on that? It's one of the more sensible rules in the book.

Or the 'damage' was internal e.g. the spell simply stopped the victim's heart, or overloaded its neural network, or (and probably much worse when it comes to attempted revival!) the body is untouched but its spirit/soul was destroyed.

I laughed because to me, it's a bit silly. Here we have the miraculous power to revive someone from the ultimate status debuff ("dead") a spell that is already likely not cast often while adventuring (since the recipient has to rest for a minimum of 1 day to do anything) and there's already a chance that being brought back from the dead kills you again- but we have to be very sure that the priest also uses a 4th-level slot to remove poison from your system.

To me, that's what Miracle Max would call a "rotten miracle", lol. Basically it's a restriction without much meaning on top of an already restrictive spell.

Meanwhile, if you were missing pieces, I'm not really sure what you do- Regenerate won't work on a dead body, and Make Whole wasn't in the 2e PHB (though it might be available, I'd have to check the Priest Spell Compendium)- but that's ok, because 7th level revival magic can bring you back from bones and apparently doesn't care about poison either, lol.

The way I see it, if you want PC's to be brought back to life, just finding someone able and willing to use 5th level spells is already a hurdle. I don't really think there's a point to all these extra nuisances.

If you want revival to be rare, then you could just ban the spell and make it NPC only or something. At least, that's how I'd do it.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

#whydidnttheyuseaphoenixdownonaerith

 

[Xeviat]

I've been toying with the idea of all healing triggering hit dice expenditures. Haven't come up with a system I love yet. But maybe if it only applied to potions it would limit the issue of every party wandering around with dozens of healing potions in their backpacks.

That would be an interesting change. I worry that people would just stock up on scrolls instead.

 

[Lanefan]

I laughed because to me, it's a bit silly. Here we have the miraculous power to revive someone from the ultimate status debuff ("dead") a spell that is already likely not cast often while adventuring (since the recipient has to rest for a minimum of 1 day to do anything) and there's already a chance that being brought back from the dead kills you again- but we have to be very sure that the priest also uses a 4th-level slot to remove poison from your system.

That's because you're only using a 5th-level spell. As you note below...

7th level revival magic can bring you back from bones and apparently doesn't care about poison either, lol.

Yep - that's what a higher-level spell will do for ya.

There's been many a party with access to 5th-level spells in the field but nowhere near as many with access to 7ths (in 1e you had to be 16th level to cast 7th-level spells and 16th-level characters don't exactly grow on trees)

The way I see it, if you want PC's to be brought back to life, just finding someone able and willing to use 5th level spells is already a hurdle. I don't really think there's a point to all these extra nuisances.

If you want revival to be rare, then you could just ban the spell and make it NPC only or something. At least, that's how I'd do it.

What killed you should have some bearing on how easy or not it is to revive you. Clearing poison is easy; if you can case Raise Dead you can cast Neutralize Poison. Not so easy is clearing other ailments that require a full Heal (6th-level spell) to fix.