D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Flamestrike]

You're wresting my meaning here. The PHB definition is explaining in broad terms why the fighter falling 200 feet can survive. Celtavian's scenario is explicitly overruling the PHB because he finds the PHB unaesthetic in this particular case. I said that's fine, so long as your players know in advance that you're going to do that and that HP aren't 'real'. Do you disagree?

Yep.

A player that willingly jumps into lava has either lost the will to live, our run out of luck.

I'm sure the player will get from the look on my face as DM that jumping into lava is a bad idea.

Assuming he (for some reason) didn't already draw that inference already!

 

[Celtavian]

As long as you make that clear up front so that players who don't like "HP as luck" can avoid your game, it's cool.

Fortunately, I don't play with people that willingly do stupid things because the game mechanics allow them to survive. I think most players don't. But for those rare few, the DM should let them know what's going to happen to people that push the boundaries of verisimilitude.

I don't have to worry about players avoiding my game. That being said, I would like players to let me know when they expect to do incredibly stupid things and live. Or when they expect to rules lawyer up on me and expect me to follow it. So I can tell them to find another game. I'm a good enough DM that people enjoy my games. I've DMed 9 or 10 people around a table at once. I've had people that don't even enjoy playing D&D and don't play it with anyone else play with me and enjoy the game.

I find players that want to do stuff like swim in lava, jump off cliffs because they have enough hit points, or cause problems at the table over rulings that slow the entire game make for a game that isn't fun. I'm not a killer DM. I make the PCs the stars. I do it while giving them plenty of fun story moments. I expect them to return the effort by playing in a sensible manner and respecting my rulings until we can discuss them further later.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Fortunately, I don't play with people that willingly do stupid things because the game mechanics allow them to survive. I think most players don't. But for those rare few, the DM should let them know what's going to happen to people that push the boundaries of verisimilitude.

I don't have to worry about players avoiding my game. That being said, I would like players to let me know when they expect to do incredibly stupid things and live. Or when they expect to rules lawyer up on me and expect me to follow it. So I can tell them to find another game. I'm a good enough DM that people enjoy my games. I've DMed 9 or 10 people around a table at once. I've had people that don't even enjoy playing D&D and don't play it with anyone else play with me and enjoy the game.

I find players that want to do stuff like swim in lava, jump off cliffs because they have enough hit points, or cause problems at the table over rulings that slow the entire game make for a game that isn't fun. I'm not a killer DM. I make the PCs the stars. I do it while giving them plenty of fun story moments. I expect them to return the effort by playing in a sensible manner and respecting my rulings until we can discuss them further later.

There is a problem with "Hey I have x hp and can survive this" being seen as rules lawyering...

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Needed errata:

PHB p34, Draconic Ancestry table

lists both Dex and Con saves for breath weapon in column 1,

Breath Weapon text says breath weapon always uses Con save.

Discrepancy between table & text should be resolved in future printings.


PHB p131, Folk Hero Defining Event table, entry #8.

"A lord rescinded an unpopular decree after I led a symbolic act of protect against it."

The word "protect" should probably be changed to "protest."


You're welcome.

 

[Staffan]

Needed errata:

PHB p34, Draconic Ancestry table

lists both Dex and Con saves for breath weapon in column 1,

Breath Weapon text says breath weapon always uses Con save.

Discrepancy between table & text should be resolved in future printings.

There is no discrepancy. The table lists both Dex and Con saves. The text says "a saving throw, the type of which is determined by your draconic ancestry" - that matches the table. It then goes on to say "The DC for this saving throw is equal to 8 + your Constitution modifier + your proficiency bonus." In other words, the dragonborn's Con always determines the save DC, but depending on the type of breath weapon the victims may get a Dexterity or a Constitution save.

So, a red dragonborn breathes on you? Make a Dex save vs 8 + Con bonus + proficiency. If he's green, you instead make a Con save vs 8 + Con bonus + proficiency.

Edit: But, other than the minor detail of not needing errata, this is precisely the kind of thing that should be dealt with that way.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I see what you mean, there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is a problem with "Hey I have x hp and can survive this" being seen as rules lawyering...

As a player, it's super important that I know what the rules actually are. That's true of any game. You can't even try to play the game, if you don't know what the rules are.

Being dunked* in lava for 20d6 damage per round is really bad. All else considered, I want to avoid that. How bad is it? It's about 70 damage bad. For comparison, a giant with a big sword is closer to 20 or 40 damage bad. I can't even think of something scarier than jumping into* a pool of lava. In the off chance that I do find myself in that situation, though, then I need to know that physics are going to hold up.

It can't be that lava is instantly lethal, but a giant's sword isn't, when we have the language to quantify both on the same scale. If you're going to change the rules, then you need to make that explicit up front, so I can make informed decisions at every point. Something that seems like common sense to you may not be obvious to anyone else. Honestly, when we're talking about the sorts of epic heroes who can take a hit from a Titan and keep going, I'm not sure that common sense even applies anymore.


*This ignoring the fact that lava is generally much thicker than water, so you're more likely to crash into the burning rocks rather than sink through them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As a player, it's super important that I know what the rules actually are. That's true of any game. You can't even try to play the game, if you don't know what the rules are.

Being dunked* in lava for 20d6 damage per round is really bad. All else considered, I want to avoid that. How bad is it? It's about 70 damage bad. For comparison, a giant with a big sword is closer to 20 or 40 damage bad. I can't even think of something scarier than jumping into* a pool of lava. In the off chance that I do find myself in that situation, though, then I need to know that physics are going to hold up.

It can't be that lava is instantly lethal, but a giant's sword isn't, when we have the language to quantify both on the same scale. If you're going to change the rules, then you need to make that explicit up front, so I can make informed decisions at every point. Something that seems like common sense to you may not be obvious to anyone else. Honestly, when we're talking about the sorts of epic heroes who can take a hit from a Titan and keep going, I'm not sure that common sense even applies anymore.


*This ignoring the fact that lava is generally much thicker than water, so you're more likely to crash into the burning rocks rather than sink through them.

I agree with what you're saying, but for the sake of completeness I wanted to note that the DMG's suggested value for being submerged in lava is 18d10 (99 points of damage), not 20d6. (DMG 249)

 

[Flamestrike]

As a player, it's super important that I know what the rules actually are. That's true of any game. You can't even try to play the game, if you don't know what the rules are.

Being dunked* in lava for 20d6 damage per round is really bad. All else considered, I want to avoid that. How bad is it? It's about 70 damage bad. For comparison, a giant with a big sword is closer to 20 or 40 damage bad. I can't even think of something scarier than jumping into* a pool of lava. In the off chance that I do find myself in that situation, though, then I need to know that physics are going to hold up.

It can't be that lava is instantly lethal, but a giant's sword isn't, when we have the language to quantify both on the same scale. If you're going to change the rules, then you need to make that explicit up front, so I can make informed decisions at every point. Something that seems like common sense to you may not be obvious to anyone else. Honestly, when we're talking about the sorts of epic heroes who can take a hit from a Titan and keep going, I'm not sure that common sense even applies anymore.

How can you say that, and not claim that it's meta-game knowledge that your character couldnt possibly know? As far as your character knows getting hit square with a 30' sword weighing as much as a truck is almost certainly going to cleave you in half. Falling in lava is pretty much always terminal. Your character has no concept of hit points nor does it have any idea how much 'damage' attacks do, any more than you can tell me how much damage getting hit by a car, or a nuclear blast does in real life, nor could you tell me how many hit points you personally have. They're game rule abstractions. You're using your own out of game knowledge (that your character does not have) to have your character do something absurd in game. That (to my mind) is 'gaming the system'.

Like: can you imagine your actual character saying to himself: 'I'm jumping down into this volcano for a swim in lava, I should only take 99 points of damage' or (even better):

Hey fellas: Watch this! (sticks sword through own chest). According to the rules this results in an automatic critical hit for 2d8+str damage). The person in question then does it several more times. Theyre a Fighter 8 with 80 odd HP. Not only doesnt this person bleed to death, theyre also not hampered in the performance of any skills or functions at all, and is back at full HP the very next day like it never happened).

My exception to the above is when you getting 'hit by a giant sword' or 'falling into lave' is not the result of you taking advantage of your own metagame knowledge. In that case, I roll damage and describe how the sword 'narrowly missed you/ glanced off your armor/ nicked your forehead/ you use your skill to duck under the blade (taking x damage to your HP)' or how your decent into the lava was miraculously halted by you getting snagged on a burnt tree, falling close to the lava and not in it directly, or what have you.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How can you say that, and not claim that it's meta-game knowledge that your character couldnt possibly know?

You underestimate the scientific spirit of my PCs! Trial and error, my friends. Trial and error.

P.S. On a more serious note, metagame knowledge is important too, which is why the Player's Handbook exists. Everything in it is metagame knowledge, and that knowledge empowers the players. Without metagame knowledge, the players cannot effectively act in-game except through that very trial and error which I poke fun at above. Imagine how much fun the game would be if you had to deduce over time, by trial and error, what the effect of Great Weapon Fighting was. Not very fun!