D&D 5E Things through all the playtests I have not liked

[Falling Icicle]

I'm a huge fan of coup de grace rules- one reason they entered the game in the first place was so that "dagger at your throat" hostage scenarios and the like had some sort of mechanical support, and I think that's valuable enough to warrant keeping them in.

The problem is, you can only perform a coup de grace on an unconscious target, not someone that has been paralyzed or grappled.

 

[Sadrik]

The problem is, you can only perform a coup de grace on an unconscious target, not someone that has been paralyzed or grappled.

Very true, so hostage dagger at throat is not a story line that works in D&D. Unless you have a vorpal dagger I suppose.

So without a coup de grace rule do you just do your weapon damage and they wake up? that seems pretty unsatisfying. It is also very unsatisfying with an invisible pixie fluttering in and poking the ancient great wyrm dragon twice and having it die. Without a better rule in its absence I would say just axe it too.

 

[D'karr]

So have any of these changed?

Reported

 

[the Jester]

Very true, so hostage dagger at throat is not a story line that works in D&D.

True enough, these days; and it's illustrative of the type of CdG rules I'd like to see.

 

[timASW]

I strongly dislike every single healing mechanism so far so strongly i simply would not run a game or play in a game with any of them. Its not that hard to houserule so it doesnt stop me from buying it but it would not be run RAW.

Along those same lines are skills so far. I havent seen an idea yet for 5e that i didnt think stunk on ice or that I would use.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm a huge fan of coup de grace rules- one reason they entered the game in the first place was so that "dagger at your throat" hostage scenarios and the like had some sort of mechanical support, and I think that's valuable enough to warrant keeping them in.

I'm fine with the idea of moving them to a tactical rules module, though; let them be an element that is easy to ignore if you don't like 'em.

I am also a huge fan of the concept of coup de grace. I however feel like they need to be in the base game. The dagger at the throat concept works when holding a commoner but what about a dragon or 20th level barbarian? The current implementation is ripe for abuse. If there were a standard rule for attacking while someone's defenses were down. Called shots, sneak attack, critical hits, and coup de grace all under one roof makes sense to me.

Very true, so hostage dagger at throat is not a story line that works in D&D. Unless you have a vorpal dagger I suppose.

So without a coup de grace rule do you just do your weapon damage and they wake up? that seems pretty unsatisfying. It is also very unsatisfying with an invisible pixie fluttering in and poking the ancient great wyrm dragon twice and having it die. Without a better rule in its absence I would say just axe it too.

Yeah, that would be the only scenario that deserves some rule, but I have never seen a rule handling it properly. Why? Perhaps because in a game where combat is conceived to be mobile and dynamic, a rule for "dagger at your throat" just doesn't fit.

We have to keep in mind that the rule would be applied both to a PC using it, and an enemy using it against a PC, and also to a NPC doing it against another PC (in the "do what I say or I kill this innocent" scenario). Thus the designers are compelled to avoid a save-or-die situation that players will hate when CdG is used against them or against an innocent, and this current "double action" solution is there exactly to provide enough time to the PC to avoid the death of the threatened character, but then when they switch side and want to use CdG against an enemy it makes it look like the rule is a failure because it takes too long... The bottom line is that players want a CdG rule that works if they use it but doesn't work if it's used against them

Other uses of CdG beyond the "dagger at your throat" are not that important IMHO, except the assassination scenario of course, but once again players would totally hate a rule that allows an assassin to kill one of the PC with a save-or-die, while at the same time they would consider the rule useless if it doesn't have a good success chance when they use it against an enemy.

What is bad IMO is that CdG is normally allowed during combat, to be used to quickly kill someone who is rendered helpless by another effect such as a Sleep spell, or a paralyzation effect. This use of CdG turns a save-or-suck into a save-or-die. It's broken when used by the PC, "broken" in the sense that it can easily spoil an encounter's challenge, and the same players will loudly complain when the DM starts using the same tactic against the PCs.

Hence my preference for CdG not being in the game at all... but now that I think about it some more, I realize that what I really want is CdG not being in combat, while we can definitely have a CdG rule for out-of-combat scenarios. Of course the "dagger at throat" case can still occur during combat, but somehow I feel that it might help not to use the normal combat rules framework even in that case.

Alternatively, I suggested a few weeks ago that save-or-suck spells like Sleep and Hold Person could work so that they are immediately dispelled as soon as someone attacks those affected. The reason for my suggestion was related to another problem, that of those spells being too good (effectively save-or-die) at very low levels and being forced to have a level limit after which they stop working. Anyway, at least if these spells worked like that, CdG would be already less frequently effective during combat.