Then i ask you one question... Why are the players stopping when an enemy drops ? Is it really cause it is down or is it because as a dm you taught them that enemies are insta dead at 0 hp ?
The Player's Handbook tells players that most DMs will kill off monsters at 0 hit points.
It is not idiotic to bash a downed opponent. Not if you realise that they also can be healed. Not when you realise that everything the players can do... Can also be done by the monsters !
Yeah, but just because the DM can make monsters do anything the players can do doesn't mean they should. Monsters healing mid-fight drags out combat. Monsters stunning players takes them out of the game, which isn't fun.
then why not remove the death save entirely then ?
Its easy... Instead of trying to fix a mechanic that seems broken to you. Why not just remove it. If monsters die at 0. Then why not make players die at 0 too.
I preffer the death saving throw mechanics compared to the old minuses... Mostly because those minuses were just giving more hp to the players.
But the mechanic is useless if you dont use it for monsters either. Because it just gives your players too much of an edge. Then you have dms who wonder why the game is too unbalanced toward players.
Now healing mid battle makes the game not fun... I beg to differ... Most of my boss battles were players winning then the boss getting healed and turning the tables on the players. It made for very special boss fights. Where the players really felt their need for healing and their need for strategies. Compared to most of the minion fights which were just... Ill attack.... Throw dice do damage pass the turn. Fights with players just rolling dice are more boring then using spells or abilities to affect a battlefield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Its easy... Instead of trying to fix a mechanic that seems broken to you. Why not just remove it. If monsters die at 0. Then why not make players die at 0 too.
For the same reason Stormtroopers always go down in one shot but the Star Wars protagonists always somehow survive.
A background character is by definition not as important as the protagonist and antagonist, and that goes double in D&D where the protagonists are played by humans that want to be entertained. It doesn't matter to the DM if random goblin #36 dies. The villain, on the other hand, needs to stick around long enough to make the story entertaining.
then why not remove the death save entirely then ?
Its easy... Instead of trying to fix a mechanic that seems broken to you. Why not just remove it. If monsters die at 0. Then why not make players die at 0 too.
:) With all respect, think about our conversation about falling damage. I have a problem with falling damage that I try to fix. But that's not a reason to just remove falling damage from the game :)
You're not talking about removing a broken mechanic. The game as conceived is really intended for the monsters, most of them, to not get death saves. That's not saying you shouldn't--if you like combat with all monsters getting death saves, go for it. I think it would be kinda cool if you had to make sure the orc who just dropped was really dead.
But the people who want death saves for PCs and not for most monsters aren't people who 'have a problem' with the mechanics of the game...because those people are playing the game the way the designers really intended most people to play it. Essentially, having a problem with random orc death saves is having a problem with an optional rule. No reason to scrap the PC death save rule, which is standard, just because you don't want to use the non-standard one :)
In my games falling to 0 means death as finishers exists. My mobs dont stop hitting i there is a healer nearby. The death spiral comes fast so they preffer to avoid falling to 0.
What is the logic for them to continue to attack something that is no longer a threat, when there are other threats? I know my players stop attacking at 0 why wouldn't the bad guys? Seems like you play them like bloodthirsty idiots that have no care about their own survival.
Then i ask you one question... Why are the players stopping when an enemy drops ? Is it really cause it is down or is it because as a dm you taught them that enemies are insta dead at 0 hp ? My players dont stop and push death saving throws cause i thought them that the enemies also benefits from death saving throws ! Forced them to realise that each enemies they fought and did not made sure they died... Could potentially come back to haunt them with stronger parties.
It is not idiotic to bash a downed opponent. Not if you realise that they also can be healed. Not when you realise that everything the players can do... Can also be done by the monsters !
My monsters... They use doors... They use traps. They use spells and my dragons usually dont fight in close range and make good use of their flying abilities !
My players live in that fear of those beast because they are a threat.
The point is... Players learn !!!
If something is wrong it is 99% of the time because you, as a dm, taught them to act like that. If players are not afraid of your enemies, it might be cause you are not giving them good challenges. If they think they are unkillable. It might be because they never felt the threats. If they use healing and your monsters dont... Then maybe you are the one giving the players too much of an edge and now they think theyll get away with recklessness. Or maybe you play like a video game and now they are not afraid of dieing and making new characters. In which case you taught them not to care for their characters.
Golden rule... At least for me... Players learn... Teach them well !
It is completely idiotic to continue to attack something that doesn't pose a threat when you have other things that do pose a threat attacking you. If you drop the orc and attack him for 2 more rounds to make sure he is dead while his 5 orc buddies are beating on you, that is idiotic.
If the monster spends the next two rounds attacking the downed fighter to make sure he is dead, while ignoring his 5 buddies that are beating on him, that is idiotic.
It is completely idiotic to continue to attack something that doesn't pose a threat when you have other things that do pose a threat attacking you. If you drop the orc and attack him for 2 more rounds to make sure he is dead while his 5 orc buddies are beating on you, that is idiotic.
If the monster spends the next two rounds attacking the downed fighter to make sure he is dead, while ignoring his 5 buddies that are beating on him, that is idiotic.
I think both of you have the good intentions, but are speaking from two extreme views. I don't think it is the best to speak in absolutes, which both sides of this discussion are doing. Generally speaking, I take into account the intelligence of the antagonists when considering how they behave when a PC is downed.
In hostile situations, most animals will ignore a fallen enemy because they, currently, pose no threat. However, if the animal was attacking due to hunger, they may focus on the fallen enemy and attempt to drag them away to safety to feed on them.
Intelligent enemies are different, especially battle hardened enemies. If they are aware that there are healers or those that posses potions, they may coordinate attacks on the healers and "double tap" downed enemies before they are healed. That isn't taking to account commanders on the battlefield dolling out orders, either.
Truth is you can't say "all enemies behave as X" or "all enemies behave as Y". When creating a combat either extreme can create laughably two dimensional enemies that don't feel real and causes a break in emersion.
@Grizzlebub i completely agree and that is exactly what i was talking about. whats idiotic is the DMs, many of them, not all of them, but many of them, considering combat as a puzzle to solve by making sure all actions you use are not wasted. unfortunately when combat arises in d&d most people stop thinking about roles and start playing by action economy and seems to be forced to do every single action they can that is meaningfull and if an action isn't meaningfull, they just ignore it entirely. exemple of the disengage action which is never used by anyone, they always preffer to take the AoO instead. why ? because they lose their precious actions which stops them from casting a spell or attacking another enemy.
i think the problem always comes from there. mostly...
as for myself, i always do what an enemy would do, even if it means being dumb and act stupid. i'm never going for the perfect optimised way if the creature wouldn't do it. up to this point my players have loved such ways. they ran a few times as they learned pretty fast that the world i pitched them in, might not always be below them, there is always something stronger then them in the world.
but yeah, the point i was making, and i repeat myself, is that players learn based on what you do. if you do things, players will do it to you at some point. same goes for tactics, same goes for other mechanics. heck even role plays... because i actually role play with voices and articulate my body into it, many players i have played with have started doing it and have improved their role play because of it. so yeah, players learn reguardless of what they do. from my perspective, when something goes wrong in a game, more then often, i realise quite fast that it is me who taught my players that problem to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It is completely idiotic to continue to attack something that doesn't pose a threat when you have other things that do pose a threat attacking you. If you drop the orc and attack him for 2 more rounds to make sure he is dead while his 5 orc buddies are beating on you, that is idiotic.
If the monster spends the next two rounds attacking the downed fighter to make sure he is dead, while ignoring his 5 buddies that are beating on him, that is idiotic.
I think both of you have the good intentions, but are speaking from two extreme views. I don't think it is the best to speak in absolutes, which both sides of this discussion are doing. Generally speaking, I take into account the intelligence of the antagonists when considering how they behave when a PC is downed.
In hostile situations, most animals will ignore a fallen enemy because they, currently, pose no threat. However, if the animal was attacking due to hunger, they may focus on the fallen enemy and attempt to drag them away to safety to feed on them.
Intelligent enemies are different, especially battle hardened enemies. If they are aware that there are healers or those that posses potions, they may coordinate attacks on the healers and "double tap" downed enemies before they are healed. That isn't taking to account commanders on the battlefield dolling out orders, either.
Truth is you can't say "all enemies behave as X" or "all enemies behave as Y". When creating a combat either extreme can create laughably two dimensional enemies that don't feel real and causes a break in emersion.
Very well said.
I also think that we all have to recognize that any RPG has to formalize what is not a formalized scenario. Real fighting isn't done by everyone taking their turn, all nice and gridlike and planned. In D&D, for example, there is no danger for a cleric-type to run into the melee swarm and use their action to heal someone lying unconscious on the ground. That action would presumably be putting their hands on the fighter and casting a spell. In reality, of course, if I'm standing there with a sword, having just cut a fighter to the ground, and you run up to that fighter, bend over or kneel down, put your hands on him, and start chanting, I am not going to stand there watching you because 'I have already taken my turn' :) And you, if you want to keep chanting and casting a spell on him, are going to be absurdly defenseless when I now attack you. If we tried to put that into game terms, you would at least lose any dex bonus to AC, I would get an attack probably with a big bonus (because you're bending over or kneeling down).
But D&D is simplified, so the cleric gets to do that. And the enemy will just stand there. And the next round, when the fighter is healed, he won't even have to spend a second waking back up, shaking his head, adjusting to where everyone else is around him. (I mean, seriously...have any of you ever been knocked out? I have. You don't just pop back up knowing where everything is around you and ready to go, like you'd been watching the action from above while unconscious. Realism would seem to demand that your recently healed fighter at least take one round to get his bearings just in terms of finding out where everyone is. But D&D doesn't go for realism. That's a feature, not a bug.
All of that is to say this:
Yes, in a real fight, with real swords, it would be a good idea after you drop that enemy to take a quick second to stab him in the neck while he lays on the ground, if there isn't another enemy bearing down on you right away. If the nearest enemy is 10 feet away, sure--quick-stab the guy on the ground, then engage the new enemy.
But if the DM is going to make you take an action on your next turn to do that, when the remaining enemy will be able to attack you, then yes, it's not the ideal option.
What you could try is to use a rule that allows you to dispatch an unconscious enemy with a bonus action or reaction. But--that nullifies death saves, if by 'dispatch' you mean 'insta-kill'.
So--your choices are determined by how the DM lets you deal with unconscious foes. If you get to insta-kill them, without taking a full action, then you're giving up on death saves. If you don't get to insta-kill them, then you get your death saves back, but stabbing the downed foe now leaves you open to being attacked by the upright foe.
The moral of the story is that something has to be sacrificed--realism, or simplicity.
But D&D is simplified, so the cleric gets to do that. And the enemy will just stand there. And the next round, when the fighter is healed, he won't even have to spend a second waking back up, shaking his head, adjusting to where everyone else is around him. (I mean, seriously...have any of you ever been knocked out? I have. You don't just pop back up knowing where everything is around you and ready to go, like you'd been watching the action from above while unconscious. Realism would seem to demand that your recently healed fighter at least take one round to get his bearings just in terms of finding out where everyone is. But D&D doesn't go for realism. That's a feature, not a bug.
This is why I went with the level of exhaustion for being reduced to zero, I wanted to simulate that even being healed, getting put on death's door will have an impact on you, and it will be cumulative if it keeps happening.
There are probably other ways, like the free bonus action insta-kill houserule you suggested, but I feel that is more lethal than I wanted my games to be, I wanted people to avoid being reduced to zero like the plague, without being instantly killed if they get reduced to zero.
But D&D is simplified, so the cleric gets to do that. And the enemy will just stand there. And the next round, when the fighter is healed, he won't even have to spend a second waking back up, shaking his head, adjusting to where everyone else is around him. (I mean, seriously...have any of you ever been knocked out? I have. You don't just pop back up knowing where everything is around you and ready to go, like you'd been watching the action from above while unconscious. Realism would seem to demand that your recently healed fighter at least take one round to get his bearings just in terms of finding out where everyone is. But D&D doesn't go for realism. That's a feature, not a bug.
This is why I went with the level of exhaustion for being reduced to zero, I wanted to simulate that even being healed, getting put on death's door will have an impact on you, and it will be cumulative if it keeps happening.
There are probably other ways, like the free bonus action insta-kill houserule you suggested, but I feel that is more lethal than I wanted my games to be, I wanted people to avoid being reduced to zero like the plague, without being instantly killed if they get reduced to zero.
I hear you. If my players were meta-gaming with dropping to 0 on purpose, I'd be irritated too. And the exhaustion method seems good. Speaking again from experience, yeah...you get knocked out, and waking back up, like all the way back up, takes some time.
I suppose if you were magically healed, that could mitigate some of that. But even then, as I said, just getting your bearings would take time and effort. From your perspective, you were just standing, everyone else was in very specific places. Then you wake up suddenly on the ground--maybe you remember falling--and everyone else has changed positions, people are in the middle of saying things. Even if your head isn't swimming (because the healing spell fixed that, maybe), your head is spinning just to re-orientate. That makes a lot of sense, and it doesn't complicate things too much.
I'd just be concerned, as I originally posted, about trying to solve the problem by making short rests literally 600 times shorter than the game calls for. When there are certain classes that use mostly short rests, and others that do not, that's a big imbalance.
Maybe this would help, a fairly simple rule change--casting a touch spell on an unconscious person gives opponents advantage to attack you. It's simple, yet somewhat realistic. If I'm conscious and need to be healed, I can back towards the cleric, keeping between the enemy and the cleric, while the cleric casts the spell. But if I'm down, the cleric has to run into melee, bend over, cast a spell...make themselves vulnerable.
But D&D is simplified, so the cleric gets to do that. And the enemy will just stand there. And the next round, when the fighter is healed, he won't even have to spend a second waking back up, shaking his head, adjusting to where everyone else is around him. (I mean, seriously...have any of you ever been knocked out? I have. You don't just pop back up knowing where everything is around you and ready to go, like you'd been watching the action from above while unconscious. Realism would seem to demand that your recently healed fighter at least take one round to get his bearings just in terms of finding out where everyone is. But D&D doesn't go for realism. That's a feature, not a bug.
This is why I went with the level of exhaustion for being reduced to zero, I wanted to simulate that even being healed, getting put on death's door will have an impact on you, and it will be cumulative if it keeps happening.
There are probably other ways, like the free bonus action insta-kill houserule you suggested, but I feel that is more lethal than I wanted my games to be, I wanted people to avoid being reduced to zero like the plague, without being instantly killed if they get reduced to zero.
I hear you. If my players were meta-gaming with dropping to 0 on purpose, I'd be irritated too. And the exhaustion method seems good. Speaking again from experience, yeah...you get knocked out, and waking back up, like all the way back up, takes some time.
I suppose if you were magically healed, that could mitigate some of that. But even then, as I said, just getting your bearings would take time and effort. From your perspective, you were just standing, everyone else was in very specific places. Then you wake up suddenly on the ground--maybe you remember falling--and everyone else has changed positions, people are in the middle of saying things. Even if your head isn't swimming (because the healing spell fixed that, maybe), your head is spinning just to re-orientate. That makes a lot of sense, and it doesn't complicate things too much.
I'd just be concerned, as I originally posted, about trying to solve the problem by making short rests literally 600 times shorter than the game calls for. When there are certain classes that use mostly short rests, and others that do not, that's a big imbalance.
This is something that I have really liked, I really liked the short rest in 4e, because the game for the most part is balanced around having frequent short rests. The problem came in when, after one encounter, the Warlock was drained, but no one else wanted to take a short rest. So either the party is wasting an hour resting so the warlock can recoup, and then wasting another hour later when the rest of them needed it. Or the warlock was just out of luck for the next fight as the party decided to push on.
My original thought was just to shorten them like in 4e, but I really didn't like the idea of them always being able to rest up, so I was going to put a limit of 2 on it. And ~5-10 minute short rest, twice per day may have been OK. But I was thinking that if they just had complete control over when they can take a rest, and even do it in combat, that could add some interesting dramatic situations where you can retreat for a round and then recovery and get back in it. It feels very cinematic to me. But I was concerned about potential abuses, so I limited it to twice per day.
This is something that I have really liked, I really liked the short rest in 4e, because the game for the most part is balanced around having frequent short rests. The problem came in when, after one encounter, the Warlock was drained, but no one else wanted to take a short rest. So either the party is wasting an hour resting so the warlock can recoup, and then wasting another hour later when the rest of them needed it. Or the warlock was just out of luck for the next fight as the party decided to push on.
My original thought was just to shorten them like in 4e, but I really didn't like the idea of them always being able to rest up, so I was going to put a limit of 2 on it. And ~5-10 minute short rest, twice per day may have been OK. But I was thinking that if they just had complete control over when they can take a rest, and even do it in combat, that could add some interesting dramatic situations where you can retreat for a round and then recovery and get back in it. It feels very cinematic to me. But I was concerned about potential abuses, so I limited it to twice per day.
If it's working for you, and you and your players are enjoying it, then yeah, don't listen to any of us saying "Oh no!" :)
That said, just by way of discussion and not attempting to change your mind or anything...
To me, the point of warlock as a class is the challenge of doling out your preciously limited spells--but balanced by either A) melee ability with Blade, B) utility with Chain, or C) spell utility with Tome. The designers (I think it's fair to say) conceived of a game where, when the warlock needs to rest, others will need to rest too. But a warlock being out of spell slots still leaves that warlock with a lot of options, including most likely the best combat cantrip in the game, and the Pact features. At least, that's the idea. So the question becomes whether the warlock needed a break, or whether the warlock really just wanted a break. If you've got Eldritch Blast, maybe minor illusion or mage hand, and an Imp familiar, there's still a ton you can do without your 2 or 3 spell slots. :)
I do think the 2/day brings it back to more balance when you take the day as a whole. The general guidelines are that a party will have one long rest and two short rests per day. So if you're just allowing the warlock (or anyone else) to pack those short rests both into one combat, then that warlock might be hindering themselves later when they need a short rest again but they've burned through both.
So what this is allowing is for the warlock, if he chooses, to go nuclear for one battle. If the warlock wants to, he could completely outclass an equivalent level wizard for one battle, by burning through both 6 second short rests, along with all the other benefits he gets (that he gets in part because he has limited spell slots). Of course that means that he's used all of that up for the rest of the day, where the wizard might still have spell slots left.
I guess it would depend on what kind of campaigns you run. I'm playing a warlock in a RP heavy campaign, we have 1-2 fights per session. In a campaign like that, where I could triple my effectiveness in the one bit of combat we'd have for the day, I would be completely outshining the rest of the party (which causes difficulties for CR determination, right?). But if you're running a more combat-intensive campaign, 4-5 fights per session, the warlock would still have to be judicious, and the imbalances would be less severe.
Anyway, like I said, if you guys are liking it, go for it. It just really jumped out at me as a dramatic rule change. :)
This is something that I have really liked, I really liked the short rest in 4e, because the game for the most part is balanced around having frequent short rests. The problem came in when, after one encounter, the Warlock was drained, but no one else wanted to take a short rest. So either the party is wasting an hour resting so the warlock can recoup, and then wasting another hour later when the rest of them needed it. Or the warlock was just out of luck for the next fight as the party decided to push on.
My original thought was just to shorten them like in 4e, but I really didn't like the idea of them always being able to rest up, so I was going to put a limit of 2 on it. And ~5-10 minute short rest, twice per day may have been OK. But I was thinking that if they just had complete control over when they can take a rest, and even do it in combat, that could add some interesting dramatic situations where you can retreat for a round and then recovery and get back in it. It feels very cinematic to me. But I was concerned about potential abuses, so I limited it to twice per day.
If it's working for you, and you and your players are enjoying it, then yeah, don't listen to any of us saying "Oh no!" :)
That said, just by way of discussion and not attempting to change your mind or anything...
To me, the point of warlock as a class is the challenge of doling out your preciously limited spells--but balanced by either A) melee ability with Blade, B) utility with Chain, or C) spell utility with Tome. The designers (I think it's fair to say) conceived of a game where, when the warlock needs to rest, others will need to rest too. But a warlock being out of spell slots still leaves that warlock with a lot of options, including most likely the best combat cantrip in the game, and the Pact features. At least, that's the idea. So the question becomes whether the warlock needed a break, or whether the warlock really just wanted a break. If you've got Eldritch Blast, maybe minor illusion or mage hand, and an Imp familiar, there's still a ton you can do without your 2 or 3 spell slots. :)
I do think the 2/day brings it back to more balance when you take the day as a whole. The general guidelines are that a party will have one long rest and two short rests per day. So if you're just allowing the warlock (or anyone else) to pack those short rests both into one combat, then that warlock might be hindering themselves later when they need a short rest again but they've burned through both.
So what this is allowing is for the warlock, if he chooses, to go nuclear for one battle. If the warlock wants to, he could completely outclass an equivalent level wizard for one battle, by burning through both 6 second short rests, along with all the other benefits he gets (that he gets in part because he has limited spell slots). Of course that means that he's used all of that up for the rest of the day, where the wizard might still have spell slots left.
I guess it would depend on what kind of campaigns you run. I'm playing a warlock in a RP heavy campaign, we have 1-2 fights per session. In a campaign like that, where I could triple my effectiveness in the one bit of combat we'd have for the day, I would be completely outshining the rest of the party (which causes difficulties for CR determination, right?). But if you're running a more combat-intensive campaign, 4-5 fights per session, the warlock would still have to be judicious, and the imbalances would be less severe.
Anyway, like I said, if you guys are liking it, go for it. It just really jumped out at me as a dramatic rule change. :)
It isn't like it is easy to do, you do nothing for an entire turn, this can be difficult. Most of the time doing something would be better than doing nothing to take a short rest. But then again, I have yet to have to deal with someone casting time stop, and taking a short rest or two during it, while trying to do something degenerate.
One potential change I have been thinking about to make it harder to use is that you can only take a short rest if you haven't taken damage since your last turn, and when you take a short rest, you may not use your reaction until the start of your next turn.
But it hasn't been a problem, so not going to make any changes yet.
Well... getting back to the point of this thread, and including something related to the discussion above, here is my Opportunity Attacks house rule.
OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS
As a House Rule, in addition to moving away from the threat range of an enemy, the following also cause opportunity attacks:
Ranged attacks while in melee (yes, they are still at disadvantage as well)
Casting a spell that has a somatic component and is not a reaction
Undefended actions (e.g., drinking a potion, reading a scroll, etc.)
Standing up from prone
House Rule Justification. The 5e opportunity attack system in completely unrealistic. There is no way in hell that a raging barbarian is going to wait for you to rummage through your backpack, wave your arms around to cast a spell, or get up from the ground - and forget about nocking an arrow and lining up a shot. All of those actions require so much of your attention that the concept of defending yourself adequately is absurd.
for me short rests are fine as it is, the only thing i find worse, is that everything takes a short rest to be gotten back. up to this point... aside from healing (the major point of short rest from wizards of the coast) is still 1 hour. but praying to get channel divinities back are 15 minutes, and the same applies to warlock and druids wildshape and spell slots. same for a wizard who wants his arcane recovery to be used. that way they easily can gain back their stuff without losing too much. but again i play by the rles that monsters have the same benefits so they end up in the same boat. players often want to have an advantage over monsters so taking their short rest they often think they'll gain an advantage cause somehow they think monsters takes more then that to regenerates. it worked for me up to this point and i find this method better. i also never states that cure wounds and the spells they do use when they do heals cxompletely, they seal up wounds, they seal wounds, they stabilise the characters, but marks and wounds still shows up. they take their natural body healing which is about 1 to 3 weeks much like in reality. as for when they just walk to another destination, i often count it as a short rest, because they are just walking and doing nothing else. its not like they are dashing all their way. they are walking and waiting for each others. thus short rest are often given during travels. its not hard to count a short rest of 15 minutes here and there during travels so. if they take an hour to get to a destination, i give them the short rest, just not the healing one.
@TheDungeonMathster Aren't you punishing the component pouch versus the arcane focus by doing that ? i mean an arcane focus do not use component at all unless they actually have a cost. so basically, while the other guy/girl finds his stuff in the pouch the arcane focus is just presented and thats it. the arcane focus is already better then the pouch, though the pouch is cooler and best for role play. but to me it makes no sense that a person with an arcane fous can provoque by just holding it and presenting it. even more if the emblem is on a shield or a sword or just his hat. i often have players having their focus on a weapon or a piece of armor because arcane focus are ike that. standing up from prone also is quite easy if you ever look at ways to get up from a prone position. there are tons of ways to get up in that 1 second mark and be ready to defend yourself. also, some of those methods are dangerous for anybody trying to rush while downed. a good exemple are rolling, spin a roony, the classic handspring. so i guess the better way to say is, you provoque if you are in medium or heavy armor. cause those wouldn'T allow ease of movement to get back up.
but i think its true that certain things do should provoque. (picking things in backpack as an exemple) i think the concept of AoO in 5e is not to diminish other actions, after all you have a single reaction per turn and may it be AoO or any other reactions like spells or the likes. i think thir goal at first was not to make realistic, but to make it availlable in case you have nothing else to do. also, in 3e there was a lot of things you could do with AoO and it broke the game literally by having characters play entirely on that. so i think they also did not want to give that much to players.
but there are things you should be aware of before though... drinking a potion is quite easy, to the point where using an action to do so is boring. i allow my players to use a bonus action to do so. unles they are giving it to a downed opponent, at that point i'd agree that giving it to someone else should be an entire action and should provoque. but drinking mid battle is quite easy... we do it all the time in our medieval sessions and believe me the opponent is awefully trying to stop us. yet it takes but a mere 2 seconds to drink the potion and im calculating vials and not bottles like we see in the players handbook.
casting a spell... i had this friend... he had a spell book for our medieval games and the higher the spell level was, the more words he had to do as well as movement to do. believe me when i said he was the fastest casting player we had... taking a mere 3 seconds to cast a 9th level spell. tracing stuff in the air, telling all words and the movement of the hands. we had an archer too... notching an arrow doesn't take that long if you are trained and well trained on it. the speed of an elf in lord of the ring is way too fast, but the speed of robin hood in any book is pretty standard. shooting two arrows in about 4 seconds is a possibility for trained people. but i do agree that shooting in melee and doing all this melee should provoque as well.
i guess my point is, the more you want to be realistic, the less usefull are gonna be the rules fo d&d. their goal is to leave the people with more imagination and liberties then having a completely off the chart book of mathematics. all that said, i do think i'll make a list of things that should provoque, give my players more to do AoO wise. you know for those who do not have reactions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
@TheDungeonMathster Aren't you punishing the component pouch versus the arcane focus by doing that ?
i mean an arcane focus do not use component at all unless they actually have a cost. so basically, while the other guy/girl finds his stuff in the pouch the arcane focus is just presented and thats it. the arcane focus is already better then the pouch, though the pouch is cooler and best for role play. but to me it makes no sense that a person with an arcane fous can provoque by just holding it and presenting it. even more if the emblem is on a shield or a sword or just his hat. i often have players having their focus on a weapon or a piece of armor because arcane focus are ike that.
You definitely can think of it that way; however, that is not my intent. If you use an arcane/divine spell focus, then there is no concern about reaching into your component pouch for material components. I still encourage my casters to collect components - both for roleplay purposes and just in case their focus gets destroyed.
Regarding your comment, "it makes no sense that a person with an arcane fous can provoque by just holding it and presenting it.." I do not see how presenting the arcane/divine spell focus should present an opportunity attack either. That is why I am not saying that.
standing up from prone also is quite easy if you ever look at ways to get up from a prone position. there are tons of ways to get up in that 1 second mark and be ready to defend yourself. also, some of those methods are dangerous for anybody trying to rush while downed. a good exemple are rolling, spin a roony, the classic handspring. so i guess the better way to say is, you provoque if you are in medium or heavy armor. cause those wouldn'T allow ease of movement to get back up.
I will have to respectfully, and strongly, disagree with you on this one. I spent some time training in sword and shield fighting - with full armor. Standing up from a prone is a dangerous, and often impossible, task. I may have mentioned it elsewhere on this thread, but one of the guys I game with has fought "sword and board" for at least 20 years and he wholeheartedly agrees - getting up from a prone position definitely provokes free swipes at you. Kipping up sounds cool and looks great in movies, but is often used just for that. In the heat of a real battle, you don't have room for those types of overplayed tropes.
but there are things you should be aware of before though... drinking a potion is quite easy, to the point where using an action to do so is boring. i allow my players to use a bonus action to do so. unles they are giving it to a downed opponent, at that point i'd agree that giving it to someone else should be an entire action and should provoque. but drinking mid battle is quite easy... we do it all the time in our medieval sessions and believe me the opponent is awefully trying to stop us. yet it takes but a mere 2 seconds to drink the potion and im calculating vials and not bottles like we see in the players handbook.
This gets me thinking. I like the idea that bonus actions, just like reactions, are faster than normal actions; however, too many mechanics in the game rely upon reactions to bonus actions or reactions to reactions. I don't want to touch that because enacting a global rule regarding bouns actions and reactions not provoking opportunity attacks would break a lot. But...
I like the ruling that, if a spell is cast as a bonus action or reaction, it is so swift that it does not provoke an opportunity attack (basically reverting to RAW mechanically).
Additionally, just like there exist quick don and doff armors in the game, there could exist "quick stopper" vials. Most potions found in-game are in bottles, not these vials. The vials can be purchased at alchemy shops along with belts or bandoleros to hold the quick stop vials. While adventuring, 95% of the potions and elixirs found are going to be in traditional bottles. These require your attention to unstopper and use in combat and, as such, require the RAW one action for use; however, the quick stopper vials can be used as bonus actions.
To transfer a potion for a traditional bottle to a quick stopper vial requires 5 minutes of careful work (which can be done as part of a short rest).
Hmm.... I like it.
casting a spell... i had this friend... he had a spell book for our medieval games and the higher the spell level was, the more words he had to do as well as movement to do. believe me when i said he was the fastest casting player we had... taking a mere 3 seconds to cast a 9th level spell. tracing stuff in the air, telling all words and the movement of the hands. we had an archer too...
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but...
notching an arrow doesn't take that long if you are trained and well trained on it. the speed of an elf in lord of the ring is way too fast, but the speed of robin hood in any book is pretty standard. shooting two arrows in about 4 seconds is a possibility for trained people. but i do agree that shooting in melee and doing all this melee should provoque as well.
Here is an argument against our belief that firing in melee would provoke an opportunity attack - https://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk . I definitely think this is something that a low-level archer could not do, but a feat gained at higher levels would work. This is a major problem of 5e in my opinion - they really should have used the 3.5 feat ideas. The archery work done in this video is not something that a standard fighter would achieve by leveling up. This is something that would require a stackable feat setup.
standing up from prone also is quite easy if you ever look at ways to get up from a prone position. there are tons of ways to get up in that 1 second mark and be ready to defend yourself. also, some of those methods are dangerous for anybody trying to rush while downed. a good exemple are rolling, spin a roony, the classic handspring. so i guess the better way to say is, you provoque if you are in medium or heavy armor. cause those wouldn'T allow ease of movement to get back up.
I will have to respectfully, and strongly, disagree with you on this one. I spent some time training in sword and shield fighting - with full armor. Standing up from a prone is a dangerous, and often impossible, task. I may have mentioned it elsewhere on this thread, but one of the guys I game with has fought "sword and board" for at least 20 years and he wholeheartedly agrees - getting up from a prone position definitely provokes free swipes at you. Kipping up sounds cool and looks great in movies, but is often used just for that. In the heat of a real battle, you don't have room for those types of overplayed tropes.
That's been my experience as well, from a couple of decades of unarmored martial arts, including specifically grappling (where people train to go prone and get back up). If I'm prone and you're not, you have a significant advantage if I try to get up. Regardless of whether I try spinning or hand springs or a kickup (the last of which would be more or less impossible in armor), I am going to be incredibly vulnerable for those couple of moments. If you stood back and let me do my impressive flipping magic--like attackers do in movies--then sure, I could get on my feet much quicker than someone who didn't train for it. (Well, to be fair, someone who trained and was much quicker than me personally would be much quicker. Not my forte. :) But if you pressed your attack and I tried to get up, I'm vulnerable, absolutely.
In fact, in many instances you're better off staying on the ground. Not all, but many. If you've knocked me down but I still have my sword and shield, I can still defend myself to some extent while on my back. (Or using my hands and feet against another unarmed attacker.) But the moment I turn my attention to getting up, no matter how fast I am, I am not defending against you. The early days of the UFC were full of this--guys who get knocked down, start to get up when the attacker is right on top of them, and get their head kicked off their shoulders. The guys who got down and stayed down when the attacker was right on top of them did better.
Now add armor and weapons to the mix, and it's even harder. You want to handspring your way to your feet? Okay, but you're not doing that with a sword clenched in your hand, or a shield on your arm. You can drop your sword for free, but dropping a shield off your arm while on your back? That'll take an action. And a round you won't get your shield bonus for. Then next round, you can hand spring to your feet, weaponless and shieldless. Good luck with that :)
If I may ask, as someone trained in this sort of maneuver, what do you think of the half-movement to stand? I'd think if you have a high Dexterity, it should adjust how long it takes you to get up, as well as armor and encumbrance. Maybe base is half movement, -5 for every Dex benefit, -5 for Unarmored, + 5 for Medium armor, + 10 for Heavy Armor, +5 for Encumbered with a minimum of 5 movement.
So a Character with 16 Dex in Medium Armor, Encumbered, with a Walking Speed of 30 would take 15(Half Speed) - 15(+3 Dex) + 5(Medium Armor) + 5(Encumbered) = 10. I don't know. Maybe this is just too much math for a game.
If I may ask, as someone trained in this sort of maneuver, what do you think of the half-movement to stand? I'd think if you have a high Dexterity, it should adjust how long it takes you to get up, as well as armor and encumbrance. Maybe base is half movement, -5 for every Dex benefit, -5 for Unarmored, + 5 for Medium armor, + 10 for Heavy Armor, +5 for Encumbered with a minimum of 5 movement.
So a Character with 16 Dex in Medium Armor, Encumbered, with a Walking Speed of 30 would take 15(Half Speed) - 15(+3 Dex) + 5(Medium Armor) + 5(Encumbered) = 10. I don't know. Maybe this is just too much math for a game.
Those adjustments seem okay if you're going for that level of increased realism. I'm one who likes certain things to be realistic, but for D&D I wouldn't personally worry about making it that granular in this case. Just my preference. If you wanted to, those seem reasonable at first glance. I'd also consider Athletics/Acrobatics/etc. playing a role. The guys I know who trained in grappling will get up a lot faster than the guys who were stand-up strikers.
For me, regarding movement: If we assume that adventurers are all going to be some baseline of physically fit, then the difference in how long it takes me to get up vs how long it takes someone who is better than me (if we're both generally fit enough to survive fighting through a dungeon :) isn't going to be all that much over 6 seconds. My claim is that you're definitely vulnerable while you're doing it, and that you might be able to do it faster than me to a certain extent. If you're faster than me, unarmored, and we're both starting at prone and racing for a finish line, you'll have an advantage. But it might come down to you getting up a half second faster than me. So over 6 seconds of time in a combat round, the difference in how far we'll be able to move isn't enough for me to want to do that much math :)
I as a DM might use those factors to adjudicate if there was a race. Two people knocked flat, both on the same initiative, getting up from the ground and running to grab the scepter. I might make them roll it out with some mods. But they'll both run the same distance in that round, just for ease.
And that takes into account the different ways of getting up that DnDPaladin mentioned above. One of the fastest ways for me to get on my feet from my back turned out to be rolling backwards over my shoulder. I could never do a kick-up, and rolling away helped a bit with the vulnerability. But in that case, even if I get up faster than you, I might have done it by rolling away from the direction I then move in when I'm up :)
EDIT: To be clear and fair, I read DnDPaladin as wanting to use 'cinematic' style rules for his games in this case (and maybe in the falling rules discussion earlier). Which is totally cool, there's nothing wrong with that if that's your jam. If you want your characters being able to do everything like Jet Li, more power to you. I've played with DMs like that, it can be a blast. "I'm going to jump in the air, spin in a circle, and in mid-air fire two arrows at the goblins behind me!" "Fantastic! Roll an athletics check!" :D There's plenty of room for that kind of game too.
drinking a potion is quite easy, to the point where using an action to do so is boring.
The main reason that rule is there has nothing to do with how hard a potion is to drink and far more to do with the fact that it's a bottled spell anyone can use.
drinking a potion is quite easy, to the point where using an action to do so is boring.
The main reason that rule is there has nothing to do with how hard a potion is to drink and far more to do with the fact that it's a bottled spell anyone can use.
I'd think if you had the Potion in your hand, a DM may rule that it can be used as a Bonus Action. If it's in your pack, however, you are not just drinking the potion...you are also going into your pouch, finding it, pulling it out, opening it, and drinking it. This much effort qualifies as an Action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
then why not remove the death save entirely then ?
Its easy... Instead of trying to fix a mechanic that seems broken to you. Why not just remove it. If monsters die at 0. Then why not make players die at 0 too.
I preffer the death saving throw mechanics compared to the old minuses... Mostly because those minuses were just giving more hp to the players.
But the mechanic is useless if you dont use it for monsters either. Because it just gives your players too much of an edge. Then you have dms who wonder why the game is too unbalanced toward players.
Now healing mid battle makes the game not fun... I beg to differ... Most of my boss battles were players winning then the boss getting healed and turning the tables on the players. It made for very special boss fights. Where the players really felt their need for healing and their need for strategies. Compared to most of the minion fights which were just... Ill attack.... Throw dice do damage pass the turn. Fights with players just rolling dice are more boring then using spells or abilities to affect a battlefield.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
For the same reason Stormtroopers always go down in one shot but the Star Wars protagonists always somehow survive.
A background character is by definition not as important as the protagonist and antagonist, and that goes double in D&D where the protagonists are played by humans that want to be entertained. It doesn't matter to the DM if random goblin #36 dies. The villain, on the other hand, needs to stick around long enough to make the story entertaining.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
:) With all respect, think about our conversation about falling damage. I have a problem with falling damage that I try to fix. But that's not a reason to just remove falling damage from the game :)
You're not talking about removing a broken mechanic. The game as conceived is really intended for the monsters, most of them, to not get death saves. That's not saying you shouldn't--if you like combat with all monsters getting death saves, go for it. I think it would be kinda cool if you had to make sure the orc who just dropped was really dead.
But the people who want death saves for PCs and not for most monsters aren't people who 'have a problem' with the mechanics of the game...because those people are playing the game the way the designers really intended most people to play it. Essentially, having a problem with random orc death saves is having a problem with an optional rule. No reason to scrap the PC death save rule, which is standard, just because you don't want to use the non-standard one :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It is completely idiotic to continue to attack something that doesn't pose a threat when you have other things that do pose a threat attacking you. If you drop the orc and attack him for 2 more rounds to make sure he is dead while his 5 orc buddies are beating on you, that is idiotic.
If the monster spends the next two rounds attacking the downed fighter to make sure he is dead, while ignoring his 5 buddies that are beating on him, that is idiotic.
I think both of you have the good intentions, but are speaking from two extreme views. I don't think it is the best to speak in absolutes, which both sides of this discussion are doing. Generally speaking, I take into account the intelligence of the antagonists when considering how they behave when a PC is downed.
In hostile situations, most animals will ignore a fallen enemy because they, currently, pose no threat. However, if the animal was attacking due to hunger, they may focus on the fallen enemy and attempt to drag them away to safety to feed on them.
Intelligent enemies are different, especially battle hardened enemies. If they are aware that there are healers or those that posses potions, they may coordinate attacks on the healers and "double tap" downed enemies before they are healed. That isn't taking to account commanders on the battlefield dolling out orders, either.
Truth is you can't say "all enemies behave as X" or "all enemies behave as Y". When creating a combat either extreme can create laughably two dimensional enemies that don't feel real and causes a break in emersion.
@Grizzlebub i completely agree and that is exactly what i was talking about. whats idiotic is the DMs, many of them, not all of them, but many of them, considering combat as a puzzle to solve by making sure all actions you use are not wasted. unfortunately when combat arises in d&d most people stop thinking about roles and start playing by action economy and seems to be forced to do every single action they can that is meaningfull and if an action isn't meaningfull, they just ignore it entirely. exemple of the disengage action which is never used by anyone, they always preffer to take the AoO instead. why ? because they lose their precious actions which stops them from casting a spell or attacking another enemy.
i think the problem always comes from there. mostly...
as for myself, i always do what an enemy would do, even if it means being dumb and act stupid. i'm never going for the perfect optimised way if the creature wouldn't do it.
up to this point my players have loved such ways. they ran a few times as they learned pretty fast that the world i pitched them in, might not always be below them, there is always something stronger then them in the world.
but yeah, the point i was making, and i repeat myself, is that players learn based on what you do. if you do things, players will do it to you at some point. same goes for tactics, same goes for other mechanics. heck even role plays... because i actually role play with voices and articulate my body into it, many players i have played with have started doing it and have improved their role play because of it. so yeah, players learn reguardless of what they do. from my perspective, when something goes wrong in a game, more then often, i realise quite fast that it is me who taught my players that problem to begin with.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Very well said.
I also think that we all have to recognize that any RPG has to formalize what is not a formalized scenario. Real fighting isn't done by everyone taking their turn, all nice and gridlike and planned. In D&D, for example, there is no danger for a cleric-type to run into the melee swarm and use their action to heal someone lying unconscious on the ground. That action would presumably be putting their hands on the fighter and casting a spell. In reality, of course, if I'm standing there with a sword, having just cut a fighter to the ground, and you run up to that fighter, bend over or kneel down, put your hands on him, and start chanting, I am not going to stand there watching you because 'I have already taken my turn' :) And you, if you want to keep chanting and casting a spell on him, are going to be absurdly defenseless when I now attack you. If we tried to put that into game terms, you would at least lose any dex bonus to AC, I would get an attack probably with a big bonus (because you're bending over or kneeling down).
But D&D is simplified, so the cleric gets to do that. And the enemy will just stand there. And the next round, when the fighter is healed, he won't even have to spend a second waking back up, shaking his head, adjusting to where everyone else is around him. (I mean, seriously...have any of you ever been knocked out? I have. You don't just pop back up knowing where everything is around you and ready to go, like you'd been watching the action from above while unconscious. Realism would seem to demand that your recently healed fighter at least take one round to get his bearings just in terms of finding out where everyone is. But D&D doesn't go for realism. That's a feature, not a bug.
All of that is to say this:
Yes, in a real fight, with real swords, it would be a good idea after you drop that enemy to take a quick second to stab him in the neck while he lays on the ground, if there isn't another enemy bearing down on you right away. If the nearest enemy is 10 feet away, sure--quick-stab the guy on the ground, then engage the new enemy.
But if the DM is going to make you take an action on your next turn to do that, when the remaining enemy will be able to attack you, then yes, it's not the ideal option.
What you could try is to use a rule that allows you to dispatch an unconscious enemy with a bonus action or reaction. But--that nullifies death saves, if by 'dispatch' you mean 'insta-kill'.
So--your choices are determined by how the DM lets you deal with unconscious foes. If you get to insta-kill them, without taking a full action, then you're giving up on death saves. If you don't get to insta-kill them, then you get your death saves back, but stabbing the downed foe now leaves you open to being attacked by the upright foe.
The moral of the story is that something has to be sacrificed--realism, or simplicity.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
This is why I went with the level of exhaustion for being reduced to zero, I wanted to simulate that even being healed, getting put on death's door will have an impact on you, and it will be cumulative if it keeps happening.
There are probably other ways, like the free bonus action insta-kill houserule you suggested, but I feel that is more lethal than I wanted my games to be, I wanted people to avoid being reduced to zero like the plague, without being instantly killed if they get reduced to zero.
I hear you. If my players were meta-gaming with dropping to 0 on purpose, I'd be irritated too. And the exhaustion method seems good. Speaking again from experience, yeah...you get knocked out, and waking back up, like all the way back up, takes some time.
I suppose if you were magically healed, that could mitigate some of that. But even then, as I said, just getting your bearings would take time and effort. From your perspective, you were just standing, everyone else was in very specific places. Then you wake up suddenly on the ground--maybe you remember falling--and everyone else has changed positions, people are in the middle of saying things. Even if your head isn't swimming (because the healing spell fixed that, maybe), your head is spinning just to re-orientate. That makes a lot of sense, and it doesn't complicate things too much.
I'd just be concerned, as I originally posted, about trying to solve the problem by making short rests literally 600 times shorter than the game calls for. When there are certain classes that use mostly short rests, and others that do not, that's a big imbalance.
Maybe this would help, a fairly simple rule change--casting a touch spell on an unconscious person gives opponents advantage to attack you. It's simple, yet somewhat realistic. If I'm conscious and need to be healed, I can back towards the cleric, keeping between the enemy and the cleric, while the cleric casts the spell. But if I'm down, the cleric has to run into melee, bend over, cast a spell...make themselves vulnerable.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
This is something that I have really liked, I really liked the short rest in 4e, because the game for the most part is balanced around having frequent short rests. The problem came in when, after one encounter, the Warlock was drained, but no one else wanted to take a short rest. So either the party is wasting an hour resting so the warlock can recoup, and then wasting another hour later when the rest of them needed it. Or the warlock was just out of luck for the next fight as the party decided to push on.
My original thought was just to shorten them like in 4e, but I really didn't like the idea of them always being able to rest up, so I was going to put a limit of 2 on it. And ~5-10 minute short rest, twice per day may have been OK. But I was thinking that if they just had complete control over when they can take a rest, and even do it in combat, that could add some interesting dramatic situations where you can retreat for a round and then recovery and get back in it. It feels very cinematic to me. But I was concerned about potential abuses, so I limited it to twice per day.
If it's working for you, and you and your players are enjoying it, then yeah, don't listen to any of us saying "Oh no!" :)
That said, just by way of discussion and not attempting to change your mind or anything...
To me, the point of warlock as a class is the challenge of doling out your preciously limited spells--but balanced by either A) melee ability with Blade, B) utility with Chain, or C) spell utility with Tome. The designers (I think it's fair to say) conceived of a game where, when the warlock needs to rest, others will need to rest too. But a warlock being out of spell slots still leaves that warlock with a lot of options, including most likely the best combat cantrip in the game, and the Pact features. At least, that's the idea. So the question becomes whether the warlock needed a break, or whether the warlock really just wanted a break. If you've got Eldritch Blast, maybe minor illusion or mage hand, and an Imp familiar, there's still a ton you can do without your 2 or 3 spell slots. :)
I do think the 2/day brings it back to more balance when you take the day as a whole. The general guidelines are that a party will have one long rest and two short rests per day. So if you're just allowing the warlock (or anyone else) to pack those short rests both into one combat, then that warlock might be hindering themselves later when they need a short rest again but they've burned through both.
So what this is allowing is for the warlock, if he chooses, to go nuclear for one battle. If the warlock wants to, he could completely outclass an equivalent level wizard for one battle, by burning through both 6 second short rests, along with all the other benefits he gets (that he gets in part because he has limited spell slots). Of course that means that he's used all of that up for the rest of the day, where the wizard might still have spell slots left.
I guess it would depend on what kind of campaigns you run. I'm playing a warlock in a RP heavy campaign, we have 1-2 fights per session. In a campaign like that, where I could triple my effectiveness in the one bit of combat we'd have for the day, I would be completely outshining the rest of the party (which causes difficulties for CR determination, right?). But if you're running a more combat-intensive campaign, 4-5 fights per session, the warlock would still have to be judicious, and the imbalances would be less severe.
Anyway, like I said, if you guys are liking it, go for it. It just really jumped out at me as a dramatic rule change. :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It isn't like it is easy to do, you do nothing for an entire turn, this can be difficult. Most of the time doing something would be better than doing nothing to take a short rest. But then again, I have yet to have to deal with someone casting time stop, and taking a short rest or two during it, while trying to do something degenerate.
One potential change I have been thinking about to make it harder to use is that you can only take a short rest if you haven't taken damage since your last turn, and when you take a short rest, you may not use your reaction until the start of your next turn.
But it hasn't been a problem, so not going to make any changes yet.
Well... getting back to the point of this thread, and including something related to the discussion above, here is my Opportunity Attacks house rule.
OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS
As a House Rule, in addition to moving away from the threat range of an enemy, the following also cause opportunity attacks:
Ranged attacks while in melee (yes, they are still at disadvantage as well)
Casting a spell that has a somatic component and is not a reaction
Undefended actions (e.g., drinking a potion, reading a scroll, etc.)
Standing up from prone
for me short rests are fine as it is, the only thing i find worse, is that everything takes a short rest to be gotten back. up to this point... aside from healing (the major point of short rest from wizards of the coast) is still 1 hour. but praying to get channel divinities back are 15 minutes, and the same applies to warlock and druids wildshape and spell slots. same for a wizard who wants his arcane recovery to be used. that way they easily can gain back their stuff without losing too much. but again i play by the rles that monsters have the same benefits so they end up in the same boat. players often want to have an advantage over monsters so taking their short rest they often think they'll gain an advantage cause somehow they think monsters takes more then that to regenerates. it worked for me up to this point and i find this method better. i also never states that cure wounds and the spells they do use when they do heals cxompletely, they seal up wounds, they seal wounds, they stabilise the characters, but marks and wounds still shows up. they take their natural body healing which is about 1 to 3 weeks much like in reality. as for when they just walk to another destination, i often count it as a short rest, because they are just walking and doing nothing else. its not like they are dashing all their way. they are walking and waiting for each others. thus short rest are often given during travels. its not hard to count a short rest of 15 minutes here and there during travels so. if they take an hour to get to a destination, i give them the short rest, just not the healing one.
@TheDungeonMathster
Aren't you punishing the component pouch versus the arcane focus by doing that ?
i mean an arcane focus do not use component at all unless they actually have a cost. so basically, while the other guy/girl finds his stuff in the pouch the arcane focus is just presented and thats it. the arcane focus is already better then the pouch, though the pouch is cooler and best for role play. but to me it makes no sense that a person with an arcane fous can provoque by just holding it and presenting it. even more if the emblem is on a shield or a sword or just his hat. i often have players having their focus on a weapon or a piece of armor because arcane focus are ike that. standing up from prone also is quite easy if you ever look at ways to get up from a prone position. there are tons of ways to get up in that 1 second mark and be ready to defend yourself. also, some of those methods are dangerous for anybody trying to rush while downed. a good exemple are rolling, spin a roony, the classic handspring. so i guess the better way to say is, you provoque if you are in medium or heavy armor. cause those wouldn'T allow ease of movement to get back up.
but i think its true that certain things do should provoque. (picking things in backpack as an exemple)
i think the concept of AoO in 5e is not to diminish other actions, after all you have a single reaction per turn and may it be AoO or any other reactions like spells or the likes. i think thir goal at first was not to make realistic, but to make it availlable in case you have nothing else to do. also, in 3e there was a lot of things you could do with AoO and it broke the game literally by having characters play entirely on that. so i think they also did not want to give that much to players.
but there are things you should be aware of before though...
drinking a potion is quite easy, to the point where using an action to do so is boring. i allow my players to use a bonus action to do so. unles they are giving it to a downed opponent, at that point i'd agree that giving it to someone else should be an entire action and should provoque. but drinking mid battle is quite easy... we do it all the time in our medieval sessions and believe me the opponent is awefully trying to stop us. yet it takes but a mere 2 seconds to drink the potion and im calculating vials and not bottles like we see in the players handbook.
casting a spell... i had this friend... he had a spell book for our medieval games and the higher the spell level was, the more words he had to do as well as movement to do. believe me when i said he was the fastest casting player we had... taking a mere 3 seconds to cast a 9th level spell. tracing stuff in the air, telling all words and the movement of the hands. we had an archer too... notching an arrow doesn't take that long if you are trained and well trained on it. the speed of an elf in lord of the ring is way too fast, but the speed of robin hood in any book is pretty standard. shooting two arrows in about 4 seconds is a possibility for trained people. but i do agree that shooting in melee and doing all this melee should provoque as well.
i guess my point is, the more you want to be realistic, the less usefull are gonna be the rules fo d&d. their goal is to leave the people with more imagination and liberties then having a completely off the chart book of mathematics. all that said, i do think i'll make a list of things that should provoque, give my players more to do AoO wise. you know for those who do not have reactions.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
You definitely can think of it that way; however, that is not my intent. If you use an arcane/divine spell focus, then there is no concern about reaching into your component pouch for material components. I still encourage my casters to collect components - both for roleplay purposes and just in case their focus gets destroyed.
Regarding your comment, "it makes no sense that a person with an arcane fous can provoque by just holding it and presenting it.." I do not see how presenting the arcane/divine spell focus should present an opportunity attack either. That is why I am not saying that.
I will have to respectfully, and strongly, disagree with you on this one. I spent some time training in sword and shield fighting - with full armor. Standing up from a prone is a dangerous, and often impossible, task. I may have mentioned it elsewhere on this thread, but one of the guys I game with has fought "sword and board" for at least 20 years and he wholeheartedly agrees - getting up from a prone position definitely provokes free swipes at you. Kipping up sounds cool and looks great in movies, but is often used just for that. In the heat of a real battle, you don't have room for those types of overplayed tropes.
This gets me thinking. I like the idea that bonus actions, just like reactions, are faster than normal actions; however, too many mechanics in the game rely upon reactions to bonus actions or reactions to reactions. I don't want to touch that because enacting a global rule regarding bouns actions and reactions not provoking opportunity attacks would break a lot. But...
I like the ruling that, if a spell is cast as a bonus action or reaction, it is so swift that it does not provoke an opportunity attack (basically reverting to RAW mechanically).
Additionally, just like there exist quick don and doff armors in the game, there could exist "quick stopper" vials. Most potions found in-game are in bottles, not these vials. The vials can be purchased at alchemy shops along with belts or bandoleros to hold the quick stop vials. While adventuring, 95% of the potions and elixirs found are going to be in traditional bottles. These require your attention to unstopper and use in combat and, as such, require the RAW one action for use; however, the quick stopper vials can be used as bonus actions.
To transfer a potion for a traditional bottle to a quick stopper vial requires 5 minutes of careful work (which can be done as part of a short rest).
Hmm.... I like it.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but...
Here is an argument against our belief that firing in melee would provoke an opportunity attack - https://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk . I definitely think this is something that a low-level archer could not do, but a feat gained at higher levels would work. This is a major problem of 5e in my opinion - they really should have used the 3.5 feat ideas. The archery work done in this video is not something that a standard fighter would achieve by leveling up. This is something that would require a stackable feat setup.
That's been my experience as well, from a couple of decades of unarmored martial arts, including specifically grappling (where people train to go prone and get back up). If I'm prone and you're not, you have a significant advantage if I try to get up. Regardless of whether I try spinning or hand springs or a kickup (the last of which would be more or less impossible in armor), I am going to be incredibly vulnerable for those couple of moments. If you stood back and let me do my impressive flipping magic--like attackers do in movies--then sure, I could get on my feet much quicker than someone who didn't train for it. (Well, to be fair, someone who trained and was much quicker than me personally would be much quicker. Not my forte. :) But if you pressed your attack and I tried to get up, I'm vulnerable, absolutely.
In fact, in many instances you're better off staying on the ground. Not all, but many. If you've knocked me down but I still have my sword and shield, I can still defend myself to some extent while on my back. (Or using my hands and feet against another unarmed attacker.) But the moment I turn my attention to getting up, no matter how fast I am, I am not defending against you. The early days of the UFC were full of this--guys who get knocked down, start to get up when the attacker is right on top of them, and get their head kicked off their shoulders. The guys who got down and stayed down when the attacker was right on top of them did better.
Now add armor and weapons to the mix, and it's even harder. You want to handspring your way to your feet? Okay, but you're not doing that with a sword clenched in your hand, or a shield on your arm. You can drop your sword for free, but dropping a shield off your arm while on your back? That'll take an action. And a round you won't get your shield bonus for. Then next round, you can hand spring to your feet, weaponless and shieldless. Good luck with that :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If I may ask, as someone trained in this sort of maneuver, what do you think of the half-movement to stand? I'd think if you have a high Dexterity, it should adjust how long it takes you to get up, as well as armor and encumbrance. Maybe base is half movement, -5 for every Dex benefit, -5 for Unarmored, + 5 for Medium armor, + 10 for Heavy Armor, +5 for Encumbered with a minimum of 5 movement.
So a Character with 16 Dex in Medium Armor, Encumbered, with a Walking Speed of 30 would take 15(Half Speed) - 15(+3 Dex) + 5(Medium Armor) + 5(Encumbered) = 10. I don't know. Maybe this is just too much math for a game.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
Those adjustments seem okay if you're going for that level of increased realism. I'm one who likes certain things to be realistic, but for D&D I wouldn't personally worry about making it that granular in this case. Just my preference. If you wanted to, those seem reasonable at first glance. I'd also consider Athletics/Acrobatics/etc. playing a role. The guys I know who trained in grappling will get up a lot faster than the guys who were stand-up strikers.
For me, regarding movement: If we assume that adventurers are all going to be some baseline of physically fit, then the difference in how long it takes me to get up vs how long it takes someone who is better than me (if we're both generally fit enough to survive fighting through a dungeon :) isn't going to be all that much over 6 seconds. My claim is that you're definitely vulnerable while you're doing it, and that you might be able to do it faster than me to a certain extent. If you're faster than me, unarmored, and we're both starting at prone and racing for a finish line, you'll have an advantage. But it might come down to you getting up a half second faster than me. So over 6 seconds of time in a combat round, the difference in how far we'll be able to move isn't enough for me to want to do that much math :)
I as a DM might use those factors to adjudicate if there was a race. Two people knocked flat, both on the same initiative, getting up from the ground and running to grab the scepter. I might make them roll it out with some mods. But they'll both run the same distance in that round, just for ease.
And that takes into account the different ways of getting up that DnDPaladin mentioned above. One of the fastest ways for me to get on my feet from my back turned out to be rolling backwards over my shoulder. I could never do a kick-up, and rolling away helped a bit with the vulnerability. But in that case, even if I get up faster than you, I might have done it by rolling away from the direction I then move in when I'm up :)
EDIT: To be clear and fair, I read DnDPaladin as wanting to use 'cinematic' style rules for his games in this case (and maybe in the falling rules discussion earlier). Which is totally cool, there's nothing wrong with that if that's your jam. If you want your characters being able to do everything like Jet Li, more power to you. I've played with DMs like that, it can be a blast. "I'm going to jump in the air, spin in a circle, and in mid-air fire two arrows at the goblins behind me!" "Fantastic! Roll an athletics check!" :D There's plenty of room for that kind of game too.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The main reason that rule is there has nothing to do with how hard a potion is to drink and far more to do with the fact that it's a bottled spell anyone can use.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'd think if you had the Potion in your hand, a DM may rule that it can be used as a Bonus Action. If it's in your pack, however, you are not just drinking the potion...you are also going into your pouch, finding it, pulling it out, opening it, and drinking it. This much effort qualifies as an Action.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.