Intoxicated condition...

Making it reduce damage is very silly. People might not feel any pain, but they are more likely to injure themselves. If anything, the DM should roll two dice. One adds 1d6 damage, the other reduces 1d6 damage. It would certainly simulate the unpredictable nature of intoxication...



I think the only thing about this condition that makes sense is the disadvantage.
I agree the DR is stupid.  My friend made the point this would be good against nonlethal damage only.
It would be a real shame to remove this quirk. Good bad bugs never hurt anyone.
I'm pretty sure this has its roots in old games - before MMORPGs, MUDs often had a feature where drinking beer would heal you, but mess up your combat effectiveness.  I'm sure that came from something before in a classic RPG, though I'm not sure what.

Anyway, I don't think it's completely without merit. Drunks often fare better in car accidents, and I was amazed that nobody was perceptibly injured that night we all got so drunk that we played "Sonic the Hedgehog" in the stairwell (though the wall ended up with a head-shaped hole in it.)

It's fun, but I don't think it reaches the level of "Core" in a system that's designed to be modular so people can pick and choose the rules they want to add.  Seems like an optional rule that I'd employ.
Making it reduce damage is very silly. People might not feel any pain, but they are more likely to injure themselves. If anything, the DM should roll two dice. One adds 1d6 damage, the other reduces 1d6 damage. It would certainly simulate the unpredictable nature of intoxication...



a drunkard yes is likely to injure themselves by doing something stupid.  That is in the realm of roleplaying, not mechanics.

Drunk people on the other hand tend to feel less pain and also don't tense up so crashes and such affect them less.  Which is why in the mechanics intoxication grants a d6 DR.  Makes fine sense.

Adding another die to do damage is pointless and that doesn't make sense, again drunks injuring themselves is in the realms of rping not mechanics.  If the drunk player is actually playing their character drunk then they'll probably get into a bar fight, or stumble into a table or some such.  Or fall down stairs, something like that could cause damage yes but that's all roleplaying.   
I think the intoxication rule are a great way to reinforce the idea of what HP are and what they aren't.
Making it reduce damage is very silly. People might not feel any pain, but they are more likely to injure themselves. If anything, the DM should roll two dice. One adds 1d6 damage, the other reduces 1d6 damage. It would certainly simulate the unpredictable nature of intoxication...



a drunkard yes is likely to injure themselves by doing something stupid.  That is in the realm of roleplaying, not mechanics.

Drunk people on the other hand tend to feel less pain and also don't tense up so crashes and such affect them less.  Which is why in the mechanics intoxication grants a d6 DR.  Makes fine sense.

Adding another die to do damage is pointless and that doesn't make sense, again drunks injuring themselves is in the realms of rping not mechanics.  If the drunk player is actually playing their character drunk then they'll probably get into a bar fight, or stumble into a table or some such.  Or fall down stairs, something like that could cause damage yes but that's all roleplaying.   




Bologna. If a drunk hurting them-self due to their poor motor control is in the realm of roleplaying, then a drunk’s floppy posture should be in the realm of roleplaying as well. Otherwise, everything I said still stands. Fact of the matter is, I have never hurt myself walking down the street while sober. I have done it quite a few times after getting nice and hammered. Often, it wasn’t doing something stupid either. It was due to a trip/fall caused by poor motor control. Either the DR should be removed completely, or it should be a randomizing feature which could help/harm you unpredictably. Pure DR from intoxication is not logical.

i read it as being the same as a barbarian getting dr while raging.  Since HP is an abstraction, including willingness to fight on, I don't see that much of a difference.
Making it reduce damage is very silly. People might not feel any pain, but they are more likely to injure themselves. If anything, the DM should roll two dice. One adds 1d6 damage, the other reduces 1d6 damage. It would certainly simulate the unpredictable nature of intoxication...

Makes them harder to hit?
WTB drunken master class. :P 
I think the intoxication rule are a great way to reinforce the idea of what HP are and what they aren't.



Heh, I'd prioritize leaving it be for the silliness factor. But this is a good justification as well.

Now all we need to do is inadvertly find 2-in-one combos (SF2) and make jumping the most effecient mode of mobility (Quake).
it seems like it could be kind of abusable
sure you would miss a bit, but when your fighter has 20 hit points -1d6 is a nice reduction
just send your drunken fighter wandering into the fray to bottle neck while the rogue takes advantage of the situation to hide and the wizard just takes pot shots with his free cantrips
it seems like it could be kind of abusable
sure you would miss a bit, but when your fighter has 20 hit points -1d6 is a nice reduction
just send your drunken fighter wandering into the fray to bottle neck while the rogue takes advantage of the situation to hide and the wizard just takes pot shots with his free cantrips



And as a DM, I make sure not all of my encounters involve a bottleneck, and I make sure that the players encounter enemies with missile weapons from time to time. At worst, intoxication is occasionally useful.

   Fact of the matter is, I have never hurt myself walking down the street while sober. I have done it quite a few times after getting nice and hammered. Often, it wasn’t doing something stupid either. It was due to a trip/fall caused by poor motor control. Either the DR should be removed completely, or it should be a randomizing feature which could help/harm you unpredictably. Pure DR from intoxication is not logical.



You tripped and hurt yourself because you were at disadvantage and the real life DM required a Dex check and you failed.
It is logical.
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
It could lead to fun stuff from a narrativist standpoint, but I really don't like that getting hammered is a better defensive strategy than putting on armor.
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
Perhaps monsters will do obscene amounts of damage later on, and gear will scale with that, but not the intox boost.  If worse comes to worst, DM the bottles out of their hands.  Give alcoholic players some horrendous penalties for being career drinkers, and have informational campaigns from MADD (Mindflayers Against Drunk Dungeoneering).
I'd prefer if the devs let us test this out first to see whether being disadvantaged is enough of a drawback to counteract any benefits one might gain for being drunk. If it's proven to be harmless as is, there'd be no need to change it.
it seems like it could be kind of abusable
sure you would miss a bit, but when your fighter has 20 hit points -1d6 is a nice reduction
just send your drunken fighter wandering into the fray to bottle neck while the rogue takes advantage of the situation to hide and the wizard just takes pot shots with his free cantrips




Unfortunately both of the characters in the pregen party who could abuse it, the fighter and the cleric of moradin (he being the actual defender in the group), are immune to the status inadvertantly.  Dwarves are immune to poison, therefore dwarves are immune to the effects of alchohol (a poison).  They cannot become intoxicated by anything but magical spells and even then that better not be a magical poison effect or the dwarves are immune.


and really if he has the ability to do so why would the enemy think making a dwarf shitfaced would be a good idea
Alcohol is not poison. Even a few drops of poison kills (or at the very least brings you close to death) on direct contact. You can drink alcohol in large quantities with no serious effects to your healt. All it does is numbing your senses, and while drunk, you are slower to react and ignore pain. Nevertheless, for dwarves, I expect a better than average damage reduction, like 1d6 for them, 1d4 for everybody else. The disadvantage is just fine and logical for this condition.
it seems like it could be kind of abusable
sure you would miss a bit, but when your fighter has 20 hit points -1d6 is a nice reduction
just send your drunken fighter wandering into the fray to bottle neck while the rogue takes advantage of the situation to hide and the wizard just takes pot shots with his free cantrips



And as a DM, I make sure not all of my encounters involve a bottleneck, and I make sure that the players encounter enemies with missile weapons from time to time. At worst, intoxication is occasionally useful.

i guess you havent met my group of powergaming, metagaming munchkins? ;)
The DR is a neat way to suggest an intoxicated person's inability to fall down or keep going despite a serious injury.
Is it real? Not always. But it's simulation real, it's fantasy and narratively real. The person so drunk they cannot be hurt is a trope. 

I should also point out it's "intoxicated" not drunk. You could theoretically by "intoxicated" by the venom of a poisonous spider, or "intoxicated" by fumes in the underdark. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

This condition is too easily abused.  So if your intoxicated you get DR 1d6 and a disadvantage.  So then I do somehting that grants my character and advantage and as per rules the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other so now I just have DR 1d6 with no disadvantage.  FAR TOO GOOD

Jester - my character awakes each morning innervated I mean "intoxicated" by nightmares , I kind of like it. 

Cyco - sounds like it would vary how easy and reliable the advantage can be achieved. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

This condition is too easily abused.  So if your intoxicated you get DR 1d6 and a disadvantage.  So then I do somehting that grants my character and advantage and as per rules the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other so now I just have DR 1d6 with no disadvantage.  FAR TOO GOOD



Yes, you would have no disadvantage, but you also wouldn't get the advantage you'd normally have.
This condition is too easily abused.  So if your intoxicated you get DR 1d6 and a disadvantage.  So then I do somehting that grants my character and advantage and as per rules the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other so now I just have DR 1d6 with no disadvantage.  FAR TOO GOOD



Yes, you would have no disadvantage, but you also wouldn't get the advantage you'd normally have.



Exactly. People are ignoring the opportunity cost.
Im not ignoring the opportunity cost.  Im saying my character gets drunk then does something to gain advantage so I am basically my standard character with 1d6 DR.


Then lets not overlook the wizard with at will auto hit magic missiles, why wouldnt he get drunk all the time? 
Alcohol is not poison. Even a few drops of poison kills (or at the very least brings you close to death) on direct contact.

Try doing a little reaserch before spouting off. Alcohol is very much a poison, and no, not all poisons are deadly, or immediately deadly.
They call it "alcohol poisoning" for a reason, y'know.
As defined by the game? That remains to be seen.
Im not ignoring the opportunity cost.  Im saying my character gets drunk then does something to gain advantage so I am basically my standard character with 1d6 DR.



Do you realise that you're just saying you're not ignoring the opportunity cost, and then repeating your example while completely ignoring the opportunity cost?  I'm not trying to insult you, but this discussion cannot continue until you realise this.

Then lets not overlook the wizard with at will auto hit magic missiles, why wouldnt he get drunk all the time? 



This is a good point, though.  Maybe something should be added to the condition that hinders spellcasting?
Im not ignoring the opportunity cost.  Im saying my character gets drunk then does something to gain advantage so I am basically my standard character with 1d6 DR.



Instead of being a character with advantage and hitting things more often/doing better on checks. That's the opportunity cost. I'd rather hit things more often and resist negative effects than get 1d6 DR.


Then lets not overlook the wizard with at will auto hit magic missiles, why wouldnt he get drunk all the time? 



Because then the only thing he'd be good at is using magic missile and have 1d6 DR. He'd suck at everything else. It's a trade-off. Remember, intoxicated gives you disadvantage to ALL checks. That includes saving throws.
Ok maybe I wasn't being clear.  The point I was trying to make was ok my character is intoxicated so he gets DR 1d6 and a penalty of disadvantage.

You then do something to gain advantage so overall you lose the disadvantage but keep the DR 1d6.


So in a way yes you are giving up the opportunity of the advantage, but only to negate the disadvantage, overall you are still coming out ahead with DR 1d6.

That is my overall point,  Intoxicated grants 1d6 DR at the cost of being disadvantaged.  But since gaining advantage cancels out disadvantage overall you are right back where you start but you gain DR 1d6. 
Ok maybe I wasn't being clear.  The point I was trying to make was ok my character is intoxicated so he gets DR 1d6 and a penalty of disadvantage.

You then do something to gain advantage so overall you lose the disadvantage but keep the DR 1d6.


So in a way yes you are giving up the opportunity of the advantage, but only to negate the disadvantage, overall you are still coming out ahead with DR 1d6.

That is my overall point,  Intoxicated grants 1d6 DR at the cost of being disadvantaged.  But since gaining advantage cancels out disadvantage overall you are right back where you start but you gain DR 1d6. 



Except that it is nearly impossible to have advantage on every check you ever make. You are going to be jumping through hoops to get advantage to negate the disadvantage for some of your attacks. Now try to get advantage for every check your character is going to make.
Im making an extreme example here of course but lets get the kobolds in this adventure drunk.  As long as they have greater numbers they have advantage, so they lose advantage but they all gain DR 1d6 and thats just based off of what we've seen so far.

I will grant this, we are all basing our opinions off of what we have seen so far.  We have no idea how had or easy it will really be to gain advantage.
This is why I think even list Intoxication in the playtest was a bad idea (unless of course it is somehting they are split on at WoTC and wanted to get other people's opinions right from the start.  
Im making an extreme example here of course but lets get the kobolds in this adventure drunk.  As long as they have greater numbers they have advantage, so they lose advantage but they all gain DR 1d6 and thats just based off of what we've seen so far.



And then they are more susceptible to the wizard's and clerics' spells, because they would have disadvantage on all their saving throws. So, sure, they have DR, but then the wizard can put them to sleep easier. That DR isn't so useful then, is it?
They call it "alcohol poisoning" for a reason, y'know.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Last I heard, air and water aren't categorized as "poisons".

But they wouldnt have disadvantage on their saving throws.  The rules say when you gain one advantage it cancels out the disadvantage.  So they are not worse on saves but now they have DR



Kobolds get advantage for attacks when they outnumber their opponents. Not for saving throws. Therefore, the disadvantage is not cancelled for those saving throws.
This condition is too easily abused.  So if your intoxicated you get DR 1d6 and a disadvantage.  So then I do somehting that grants my character and advantage and as per rules the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other so now I just have DR 1d6 with no disadvantage.  FAR TOO GOOD



Except that it isn't that easy to gain advantage.  And doubtful you'll pull that off every round and still be able to attack, so it really isn't "FAR TOO GOOD".
Im making an extreme example here of course but lets get the kobolds in this adventure drunk.  As long as they have greater numbers they have advantage, so they lose advantage but they all gain DR 1d6 and thats just based off of what we've seen so far.



And then they are more susceptible to the wizard's and clerics' spells, because they would have disadvantage on all their saving throws. So, sure, they have DR, but then the wizard can put them to sleep easier. That DR isn't so useful then, is it?



Actually, as worded, intoxicated doesn't affect saving throws, but I feel like it probably should.

Still though, the kobolds would be hitting less often than they would be if they had advantage.

Having said that, kobolds do seem like they may benefit more from intoxication than other monsters or PCs, but if your DM is constantly throwing drunken kobolds at you, you probably have bigger problems.

Actually, as worded, intoxicated doesn't affect saving throws, but I feel like it probably should.

Still though, the kobolds would be hitting less often than they would be if they had advantage.

Having said that, kobolds do seem like they may benefit more from intoxication than other monsters or PCs, but if your DM is constantly throwing drunken kobolds at you, you probably have bigger problems.



You're right. The rules make a distinction between checks and saving throws. So, I am willing to concede that intoxication is probably a bit overpowered as written. However, I don't think it's that overpowered. And it would be easily solved by making intoxication apply to saving throws as well.
Savings throws are not effected by Intoxication so my example still stands.

Intoxication only effects checks and attacks.


There are three types attacks, checks and saving throws.   
Ok maybe I wasn't being clear.  The point I was trying to make was ok my character is intoxicated so he gets DR 1d6 and a penalty of disadvantage.

You then do something to gain advantage so overall you lose the disadvantage but keep the DR 1d6.


So in a way yes you are giving up the opportunity of the advantage, but only to negate the disadvantage, overall you are still coming out ahead with DR 1d6.

That is my overall point,  Intoxicated grants 1d6 DR at the cost of being disadvantaged.  But since gaining advantage cancels out disadvantage overall you are right back where you start but you gain DR 1d6. 



No, you're not getting it.  You ARE not coming out ahead.

You're giving up EVER having advantage for that 1d6 damage reduction.

If they came out with a feat that said you could chose to take a -5 to hit, defenses/saving throws, and ability checks to get resist all 3.5 for the rest of the day--with no inherent ability to shut it off, would you consider that a viable trade? 

'But if I have +5 to hit, then there's no penalty!'  No, that still means a difference of -5.  

0 - (-5) = 5.  5 - 0 = 5.  The math says the penalty is still exactly the same here.   
Sign In to post comments