D&D 5E Intoxicated Condition?

[Dausuul]

What's your opinion of the Intoxicated condition in D&DN? (In the current playtest doc, it's on page 21 of the "How to Play" file.)

 

[hbarsquared]

My opinion: it's stupid.

It doesn't add anything to the game.

I don't see why you would want it in a game that you hope to teach to 8, 10, 12 year-olds, especially with it causing a positive benefit.

(Yes, I do recognize the hypocrisy of a game that murders freely, yet I'm bothered by intoxication.)

If someone want to have "intoxication" in their game, then they can just apply disadvantage or their own house-ruled condition.

 

[GX.Sigma]

For all the "you meet in a tavern" and "I roll to get drunk," as well as poisons and magical effects that can cause intoxication, it would be really weird if there weren't rules for it. Why should there not be rules for it?

 

[Jester David]

I like it. I like it a lot!

Getting drunk has always come up. It's probably come up once in every campaign I've ever run or played in. Or if it hasn't it's because no one wanted to make up the rules on the fly.

It's not "drunk', it's essentially "drugged". You can imagine things like a giant centipede bite, or poison gas also making you intoxicated. When the PC is injected with something by the evil mad alchemist, they become intoxicated.

I think the problem is that WotC has not bothered to slip it into the Bestiary and expand its use.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My opinion: it's stupid.

It doesn't add anything to the game.

I don't see why you would want it in a game that you hope to teach to 8, 10, 12 year-olds, especially with it causing a positive benefit.

(Yes, I do recognize the hypocrisy of a game that murders freely, yet I'm bothered by intoxication.)

If someone want to have "intoxication" in their game, then they can just apply disadvantage or their own house-ruled condition.

I wholeheartedly disagree. It's nonsense that, for 40 years, adventures have started in taverns but the powers that be have pretended that all the alcohol served there -- and priced out in the PHB or its equivalent -- was water.

You shouldn't get any sort of combat bonuses for being drunk, but pretending that drunkeness doesn't exist is not just hypocritical, it's stupid, especially as "wait for the guards to get drunk" or "fight the duelist who's had too much to drink, thus gaining an unfair advantage over him" have been staples of adventure stories for thousands of years.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's not "drunk', it's essentially "drugged". You can imagine things like a giant centipede bite, or poison gas also making you intoxicated. When the PC is injected with something by the evil mad alchemist, they become intoxicated.

I think the problem is that WotC has not bothered to slip it into the Bestiary and expand its use.

I think the faerie dragon was the only time we saw anything like "intoxication rules" in AD&D or 3E and yeah, that was in the context of a breath weapon.

 

[Klaus]

There should not be an Intoxicated mechanic.

Humans get intoxicated on alcohol because it is a mild poison. Just give it stats as you would any poison (which, of course, means that dwarves are immune to getting drunk).

 

[Sadrik]

I am going to go with not exist. Being drunk exists of course but I think it could fall under another condition like flat-footed or dazed. It should absolutely not be the only way in the game to get DR. That is just stupid.

 

[hbarsquared]

I don't think it's a matter of "pretending drunkenness doesn't exist." I just see no reason to call out rules for it.

Getting high quite possibly also exists in a D&D fantasy world. Should there be a condition for it?

What about coffee and caffeine? Or dehydration? Or sugar rushes? Or vitamin deficiency? Or any other number of chemically and biological imbalancing organic substances? Should we have a condition that grants drawbacks and benefits for each of those, as well? I'd say no.

"Intoxication" sounds like the perfect application of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic situationally by the DM. No reason to call out rules for it, especially when 5e is supposed to be a succinct version. Hell, let it be in a supplement. Doesn't need to be a core condition.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think it's a matter of "pretending drunkenness doesn't exist." I just see no reason to call out rules for it.

Getting high quite possibly also exists in a D&D fantasy world. Should there be a condition for it?

What about coffee and caffeine? Or dehydration? Or sugar rushes? Or vitamin deficiency? Or any other number of chemically and biological imbalancing organic substances? Should we have a condition that grants drawbacks and benefits for each of those, as well? I'd say no.

"Intoxication" sounds like the perfect application of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic situationally by the DM. No reason to call out rules for it, especially when 5e is supposed to be a succinct version. Hell, let it be in a supplement. Doesn't need to be a core condition.

There is no condition you can't use that argument for. Indeed, there is no in-game situation, event, or rule that that argument doesn't apply to.

While I technically agree with those who feel that it should be modelled under the poison rules (or alternative conditions, or adv/disadv - but, hell, like I said, you can validly argue that anything be subsumed into that mechanic) I think it's in there for an occasional bit of easily apply-able fun. Yes, it's a "poison"; but it's the poison that's readily available, legal, common, and can provide amusing scenes on occasion. So why not let it have it's own little rule? Sure, you can ignore it. Or you can have fun with it.