I really hate whenever I try to explain how some bad rules can be abused and immediatelly get someone say shit like "If this happens in your group, change it" as if that would solve the problem. And whenever it is not soemthing you witnessed personally, then it means it never happens and could never happen.
i mean, if youre wanting exploitative rule mechanics based on wording/interactions, you need to look no further than base first aid and medicine in CoC; You're able to make 1 of each per wound you take. Unlike older editions, they've done away with the heal cap on it, so if you're down HP, simply deal yourself 1 HP of damage, make a first aid check. and then make a medicine check to heal at minimum 2 HP. Repeat until full. You can easily reheal yourself to full this way, which is definitely "unintended" based on how healing works (and older editions).
Edit: at the end of the day, my point is that pretending other games cant or dont have exploitative mechanics/builds/whatever is naive at best? It's not a D&D only problem. It's just more prevalent in D&D because 1) it has more rules and 2) it has more players.
I think you've conflated part of those rules - there's nothing in the medicine skill saying you can only do it once per wound, just first aid. So you can deal/restore 1 damage in between medicine checks, but that's not what let's you keep making medicine checks.
Pg. 65, under first aid.
So it is, I'd been looking at the damage and healing rules on 120. I'm sure that's going to be fun to bring up at the table...
Still, I don't think that's as egregious as something like pun-pun or sorlocks short resting to regain spells. There are exploits in other systems, but not at the level or frequency of D&D.
yeah, unfortunately the CoC rules have always been kind of a mess. it still has a lot of that early RPG "stream of consciousness" aspect to it.
But yeah, at the end of the day, the number of rules you have is far more relevant to how many "exploits" there are, so CoC/VtM being less "crunchy" will result in less exploits.
I'd disagree on the second part, because of my other example, PF2e - the original had most of 3.x's problems, but the code-like specificity of 2e is really showing it's possible to stop stuff slipping through the cracks. There is a level of interplay between crunch and the possibility of exploitability, but I don't think it's as strict as bigger systems and more rules inherently lead to more exploits.
I mean, as i stated, i can't really vouch or argue against pf2e, since i dont play it and haven't really read the rules of it since it was in playtest. That said, just googling, i see some things that could be considered exploits like a reddit thread talking about being able to do 520 damage in one attack, some chatter about a "resentment witch" being able to make power word stun or color spray effectively permanent, and a youtube video by the rules lawyer about "OP builds", so it seems like there's at least some system exploitation going on.
Obviously a tighter controlled system is less vulnerable to exploitation (see D&D 4e), but that also doesn't mean that is necessarily doesn't exist. Another counter example system with lots of rules and lots of exploitation of them would be shadowrun, especially older versions, which were even worse than D&D in some respects.
Surprisingly, as OP as they seem, they're entirely in line with the intent of PF2e. 520 damage might seem like a lot, but it takes a specific enemy type, some prebuffing, 4 actions (plus any necessary movement) to prepare, 4 spells from 3 other characters, 2 more actions to execute the attack, and some incredibly lucky rolling - an equal level wizard can just use 2 actions to cast the 10th rank spell Cataclysm, and with similar dice luck deal 420 damage. 480 if the target is swimming. That's just level 20 PF2e.
Similarly, the resentment witch is just meant to make those conditions permanent - enemies of a higher level than the party have their success level against those saves increased, so while they can be a huge boon, they're unlikely to do much against enemies they'd really turn the fight against - being able to extend what effects they can land makes incapacitation spells worth potentially wasting on bosses, with the high chance of the spell doing nothing and the ability not even coming into play being the trade off for the power of the ability. Even if the spell does land, it'll be a lesser version of the effect that is extended.
I don't watch the rules lawyer, but from his interaction with the PF2e subreddit I'm pretty confident it's a clickbait title - they'll be powerful builds, but entirely within the intentions of the system, and ultimately as useful in game as most other builds.