D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Lanefan]

Hinder.

Sure, that works. Brilliant.

And one of the various ways one might hinder a foe is to trip it, where such makes sense in the fiction.

 

[soviet]

Hinder is very ambiguous though. Most of the conditions are a hindrance in some fashion.

 

[Lanefan]

Hinder is very ambiguous though. Most of the conditions are a hindrance in some fashion.

Yes, but all the others specify what form the hindrance takes. And hinder(ed) wouldn't itself be a condition, it would instead be a renamed 'trip' ability that tries to apply other conditions e.g. prone.

 

[Azzy]

Detect Evil and Detect Good would logically have gone away at the same time alignments (mostly) did.

But that same rationale doesn't apply to determining whether something is alive or not. As far as I know, the game still distinguishes between "alive" and "dead" for various reasons.

It probably didn't make it because it was so niche.

 

[James Gasik]

Detect Evil and Detect Good would logically have gone away at the same time alignments (mostly) did.

But that same rationale doesn't apply to determining whether something is alive or not. As far as I know, the game still distinguishes between "alive" and "dead" for various reasons.

If we're not going to have alignments, why have spells called Detect Evil and Good? When a spell doesn't actually do what it says it does (invisible things are still invisible to Detect Invisibility, you can't find find traps with Find Traps), that, to me is a problem. When I said "for some reason" I realize I should have been more clear myself.

for some reason...I can't begin to understand!

 

[MichaelSomething]

If we're not going to have alignments, why have spells called Detect Evil and Good? When a spell doesn't actually do what it says it does (invisible things are still invisible to Detect Invisibility, you can't find find traps with Find Traps), that, to me is a problem. When I said "for some reason" I realize I should have been more clear myself.

for some reason...I can't begin to understand!

Welcome to D&D

 

[Azzy]

If we're not going to have alignments, why have spells called Detect Evil and Good? When a spell doesn't actually do what it says it does (invisible things are still invisible to Detect Invisibility, you can't find find traps with Find Traps), that, to me is a problem. When I said "for some reason" I realize I should have been more clear myself.

for some reason...I can't begin to understand!

Well, Detect Evil existed in the game before "good" and "evil" were alignments. In OD&D, it was described thusly:

Detect Evil: A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6”.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, Detect Evil existed in the game before "good" and "evil" were alignments. In OD&D, it was described thusly:

Detect Evil: A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil. Duration: 2 turns. Range: 6”.

So what did it detect? Chaos? Anyone not an ally?

 

[Lanefan]

If we're not going to have alignments, why have spells called Detect Evil and Good? When a spell doesn't actually do what it says it does (invisible things are still invisible to Detect Invisibility, you can't find find traps with Find Traps), that, to me is a problem. When I said "for some reason" I realize I should have been more clear myself.

for some reason...I can't begin to understand!

Still doesn't explain why Detect Life went away.

And for @Azzy - for a "niche" spell it sure gets a lot of use. I see it cast on average once every session or two, which is hella frequent compared to some spells.

 

[Azzy]

So what did it detect? Chaos? Anyone not an ally?

Well, "evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object" pretty much answers that question.