D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[Shardstone]

Yeah, this is an important point. There were a lot of really good ideas that were in need of a little refining early on, that I think polled worse than they would have if we had known that our options were “this, or what we had before.”

This is the greatest irony of the whole thing to me. People were so eager to point out all these MASSIVE flaws in the new ideas that they just shot them down and went back to the old. It didn't have to be this way, and if people were more measured in their feedback and actually thought about the potential those old ideas had, we'd probably have a stronger 2024 edition.

This isn't to say there weren't problems in the playtest. Class Groups needed another level of pizzaz to be made worth it. PF2E-style spell lists needed some more polishing for game integration. But nope, all new ideas are killed, and we're left with minor changes that do add up but leave most of us wanting for more.

This is why public playtesting the way WotC does it is a mistake. The quantitative feedback via ratings should be an informer, not a decider; the qualitative feedback should be what matters the most. An artist's vision must adapt to playtesting but still must stand firm. Class Groups and Categorized spell lists and hell, going further back, the Spirit Ranger, the Mystic, the Elemental Sorcerers, even material like the Urban Arcana -- all of this was killed in the cradle, for worse or worse, all because of that stupid 70% metric they run by.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

This is the greatest irony of the whole thing to me. People were so eager to point out all these MASSIVE flaws in the new ideas that they just shot them down and went back to the old. It didn't have to be this way, and if people were more measured in their feedback and actually thought about the potential those old ideas had, we'd probably have a stronger 2024 edition.

Stop blaming the community for WotC employing a 'pass as is or scrap entirely' method, that they never communicated to anyone but themselves. This already affected the latter feedback, where people went around pre-emptively attacking others for considering voting for anything other than superb grades.

 

[Shardstone]

Stop blaming the community for WotC employing a 'pass as is or scrap entirely' method, that they never communicated to anyone but themselves. This already affected the latter feedback, where people went around pre-emptively attacking others for considering voting for anything other than superb grades.

I said in that very same post that WotC had stupid methods. Dont crop my post trying to start an argument man.

 

[Oofta]

Not the same, at all. Peasant railgun has no mechanical support (there is no acceleration to damage formula in the game), while shield-weaponjuggling-dualwield is directly mechanically supported.

If you follow the literal rules of the game peasant railgun works just like most other exploits.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

If you follow the literal rules of the game peasant railgun works just like most other exploits.

It has nothing to do with following the rules. They only follow them to the point they need (readied actions), and then pull out physics = damage out of their behind.

 

[mellored]

If you follow the literal rules of the game peasant railgun works just like most other exploits.

No. Because the peasant at the end still throws it with his Str + proficiency modifier with it's normal range.


Two weapon fighting, as written, let's you attack more often while holding a shield.
And any DM should say dual wielder requires you to dual wield.

 

[Oofta]

No. Because the peasant at the end still throws it with his Str + proficiency modifier with it's normal range.


Two weapon fighting, as written, let's you attack more often while holding a shield.
And any DM should say dual wielder requires you to dual wield.

Then I will just say no. Fixed.

 

[Epic Meepo]

The main issues seem the same type of stuff as the peasant railgun.

Spoiler: Peasant railgun in 5E:

1. Hire a small city's worth of peasants
2. Have them line up and ready actions to pass a broken ladder to the next peasant when it's handed to them.
3. Hand the first person in line the broken ladder.
4. They use their readied action to pass it to the next peasant.
5. Repeat.
6. By the last peasant in line you have a piece of wood going over a thousand miles per hour because each readied action happens on the same turn of 6 seconds.

link: What Exactly is the "Peasant Railgun" in D&D 5e? - Knight's Digest

I'm not worried about exploits like this, it's why we have DMs.

If I'm DMing and the PCs find some way to gain control of enough peasants, I would totally allow them to build a peasant railgun if they were so inclined...

...but, since the players are insisting on applying turn-based mechanics to an entire city's worth of NPCs, I would insist on putting every NPC within a 1,000-mile radius in initiative order. If the players are willing to sit and patiently watch me while I resolve tens of thousands of NPCs' turns before getting to the last of their readied peasants, they can have their peasant railgun.

 

[TheSword]

The sad thing is that it’s cool that 5.5 let’s a knife thrower throw multiple knives in their round, or someone who has taken time to set multiple crossbows in place ready to shoot a few. Instead it gets abused into two weapon fighting + a shield.

People act like it’s something that is done to them, rather than just setting ground rules with players.

 

[Lanefan]

Then I will just say no. Fixed.

The point, however, is not that you can and will say no; it's that you shouldn't have to.

Why? Because these sort of broken exploits should have been flagged and dealt with at the design level.