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

[mellored]

The issue is more that they did not care about the feedback

Tell that to the people who wanted templates for wild shape.
Or the unified spell lists.
Or any of the other changes they tried and went back on.

nd did not run everything through the playtest, which otherwise would function as their version of Reddit.

Reddit has multiple versions and even more opinions. You're going to have arguments no matter what they picked.

I like Repelling Blast pushing each beam. Kibble does not.
Which version is the exploit?

Also. I expect Reddit had more total man-hours of reading in a week than the entire WotC team had in a year.

they pretty much very clearly are mistakes,

Agreed.
And, IMO, you should expect people to make mistakes.

4 isn't a lot for a 300+ page book. Half a page of errata.

Maybe a page, depending on who gets to decide what an 'exploit' is.

 

[mellored]

I still only count 4 real issues.

• Two weapon fighting with 1 hand: which is not intended and takes some rules lawyering to pull off. It's well balanced id used as intended.
• Stealth: seems like a sentence was omitted.
• Conjure Minor Elemental: should scale at 1d8 instead of 2d8
• Giant Insect: which is just OP.

5 issue

• Posion when you deal damage (including Graze), but lasting until you hit.

Not something you want to try to do, but it's clearly not intended.

 

[tetrasodium]

A lot of the weapon juggling stuff can be shut down by the DM with a simple "no, stop being silly." But a lot of people ARE legitimately confused about how the TWF system works when you combine WMs and feats and the line between what's an exploit and what isn't is not completely obvious, especially since weapon juggling with loaded pistols WAS a real historical tactic with early firearms.

I think it's worse than that. The rules for "what is in your hands when" are so absurdly lax that a player will just silently do it without even admitting that they are using those "silly things" & the GM will be left scratching their head until they notice & figure it out after the player has long grown attached to them with some or all other players coming to depend on that player having the benefits. By the time the GM figures it out & tries to slam shut the barn doors it will create severe problems trying to fix it. With so many of these kinds of problems it will just result in campaigns lurching from fix to fix while players shift to abusing a new problem

 

[TheSword]

I try and channel the side eye from Cicero (Uncle Jimmy) in those situations. Particularly this expression

It says…

I know that you’re trying it on.
And I know that you know you’re trying it on.
I can see what you’re doing.
And right now I’m a bit amused that you’ve got the brass balls to push it.
But if you keep going you’re gonna see what happens next.
So don’t push it kid.

That look supersedes all rules and self justification. Without being mean about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then don’t play the game that way. And don’t play the game with people who play the game that way. And ideally set your expectations up front so as not to disappoint.

Just like I don’t play the game with people who use Leomunds hut or a domed Wall of Force as a battle turret.

Folks are acting like they’re being forced to exploit the game. When did personal responsibility stop being a thing?

And if that isn’t an option because you really like/are married to the player doing this stuff then the DM steps in and just says no. “Sorry the act of taking a persons weight enough to move them in a grapple means they don’t take the damage from the unusual interaction with spike stones”. Or “sorry the act of taking a persons weight to drag them throw the spike stones means you can’t avoid the spikes yourself”. So you still want to proceed.

Who’s actual game in actual play is this destroying? I get that there’s a whole internet cottage industry of influencers trying to make a name for themselves by posting videos coming up with all this guff, and there’s some fun to be had in the theoretical element of that sure. But let’s not pretend this stuff happens without the DM taking a laissez-faire attitude.

People being creative with spells and tactics is good. It should be encouraged. And this doesn't mean that obviously rules-lawyery exploits should be allowed, but using the Leomund's hut as a bunker or various cheese grater tactics are not that. They're just obvious tactics created by plain reading of the rules.

People should be allowed to play tactically, they should not have to second guess themselves because the rules shoddy.

 

[mamba]

If people are going to exploit the exact wording of the text, it goes both ways.

I am not sure I follow, are you saying that the same (mis)interpretation of the rule applies to both the characters and their enemies? Sure, to me that does not really make things much better however, many monsters will not have access to the exploits

 

[mamba]

Agreed.
And, IMO, you should expect people to make mistakes.

I do not really care that they made them, I want them to fix them and I’d prefer them to use a more natural language approach, but that ship has sailed

 

[Oofta]

I am not sure I follow, are you saying that the same (mis)interpretation of the rule applies to both the characters and their enemies? Sure, to me that does not really make things much better however, many monsters will not have access to the exploits

I'm saying that if you are playing a game were you allow exploits based on the letter of the rules, apply that logic consistently. A creature being moved while grappled does not meet the qualifications of the spell so are therefore unaffected.

 

[mamba]

I'm saying that if you are playing a game were you allow exploits based on the letter of the rules, apply that logic consistently.

so I should play the stupid game as well by making a distinction between moving into a square and entering a square? The rules do not distinguish between the two, do they?

 

[Oofta]

so I should play the stupid game as well by making a distinction between moving into a square and entering a square? The rules do not distinguish between the two, do they?

I don't care how you run your game. But if you're saying something is broken because by a strict reading of the rules an exploit is possible, apply that strict reading of the rules when it shuts down an exploit as well. Anything else is hypocritical, either follow the rules precisely as written or do not.

Personally I will just tell someone the dual wielding exploit doesn't work in my game, same with grappling someone and moving them into spike growth. Which, as far as I can tell, is not anything new.