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

[Lanefan]

I like the spike growth thing as it makes sense, but as a DM would not allow full control of the grappled resisting foe, dragging beside in the spike growth with the dragger being safe. The dragger would have to make checks and risk entering adjusting depending on the circumstances.

I'd flat-out say you can't drag or carry someone through a space without also going through that space yourself, the exception in this case being if you're flying a few feet off the ground and dragging the victim like an anchor.

 

[Lanefan]

When on earth did you reach that conclusion? Rather than do as you will at your table?
I’ve never got the impression direct or implied that WotC is anti house rules.

The books say "do as you will at your table"; Crawford's "official" tweets and Sage Advice tend to give a very different impression.

And that hasn't changed from the days of 1e, other than Crawford's tweets having replaced Gygax's soapbox.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd flat-out say you can't drag or carry someone through a space without also going through that space yourself, the exception in this case being if you're flying a few feet off the ground and dragging the victim like an anchor.

That is a sensible ruling and one that should actually be part of the official rules.

It however still leaves the even sillier issue of others carrying a spirit guarding cleric around.

 

[pukunui]

FWIW the 2024 Spike Growth spell works when a creature “moves into or within” the spell’s area. There’s nothing about “entering” the space.

 

[mamba]

When on earth did you reach that conclusion?

when listening to WotC / Crawford

Rather than do as you will at your table?

I certainly will do that

I’ve never got the impression direct or implied that WotC is anti house rules.

these two are not mutually exclusive, when people ask WotC what the correct interpretation of a rule is, they basically say RAW / a plain reading is. That they say I can also override it does not change what they consider the correct interpretation to be

 

[mamba]

I assume English is your primary language?

no, but I am pretty fluent in it

* Moving into something is different than being moved into something, the different tense changes the meaning an description of the action.

sure, I understand the distinction but you made one between move into and enter into, and I would even extend that to moving into vs being moved into. The criteria is whether you are in the square or not, not how you got there.

Whether I get stabbed by a sword, fall into one or run into it does not make a difference to the outcome

If the rules distinguish between the two I would find that pretty stupid, but they are not anyway, so making it a distinction is not even rules-lawyering

 

[pukunui]

no, but I am pretty fluent in it


sure, I understand the distinction but you made one between move into and enter into, and I would even extend that to moving into vs being moved into. The criteria is whether you are in the square or not, not how you got there.

Whether I get stabbed by a sword, fall into one or run into it does not make a difference to the outcome

If the rules distinguish between the two I would find that pretty stupid, but they are not anyway, so making it a distinction is not even rules-lawyering

I can’t find anything that distinguishes moving into and entering in the rules … however, you can enter a space without moving into it by teleporting there, for instance. So it is worth making a distinction, I think.

 

[mellored]

Are we really counting being able to move while stunned as an intended change?

I could go either way on that one.

I think that removing someone's turn completely is not fun.
But I could see it as a mistake.

 

[mamba]

I can’t find anything that distinguishes moving into and entering in the rules … however, you can enter a space without moving into it by teleporting there, for instance. So it is worth making a distinction, I think.

To me it is worth making a distinction in the rules if it results in a different outcome, otherwise it is not. A distinction in the fiction is not relevant for rules.

If you think someone teleporting into an area of Spike Growth is different from someone walking into it, by all means make that distinction. I would rule that the creature takes damage in either case, and whether they take damage for moving (additional) five feet in it depends on whether they do move in it

 

[pukunui]

To me it is worth making a distinction in the rules if it results in a different outcome, otherwise it is not. A distinction in the fiction is not relevant for rules.

If you think someone teleporting into an area of Spike Growth is different from someone walking into it, by all means make that distinction. I would rule that the creature takes damage in either case, and whether they take damage for moving (additional) five feet in it depends on whether they do move in it

By default, teleportation doesn’t use your movement, so I would say there is a distinction worth making there. That said, it does make sense that someone who teleports into Spike Growth ought to take some damage, especially since it’s unlikely anyone would knowingly teleport into hazardous terrain.