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

[Maxperson]

From my understanding current wall of force stops those too, I don't see why one turn wall of force should not. Wall of Force is "shut down everything, I win" spell, it is probably too low on its current level.

It does not. It explicitly only stops physical spells. And the total cover rules require a wall to stop vision, which the wall of force does not do. That means the wall can only stop physical spells that start on the opposite side of the wall. If the caster can start a physical spell on the wall caster's side, it will still hit him. And any spell such as charm or suggestion will work regardless.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah.. Back to the old "it's not magic so you can't do it" argument.

No. An impossible drag from on a horse does not equate to the above. It's ridiculous to assume that you can do literally anything physically just because magic can accomplish it. I mean, will you let my human fighter fly because he flaps his arms. After all magic can do it!

Meanwhile it's perfectly reasonable to wave your hands and create zone of thorns in less than 6 seconds.

What does that picture have to do with the discussion?

 

[mamba]

Ah.. Back to the old "it's not magic so you can't do it" argument.

doesn’t mean it is wrong… and if you drag them by horse, guess who ends up in the thorns first…

Meanwhile it's perfectly reasonable to wave your hands and create zone of thorns in less than 6 seconds.

it does not have to be reasonable, it is magic… if you want reasonable, ban magic. If you want martial skills to be on par with magic, nerf magic. Making mundane skills as powerful as magic just makes everything unreasonable

 

[mellored]

No. An impossible drag from on a horse does not equate to the above.

It's impossible to run 100' up a wall.

It's physical possible to hold someone and stay on a saddle. Especially if you don't care about them being trampled.

 

[Maxperson]

It's impossible to run 100' up a wall.

Yes it is.

It's physical possible to hold someone and stay on a saddle. Especially if you don't care about them being trampled.

No it's not.

 

[mellored]

No it's not.

View attachment 376995

It's a classic horse riding trick I've seen in person.

They ride by, grab someone's hands, and pulled them up behind into the saddle.

A small woman who willingly fails the grapple check, but I've litterally seen it.

 

[mamba]

It's a classic horse riding trick I've seen in person.

They ride by, grab someone's hands, and pulled them up behind into the saddle.

A small woman who willingly fails the grapple check, but I've litterally seen it.

and then is being swung into the saddle behind the 'grappler'. You cannot have her hanging by the side of the horse indefinitely, let alone far enough away from the horse for her to be in the thorns and the horse and rider not to be in them as well

 

[Chaosmancer]

I absolutely agree, that is why they should not show us every iteration, it is no reason to only show us early iterations however

maybe they simply should have started sooner then

They started in 2022. Do you think they should have started in 2020? Of course, they weren't going to show us the early iterations of every single rule, so they would have had to start internal playtesting in 2019, 2018?

Sure, that sounds nice, it sounds like "oh, well clearly they should have developed it starting 6 years ago, instead of 4 years ago." But... We do know that they were trying ideas in other unearthed arcana's during that time. We know they were changing things in the monster books, so internally they WERE doing that, weren't they? And ultimately, you can't escape the fact that there are simply practical limits on how much a public playtest can do. You can't release the entire book to be peer edited by the community, for free, multiple times. It just isn't reasonable.

I already decided that I won't, because the way it was conducted was so horrible. That I now learn that they did not even bother including half the stuff is 'only' the icing on the cake

and there obviously is no hope that WotC ever improves on their approach...

I can never fully get over the arrogance displayed when discussing the playtest feedback. Every single person from EnWorld combined is a drop in the bucket to the responses they got back. And we, as the EnWorld community didn't agree on half the material and each of us generally came up with three different fixes.

Your preferred version of something didn't show up, so clearly it was discarded without even considering it, because of course it is impossible that they were looking at two different versions of the rules and the one you thought broke things, they found broke fewer things than the other version. Or that the level of how it broke things was acceptable compared to other, more urgent design goals. Or that they observed the data and saw that only 0.03% of respondents thought it was an issue, so decided it likely wasn't going to become a wide spread problem.

Despite having no idea what their considerations were, what their turn around was, what the rest of the feedback was, what their options and perspectives were... clearly they just didn't bother with the objectively correct versions presented to them by the minds of EnWorld.

Does their process need improved? Maybe. But before I started demanding that? I would like to know what their process is in its totality.

 

[Oofta]

They started in 2022. Do you think they should have started in 2020? Of course, they weren't going to show us the early iterations of every single rule, so they would have had to start internal playtesting in 2019, 2018?

Sure, that sounds nice, it sounds like "oh, well clearly they should have developed it starting 6 years ago, instead of 4 years ago." But... We do know that they were trying ideas in other unearthed arcana's during that time. We know they were changing things in the monster books, so internally they WERE doing that, weren't they? And ultimately, you can't escape the fact that there are simply practical limits on how much a public playtest can do. You can't release the entire book to be peer edited by the community, for free, multiple times. It just isn't reasonable.



I can never fully get over the arrogance displayed when discussing the playtest feedback. Every single person from EnWorld combined is a drop in the bucket to the responses they got back. And we, as the EnWorld community didn't agree on half the material and each of us generally came up with three different fixes.

Your preferred version of something didn't show up, so clearly it was discarded without even considering it, because of course it is impossible that they were looking at two different versions of the rules and the one you thought broke things, they found broke fewer things than the other version. Or that the level of how it broke things was acceptable compared to other, more urgent design goals. Or that they observed the data and saw that only 0.03% of respondents thought it was an issue, so decided it likely wasn't going to become a wide spread problem.

Despite having no idea what their considerations were, what their turn around was, what the rest of the feedback was, what their options and perspectives were... clearly they just didn't bother with the objectively correct versions presented to them by the minds of EnWorld.

Does their process need improved? Maybe. But before I started demanding that? I would like to know what their process is in its totality.

I agree and just want to add that no set of rules, no process for developing a set of rules, developed by humans will ever be perfect.

I guarantee there will be things in the 2024 version I don't like, just like there are things in the 2014 version I don't like. But I accept that the rules weren't created with me personally in mind and that while the survey process was flawed because once again, we're human. Everything we do can be improved. Meanwhile, they've still spent far more time and effort to develop the rules than any other company that creates TTRPGs. Just don't expect perfection.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you think players should self-regulate in avoidance of optimal tactics?

For something like the dual-wielding "I draw my sword, attack, sheath my sword, draw a second sword, attack, sheath my sword, attack..." that allows for Dual-wielding with a shield... that isn't a matter of optimal tactics. That is a matter of "Well, by RAW..." which is increasingly becoming a toxic set of words in my mind as discussions of these rules continue. Not only is it silly, not intended, and all that, but most players not seeking to exploit the rules for every single possible advantage won't even see it as a possibility.

For something like spike growth, again, this is something that has been in the game since 2014, and is arguably weaker and less effective now than it was then. So no, I don't expect the players to self-regulate, but I also figure that this will be no worse than it ever was. Because, despite everyone complaining about it.... there are no good solutions here. Anything you do to effect spike growth either neuters the spell into uselessness (damage only done once per turn) breaks all other hazards (you cannot take damage if forced movement pushes you into hazard) or shatters grappling (you cannot move a grappled creature). So it becomes a question of, which poisoned pill would you like to take?