D&D (2024) Emanation damage point and linked exploits:

[MarkB]

Okay... so let me get this straight.

The conjure line of spells from the '14 PHB were deemed to be too much. And fair enough, I can get behind that decision.

I vaguely recall a UA where the summon line of spells were introduced -- using a unique stat block for the critters summoned, with a small bit of customization, essentially as a replacement for the conjure spells. That works, I've riffed off of these in homebrew, they're fine.

But then in 5e24, we make the summon spells from UA officially how we're doing things... but for some reason we need to keep the conjure spells around, and so the decision is to... make them all really bizarre? Including a couple of emanations that apparently weren't playtested by anyone with -- well, I can't say that part here.

Again, that certainly is a decision that could be made.

Basically, they had this general backwards-compatibilty rule of "if it doesn't exist in the 2024 rules use the old version, but if it does, use the current version". So, playing by their rules, if they didn't want players still using the old Conjure spells they needed to create 2024 versions of them that didn't have the old versions' issues.

So they created these versions, which (a) don't really conjure creatures despite their names, and (b) have their own set of issues.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

(c) still let live the 2014 conjure spells, since there is no spell to actually conjure woodland beings to supersede them?

 

[FrogReaver]

One reason I’m not worried about forced movement and damage zones is that none of this is really any worse than a whole party being clerics and druids and independently running by enemies with their damage aura.

The one thing that gives me pause isn’t the barbarian carrying the cleric. That’s no different in effect than just adding in a 2nd cleric.

The one thing that gives me pause is a readied action move for off turn movement to trigger spirit guardians or the similar Druid spell twice.

Everything else is just helping make the battlefield more dynamic, which is a good thing IMO. Even then pushing enemies back into the damage zone isn’t going to happen every turn or if it does it takes so much investment trade offs on the part of the player that I’m fine with it at that point.

But that reaction move. That’s rough.

 

[Retros_x]

See, this is why playtesting should be done exclusively by "munchkins" and power-gamers!

Why, most players are not such power-gamers who use exploits like this. I never had them at my table and even if somebody would've suggest some cheese like coffeelock, I would plain disallow it, because I don't want exploits at my table. But again, most players don't even get the idea if they don't read an edgy article about it.

 

[Horwath]

Why,

because you need to break the game to see where it can be broken before you can fix it.

 

[tetrasodium]

I wonder how all players can grab the same turkey at the same time in the same 6 seconds a round lasts and from different locations. Instant transmission?
This is where shenanigans like these fall apart

Oops... The new edition went out of its way to make it explicit that the bar to swapping what PCs have in their hand when is a guaranteed clear by virtue of being so far below ground that it requires a PC modeled after that 2024 French pole vaulter or a shovel and significant elbow grease for PCs to knock it on their way over.

 

[Retros_x]

because you need to break the game to see where it can be broken before you can fix it.

Again, these broken parts are irrelevant for most tables and, so I rather have playtesting represent a wide arrange of tables and not just powergamers. We are not building boeings here, there is no need for stresstesting to find absurd exploits that get used rarely and can be easily forbidden by any DM.

 

[MarkB]

Oops... The new edition went out of its way to make it explicit that the bar to swapping what PCs have in their hand when is a guaranteed clear by virtue of being so far below ground that it requires a PC modeled after that 2024 French pole vaulter or a shovel and significant elbow grease for PCs to knock it on their way over.

There were definitely words in that sentence, even some grammar, but I have no idea what it means.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, these broken parts are irrelevant for most tables and, so I rather have playtesting represent a wide arrange of tables and not just powergamers. We are not building boeings here, there is no need for stresstesting to find absurd exploits that get used rarely and can be easily forbidden by any DM.

You don't need to be a pilot or aerospace engineer to recognize that it's a very big problem if the door falls off an aircraft while sitting on the runway. Sometimes a problem in the rules is significant enough on its own to be unacceptable

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wasn't suggesting that change that part.

I suggest.

If you move it over someone on your turn.
If they move into it.
If they end their turn there.
-max once per turn.


That only nerfs the readied action and allies dragging you around part, without adding more things to track.

Minimal change to stop the worst offense.

If you got another suggestion, by all means.

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were changing far more of the text, not simply that small bit within the text. Your change is a good one.