D&D (2024) What is With Poison?, and Other PHB Conundrums.

[Reynard]

What the pcs know: goblins with a deeper connection to the feywild are different.
The choice: do we think THESE goblins are "different?" ::casts charm peron; it fails:: Yup.

 

[LordEntrails]

I'm sure the 2024 rules will work fine as written. As long as you don't try to use previous rules to judge the 2024 rules by.

Besides, the 2024 rules aren't even fully published yet. Until the PHB, MM, and DMG are ALL published, the rules are not yet published and are incomplete. Arguing about them is, well, its the internet. So go to it!

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're literally using the straight-up Oberoni Fallacy to tell me I'm not allowed to complain. Nope, not gonna fly.

Not all at all. You can complain all you want. But that won't stop me from saying that I think the complaints are silly.

You don't like that I think the complaints are silly? Don't Reply to one of my posts then. You're the one who first chose to Reply and engage with me. @the Jester same thing. And if you do that, telling me why you think I'm wrong... I'll respond back. That's how it works.

Yes... I think the DMs who would screw over their players like that are jerks. And it doesn't matter if that's what "the rules say". Screw the rules. And if you don't like that that's how the rules are written... fine. You don't have to. But you don't need to Reply to me to argue the point, you can just make a post all on its own if you don't want a response.

 

[Stalker0]

It is perfectly valid to complain, "These rules, if used as clearly intended, require poor DM behavior. They should not have been written that way." That neither requires me to commit to "every DM should absolutely obey the letter of every rule ever written, forever, never ever ever ever EVER EVER EVER changing a single thing, no matter how obvious, nor required, nor trivial", nor to "Oh, so there's no problem then, because the DM can just house-rule around it!"

This is the point I don't understand. To me this is dirt simple.

In 2024, yes charm person doesn't work on goblins (its a clear intention from changing the type). Doesn't mean I have to screw my players. If a player casts charm person on them I would immediately go "oh hey guys, just a reminder in 2024 goblins are now fey".

Player: "oh really, oh ok, well give me a sec I'll cast a new spell".


Its literally that easy. Now maybe a dm wants to integrate that change into their campaign. Perhaps goblins were humanoids but some force is actually shifting them into fey. In which case it would make total sense for the dm to say nothing and when the player goes "wait my charm person doesn't work....it always had before" the dm simply goes "yeah....weird huh".... and now its a mystery in the campaign to solve. Nothing wrong with that either.

This is massive mountain out of a molehill, your the DM, don't be a douche....help guide your players through the changes. Its couldn't be simplier.

 

[Reynard]

This is the point I don't understand. To me this is dirt simple.

In 2024, yes charm person doesn't work on goblins (its a clear intention from changing the type). Doesn't mean I have to screw my players. If a player casts charm person on them I would immediately go "oh hey guys, just a reminder in 2024 goblins are now fey".

But 2024 goblins aren't fey -- SOME 2024 goblins are fey. If the PCs don's attempt to find out if TEHSE goblins are fey, they are taking a calculated risk in casting the spell. At least they will know after the spell is cast (i do believe in telling them that the spell failed because it was a invalid target).

Think of it this way: imagine that a character cast a object-only spell on a table that turned out to be a mimic. Would you as GM stop them and tell them to choose a different spell so they did not waste it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is the point I don't understand. To me this is dirt simple.

In 2024, yes charm person doesn't work on goblins (its a clear intention from changing the type). Doesn't mean I have to screw my players. If a player casts charm person on them I would immediately go "oh hey guys, just a reminder in 2024 goblins are now fey".

Player: "oh really, oh ok, well give me a sec I'll cast a new spell".


Its literally that easy. Now maybe a dm wants to integrate that change into their campaign. Perhaps goblins were humanoids but some force is actually shifting them into fey. In which case it would make total sense for the dm to say nothing and when the player goes "wait my charm person doesn't work....it always had before" the dm simply goes "yeah....weird huh".... and now its a mystery in the campaign to solve. Nothing wrong with that either.

This is massive mountain out of a molehill, your the DM, don't be a douche....help guide your players through the changes. Its couldn't be simplier.

I am describing crown of madness.

The explicit text of crown of madness says that any non-humanoid target automatically succeeds on the saving throw. An automatic success causes the spell to achieve nothing. It is entirely wasted.

How is this in any way me inventing a mountain out of a molehill? This is literally the surface text, no interpretation or invention required.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I am describing crown of madness.

The explicit text of crown of madness says that any non-humanoid target automatically succeeds on the saving throw. An automatic success causes the spell to achieve nothing. It is entirely wasted.

But 2024 goblins aren't fey -- SOME 2024 goblins are fey. If the PCs don's attempt to find out if TEHSE goblins are fey, they are taking a calculated risk in casting the spell. At least they will know after the spell is cast (i do believe in telling them that the spell failed because it was a invalid target).

DM - "Psyche! No, that particular two-armed bipedal creature over there is actually an aberration. Your turn is wasted, you should have chosen differently."

PLAYER - "But...the spell worked just fine previously on these things! And you described this one as pretty much exactly the same as all the others. How am I supposed to tell the difference?"

DM - "Trial and error".

PLAYER - "You mean wasted turns.'

DM - "Not my problem. Them's the rules."

 

[Nightfly]

How terrible is Crown of Madness?

And why doesn't it just say "One Humanoid that you can see..." like Hold Person does, if non-humanoids are immune?

Because then there's no chance of a player casting the spell and then having it do absolutely nothing (as others are currently discussing).

And why settle for a spell being merely horrible when it could sabotage the players and ruin their turn? This isn't supposed to be fun, is it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How terrible is Crown of Madness?

Crown of Madness. Level 2 Enchantment (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
Casting Time: Action.
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
One creature that you can see within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Charmed condition for the duration. The creature succeeds automatically if it isn’t Humanoid. A spectral crown appears on the Charmed target's head, and it must use its action before moving on each of its turns to make a melee attack against a creature other than itself that you mentally choose. The target can act normally on its turn if you choose no creature or if no creature is within its reach. The target repeats the save at the end of each of its turns, ending the spell on itself on a success. On your later turns, you must take the Magic action to maintain control of the target, or the spell ends.

... And why doesn't it just say "One Humanoid that you can see..." like Hold Person does, if non-humanoids are immune?

Much less effective than before the 5.5 MM's release; that seems clear.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, yeah, it’s wildly overpriced, but that’s been the case since 2014. In fact, the 2014 version is even worse because the target does get a DC10 save, and takes no damage on a success.

Perhaps they want to de-emphasize poison use. Not very "heroic" for a good guys game, I guess?