D&D (2024) I have a Monster Manual. AMA!

[FitzTheRuke]

@FitzTheRuke Are there monsters that could be conceivable summoned that restrict ability to take Reactions? If you’ve noticed any. Asking for a friend fighting a 2024 dragon with legendary reactions.

I'm not sure I can answer this satisfactorily, as not only have I not read every single statblock, but I wouldn't remember them if I had. I can more easily check specific stuff than something that broad. But I CAN say that they've stopped with the design choice to replace Legendary Actions with Reactions and have more fully embraced Legendary Actions. So this trouble you're having won't matter as much in the future.

There's monsters that (no save) Charm or Poison or knock down, or that sort of thing, but I don't remember seeing any that get rid of reactions, exactly. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

thanks Fitz! You’re the best

Thanks! I really appreciate it. I've had a bit of a rough week.

 

[TwoSix]

I buy that when I have to be a fire elemental to cast fireball

Why does one thing have to work like another?

The world is vast; rules have exceptions, and those exceptions have their own exceptions. The fun is in making up new narratives!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I buy that when I have to be a fire elemental to cast fireball

No, that's using magic. As someone said above, they go beyond using magic to having it in their core.

Again it's not the only choice they could have made, or necessarily the best one, but it's not without reason. It works "fine" for what the fluff is.

 

[mamba]

Why does one thing have to work like another?

if it helps the diegetic expression of one, it does so for the other too. As you wrote

Because it reinforces their diegetic expression as geomancers?

It's expressing the narrative reality as a mechanic.

The world is vast; rules have exceptions, and those exceptions have their own exceptions. The fun is in making up new narratives!

in other words you made the rationale up to justify WotC’s decision after it was made, not the other way around

I rather work on my own narrative than having to excuse WotC’s decision with one

 

[mamba]

No, that's using magic. As someone said above, they go beyond using magic to having it in their core.

I assume the Geomancer could simply use magic just as well, there is no inherent reason why one uses magic while the other is infused with magic, it’s just an arbitrary decision

 

[TwoSix]

in other words you made the rationale up to justify WotC’s decision after it was made, not the other way around

I rather work on my own narrative than having to excuse WotC’s decision with one

That's your right, of course; you don't have to buy the book. I'm not buying the book either!

It's the inability to recontexualize the role and narratives of the entries in the book that I find irritating.

If a rule change requires you to change your internal narrative as to how the monster operates, then just change your internal narrative! If you absolutely can't, then house rule the monster.

Being mad that a piece of media doesn't fit your internal preconceptions is the worst part of fandom today.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

@FitzTheRuke Are there monsters that could be conceivable summoned that restrict ability to take Reactions? If you’ve noticed any. Asking for a friend fighting a 2024 dragon with legendary reactions.

A Balor turns off Reactions for those it hits with it's sword.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I assume the Geomancer could simply use magic just as well, there is no inherent reason why one uses magic while the other is infused with magic, it’s just an arbitrary decision

Sure, I suppose. What significant difference does it make? Much like spell schools, moster types are a somewhat arbitrary grouping where many things could fit into multiple groups. They pick one based on internal logic of the moment and print it.

I've said before and I'll say again: I don't think the choices they made here are the best, but they are hardly illogical. And ultimately no more or less arbitrary than any other similar decision.

And if you don't like it? Change it. That sort of change is widely expected in D&D, far or less accepted. Only the most immovable player is even likely to notice, IME.

 

[Voadam]

Why. they are essentially synonyms and one doesn't have racial connotations.

Tough doesn't work that well for me. I get they were going for "a tough" but it is not a term I typically think of and my first thought is just "tough" as a description and with even the x2 hp for Cr 1/2 is still CR 1/2 and eventually not that tough when looking at the range of NPC names. Tough does not flow well when I read it in these discussions. A gnomish tough just does not sound as good to my ear as a gnomish thug when I think of a little mugger.

I can see them avoiding any hint of racial association disparagement but my personal image conception of a D&D thug is not racially associated and I get that can be different for others. Heavy might have worked better for me if they wanted to change it but tough just does not do it for me asethetically.

 

[mamba]

That's your right, of course; you don't have to buy the book. I'm not buying the book either!

It's the inability to recontexualize the role and narratives of the entries in the book that I find irritating.

It’s not that I cannot, it’s that I do not think there was a good reason to do so, and I am not particularly liking the option they chose

Being mad that a piece of media doesn't fit your internal preconceptions is the worst part of fandom today.

I am not mad, I am just disagreeing with their decision. It’s easy enough to ignore to be essentially irrelevant