D&D (2024) Command is the Perfect Encapsulation of Everything I Don't Like About 5.5e

[TiQuinn]

In reality that was the core change - putting it into the description of the monster.

In 3.5 immunities were extremely common and were frequently by monster category. So constructs were blanket immune to critical hits and precision damage because whoever wrote them was thinking of golems, meaning that a clockwork monsters (clearly constructs) were immune to getting parts of their clockwork broken.

4e removed these blanket immunities and only handed them out to individual monsters very stingily; fire elementals were immune to fire but most other monsters had either resistance or triggered effects. And whoever designed the monsters took an "if you're not sure then allow it" approach. So I think there's only one group of monsters immune to being knocked prone in the whole MM1 and it's not oozes (it's Gorgons (bull type not Medusa) if anyone was wondering)

It’s the one edition that I haven’t played so it kind of strikes me as strange. I don’t think I ever would’ve ruled that way before.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But not death saves apparently. I mean, it’s fine, it’s just more codification and what I call “lawyerese.”

The rise of "lawyerese" in 5.5 is a big part of my issue with it.

 

[Belen]

This really remimds me on 3 to 3.5 where the spell made exactly the same change.

And I am still very annoyed about spells not getting balanced.

I was going to say the same. These are exactly the type of changes you saw from 3 to 3.5.

3.5 removed tons of flavor from D&D spells and also hyped tactical combat through the roof.

It took me years to realize that original 3e was the better version of the game.

This is one reason I am not moving to 5.5.

 

[el-remmen]

Why is WotC taking D&D in this direction?

The digital push may certainly have something to do with it, but also as I have been cobbling together by own 5E Vanity Frankenstein ruleset and working on tying the rules and features to the lore and style of the setting, I have come to realize that WotC is trying to do the opposite of this - giving generic sans flavor specific rules for those kinds of things because they have no way of knowing what the setting and specific style will be at any given table.

I am not saying that I agree with this or that it even works as an approach (I prefer an opinionated game) but at least it makes it easier to tweak and tie stuff to my own setting/style preference without the baggage of so-called canonical flavor.

I also don't trust WotC to come up with some stuff I'd consider more fun (like open-ended command) but I don't need to, between homebrewing and 3PP stuff I have my pick of stuff, and I don't have to worry about what the "official" books say - that is just one flavor of "generic" D&D - what we play at the table is what matters.

 

[Belen]

OP said gelatinous cube and in reference to 4e where flavor text and narrative control was largely left in the hands of the player using it. You know, encouraging creativity.

So, no flavor then.

My experience is that just defining it as rules means that most people will only think of it as rules and not add their own flavor.

 

[Scribe]

The digital push may certainly have something to do with it

Actually thats almost certainly it.

You cannot code 'you can command it to do anything' into a game with an AI DM.

 

[el-remmen]

Actually thats almost certainly it.

You cannot code 'you can command it to do anything' into a game with an AI DM.

Sure. But that as others have pointed out, the same change was made between 3.0 and 3.5. So there are other reasons that are also an influence.

 

[Scribe]

Sure. But that as others have pointed out, the same change was made between 3.0 and 3.5. So there are other reasons that are also an influence.

Sure, its a design choice, there are valid reasons outside of digital/coding, but how much money are they dumping into VTT?

Its the way, at least they hope.

 

[MarkB]

Actually thats almost certainly it.

You cannot code 'you can command it to do anything' into a game with an AI DM.

You can't code an "any set of 25 words that isn't self-harmful" suggestion either, but they put that in.

 

[Scribe]

You can't code an "any set of 25 words that isn't self-harmful" suggestion either, but they put that in.

Sorry is that the same spell then?