D&D (2024) D&D 2024 PHB errata thread +

[DEFCON 1]

I dunno... the two-weapon fighting with a juggling one hand and the picking up and moving the cleric with spirit guardians around the battlefield are two instances to me of ridiculous white-room theorizing of players trying to game the system, all forgetting they have to do this in front of a Dungeon Master that is probably going to tell them to go pound sand if they try it.

These are both silly concepts that only the most abject squeezing-blood-from-a-stone types of players would ever actually think up and try to do at the table because the rules don't say they can't. It's no different than "Bag of rats" and other somesuch foolishness. But the problem is... most of these specific types of players are going to being playing at tables of similar like-minded DMs, who will either tell them to get out of here with those ideas... or they're going to just F those players over themselves by futzing the opportunistic rules back in the other direction. At the end of the day, it's probably going to end up being a self-correcting issue and WotC won't actually need to address it.

Now granted, they might anyway (through Sage Advice or errata) just to shut people up who will continually complain that it's possible (even if no one actually does it)... but even if they never do, how many tables are actually going to see this silliness? I know for a fact that it'll never happen at mine and I don't need a response from Crawford for it to never occur.

 

[Xetheral]

I dunno... the two-weapon fighting with a juggling one hand and the picking up and moving the cleric with spirit guardians around the battlefield are two instances to me of ridiculous white-room theorizing of players trying to game the system, all forgetting they have to do this in front of a Dungeon Master that is probably going to tell them to go pound sand if they try it.

These are both silly concepts that only the most abject squeezing-blood-from-a-stone types of players would ever actually think up and try to do at the table because the rules don't say they can't. It's no different than "Bag of rats" and other somesuch foolishness. But the problem is... most of these specific types of players are going to being playing at tables of similar like-minded DMs, who will either tell them to get out of here with those ideas... or they're going to just F those players over themselves by futzing the opportunistic rules back in the other direction. At the end of the day, it's probably going to end up being a self-correcting issue and WotC won't actually need to address it.

Now granted, they might anyway (through Sage Advice or errata) just to shut people up who will continually complain that it's possible (even if no one actually does it)... but even if they never do, how many tables are actually going to see this silliness? I know for a fact that it'll never happen at mine and I don't need a response from Crawford for it to never occur.

Sure, grappling the cleric to move Spirit Guardians around is ridiculous, but what about other ways to maximize the number of creatures hurt by the spell, such as using other forced movement effects on the Cleric, or the party focusing on boosting the Cleric's speed? Are either of those also ridiculous, or just good tactics? At what point does it cross the line? Maybe speed buff stacking is ok, but putting the cleric on the Paladin's Find Greater Steed aerial mount and buffing the mount crosses the line? What about using multiple mounts? Or how about vehicles driven on an another character's turn?

The challenge of figuring out where the line between clever and ridiculous is at a particular table (and making sure one stays well on the not-ridiculous side of it) is a very different kind of challenge than figuring out how best to employ your character's abilities to solve tactical problems. Personally, I find that the former challenge detracts from the fun of the latter challenge. Abilities like the new Spirit Guardians, whose rules emphasize the former challenge by easily allowing ridiculous results, thus detract from my gaming experience even though I will do my utmost to ensure that I never use the ability in a way that my table would consider ridiculous.

 

[Weiley31]

And Samsung sold a phone for $849.99 that exploded so much it was discontinued after two months.

I remember that. Twas bat-guano insane.

 

[Weiley31]

then have the fighter or the monk pick up the cleric and carry/drag them around to deal damage again.

moving the cleric with spirit guardians around the battlefield are two instances to me of ridiculous white-room theorizing of players trying to game the system, all forgetting they have to do this in front of a Dungeon Master that is probably going to tell them to go pound sand if they try it.

HR: So, we've been getting a lot of reports from the Cleric that you (checks form) keep on grabbing them all the time. Like your trying to swing them around like a sword going "DO THE SPIRIT THINGIE!!!!" You know anything about that?

Barbarian: Why yes, we were fighting The World Eater! Truly a most powerful weapon was needed to be used against such a deadly foe!

HR: You are aware there's Hero Guild policies against just grabbing your fellow adventurers, without consent, to use them as a (checks form) "Spiritual Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!" You remember saying anything like that?

Barbarian: Who told you that!?!I-I never said that! Was it the Paladin? He's just mad cuz I'm a godless heathen!

HR: Well he has to be telling the truth, otherwise he would've committed an evil act by doing that and lose his Paladin privileges. I'm sorry Thundaar the Barbarian, but I'm gonna have to revoke your guild license. Handover the Milojnir.


Barbarian proceeds to sob and cry as his player character sheet is torn in half by HR

 

[Weiley31]

It does if you Telekenitic pull them into it.

This is the reason why Spirit Guardians is my fave Force power for Jedi.

 

[Stalker0]

No, they don't! They just require it to be a different weapon. They have removed the "other hand" wording. That's why this is a potential issue. I don't expect we'll get actual errata for it, but I would like some sage advice from Jeremy to see what his intent was at the very least.

I am all for getting RAW clarified.

But let me ask, does anyone in their heart actually believe TWF is intended to work if you attack with a weapon, swap it with another in the same hand, and attack again? Does anyone actually believe the designers meant for that to be a thing?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure, grappling the cleric to move Spirit Guardians around is ridiculous, but what about other ways to maximize the number of creatures hurt by the spell, such as using other forced movement effects on the Cleric, or the party focusing on boosting the Cleric's speed? Are either of those also ridiculous, or just good tactics? At what point does it cross the line? Maybe speed buff stacking is ok, but putting the cleric on the Paladin's Find Greater Steed aerial mount and buffing the mount crosses the line? What about using multiple mounts? Or how about vehicles driven on an another character's turn?

The challenge of figuring out where the line between clever and ridiculous is at a particular table (and making sure one stays well on the not-ridiculous side of it) is a very different kind of challenge than figuring out how best to employ your character's abilities to solve tactical problems. Personally, I find that the former challenge detracts from the fun of the latter challenge. Abilities like the new Spirit Guardians, whose rules emphasize the former challenge by easily allowing ridiculous results, thus detract from my gaming experience even though I will do my utmost to ensure that I never use the ability in a way that my table would consider ridiculous.

I think you answered your own question.

Where are these lines and when are they crossed? Each table is going to figure that out for themselves. As they should. Every table is different, every table may or may not have players trying to come up with these goofy methodologies for maximizing success. And thus there's no standard answer to be found that will apply to everybody.

Which means wanting or needing WotC to write and publish "errata" so that they tell us where these lines could be seems unnecessary. If they eventually do it, fine... but I don't think anyone actually needs them to do so and I think it's better off that everybody understands that and thinks in those directions. Each table be able to take care of their own issues... not sit on their hands waiting for WotC to fix it.

 

[Queer Venger]

I’m sure we’ll get something soon.

thank you for compiling this.
I suspect we won't get an official errata doc from Beyond until after the general release

 

[Xetheral]

I think you answered your own question.

Where are these lines and when are they crossed? Each table is going to figure that out for themselves. As they should. Every table is different, every table may or may not have players trying to come up with these goofy methodologies for maximizing success. And thus there's no standard answer to be found that will apply to everybody.

Which means wanting or needing WotC to write and publish "errata" so that they tell us where these lines could be seems unnecessary. If they eventually do it, fine... but I don't think anyone actually needs them to do so and I think it's better off that everybody understands that and thinks in those directions. Each table be able to take care of their own issues... not sit on their hands waiting for WotC to fix it.

I think you missed the point of my post. I was explaining why I personally have a problem with how Spirit Guardians is written, even though neither I nor any of the players at my table would use a tactic the rest of us considered ridiculous.

In other words, even though our self-restraint means that the ridiculous outcomes will never show up in play, I can't agree with your assertion that this is a "self-correcting" issue. The very fact that the effectiveness of the spell is in practice bounded by our self-restraint rather than the mechanics is itself the issue I have with how the spell is written.

I can thus agree with you that it's easy to simply agree in principle not to use "such foolishness" while still objecting to how the spell's current text transforms what could have been a fun (for me) tactical challenge into a less-fun (for me) exercise in navigating an idiosyncratic boundary between creativity and ridiculousness.

 

[mellored]

Just going to point out that spending your action to drag the Cleric is going to do less damage than attacking, and that damage will be spread out instead of focused.

Now, if your against a horde of low level radiant vulnerable undead, the go for it.

But it's a niche tactic.

And for typical use case, the new rules work better than the old ones.