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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Oh, sure... if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'd not question that because there's nothing to question-- your opinion is a valid opinion to hold. So I probably did miss your point there.

My post was in response to people who said it was necessary to have errata or a Sage Advice column "fix" the problem, which is what I find unnecessary. You seem to agree with that assertion, but just wish it hadn't been needed in the first place. And I get that. But of course at this point those wishes don't matter, what's done is done-- the wording has already been published so there's nothing to be done about that part of the equation. So instead we need to move onto the next part... which is the "solution". And that means everyone now has two options to "solve" the problem... self-correct the issue or wait for WotC to do it. And I'm of the opinion people should save themselves the time and just "fix" it themselves.

 

[pukunui]

@DEFCON 1 I am capable of resolving issues myself. Thank you very much.

I would still appreciate knowing what Jeremy was thinking, simply because I am the sort of person who likes to know what people were thinking when they wrote something a particular way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dropping a weapon was free in 2014. It isn't now so that only works if the free object interaction can be used to draw or drop a weapon or swap hands. I think the two weapon fighting rules require you to have a second light weapon in your other hand and the nick property tags on from that. So I'm not 100% sure that the absence of mentioning the other hand on the nick specialty makes much difference overall. You have to start off with two weapons, drop one as part of the first attack, swap as an object interaction for your free nick attack. Only fighter types would then be able to draw a third weapon as part of extra attack.

It is one of those things where the intent is very clear, where the solution is adding between two and five words to a sentence, and where the vast majority of people will never try it, let alone have a DM who allows it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

But this has always been an "issue".

IT was perfectly possible to set up a hazardous AOE, then knock an enemy into it, then have the next party member pull them out with a spell or ability, and potentially knock them back in, then another party member does it, then another party member does it...

And yes, it is a little silly, but the alternative is to declare that either all such spells only work once per round, or stopping them from dealing damage when someone goes through them. And, okay, we COULD make every single one of these once per round, from Cloud of Daggers to Spirit Guardians to Wall of Fire to Prismatic Wall to Class auras ect... But it has never been clear it is a mechanical issue, and then you could end up making it so that once the enemy takes the damage, they can move through the area with impunity. Which then would necessitate even more precise wording.

I'm just not sold on the value proposition here, when it is pretty fun to knock an enemy through a Wall of Fire so my ally can knock them back to me.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The Blindsight should make you ignore effects from the Blinded condition.

The Blinded condition should be negated if you can see somehow. As it stand you wold still be under the effect and thus have your Attacks Affected.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The Blindsight should make you ignore effects from the Blinded condition.

The Blinded condition should be negated if you can see somehow. As it stand you wold still be under the effect and thus have your Attacks Affected.

I think I see what you're getting at, but I really feel like it would be an extreme stretch to say "It says you can SEE... but it doesn't say that you don't suffer Disadvantage and grant Advantage!" And have anyone take you seriously.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Its similar to JC when saying Invisible creature still had (dis)advantage benefits vs See Invisibility because the condition wasn't negated or countered.

 

[Pauln6]

But this has always been an "issue".

IT was perfectly possible to set up a hazardous AOE, then knock an enemy into it, then have the next party member pull them out with a spell or ability, and potentially knock them back in, then another party member does it, then another party member does it...

And yes, it is a little silly, but the alternative is to declare that either all such spells only work once per round, or stopping them from dealing damage when someone goes through them. And, okay, we COULD make every single one of these once per round, from Cloud of Daggers to Spirit Guardians to Wall of Fire to Prismatic Wall to Class auras ect... But it has never been clear it is a mechanical issue, and then you could end up making it so that once the enemy takes the damage, they can move through the area with impunity. Which then would necessitate even more precise wording.

I'm just not sold on the value proposition here, when it is pretty fun to knock an enemy through a Wall of Fire so my ally can knock them back to me.

I mean, technically, everything that happens in the same 6 seconds, not quite but nigh on simultaneously, so only taking damage once per round makes perfect sense. I suppose you can take double damage on a crit so maybe a compromise is to say that damage can be taken no more than twice in the same round?

 

[Xetheral]

But this has always been an "issue".

IT was perfectly possible to set up a hazardous AOE, then knock an enemy into it, then have the next party member pull them out with a spell or ability, and potentially knock them back in, then another party member does it, then another party member does it...

And yes, it is a little silly, but the alternative is to declare that either all such spells only work once per round, or stopping them from dealing damage when someone goes through them. And, okay, we COULD make every single one of these once per round, from Cloud of Daggers to Spirit Guardians to Wall of Fire to Prismatic Wall to Class auras ect... But it has never been clear it is a mechanical issue, and then you could end up making it so that once the enemy takes the damage, they can move through the area with impunity. Which then would necessitate even more precise wording.

I'm just not sold on the value proposition here, when it is pretty fun to knock an enemy through a Wall of Fire so my ally can knock them back to me.

Personally I have no problem with how the damage triggered in the 2014 rules (although I thought the spell was somewhat overtuned). Creating an environmental hazard that individual enemies can be knocked into is indeed fun.

By contrast, the 2024 rules incentivize moving the Cleric rather than moving the enemies. That means optimal strategies for the spell involve trying to increase the distance the Cleric can travel on their turn, and again on everyone else's turns, which introduces a sliding scale of ridiculousness that wasn't present in the 2014 rules.

So no, I can't agree that this was always an issue. In the 2014 rules I could indeed approach Spirit Guardians as a tactical challenge, whereas in the 2024 rules my primary concern would be trying to gauge at what point efforts to move the Cleric farther and faster stop being creative and start being ridiculous.

 

[Mistwell]

Agreed!

They are selling $50 dollar books with day one changes and it is not minor edits.

They're all minor edits so far.