D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Rules Oddities (Kibbles’ Collected Complaints)

[mamba]

Yeah it doesn't do that. The new See Invisibility just lets you see invisible (and hidden) creatures as if they were visible.

If you wouldn't see them if they were visible then See Invisibility doesn't help you

better, has anyone posted the spell description?

 

[mellored]

which means what exactly, that the person with See Invisibility still does not see me?

What with 3/4 cover and me hiding in it (successful Hide action)?

Then you have 3/4 cover and she sees you.

The hide action, or invisibility spell, will do nothing except give advantage on Initiative.

Everything else is the same.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

The more I learn about 5.5 the more confident I am in my choice not to adopt anything from it.

 

[mellored]

The more I learn about 5.5 the more confident I am in my choice not to adopt anything from it.

I suggest you also read a "list of improvement" thread, and not just read "list of problems" ones.

Reading only the negative gives a skewed perspective.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think it got brought down just because WotC absolutely hates the idea of giving Rogue subclasses a feature at lv6, so this was their way of avoiding that.

This isn't on WOTC, except that they listened to feedback. They offered us standardized subclasses and the fanbase rejected it, complaining about backwards compatibility. This is on the community.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I have a question about new rules:

Let's assume I have an 8th level Warrior of the Open Hand Monk. I have taken feats Charger and Crusher and DM allowed me to use Martial Adept as an Origin Feat to get Superior Technique and picked Pushing Attack.

I am dashing towards an oppponnent as an action, then take Flurry of Blows as a bonus action. I hit once and select to push with both Crusher and Charger, use push Open Hand Technique and Pushing attack. Assuming the enemy fails two saving throws, do all these pushing techniques stack, allowing me to push an enemy 45 feet away? If the enemy is close to something dangerous, like the edge of a roof or spiked wall, can I showe them into it?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have a question about new rules:

Let's assume I have an 8th level Warrior of the Open Hand Monk. I have taken feats Charger and Crusher and DM allowed me to use Martial Adept as an Origin Feat to get Superior Technique and picked Pushing Attack.

I am dashing towards an oppponnent as an action, then take Flurry of Blows as a bonus action. I hit once and select to push with both Crusher and Charger, use push Open Hand Technique and Pushing attack. Assuming the enemy fails two saving throws, do all these pushing techniques stack, allowing me to push an enemy 45 feet away? If the enemy is close to something dangerous, like the edge of a roof or spiked wall, can I showe them into it?

Charger 2024 only applies to an attack taken as part of the Attack Action, AFAIK, which Flurry of Blows is not, so that's out.

I dunno how Crusher has changed for 2024, but the original version lets you move someone 5' 1/turn if you do Bludgeoning damage, so it depends on you doing Bludgeoning damage.

Open Hand Technique does grant a 15' push (STR save) to Flurry of Blows, regardless of usage.

Pushing Attack requires you to hit and then has a 15' (STR save).

So RAW this will really come down to the exact wording on Open Hand Technique, and what the DM sees as the "order of operations here", like, do these things go off sequentially - in which case you'd only get one of them - or simultaneously, in which case three would probably apply.

Re: edge of a roof - definitely - there are plenty of ways to shove people off things in D&D already and I don't think 2024 has changed the rules there.

Re: spiked wall - that'd be fine for Open Hand and Pushing Attack, but Crusher specifies you have to move them into an "unoccupied space" and I don't think many DMs would see a wall as an "unoccupied space", so unless the spikes extended into the square next to the wall, probably you couldn't use that unless you were able to convince the DM that the first 5' movement was from that, and the rest was from the others (which is some pretty hmmm rules-lawyering).

 

[Stormonu]

This isn't on WOTC, except that they listened to feedback. They offered us standardized subclasses and the fanbase rejected it, complaining about backwards compatibility. This is on the community.

The subclass level benefits don’t need to be standardized, they can and should still be keyed to what’s appropriate for the class. Still, it’s shocking rogue subclasses don’t have a 6th level ability, and I’v modified them in my game so they do.

 

[tetrasodium]

This isn't on WOTC, except that they listened to feedback. They offered us standardized subclasses and the fanbase rejected it, complaining about backwards compatibility. This is on the community.

To be fair.. Nobody discussed it while seeing those early packets with standardized progression because wotc never even talked about it as a deliberate thing rather than coincidence before doing so while explaining that they were going to drop it & never once asked survey questions about standardized progression at any point before or after dropping it

 

[Greg K]

I suggest you also read a "list of improvement" thread, and not just read "list of problems" ones.

Reading only the negative gives a skewed perspective.

I am not a fan of many of the changes, but there are definitely some changes that fix both certain issues and loopholes that result in unintended optimizer tricks.