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

[mellored]

hit once and select to push with both Crusher and Charger, use push Open Hand Technique and Pushing attack.

i think Open hand requires unarmed and Push mastery requires a weapon. So those won't stack. And 10+10+5 is 25.

Otherwise. Yes. Push 25' off a cliff or into a Cloud of Daggers.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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

I disagree. It received exactly the same amount of discussion and explanation from WOTC as everything else in the playtest packs.

We saw it for what it was. People on this board and elsewhere complained about needing to preserve backwards compatibility (among other things), and we all gave our feedback. My feedback was detailed on this issue, as I presume it was for anyone who was aware of the issue who cared to comment. We were asked our thoughts, and we had the opportunity to speak.

The change did not receive the threshold of support that was needed to be implemented, and blaming WOTC (on this matter at least) is misplaced.

What is not true (the point I was responding to) was that WOTC was uninterested on giving the rogue subclasses a benefit at some point between 3rd and 9th level. We could have had that if the community had bought it. But we, as a whole, didn't.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

i think Open hand requires unarmed and Push mastery requires a weapon. So those won't stack. And 10+10+5 is 25.

Otherwise. Yes. Push 25' off a cliff or into a Cloud of Daggers.

I am using in this scenario Pushing Attack Maneuver, not push weapon mastery.

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree. It received exactly the same amount of discussion and explanation from WOTC as everything else in the playtest packs.

We saw it for what it was. People on this board and elsewhere complained about needing to preserve backwards compatibility (among other things), and we all gave our feedback. My feedback was detailed on this issue, as I presume it was for anyone who was aware of the issue who cared to comment. We were asked our thoughts, and we had the opportunity to speak.

The change did not receive the threshold of support that was needed to be implemented, and blaming WOTC (on this matter at least) is misplaced.

What is not true (the point I was responding to) was that WOTC was uninterested on giving the rogue subclasses a benefit at some point between 3rd and 9th level. We could have had that if the community had bought it. But we, as a whole, didn't.

That's not the point I made.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

What is not true (the point I was responding to) was that WOTC was uninterested on giving the rogue subclasses a benefit at some point between 3rd and 9th level. We could have had that if the community had bought it. But we, as a whole, didn't.

What I hate about the playtest, is that it gives an excuse for turning bad design decisions into the community's fault.

Wizards ignores the community's wishes as it wants - as I recall, Arcane/Divine/Primal spell split got a good reception, but WotC got cold feet and cancelled that so fast, while community hated their Rangers, yet that's what they gave us in the final product, only with less stuff.

Rogue subclass progression is a travesty, and it is WotC's continued choice to make it so. There is no big problem with saying 'if you choose to use an old subclass, then you just don't have a lv6 subclass feature'. A more concrete reason would be that if they had to design those lv6 features when reprinting the old subclasses, oh boy, that sounds like extra work.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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).

Thanks. I do find it kinda funny to know I can now theoretically punch an opponnent almost 0 feet away, at the cost of possible rules debate.

 

[Kobold Stew]

What I hate about the playtest, is that it gives an excuse for turning bad design decisions into the community's fault.

Once the decision is made to follow the 70% threshold (or whatever), then yes, it's on us.* I don't have access to the data they received, and only have the feelgood videos they made summarizing them, and I have no doubt that the numbers were fudged along the way.

But that doesn't absolve the very loud voices who said the sky was falling.

Wizards ignores the community's wishes as it wants - as I recall, Arcane/Divine/Primal spell split got a good reception, but WotC got cold feet and cancelled that so fast, while community hated their Rangers, yet that's what they gave us in the final product, only with less stuff.

I don't remember it this way; the arcane/divine/primal split was good, but (iirc) community outcry was that wizards were somehow losing with this, and the wizard niche needed protection.

Rogue subclass progression is a travesty, and it is WotC's continued choice to make it so. There is no big problem with saying 'if you choose to use an old subclass, then you just don't have a lv6 subclass feature'. A more concrete reason would be that if they had to design those lv6 features when reprinting the old subclasses, oh boy, that sounds like extra work.

I agree that rogues should have had a level 6 subclass feature. I don't accept that the reason they don't it it might have taken effort from the design team.

* Admittedly, we didn't know that they'd be quite so gun-shy of their own good ideas, and that once rejected we'd not see variations. Clarification on that could have helped.

 

[Shardstone]

If you think about it, they're just prepping us for 6E when they fix all this ))

 

[Charlaquin]

* Admittedly, we didn't know that they'd be quite so gun-shy of their own good ideas, and that once rejected we'd not see variations. Clarification on that could have helped.

Yeah, this is an important point. There were a lot of really good ideas that were in need of a little refining early on, that I think polled worse than they would have if we had known that our options were “this, or what we had before.”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think polled worse than they would have if we had known that our options were “this, or what we had before.”

Yeah they didn't just imply but outright stated they were planning to iterate, so there was no reason to believe we wouldn't see 2-3 different new takes. Then they didn't iterate and seemed to finish the entire process quite a bit earlier than they had previously seemed to imply - plus they didn't do any testing of the MM and DMG stuff, despite specifically saying they would quite late on. I can't pretend to be surprised - I specifically said "They won't actually do that" and a bunch of people said "Sure they would, why wouldn't they?" - but it is one several ways in which they cut the testing unexpectedly short.