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

[mellored]

I think this is an important thing that some people (and maybe WotC) didn't quite grasp. That it works like that in BG3 is probably a good thing.

Here's the BG3 errata. After more than a year of playtest, and computer code is not subject to semantics.

Patch Notes

 

[pukunui]

I could go either way on that one.

I think that removing someone's turn completely is not fun.
But I could see it as a mistake.

There is something wrong with either the Stunned condition or the monk’s Stunning Strike feature. The Stunned Condition as written lets you do nothing except move at your normal speed. The Stunning Strike feature involves a Con save. On a failure, you have the Stunned condition. On a success, you can only move at half speed and the next attack against you has advantage. It just feels odd that making your save against Stunning Strike would affect your ability to move when failing it does not.

It’s similar to the issue with Otto’s irresistible dance and charmed creatures, where it’s better for them to fail the save because then it does nothing vs if they succeed. (I think the spell just needs the “creatures immune to being charmed can’t be affected by this spell” clause.)

 

[mellored]

There is something wrong with either the Stunned condition or the monk’s Stunning Strike feature. The Stunned Condition as written lets you do nothing except move at your normal speed. The Stunning Strike feature involves a Con save. On a failure, you have the Stunned condition. On a success, you can only move at half speed and the next attack against you has advantage. It just feels odd that making your save against Stunning Strike would affect your ability to move when failing it does not.

It’s similar to the issue with Otto’s irresistible dance and charmed creatures, where it’s better for them to fail the save because then it does nothing vs if they succeed. (I think the spell just needs the “creatures immune to being charmed can’t be affected by this spell” clause.)

You can fail the save if you prefer.

Though it looks like I might be out voted for this one.

 

[pukunui]

You can fail the save if you prefer.

I’m aware. The issue is that that doesn’t make sense!

 

[Xeviat]

I like the spike growth thing as it makes sense, but as a DM would not allow full control of the grappled resisting foe, dragging beside in the spike growth with the dragger being safe. The dragger would have to make checks and risk entering adjusting depending on the circumstances.

In a movie, if someone tried to drag someone across spikes, there would definitely be a wrestle and the dragger might end up in the spikes too.

I do like the solution for cheese gratering being that you have to cheese grate yourself too, but I'm sure someone would find a way to break that as well.

It's kind of funny to imagine a monk running at full speed and just grinding themselves down to nothing.

 

[Xeviat]

There is something wrong with either the Stunned condition or the monk’s Stunning Strike feature. The Stunned Condition as written lets you do nothing except move at your normal speed. The Stunning Strike feature involves a Con save. On a failure, you have the Stunned condition. On a success, you can only move at half speed and the next attack against you has advantage. It just feels odd that making your save against Stunning Strike would affect your ability to move when failing it does not.

It’s similar to the issue with Otto’s irresistible dance and charmed creatures, where it’s better for them to fail the save because then it does nothing vs if they succeed. (I think the spell just needs the “creatures immune to being charmed can’t be affected by this spell” clause.)

In theory, losing your action slows you if all you want to do is move; you can't use your dash action. If someone who's speed was halved uses the dash action, they're back to normal speed. So, maybe they figured if you move while stunned it's because you're stumbling as fast as you can.

 

[Oofta]

no, but I am pretty fluent in it


sure, I understand the distinction but you made one between move into and enter into, and I would even extend that to moving into vs being moved into. The criteria is whether you are in the square or not, not how you got there.

Whether I get stabbed by a sword, fall into one or run into it does not make a difference to the outcome

If the rules distinguish between the two I would find that pretty stupid, but they are not anyway, so making it a distinction is not even rules-lawyering

Typo on my part. So "move into" vs "moved into". Former is something the creature is doing, latter is done to the creature.

Doesn't really matter, I wouldn't allow it.

 

[Daztur]

Then don’t play the game that way. And don’t play the game with people who play the game that way. And ideally set your expectations up front so as not to disappoint.

Just like I don’t play the game with people who use Leomunds hut or a domed Wall of Force as a battle turret.

Folks are acting like they’re being forced to exploit the game. When did personal responsibility stop being a thing?

And if that isn’t an option because you really like/are married to the player doing this stuff then the DM steps in and just says no. “Sorry the act of taking a persons weight enough to move them in a grapple means they don’t take the damage from the unusual interaction with spike stones”. Or “sorry the act of taking a persons weight to drag them throw the spike stones means you can’t avoid the spikes yourself”. So you still want to proceed.

Who’s actual game in actual play is this destroying? I get that there’s a whole internet cottage industry of influencers trying to make a name for themselves by posting videos coming up with all this guff, and there’s some fun to be had in the theoretical element of that sure. But let’s not pretend this stuff happens without the DM taking a laissez-faire attitude.

I think there's a very real and important distinction to be drawn between:

A. Rules lawyering poorly-worded rules (weapon juggling).

and

B. Using very obvious tactics that would be immediately obvious to any half-way smart in-game character. Dragging a dude through spikes makes perfect sense in character just like casting Heat Metal on someone's armor.

A biiiig swathe of the added stuff that martials get in 5.5e is more forced movement and generally making mocement matter instead of focusing on trading blows face to face. And now we're not supposed to play with people who want to use those abilities in the most basic manner?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think there's a very real and important distinction to be drawn between:

A. Rules lawyering poorly-worded rules (weapon juggling).

and

B. Using very obvious tactics that would be immediately obvious to any half-way smart in-game character. Dragging a dude through spikes makes perfect sense in character just like casting Heat Metal on someone's armor.

A biiiig swathe of the added stuff that martials get in 5.5e is more forced movement and generalky making mocement matter instead of focusing on trading blows face to facd. And now we're not supposed to play with people who want to use those abilities in the most basic manner?

Definitely agree with this. Weapons juggling is awful and rules-lawyer-y and would come up every round pretty much, for extra annoying-ness, whereas dragging through spikes is situational and matches the fiction, even though the numbers might get excessive.

 

[Daztur]

Definitely agree with this. Weapons juggling is awful and rules-lawyer-y and would come up every round pretty much, for extra annoying-ness, whereas dragging through spikes is situational and matches the fiction, even though the numbers might get excessive.

And now the numbers DO get excessive so the DM gets to make a choice between disallowing something that is situational and matches the fiction and letting monks do ludicrous damage. I don't like that.

Similarly Spirit Guardians now gets OPed if people use the deeply broken exploit of "walk around a bit so more critters are within range."

WotC shouldn't be blindsided by either of these. Cheesegrater strategies were VERY well-known by anyone talking about D&D tactics online and the Spirit Guardian strategy was very popular in BG3.

And now we're in the situation where monks giving clerics piggy-back rides can mow down armies.

Yes, I can apply houserule fixes go these issues but these are just the sort of things that a conservative edition like 5.5e should be tightening up, otherwise what is the point of it aside from power creep?