Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9436885" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Oh, you were talking about the Dual-Wielding with a shield. Yeah, clearly not intended and I wouldn't allow it. Most players wouldn't think it was allowed either. This is very clearly a case of a rule meant to allow one reasonable thing, being used as a loophole in a different situation. Honestly, it would be easy to miss in my opinion. I certainly never thought about it until people brought it up with the book being released. I thought you were refering to the other weapon juggling "exploits".Did I suddenly think they were fine? No. Have you literally changed every single rule you wrote that anyone called out as being too powerful? No, you haven't. And your only issue with Giant Insect is that it bypasses Legendary Resistance. You wouldn't have an issue with it stopping The third troll that the party is fighting along with his hobgoblin archer back-up, would you? And the designers wanted it to be an attack that does damage, and stop movement. They might have looked at that, and figured that with the design changes they have made to legendary monsters, it was good, but not game breaking. Or they might have copied a monster statblock, and not even considered it being used against legendary monsters, which is a little sloppy, but I'm not sure I can blame them. I usually end up with only two to three legendary monsters in a multi-year campaign, usually just one at the end. Additionally, even legendary monster fights at WoTC have minions and other monsters in the group, so maybe they didn't see it as a problem if the party could lock down the monster for one turn. Even more additionally, reducing a monster's speed to zero is only bad if you end up out of melee reach, and the general consensus I've been seeing is that melee is better and more desirable than ranged now, making that even less likely. The Sentinel Feat. It now allows the attack you make as a reaction using it to be an opportunity attack, meaning it applies the zero movement buff (I guess it didn't before, technically) so we have to remember that locking an enemy to zero movement with a single attack roll and no save.... does already exist. And it is interesting that you mention high level spells, because LOW level spells do allow this. Glimmering Smite, Blinding Smite, Ray of Sickness and I'm sure there are others. So... are all of those also problem spells? Are those also unintentional?You need to read the dragon more carefully. It triggers on a legendary resistance... or being hit with a ranged attack. Also, "a few spells" is pretty disingenuous. While the more than 30 ft might still cancel the Charm Monster (unless the spell's range was increased) it doesn't prevent the Dissonant Whispers which is 6d6 psychic and a forced movement, or the Cloudkill which is 8d8 and provides heavy obscurement meaning that nothing can see the dragon to target it with ranged attacks. Is it less effective? Sure, but since it can level that playing field with a single action to make it so the party can't hit it either, I'm not exactly worried about Giant Insect dominating that fight.So you have seen the 2025 Monster Manual and can confirm that the web bolt ability does not exist on the Giant Spider in that book?Ah, that was not how it was explained to me. It still doesn't activate again at the start of the creature's turn, so it will usually end up being half the damage it used to be.</blockquote>

Verification