D&D (2024) Emanation damage point and linked exploits:

[mellored]

indeed... but that can lead to a confrontational style of DMing, which many people do not like.

IME, it leads to houserules about what level of munchkinism is valid.

Putting the party up against their evil doppelganger is a classic trope.

 

[Retros_x]

No I did not miss the point, you chose a poor example that undercut the point you were attempting to make....

Love the detailed reasoning here.

To your detailed munchkin playtests: I bet my left most of these won't be an issue at most tables, same like coffelock naughty word in 2014 was not a problem at most tables. For the reasons I've already stated.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The fact that they changed the wording is strong evidence that the intent changed. If they did not intend to permit OAs against allies, why else would they have removed the language that restricted OAs to enemies?

I think a variation of Hanlon's Razor applies. Never attribute to designer intent that which can be adequately explained by WOTC's sloppy writing.

Perkins would probably defend it anyways, because they simply cant admit that they frankly DGAF about writing clear rules because people buy them anyways and excuse their lack of clear terminology and consistent phrasing. Spending time and resources editing and revising language is a waste when your average customer simply doesn't care what the text says and just goes with the gist of how they think it should work. Lord knows since 4E they're allergic to having rules be written like rules.