D&D 5E (2024) Not a fan of the new Eldritch Knight

[Ancoulainn]

It got published. I dont think to many peopke use it or are even aware it exists.

Hell I own it. An OP class doesnt make the enchanter bad.

Taking to long to get to level 20 is a bigger issue but thats not unique to enchanter.

All optimizers know it and use it. It's pretty common. And pretty much every tier list mentions it as the top Wizard subclass, so it's pretty hard to not have heard of it. If you've ever watched a video by Treantmonk, the Dungeon Dudes, DnD Shorts, Pack Tactics, or anybody else on YouTube about the Wizard subclasses, they have told you about it and why it's by far is the best Wizard subclass.

 

[TheSword]

There are plenty of interactions you can exploit. For example, cast Suggestion on a Dragon, cast Nystul's Magic Aura on the Dragon, and then cast Planar Binding on the Dragon. Or use Magic Jar to become a Duergar Despot to avoid Exhaustion when using Convergent Future. The oldfashioned Wish-Simulacrum-loop resulting in resistances against all damage types for the entire party. Infinite Magen as a Necromancer Wizard as long as you find enough quicksilver. The list goes on. If you want to break the game and if you're into powergaming, there's always a way. And as long as it's discussed with the DM beforehand - as everything should - it's all cool.

This stuff makes me laugh so hard. All the exploits that rely on overcoming a clear and obviously necessary restriction.

Magic Aura is not a debuff to make folks vulnerable. We know that because your recipient has to be willing.

Being compelled to do something by enchantments is really not willing.
Being forced to do something by threat of violence or blackmail is not willing.
Instead this is coercion, by definition is involuntary and it goes to a very dark place, where angels fear to tread.

 

[Ancoulainn]

This stuff makes me laugh so hard. All the exploits that rely on overcoming a clear and obviously necessary restriction.

Magic Aura is not a debuff to make folks vulnerable. We know that because your recipient has to be willing.

Being compelled to do something by enchantments is really not willing.
Being forced to do something by threat of violence or blackmail is not willing.
Instead this is coercion, by definition is involuntary and it goes to a very dark place, where angels fear to tread.

You are correct that the target has to be willing. But that the target of the Suggestion spell would not count as willing is an interpretation if the suggestion is "Surrender and willingly give into all spells I cast on you". Suggestion just requires that the objective is achievable. It is true that the Suggestion spell does not say that the creature would be "willing" and there is definitely room for your interpretation and, quite honestly, I would suggest going that route. But RAW, the objective to willingly give into a spell is achievable which is the only limitation Suggestion places.

However, that only affects the "Planar-Binding"-exploit with Dragons and creatures as such. I don't need to use Nystul's to use Planar Binding on Celestials, Elementals, Fey, or Fiends and there are plenty of spells to summon those. So, instead of a band of pet dragons, I get myself a band of pet Barlgura that I summon with Summon Greater Demon as early as level 9. All I need is a little more than one hour of time, a 3rd level, a 4th level, and a 5th level spell slot with the opportunity to upcast both Summon Greater Demon and Planar Binding at later levels. And this is not only RAW but also RAI because Planar Binding says "Typically, the creature is first summoned into the center of the inverted version of the Magic Circle spell to trap it while this spell is cast."

The Magic Jar-Duergar Despot exploit also works out of the box because it just requires the target to be humanoid. You just need to find a Duergar Despot if you can't use Nystul's and Polymorph for this. Similarly, Infinite Magen just requires the material component which the DM can make rare if the Necromancer wants to go that route, but then there's Wish. The Simulacrum-Wish-loop requires intervention because there is no indication in the text that the Simulacrum cannot cast Wish. It just says that the Simulacrum cannot cast Simulacrum and as long as Simulacrums can cast Wish, material components are no problem.

And quite honestly, the hubris of all people who argue based on RAI without ever having talked to Jeremy Crawford & Co or heard them say as much, especially when using the word "obvious", make my eyes roll. Without hearing as much from the creators, nobody knows what is intended and it's all just conjecture. All we can objectively do is judge by RAW with the necessary reading comprehension. And it's not a respectable argument either because arguing based on RAI is just a cop-out. It's your table and your the DM because if not, it's neither your circus nor your monkeys. But if it is, you can change and alter the rules however you want, ban spells, change spells, change spell interactions, or whatever else you feel like. You just need to take responsibility for that decision and communicate with the players accordingly rather than saying "obviously unintended". Just say from the start that Nystul's Magic Aura is changed and has the range "self" instead of "touch". Rule that Create Magen can only be cast a certain number of times and base it on the Intelligence modifier or Proficiency bonus or whatever other number you prefer, potentially once if you like or ban the spell entirely. Determine that Simulacrums cannot cast Wish. There's no need to argue with RAI; just say what the rules are. Seriously, whenever I hear RAI or "obviously un/intended", I immediately lose respect and leave the table because if the DM can't even pull up his pants, establish his rules, and say "I rule that xyz", I'm in the wrong room. Fortunately, I haven't met an experienced DM yet who has that issue and it's only the younger or newer ones, especially the ones who want to be like Matt Mercer and become professionals and/or streamers, who say something like that.

 

[TheSword]

You are correct that the target has to be willing. But that the target of the Suggestion spell would not count as willing is an interpretation if the suggestion is "Surrender and willingly give into all spells I cast on you". Suggestion just requires that the objective is achievable. It is true that the Suggestion spell does not say that the creature would be "willing" and there is definitely room for your interpretation and, quite honestly, I would suggest going that route. But RAW, the objective to willingly give into a spell is achievable which is the only limitation Suggestion places.

However, that only affects the "Planar-Binding"-exploit with Dragons and creatures as such. I don't need to use Nystul's to use Planar Binding on Celestials, Elementals, Fey, or Fiends and there are plenty of spells to summon those. So, instead of a band of pet dragons, I get myself a band of pet Barlgura that I summon with Summon Greater Demon as early as level 9. All I need is a little more than one hour of time, a 3rd level, a 4th level, and a 5th level spell slot with the opportunity to upcast both Summon Greater Demon and Planar Binding at later levels. And this is not only RAW but also RAI because Planar Binding says "Typically, the creature is first summoned into the center of the inverted version of the Magic Circle spell to trap it while this spell is cast."

The Magic Jar-Duergar Despot exploit also works out of the box because it just requires the target to be humanoid. You just need to find a Duergar Despot if you can't use Nystul's and Polymorph for this. Similarly, Infinite Magen just requires the material component which the DM can make rare if the Necromancer wants to go that route, but then there's Wish. The Simulacrum-Wish-loop requires intervention because there is no indication in the text that the Simulacrum cannot cast Wish. It just says that the Simulacrum cannot cast Simulacrum and as long as Simulacrums can cast Wish, material components are no problem.

And quite honestly, the hubris of all people who argue based on RAI without ever having talked to Jeremy Crawford & Co or heard them say as much, especially using the word "obvious" make me laugh. Without hearing as much from the creators, nobody knows what is intended and it's all just conjecture. All we can objectively do is judge by RAW with the necessary reading comprehension. And it's not a respectable argument either because arguing based on RAI is just a cop-out, because it's your table and your the DM. You can change and alter the rules however you want, ban spells, change spells, change spell interactions, or whatever else you feel like. You just need to take responsibility for that decision and communicate with the players accordingly rather than saying "obviously unintended". Just say from the start that Nystul's Magic Aura is changed and has the range "self" instead of "touch". Rule that Create Magen can only be cast a certain number of times and base it on the Intelligence modifier or Proficiency bonus or whatever other number you prefer, potentially once if you like or ban the spell entirely. Determine that Simulacrums cannot cast Wish. There's no need to argue with RAI; just say what the rules are. Seriously, whenever I hear RAI or "obviously un/intended", I immediately lose respect and leave the table because if the DM can't even pull up his pants, establish his rules, and say "I rule that xyz", I'm in the wrong room. Fortunately, I haven't met an experienced DM yet who has that issue and it's only the younger or newer ones who say something like that.

I respectfully disagree. Suggestion tells people what course of action to take not how to feel about thanking it. It doesn’t change how a person thinks, their beliefs, or their likes or dislikes. Only a course of action.

The second part of your statement is trying to change how the person thinks which is not a course of action and therefore not covered by the spell. Any use of enchantment to get someone to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do is by definition overriding someone’s willingness. If they were willing you wouldn’t need the enchantment.

This isn’t a rules as intended question. It’s another case of folks expanding spells power beyond their limits, through what they think is clever wordplay to somehow ‘win’ D&D. Hubris is probably a word best reserved for the mage trying to planar bind two dragons.

 

[Ancoulainn]

I respectfully disagree. Suggestion tells people what course of action to take not how to feel about thanking it. It doesn’t change how a person thinks, their beliefs, or their likes or dislikes. Only a course of action.

Actually, that is exactly what Enchantment spells do and what the Charmed condition is. The Charmed condition says "The charmer has Advantage on any ability check to interact with you socially." which is identical with how the Influence Action works with Friendly targets which says "You have Advantage on an ability check to influence a Friendly creature." If you cast Suggestion or otherwise charm a target in combat, it changes its disposition towards you from hostile to friendly. Ergo, it clearly changes how the target thinks. That's the whole point of Enchantment spells.

The second part of your statement is trying to change how the person thinks which is not a course of action and therefore not covered by the spell. Any use of enchantment to get someone to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do is by definition overriding someone’s willingness. If they were willing you wouldn’t need the enchantment.

Which is not necessary as written. RAW, the objective has to be achievable. Now, you can get all philosophical and debate whether you can make yourself willing or make yourself believe something and you may have a point here. But that point is irrelevant if it doesn't come from DnD-rules and definitions. This is a fantasy game.

Regardless, there is a different argument for your position in there that requires only careful reading and no philosophical discussion. The Influence Action differentiates between willing, unwilling, and hesitant creatures. "Willing" is defined as "your urging aligns with the monster’s desires" and due to the previously mentioned similarity between Charmed and Friendly, you can deduce that a Charmed target isn't considered willing to give into Nystul's unless that coincidentally aligns with its desires.

However, you can also turn that around and say that the desire of a charmed monster under the effect of Suggestion is to comply with the suggestion because it says "The Charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability." And that would make the monster willing according to the definition in the PHB because its desires now align with the urging.

But you could also argue based on Crawford's ruling with regards to the Dissonant Whispers-Booming Blade interaction. Booming Blade states "If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends." and Crawford has said that the movement from Dissonant Whispers is not willing but forced movement, but that's unofficial and therefore not a good argument.

In short, if you can't argue based on the definitions given by the DnD-rules, you don't have an argument. For example, "Any use of enchantment to get someone to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do is by definition overriding someone’s willingness." is found nowhere in the DnD-rules in therefore irrelevant, even if true.

This isn’t a rules as intended question. It’s another case of folks expanding spells power beyond their limits, through what they think is clever wordplay to somehow ‘win’ D&D. Hubris is probably a word best reserved for the mage trying to planar bind two dragons.

It's not clever wordplay. It's accurate reading paired with creativity. You can certainly argue whether someone can be forced to be willing and then have a table discussion over psychological phenomena like the Stockholm Syndrome and beyond, but as interesting as that may be, it misses the point if it's not in the rules and no "obvious", "common sense", "RAI", or whatever can change that. Only a DM-ruling can.

It also has nothing to do with "winning DnD". A creative mind wants to see what is possible with the tools they're given beyond the obvious. Given the power of certain spells and features which allow parties do annihilate villains like Strahd or Vecna in a single round, if "winning" were the objective, you wouldn't need any of this.

But regardless, so, they instead Planar Bind two or more Fiends, Celestials, Elementals, or Fey to avoid the discussion. And if you don't encounter such a creature, you just summon it. You can upcast Summon Greater Demon to summon a CR 10 Fiend, so a Yochlol works. And then you use Planar Binding on them. Not quite as strong as an Adult Dragon individually, but it's the same CR as a Young Red Dragon. And Yochlol can shapeshift into a humanoid form which can also be quite convenient. And if you upcast Planar Binding to increase its duration, you can do that every day as well and get yourself a little Yochlol army which may be better for you than just two dragons. And for earlier levels, you just use Barlgura.

 

[TheSword]

Actually, that is exactly what Enchantment spells do and what the Charmed condition is. The Charmed condition says "The charmer has Advantage on any ability check to interact with you socially." which is identical with how the Influence Action works with Friendly targets which says "You have Advantage on an ability check to influence a Friendly creature." If you cast Suggestion or otherwise charm a target in combat, it changes its disposition towards you from hostile to friendly. Ergo, it clearly changes how the target thinks. That's the whole point of Enchantment spells.

Which is not necessary as written. RAW, the objective has to be achievable. Now, you can get all philosophical and debate whether you can make yourself willing or make yourself believe something and you may have a point here. But that point is irrelevant if it doesn't come from DnD-rules and definitions. This is a fantasy game.

Regardless, there is a different argument for your position in there that requires only careful reading and no philosophical discussion. The Influence Action differentiates between willing, unwilling, and hesitant creatures. "Willing" is defined as "your urging aligns with the monster’s desires" and due to the previously mentioned similarity between Charmed and Friendly, you can deduce that a Charmed target isn't considered willing to give into Nystul's unless that coincidentally aligns with its desires.

However, you can also turn that around and say that the desire of a charmed monster under the effect of Suggestion is to comply with the suggestion because it says "The Charmed target pursues the suggestion to the best of its ability." And that would make the monster willing according to the definition in the PHB because its desires now align with the urging.

In short, if you can't argue based on the definitions given by the DnD-rules, you don't have an argument. For example, "Any use of enchantment to get someone to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do is by definition overriding someone’s willingness." is found nowhere in the DnD-rules in therefore irrelevant, even if true.

It's not clever wordplay. It's accurate reading paired with creativity. You can certainly argue whether someone can be forced to be willing and then have a table discussion over psychological phenomena like the Stockholm Syndrome and beyond, but as interesting as that may be, it misses the point if it's not in the rules and no "obvious", "common sense", "RAI", or whatever can change that. Only a DM-ruling can.

It also has nothing to do with "winning DnD". A creative mind wants to see what is possible with the tools they're given beyond the obvious. Given the power of certain spells and features which allow parties do annihilate villains like Strahd or Vecna in a single round, if "winning" were the objective, you wouldn't need any of this.

But regardless, so, they instead Planar Bind two or more Fiends, Celestials, Elementals, or Fey to avoid the discussion. And if you don't encounter such a creature, you just summon it. You can upcast Summon Greater Demon to summon a CR 10 Fiend, so a Yochlol works. And then you use Planar Binding on them. Not quite as strong as an Adult Dragon individually, but it's the same CR as a Young Red Dragon. And Yochlol can shapeshift into a humanoid form which can also be quite convenient. And if you upcast Planar Binding to increase its duration, you can do that every day as well and get yourself a little Yochlol army which may be better for you than just two dragons. And for earlier levels, you just use Barlgura.

The mechanical effect may be the same between Friendly Attitude and Charm. However one is based on how a creature feels towards you and one brute forces this to over ride this against the persons will. That’s why they get a save against Charm Person. I dont understand how you can think that an effect that a person makes a save against somehow makes them willing. You haven’t changed how they think, you have bypassed it. We know this isn’t the case because when the spell ends the persons normal actions reassert and they don’t forget what they have done unless other magic is used to erase this.

I suspect we’re never going to agree on this, though, It’s a play style that’s an anathema to me. Luckily it is extremely rare outside of forums as it is usually impossible to find DMs willing to tolerate unlimited Magen, wish simulacrum loop or pet bound dragons. Such DMs are rare as hens teeth. However somehow we end up in this discussions as if these play styles are par for the course. Most DMs will say, you’ve ran out of quicksilver, or someone cast dispel magic, or there are no Duergar Stonelords to hand. Or possibly just… stop that at this table please.

These exploits normally rely on the assumption that if it is in a book that it is in the DMs game and lets be honest that is almost never the case. They’re the TTRPG equivalent of a computer game glitch. When it’s between you, your playstation and God, who cares if you get infinite XP. When this stuff hits a live table though it evaporates pretty quick because people just don’t tolerate it, unless they either enjoy the thought exercise of this too or are inexperienced. Either way it doesn’t unusually short lived.

You can absolutely do whatever you like at your table but I guess a lot of DMs - particularly new - will come to forums searching to see if something is accepted and normal and it’s really important that they see dissenting opinions and don’t feel obliged to accept this stuff as expected.

Using enchantments to override the Willing Creature requirement is definitely on the list of things DMs can push back on without feeling like they are being unfair.

 

[Ancoulainn]

The mechanical effect may be the same between Friendly Attitude and Charm. However one is based on how a creature feels towards you and one brute forces this to over ride this against the persons will. That’s why they get a save against Charm Person. I dont understand how you can think that an effect that a person makes a save against somehow makes them willing. You haven’t changed how they think, you have bypassed it.

Where in the rules does it say that the creature isn't willing after failing the save? From what passages in the rules or the glossary is any of that?

We know this isn’t the case because when the spell ends the persons normal actions reassert and they don’t forget what they have done unless other magic is used to erase this.

Which is not an argument for your point. They changed and then they changed back. There's nothing stating that they never changed. Quite the contrary actually since it states that their disposition towards you changed. Attitude, thinking, and memory aren't the same.

I suspect we’re never going to agree on this, though, It’s a play style that’s an anathema to me.

Agreement isn't necessary. We're not playing at the same table nor will we ever. So. you can roll your eyes and laugh as much as you like and so can I. It hurts no one.

Luckily it is extremely rare outside of forums as it is usually impossible to find DMs willing to tolerate unlimited Magen, wish simulacrum loop or pet bound dragons.

How do you know? Do you have official statistics or surveyed DnD-groups? All but one group I ever played in loved that kind of stuff, including the DM, and in that one outlier, it was the "I want to do this professionally"-type and that's a red flag to begin with.

Such DMs are rare as hens teeth. However somehow we end up in this discussions as if these play styles are par for the course.

Why would they not be? It's within the rules. And what is wrong with creativity?

Most DMs will say, you’ve ran out of quicksilver, or someone cast dispel magic, or there are no Duergar Stonelords to hand. Or possibly just… stop that at this table please.

If that is established at session zero, it's cool. If you fail at communicating expectations, be it as a player or DM, that's on you. DnD is a collaborative game that builds on communication. If the DM doesn't establish the rules or the player doesn't communicate what they want to do early on, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

Of course, somebody can cast Dispel Magic which is generally my solution if players go further than what I deem reasonable for the campaign and they know that upfront that encounters dynamically adjust to them.

And of course, you can say that they ran out of material components until Wish opens that door again and then you start over, so thinking ahead is better. If you play to that level, of course.

These exploits normally rely on the assumption that if it is in a book that it is in the DMs game and lets be honest that is almost never the case.

To lay the ground rules, you have session 0. If the DM doesn't do that, then everything in the book is in the game. That's not an assumption, but what playing DND 5.24e means if you're not more specific. Laying out the rules is one of the main jobs of the DM. If they don't do it, that's on them.

What I see more here is your expectation that everyone has to think like you or they're not en par. You act like the people who want to play RAW have to clarify, not the people who want to divert from RAW. That's backwards.

They’re the TTRPG equivalent of a computer game glitch.

Having a Fiend pet via Planar Binding is intended. There's a spell for it and the spell says exactly that.

When it’s between you, your playstation and God, who cares if you get infinite XP. When this stuff hits a live table though it evaporates pretty quick because people just don’t tolerate it, unless they either enjoy the thought exercise of this too or are inexperienced.

Again, the session 0 thing.

Either way it doesn’t unusually short lived.

Again, where is the data?

You can absolutely do whatever you like at your table but I guess a lot of DMs - particularly new - will come to forums searching to see if something is accepted and normal and it’s really important that they see dissenting opinions and don’t feel obliged to accept this stuff as expected.

Again, have a session 0, be honest, open, and discuss what everyone expects at the table, so you may be forward knowing whether it's a good fit for everyone. You can openly say that you don't want min-maxers or optimizers at the table. That's entirely ok. You just don't want to advertise your campaign with a long list of don'ts or people might be less likely to sign up. It's better to leave that for session 0 when they could figure out that you're actually a cool guy.

And dissenting opinions are great. I produced an argument for your position myself. They just have be founded in the rules or they're worthless.

Ultimately, every DM has to develop their own style. Reading in forums on what other people think is pointless. We all have opinions. That's nothing new and you can look up anything and find dissent. But neither popularity nor dissent form the basis for an argument. Learning to make a decision, however, does.

Using enchantments to override the Willing Creature requirement is definitely on the list of things DMs can push back on without feeling like they are being unfair.

A DM who established the rules can "push back" on anything. But if they come back later and use arguments that aren't founded in the rules, that's on them and they're creating the issue, not the player who went with RAW. I could see how an experienced player could take advantage of an inexperienced DM and that's a different story, but when a DM has 10+ years of experience, he needs to know his stuff and establish the rules in session 0. If they don't, everything that fallows is on them.

And if it's established early on, it's always fair. If you don't and just come to it after the fact without having anything in the rules to support you, it's never fair. Players build their characters with the mechanics in mind and if you don't tell them before level 10 about your stance on willingness without having anything in the rules to back you up - which you don't - then it's you and only you who's the problem. That's what brings toxicity to a table. Establishing the rules in session 0, whatever they are, avoids that and is key.

If inexperienced DMs should learn one thing, then it's having a session 0 and discussing with all the players their expectations openly and honestly and what they want to do to create a culture of communication. If that's done, everything else falls into place, regardless of what rules have been established.

 

[TheSword]

Where in the rules does it say that the creature isn't willing after failing the save? From what passages in the rules or the glossary is any of that?

Which is not an argument for your point. They changed and then they changed back. There's nothing stating that they never changed. Quite the contrary actually since it states that their disposition towards you changed. Attitude, thinking, and memory aren't the same.

Agreement isn't necessary. We're not playing at the same table nor will we ever. So. you can roll your eyes and laugh as much as you like and so can I. It hurts no one.

How do you know? Do you have official statistics or surveyed DnD-groups? All but one group I ever played in loved that kind of stuff, including the DM, and in that one outlier, it was the "I want to do this professionally"-type and that's a red flag to begin with.

Why would they not be? It's within the rules. And what is wrong with creativity?

If that is established at session zero, it's cool. If you fail at communicating expectations, be it as a player or DM, that's on you. DnD is a collaborative game that builds on communication. If the DM doesn't establish the rules or the player doesn't communicate what they want to do early on, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

Of course, somebody can cast Dispel Magic which is generally my solution if players go further than what I deem reasonable for the campaign and they know that upfront that encounters dynamically adjust to them.

And of course, you can say that they ran out of material components until Wish opens that door again and then you start over, so thinking ahead is better. If you play to that level, of course.

To lay the ground rules, you have session 0. If the DM doesn't do that, then everything in the book is in the game. That's not an assumption, but what playing DND 5.24e means if you're not more specific. Laying out the rules is one of the main jobs of the DM. If they don't do it, that's on them.

What I see more here is your expectation that everyone has to think like you or they're not en par. You act like the people who want to play RAW have to clarify, not the people who want to divert from RAW. That's backwards.

Having a Fiend pet via Planar Binding is intended. There's a spell for it and the spell says exactly that.

Again, the session 0 thing.

Again, where is the data?

Again, have a session 0, be honest, open, and discuss what everyone expects at the table, so you may be forward knowing whether it's a good fit for everyone. You can openly say that you don't want min-maxers or optimizers at the table. That's entirely ok. You just don't want to advertise your campaign with a long list of don'ts or people might be less likely to sign up. It's better to leave that for session 0 when they could figure out that you're actually a cool guy.

And dissenting opinions are great. I produced an argument for your position myself. They just have be founded in the rules or they're worthless.

Ultimately, every DM has to develop their own style. Reading in forums on what other people think is pointless. We all have opinions. That's nothing new and you can look up anything and find dissent. But neither popularity nor dissent form the basis for an argument. Learning to make a decision, however, does.

A DM who established the rules can "push back" on anything. But if they come back later and use arguments that aren't founded in the rules, that's on them and they're creating the issue, not the player who went with RAW. I could see how an experienced player could take advantage of an inexperienced DM and that's a different story, but when a DM has 10+ years of experience, he needs to know his stuff and establish the rules in session 0. If they don't, everything that fallows is on them.

And if it's established early on, it's always fair. If you don't and just come to it after the fact without having anything in the rules to support you, it's never fair. Players build their characters with the mechanics in mind and if you don't tell them before level 10 about your stance on willingness without having anything in the rules to back you up - which you don't - then it's you and only you who's the problem. That's what brings toxicity to a table. Establishing the rules in session 0, whatever they are, avoids that and is key.

If inexperienced DMs should learn one thing, then it's having a session 0 and discussing with all the players their expectations openly and honestly and what they want to do to create a culture of communication. If that's done, everything else falls into place, regardless of what rules have been established.

Session zero is only going to solve things that are reasonably foreseeable. Dragon planar binding using suggestion and Nystuls Magic aura as an example. I’ll push back and say it is for the player that expects that to be acceptable to set out their expectation of that in session zero and not for the DM to foresee every possible rules exploit and shut it down. Won’t work… some rules exploits won’t be known until someone writes a forum post about it. It is an unreasonable burden on the DM.

I run session zero. I make it clear that if there is uncertainty about a rules validity - I am likely to rule on the least disruptive/powerful interpretation.

You are right though about the need to make these things clear early and not spring this stuff mid game. I heard a good De Niro quote the other day that feels appropriate. “Where there is doubt, there’s no doubt.”

 

[Zardnaar]

All optimizers know it and use it. It's pretty common. And pretty much every tier list mentions it as the top Wizard subclass, so it's pretty hard to not have heard of it. If you've ever watched a video by Treantmonk, the Dungeon Dudes, DnD Shorts, Pack Tactics, or anybody else on YouTube about the Wizard subclasses, they have told you about it and why it's by far is the best Wizard subclass.

Its also like the twilight cleric though as in most DMs wont allow it but its obscure book as well.

It's also the spells in said book.

 

[Ancoulainn]

Session zero is only going to solve things that are reasonably foreseeable. Dragon planar binding using suggestion and Nystuls Magic aura as an example. I

That is reasonably foreseeable.

’ll push back and say it is for the player that expects that to be acceptable to set out their expectation of that in session zero and not for the DM to foresee every possible rules exploit and shut it down. Won’t work…

No, just no. If it's RAW and the DM wants to divert from RAW, it's on him, not the player who wants to play by the rules as they are. RAW is the default, not the exception. And RAW is what they say, not what you read into them.

Ultimately, it's hilarious when people call these interaction exploitations when they are just straightforward applications of RAW. And people have been doing them since 5e came out. If they were unintended, WotC would have changed the spells, but they didn't. Just because you don't like it or didn't think of it first doesn't change that's it's RAW. And if you want to divert from that, then the ball is in your court.

some rules exploits won’t be known until someone writes a forum post about it. It is an unreasonable burden on the DM.

Yes, unforeseeable things may happen. So, communication should never stop. And it's a two-way street.

I run session zero. I make it clear that if there is uncertainty about a rules validity - I am likely to rule on the least disruptive/powerful interpretation.

Sounds also like the most boring interpretation.

I heard a good De Niro quote the other day. “Where there is doubt, there’s no doubt.”

Yeah, it meant that you can't trust that person. Exactly my point. Who trusts a DM who can't establish ground rules and then just ruins the fun as he goes along?