D&D (2024) Thief Rogue / True Strike

As do I. (Maybe not as much as you, I don't know, but enough to be dangerous at least.)

But WotC doesn't draft with the sort of care that would readily support a formalisation of their rules. They are very informal in their use of referring terms, and the way they express generalisations.
Yes. Probably.

But some words they write were indeed intentional.

On the other hand I really like their paragraph on exploiting the rules.
Probably thisnis how I will deal with rules exploits from now on.

So technically you could read a scroll (how many hands do they use), cast trues stike, use a weapon attack, then ready an action to when I say "hey" and attack again.
Then the cleric will be dragged along by all the other party members 5 times in the same 6 seconds.

And I just give them the text from the DMG and ask them to stop.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
It also seems clear that the ready an action rule is not thought to be used to trigger on crearure starts their turn.

Starting a turn is not a perceivable trigger. Still people try to exploit that.
Same goes for emanations.

So I had no problem allowing scrolls to be used woth fast hands, if the person did not try to use it to double thief damage by exploiting rules.

If optimizers try to gain more damage because technically it is allowed, I as a DM start being technical too to shut it down.

You just make the trigger off the creatures turn before, when they move or act?
 




James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Sure, the DM's job is to put a stop to loophole abuse. And the game designer's job is to not put loopholes in their game in the first place.

I know, the common argument is "to close all loopholes, you'd need a tome of massive size" or somesuch, but some of these things are just obvious- like allowing spirit guardians to damage someone for moving up to them?

That's just asking for someone to build a "turbo cleric" or give a Monk a ring of spell storing and other such shenanigans.

"Because there's a DM" is a terrible excuse for shoddy rules.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
This.

You said: trigger on their turn before, when they move or act.

Yes and Obviously that’s so I wouldn’t have to longhand out an initiative order of made up combatants and arbitrarily pick which one was the rogue was and which was the target and then designate in that specific initiative order which creature my reaction to them moving or attacking or casting a spell is to.

You can attack after they move or do something specific like attacking you.

Then attacking anyone is specific enough.
 

Sure, the DM's job is to put a stop to loophole abuse. And the game designer's job is to not put loopholes in their game in the first place.

I know, the common argument is "to close all loopholes, you'd need a tome of massive size" or somesuch, but some of these things are just obvious- like allowing spirit guardians to damage someone for moving up to them?

That's just asking for someone to build a "turbo cleric" or give a Monk a ring of spell storing and other such shenanigans.

"Because there's a DM" is a terrible excuse for shoddy rules.
No. Shoddy rules are no excuse for being a jerk.

Especially when people would rightfully call it a foul if the DM would use those tactics against them.
 

Yes and Obviously that’s so I wouldn’t have to longhand out an initiative order of made up combatants and arbitrarily pick which one was the rogue was and which was the target and then designate in that specific initiative order which creature my reaction to them moving or attacking or casting a spell is to.

Sorry. I can't make out sense of what you wrote her.
Then attacking anyone is specific enough.
Yes. Attacking anyone would be specific enough.
It is just that your readied action won't interrupt the attack.
At least you act after them. Amd if they don't attack, your readied action is wasted.

I have often enough seen videos of optimizers claim that you can use "start their turn" as trigger, which is not allowed RAW, or try to circumvent that 'perceivable" restiction by claiming that you are allowed to speak even when it is not your turn and then just set the trigger on their own voice they can conveniently time perfectly when the enemy' s turn starts.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
No. Shoddy rules are no excuse for being a jerk.

Especially when people would rightfully call it a foul if the DM would use those tactics against them.
Sure, but some of these things could happen organically without any intent to exploit. Someone playing a Cleric for the first time could get to level 5, see spirit guardians, cast it, and then notice in play "oh, if I move up to a guy, they take damage". Is it being a jerk to suddenly decide to combine that with a Dash action?

This requires everyone to have a shared idea of what the rules should be and ignore what the rules are.
 

Remove ads

Top