D&D (2024) What is With Poison?, and Other PHB Conundrums.

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sure the 2024 rules will work fine as written. As long as you don't try to use previous rules to judge the 2024 rules by.

Besides, the 2024 rules aren't even fully published yet. Until the PHB, MM, and DMG are ALL published, the rules are not yet published and are incomplete. Arguing about them is, well, its the internet. So go to it!

Are they going to be different from what's been previewed when they are published? If not, then this argument doesn't hold.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But 2024 goblins aren't fey -- SOME 2024 goblins are fey. If the PCs don's attempt to find out if TEHSE goblins are fey, they are taking a calculated risk in casting the spell. At least they will know after the spell is cast (i do believe in telling them that the spell failed because it was a invalid target).

Think of it this way: imagine that a character cast a object-only spell on a table that turned out to be a mimic. Would you as GM stop them and tell them to choose a different spell so they did not waste it?

All 5.5 goblin statblocks appear to be fey, at least, regardless of what might make it into some descriptive text. Guess what new DMs are going to focus on?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

DM - "Psyche! No, that particular two-armed bipedal creature over there is actually an aberration. Your turn is wasted, you should have chosen differently."

PLAYER - "But...the spell worked just fine previously on these things! And you described this one as pretty much exactly the same as all the others. How am I supposed to tell the difference?"

DM - "Trial and error".

PLAYER - "You mean wasted turns.'

DM - "Not my problem. Them's the rules."

Okay.

What happens if...y'know, you have DMs that aren't jerks, but who expect the rules to be followed unless they're obviously broken, rather than just kinda dumb?

Because it isn't just jerk DMs who would do this. The spell explicitly says that it fails against nonhumanoids (rather, that non-humanoid targets automatically succeed on their saving throw, which terminates the spell.) You are assuming that absolutely all good DMs would read that and think, "Hell no, that's awful." This is not true. Plenty might think, "Huh, that's kind of a bad spell. Hope my players are ready for that!"

Perhaps they want to de-emphasize poison use. Not very "heroic" for a good guys game, I guess?

Wouldn't that be exactly the sort of thumb-on-the-scale behavior that 5e fans (claim to) hate, though?

Although, if it did require you to target a humanoid, it would functionally act as a counter-intuitive, off-label humanoid detector...

Presumably only against people you dislike, since it's quite clearly a mental assault.

I'm sure the 2024 rules will work fine as written. As long as you don't try to use previous rules to judge the 2024 rules by.

Besides, the 2024 rules aren't even fully published yet. Until the PHB, MM, and DMG are ALL published, the rules are not yet published and are incomplete. Arguing about them is, well, its the internet. So go to it!

As Micah said in reply to this: We already have the PHB, which contains the spells. So we already know that. We already have the DMG, so we know what's in that too.

People are complaining because we have been given "previews" of the MM, including explicit indications about such things as "many but not all goblins are now fey" and "gith are now aberrations" etc.

The only possible alternative to "this is what the 5.5e MM will actually look like" is that WotC is, for some ungodful reason, lying to their own customers about what the books will contain, and actively putting up unrepresentative, out-of-date monster blocks. Despite the goal of their efforts being to show off what the 5.5e MM will contain, they would have to be actively falsifying that, in a way that makes it look significantly worse than the actual thing.

I don't really think either end of this dilemma turns out well for your position here. Either you're just choosing to ignore the previews, pretending we live in perfect ignorance until the book is actually available to be picked up, or you're asserting that this whole preview campaign is a massive falsehood perpetrated by WotC for no discernible reason for which the only possible "good" effect could be people buying it and then exclaiming, "Oh, thank God they didn't do the stupid things I was worried about."

I'm not really sure either of those are what you want out of this situation.

 

[ColinChapman]

I think the issue with poison is that it spreads so quickly because it's catchy. I mean, it's like...

"It's poisoooooon!
Poison running through my veins!
It's poisoooooon!
I don't wanna break these chains!"

 

[Reynard]

DM - "Psyche! No, that particular two-armed bipedal creature over there is actually an aberration. Your turn is wasted, you should have chosen differently."

PLAYER - "But...the spell worked just fine previously on these things! And you described this one as pretty much exactly the same as all the others. How am I supposed to tell the difference?"

DM - "Trial and error".

PLAYER - "You mean wasted turns.'

DM - "Not my problem. Them's the rules."

Because then there's no chance of a player casting the spell and then having it do absolutely nothing (as others are currently discussing).

And why settle for a spell being merely horrible when it could sabotage the players and ruin their turn? This isn't supposed to be fun, is it?

Assuming the most extreme, worst possible behavior on behalf of the GM is not particularly conducive to discussion. If that's your actual worry, maybe consider solo RPGs where there is no evil GM to "gotcha."

For everyone else who isn't imagining a boogeyman behind ever screen, considering how the rules and the fiction interact is part of play and always has been.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At the end of the day, it's that some monsters have had their Type changed by the game rules, not by anything within the game world. It is purely a game rules issue.

If a DM does not tell their players straight away that the game rules have changed with these new books and that certain monsters that had been affected by certain magic spells in the previous version are now no longer able to be affected by them... and instead they just are going to let their players waste a turn and spell slot at some point in the indeterminant future to "find out through trial and error" that the rule has changed...

1) I think that DM is being a jerk for no good reason because they are withholding game rules from their players.

2) Even if it does happen, it ultimately isn't going to be that big a deal because it'll only take that first time one of the players tries to cast Charm Person or Crown of Madness for the DM to yell out the "Gotcha!"... and now the players all now have learned the rule for next time.

Obviously DMs can run their games however they want. And if withholding rules changes from their players is how they enjoy running their games... so be it. Let the players beware I guess.

 

[Micah Sweet]

At the end of the day, it's that some monsters have had their Type changed by the game rules, not by anything within the game world. It is purely a game rules issue.

If a DM does not tell their players straight away that the game rules have changed with these new books and that certain monsters that had been affected by certain magic spells in the previous version are now no longer able to be affected by them... and instead they just are going to let their players waste a turn and spell slot at some point in the indeterminant future to "find out through trial and error" that the rule has changed...

1) I think that DM is being a jerk for no good reason because they are withholding game rules from their players.

2) Even if it does happen, it ultimately isn't going to be that big a deal because it'll only take that first time one of the players tries to cast Charm Person or Crown of Madness for the DM to yell out the "Gotcha!"... and now the players all now have learned the rule for next time.

Obviously DMs can run their games however they want. And if withholding rules changes from their players is how they enjoy running their games... so be it. Let the players beware I guess.

You see no issue with a change that exists only in the game rules but not in the setting in which we play?

 

[DEFCON 1]

You see no issue with a change that exists only in the game rules but not in the setting in which we play?

No. Because if I don't like the game rule, I don't use the game rule.

Other DMs can't do that? That's on them. If some DMs do what I consider to be jerk moves? That's also on them. But why should they care that I think they are jerks? They shouldn't. They should do what works for them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. Because if I don't like the game rule, I don't use the game rule.

Other DMs can't do that? That's on them. If some DMs do what I consider to be jerk moves? That's also on them. But why should they care that I think they are jerks? They shouldn't. They should do what works for them.

Fair enough. Obviously it doesn't affect me personally either. But these books aren't for me or you. They are for new DMs who now have fewer and less nuanced tools to work with and more confusing (and less intuitive IMO) lore contradictions to sort through in the books, all done for reason which (again IMO) are creatively dubious.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fair enough. Obviously it doesn't affect me personally either. But these books aren't for me or you. They are for new DMs who now have fewer and less nuanced tools to work with and more confusing (and less intuitive IMO) lore contradictions to sort through in the books, all done for reason which (again IMO) are creatively dubious.

I'll let those new DMs figure it out for themselves. It's good training. Nothing the rest of us need to concern ourselves with.