WOTC: What were they thinking? (not a rant)

[Dr_Rictus]

If an assassin is on a job, he would memorize what he needs and leave it behind. Of course, this is just another example of the IMO silly thought processes that has lead to so many questionable decisions in this edition.

Yeah, pass me some of whatever he was smoking.

Not only would there be no reason to take your spellbook on an infiltration, but unless spellbooks became much bigger at some point (that is, big enough to bump up your encumberance level), I'm pretty sure that carrying one wouldn't have any effect on your ability to sneak around anyway.

The "reasoning" behind that decision, as described, makes no sense at all. Tinkering for the sake of tinkering is all I'm left with by way of explanation.

 

[Emiricol]

Oddly, since spontaneous casting is very specifically a trainable trait, I find this change to Assassins will have about zero real impact in my campaign. Or maybe it is the end of D&D as we know it.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

That isn't the reason at all. It is because so many people were complaining about the fact that no one had any idea how you "flanked" a 20x60 creature.

The argument against non-square facings, I understand, but what does this have to do with ogres going from 5x5 to 10x10? So far the "big miniatures" explanation is the best one I've heard, by virtue of being the only one.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Oddly, since spontaneous casting is very specifically a trainable trait, I find this change to Assassins will have about zero real impact in my campaign. Or maybe it is the end of D&D as we know it.

Since I don't recall ever yet having used an assassin in my game, I can pretty much promise that it's a zero-impact change for me. And yet, somehow I still childishly want to feel that the changes were made for reasons that make some sliver of sense, instead of whims based on phantom scenarios with no grounding in the actual previous rules. Call me crazy that way if you will.

 

[Emiricol]

The argument against non-square facings, I understand, but what does this have to do with ogres going from 5x5 to 10x10? So far the "big miniatures" explanation is the best one I've heard, by virtue of being the only one.

Are ogres still "large giants"? Are most other large creatures 10x10? I haven't looked, but I suppose consistency could be a reason.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Are most other large creatures 10x10? I haven't looked, but I suppose consistency could be a reason.

Large (tall) was pretty consistently 5x5 face before. If that's changed, then it is good to change it consistently, but it only begs the question.

 

[Emiricol]

Large (tall) was pretty consistently 5x5 face before. If that's changed, then it is good to change it consistently, but it only begs the question.

Hopefully I'll be able to answer that question this week, depending on the whim of the USPS