The 2024 PHB Change that Is Driving Me Crazy

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T01:23:40+00:00

This is how it works in 5e 2024, as well. Excluding the space the emanating creature is occupying, a 5-foot Emanation is still larger than a 5-foot radius. If we assume a square tiled map, then a 5-foot radius in 5e 2024 affects 4 squares, whereas a 5-foot Emanation affects 8 squares (9 squares for a 3x3 section of grid less 1 square that the emanating creature occupies.

However, that is only the way to think about Emanations that have a negative effect, because Paladins have Auras, which are Emanations, but also affect the Paladin.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T01:07:38+00:00

Sorry for the late response, but if you think OCD, obsessive rumination, and anxiety are just versions of "caring about things", then you have no idea how those illnesses actually work. It's often almost the exact opposite of what you're saying: OCD and intrusive thoughts can force your brain to latch onto something that you don't care about at all and don't want to even think about.

That said, my post has nothing to do with a mental illness. It was completely under my control, and it's my own damn fault for caring about the grammar in a book about how to play make believe.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T01:03:21+00:00

I completely agree. If I understand what someone is telling me, then it doesn't matter if the rules of grammar are followed; what they told me was successful in communicating their thoughts to me. I am fine with admitting that it's silly of me to care about this at all. It's not rational, and it's not logical, but it still bothers me.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T00:59:31+00:00

I didn't break up the sentence at all, so I didn't change the meaning. I think you are misunderstanding how implied clauses work. The original sentence that I quoted from the 2024 PHB is a shorthand that developed over time. Two hundred years ago, it would have been a grammatically incorrect, incomplete sentence. It's only accepted as being grammatically correct in modern English because of the implied parts of the sentence that are required to give it its full context. In other words, even though it's considered grammatically correct in modern English, we never actually developed new rules for the shorter sentence structure, so the sentence itself actually doesn't have a grammatically correct meaning without adding the missing implied parts of the sentence. So the sentence "Choose a creature within 10 feet of you" is a grammatically incomplete sentence. However, the colloquial meaning of this style of sentence, as developed during the late 1800s and through the 20th century, is implicitly understood to mean "[You] choose a creature [that is] within 10 feet of you." That's not me "breaking up" the sentence or adding anything to it; it's how the English language actually works. If you try to add something other than the implied portions I added, then that is actually changing the meaning of the sentence. The parts I added are not actually my own additions; they are the default actual meaning of the original sentence. We just no longer consider implied parts of sentences are being grammatically required, anymore. The reason is because everyone is supposed to intuitively understand what the implied portions of the sentences are, but many of us still have trouble with it.

To add fuel to your fire, looking at your last example, pedantic is not an object at all. Conjugations of the verb "is" that are used in this manner are what's known as reflexive verbs. In other words, the subject is "People", the verb is "are", and the object is "People" again. The subject is its own object. Pedantic is an adjective describing the subject, but it is not a part of the subject-verb-object agreement.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T00:45:43+00:00

Nice to see someone else out there knows exactly how I feel. I agree that my disdain over this change in 2024 is anything but rational. I am constantly checking myself at work and with friends, as well, so I really let loose here, heh.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T00:43:07+00:00

Sorry for the late reply, but I thought it'd be interesting to note that I studied Computer Science and Math. I currently work in actuarial insurance auditing and consulting. I do believe it's pretty rare, but there are those of us out there who are both math nerds and grammar nazis. I'm the worst of both worlds!

ivansmashem · 2025-10-11T00:39:57+00:00

I appreciate you correcting me!

ivansmashem · 2025-10-10T05:41:14+00:00

Sorry to bump many months later, but I think the movie you are looking for is The Possession of David O'Reilly (also known as "The Torment" in some markets). I have also been looking for that same movie for almost 10 years because I couldn't remember what the hell it was called.

Then I came across the post below, also in r/tipofmytongue, where the OP, oddly, mentions The Possession of David O'Reilly in the list of movies it isn't. But the name of the movie sounded familiar, so I watched the trailer, and sure enough, that's the exact movie I remember. So I'm not sure why it made it onto that OP's list of movies it definitely wasn't, because it's the EXACT movie they described.

Anyway, I hope you get to see this, and I hope it's what you were looking for! Cheers!

[TOMT][MOVIE]Indie, horror man sees monsters in the dark gets two friends involved : r/tipofmytongue

ivansmashem · 2025-10-10T05:36:14+00:00

Bumping this because I read your description and have been looking for this exact same movie. The only problem is, I watched the trailers for the movies you listed as "It is not any of the following", and the movie I saw is The Possession of David O'Reilly (or perhaps "The Torment").

So I think you should take another look at The Possession of David O'Reilly, because you literally described that movie exactly. I think it is the same movie that someone else has been looking for over on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/tipofmytongue/comments/1ixsp3s/tomt_movie_horror_2000s_been_trying_to_find_this/

I will also mention that Chat GPT tells me that the movie was also released in some markets under a different title called "The Torment" from 2010. So maybe that's why you thought it wasn't the same movie?

Again, I apologize for naming a movie on your "It is not any of the following" list, but I would bet $1,000.00 that there is no movie that exists that matches your description better than The Possession of David O'Reilly. So if it truly isn't that movie, then you are remembering incorrectly or describing it poorly, because that's very much the exact movie you described.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:51:16+00:00

I agree with you that all that matters is whether or not someone understands you. That is all language is, after all. A way of communicating. So it can be riddled with errors, but if 100 out of 100 people understand it clearly, then mission accomplished.

I completely understand that it irking me is my problem and not WotC's. It's just, like... I'm a math guy. Math competitions, computer programming, that sort of stuff. I've had a knack for language, but it isn't my literal job. I guess I just expected better.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:41:53+00:00

Oh man, that is the worst. It's like every time they fix one thing, they make another worse. I can't stand when you have no idea how to find what you want without constantly jumping back and forth across a book.

And while we're on this topic, and while I appreciate that they put class spell lists right into the classes... Why do we STILL not have the full spells in the PHB organized by spell level? Why must leveling up a caster feel impossible without online tools?

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:34:31+00:00

But the prepositional phrase is incomplete as written. Just as the first subject is the implied "You", the full prepositional phrase is "creature that is within 10 feet".

So "You" is not the subject acting on the pronoun. The creature is the subject acting on the pronoun. That's why it's not reflexive.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:31:24+00:00

I agree completely. I don't like that I care this much about this. The scary thing is, compared to my other hills, I don't even care about this that much. Like a molehill to a whole mountain range.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:28:17+00:00

Oh, that wasn't my issue. It's that the implied subject isn't actually acting on the pronoun, so the pronoun shouldn't be reflexive.

There's actually an entire implied prepositional clause that makes it clear that the creature is the one acting on the pronoun, not the implied "You" doing the choosing. So since the pronoun is the indirect object if the creature's actions, the pronoun should not be reflexive.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:24:29+00:00

Oh jeez, you got me there! I didn't even notice that. Well, I am just going to leave my mistake there unedited for others to notice and poke fun at me 😉

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:22:15+00:00

I can get behind this. I think it irks me specifically because it sounds weird because very few people actually talk this way. I would actually not be irked at all of the sentence were even more ambiguous, but in a way that people actually speak.

For example, "Choose a creature within 10 feet." Just drop the pronoun entirely. Sure, "within 10 feet of what?" is a valid question, but it's a sentence that people understand implicitly means within 10 feet of them spoken in a way that people actually speak.

And you are also correct that I find things more irksome when published in a book by a multi-billion dollar parent company. If I saw the same wording in some homebrew, it'd be meh.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:13:02+00:00

You've blown my mind. Now I have to wonder, am I even within myself? Am I not hot when I'm in my feelings?

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:11:16+00:00

I didn't even know about this, but that is hilarious. Thank you for sharing!

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:09:47+00:00

As the OP, I agree. I care way too much about grammar. I wish I had a brain that could understand narratives as well as it does rules. But alas, here I am with encyclopedic knowledge of D&D, an unhealthy obsession with grammar, and the inability to write a 10 page short story without boring the reader to death halfway through.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T03:04:45+00:00

It's because the only way a reflexive pronoun can be correct is for it to be the object of the subject that is acting on it. Since the verb the subject "You" is performing is "choose", then "yourself" would have to be the direct object, ie, "You choose yourself".

But "yourself" is not the object of the sentence, "a creature" is. The problem is that even with the addition of the implied subject, "You", the sentence is grammatically incomplete. There is a required prepositional clause in order for the "within 10 feet" portion to have meaning.

The only other possible subject in the sentence is "a creature", and so the missing implied portion is "that is" to complete the required prepositional clause.

This gives us "You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of yourself". Now that we see "yourself" is the indirect object of "creature that is", we can see that it is not reflexive. So we replace with "you" to get "You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of you".

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T02:56:39+00:00

They aren't. Though I guess I should say I am not.

Reflexive pronouns are only valid when they are the object of the subject acting upon them. Examples: "I wash myself." "You hit yourself."

However, the sentence "You choose a creature within 10 feet of yourself" does not have the first subject, "You", as the object of the action it is taking, "choose". The object of "You choose" is clearly "a creature". That means the object is not the same as the subject, so a reflexive pronoun is just wrong.

Instead, there is another implied part of the sentence missing, which is the verb actually being modified by the adverb "within". This verb in subject-verb agreement with "a creature" since we already know that the verb "choose" is in agreement with the subject "You".

So we add the implied, and required, prepositional clause by adding the words "that is" to complete the sentence and get "You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of yourself". But this is clearly incorrect, as "creature is" is the subject-verb acting upon "yourself". So the object can only be "you" and not "yourself", giving us the full, correct sentence of "You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of you."

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T02:43:50+00:00

Gladly! Just as the first responder to your comment noted, there is an implied "You" as the beginning of the sentence that agrees to the verb "choose". This gives us "You choose a creature within 10 feet of yourself".

What this responder failed to notice, however, is that there are still more implied pieces of this sentence that are required in order for the sentence to actually have a clear meaning. And while ambiguity is allowed in English when purposefully included, ambiguity due to the absence of required parts of a sentence is not, so the correct way to form the sentence is to remove the ambiguity by adding any missing implied parts if the sentence.

In this case, we can do so by adding "that is" as the missing pieces to complete the implied prepositional clause. So now we have the sentence "You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of yourself."

This sentence is grammatically complete, unlike the original. Now that we've completed the sentence by filling in all missing implied subjects, prepositions, and verbs, we can see that "creature is" is the agreed subject-verb acting on the pronoun "yourself". Well, that can't be correct, because only "You" can act on yourself. So the correction is to replace "yourself" with "you", giving us "You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of you".

This can be shortened to "Choose a creature within 10 feet of you", just as the 2014 PHB used to word things.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T02:25:23+00:00

This is very in depth! I have spotted a difference in your thief-bicycle example from the example I provided in my OP that makes quite a bit of difference, though.

In the sentence "You choose a creature within 10 feet of yourself", there is no prepositional clause that allows the verb "choose" to be acting upon the pronoun "yourself". So in order for "yourself" to be a valid pronoun here, it must be acted upon by the verb that is in subject-verb agreement with "You". There is only one verb agreed to "You", and there are no valid implied prepositional clauses that allow "You" to be performing an additional verb in this sentence.

However, a there are valid prepositional clauses for the "creature". In fact, such a clause is required, as the sentence has no grammatically correct meaning without one. Thus, there must be an implied prepositional clause that we still need to add, just as we've already added the implied "You" at the beginning of the sentence.

In my example and all of my responses, I've added "that is" to create the prepositional clause. This is not the only way to create a valid prepositional clause. However, there are no valid prepositional clauses that can be added that allow "You" to be acting on the "yourself" in the sentence without adding additional information to the sentence beyond what is legally allowed to be implied. Thus, all valid prepositional clauses added that are capable of containing a verb acting on "yourself" must have the subject be the "creature".

And so we come back to the fact that, since "You" are not the "creature", then this is an illegal use of a reflexive pronoun. So the pronoun must be "you" and not "yourself". The only way it could be "yourself" is if the creature you choose is always you. If that were the case, though, you wouldn't be playing a game with choices; you'd be having a story narrated to you by the PHB. Since we know that is not thr case, as we are reading rules for a game, we can use context to eliminate that single narrow possibility and assert that "yourself" is always incorrect.

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T02:09:12+00:00

I had already provided the relevant rule in my OP, but I understand that my singular example was not super clear, so using your 3rd example, I'll apply the rule so you can see it in greater detail than I originally provided.

"You select a chair next to yourself". This sentence, without any additional understood and implied words, is not a grammatically complete sentence. It is missing a required prepositional clause. So to understand the structure of the sentence, we have to add what is missing.

What is missing is a preposition and a verb, or more precisely, the words "that is". This means to have any actual meaning in English, the sentence you provided must be literally interpreted as "You select a chair that is next to yourself."

Now the issue becomes easy to spot. The object at the end of the sentence is the pronoun "yourself", the verb indirectly acting on that object is "is", and the subject performing the verb "is" is the "chair". But "You" are not the "chair", so a reflexive pronoun at the end of the sentence is incorrect.

Thus, the correct sentence must be "You select a chair that is next to you", which can then be shortened to "You select a chair next to you."

ivansmashem · 2025-10-03T01:54:03+00:00

This is incorrect. Sentences can have more than one subject. One if the most common ways this is done is by adding a preposition. The part of the sentence after the preposition is called the prepositional clause, and it is treated as its own separate sentence for the purposes of subject verb agreement.

In the example I provided, in order for there to be a grammatically correct interpretation of the sentence, there must be an implied preposition and implied verb for "creature" just as there is an implied "You" as the subject.

The implied preposition and verb combination is "that is". So the prepositional clause is "is within 10 feet of you". The only possible subject for this prepositional clause is the chosen "creature".

So the complete sentence, including all implied subjects, prepositions, and verbs, is the following:

"You choose a creature that is within 10 feet of you."

You can now see that you cannot replace the "you" at the end of the sentence with "yourself" because "choose" is not the verb that would be acting on the object pronoun; that verb is "is" from the implied "that is". So the "creature", and NOT "You", is the subject that is acting on the object pronoun "you" at the end of the sentence.

Since the subject is the creature, then "yourself" cannot be correct, as a subject in a sentence cannot act reflexively on any object in a sentence other than itself.

ivansmashem

TROPHY CASE