D&D 5E Fantasy Grounds Previews of Tasha's Cauldron

Ahead of the November 17th release date, the product page for Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has several previews on the Fantasy Grounds website. The previews include the origins customization section, group patrons, sidekicks, and a look at the alternate class features for the ranger Beast Master.

 

[Blue]

I did not setup a "strawman, I stated, clearly and in digital print that I think Bladesong is Always On, at two uses per Short Rest.
...
I will only state, I am currently playing in a group with a Bladesinger. Our group largely has control over our day and our SR and LR.
...
In 9 months of play, there has been one time, I can remember where the group has not been able to take a Short Rest after two combats. As I stated before, in effect the power is Always On.
Describing a different experience than your own, doesn't make the experience so described...false or disingenuous.

By making Bladesong, more scarce you make it more exciting to use. That at least is what the change elicits in me, excitement. I am also not, currently playing a Bladesinger.

You put forth that in 9 months of play it was always on. So you are effectively saying that in that nine months of play the bladesinger have never lost initiative, never went unconcious, never worried they would have more than two combats before a short rest and saved it (at least until they could see how tough the combat was), and only once actually had more than two encounters. Because at your table you have control over when rests are taken.

I hope when listed like that (though all of those issues were in the earlier email), you can see just how statistically unlikely your scenario is, especially when done across a wide range of DMs. So no, your ancedotal evidence does not mean that everyone's bladesinger was "always on". No judgement that your table has control over when rests are taken, but you can't asserting that everyone's table has that same level of control.

Again, I am glad for your excitement at the idea of managing resources. However, you have yet again not addressed the point that starting with only 2 uses per day for 6-8 encounters per day (as put forth in the DMG), it removes the ability to play the class as the lore puts forth - a melee combatant. Yet again I ask if you were playing a heavy armor melee fighter where two thirds or more of encounters you were not allowed to wear your armor, without anything else to offset that, do you feel that would be "exciting" and conducive to your concept as a heavily armored front-liner? Do you feel that would be the general response for players wanting to play such a fighter?

 

[Blue]

De facto errata means they're reprinting them in Tasha's Cauldron with changes, and as the more recent version those changes take priority over the old versions. This seems to be WotC's preferred means of altering old content, especially stuff from the early days of 5e where they hadn't set down all their design rules yet.

They have come out with new changes, such as giving darkvision to Tritons in the Wildemount book. And at the same time publish actual errata, such as the Volo's Guide to Monsters where Tritons are given Darkvision.

I do not know any cases where there is "de facto" errata, where they publish a change and have not errata'd earlier material that covered the same thing. Can you provide an example of where they did this?

 

[Kurotowa]

I do not know any cases where there is "de facto" errata, where they publish a change and have not errata'd earlier material that covered the same thing. Can you provide an example of where they did this?

If you're right, then it's simply that I've always heard about these changes in the context of the new version being printed, and not caught that there's also an errata of the older book at the same time. Still, my point is that they're loath to errata an old book without printing a new version of the same material, at least in any substantive way.

 

[Blue]

Sounds like it is time for you to give 5e a rest. It's clearly coming towards the end of it's edition lifecyle, there is little more WotC can do with it. They are never going to release "advanced rules" because anything official that increases complexity is going to hurt people coming in at the bottom.

Edition lifecycle is controlled by money. D&D gets praised regularly in Hasbro's stockholder calls. They have multiple other properties coming out from video games to a movie. They have no reason to change it, and seeing the debacle of sales that was 4e (lost #1 place in sales for multiple years) there is a lot of incentive not to change it before those other on-brand properties come out.

I do not think we will see a new version in the next two years at least, so it's still got a significant chunk of it's lifecycle to go. My most likely guess is at the 50th Anniversary in 2024, but I don't have any crystal ball - just that there's no signs it will happen soon.

 

[Weiley31]

Well... it wasn't gutted "badly" but it still was gutted.

2d6 dmg being once per turn vs 1 per attack is a huge nerf. Moving hill giant to level 7 is also a significant nerf - it does help with making it an amazing 3 level dip but... it means you are going to spend 6 levels without the resistance.

It went from OP to well... "fun to roleplay". :/

It had to be toned down, it was too good, but... I think they went too far.

Good thing I'm using the UA version but with the Large to Huge buff.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Edition lifecycle is controlled by money. D&D gets praised regularly in Hasbro's stockholder calls. They have multiple other properties coming out from video games to a movie. They have no reason to change it, and seeing the debacle of sales that was 4e (lost #1 place in sales for multiple years) there is a lot of incentive not to change it before those other on-brand properties come out.

I do not think we will see a new version in the next two years at least, so it's still got a significant chunk of it's lifecycle to go. My most likely guess is at the 50th Anniversary in 2024, but I don't have any crystal ball - just that there's no signs it will happen soon.

I wouldn't dispute "two years at least", but personally, I consider two years a short span of time.

 

[Blue]

If you're right, then it's simply that I've always heard about these changes in the context of the new version being printed, and not caught that there's also an errata of the older book at the same time. Still, my point is that they're loath to errata an old book without printing a new version of the same material, at least in any substantive way.

Agreed, there were just a few cases. Like the changes to Healing Spirit, a XGtE spell that was light years ahead of other out-of-combat mass healing spells. And they errata'd it to add in a limit that made it a useful healing spell in or out of combat, but not premier.

Or errata changes to Beastmaster ranger that made minor improvements to the (horrible) action economy - it was still on the lower end of the class power curve, but not lagging so far. They didn't go far enough IMHO, but they were at least making changes outside just correcting typos or clarifying unclear bits.

But you are right, it was very little of that.

 

[Blue]

I wouldn't dispute "two years at least", but personally, I consider two years a short span of time.

It's 6 years old. It's a full third again it's lifespan to add two more years. If it's three years instead that's half again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's 6 years old. It's a full third again it's lifespan to add two more years. If it's three years instead that's half again.

And I'm 52 years old. 2 years is nothing.

 

[Guest User]

DMG), it removes the ability to play the class as the lore puts forth - a melee combatant. Yet again I ask if you were playing a heavy armor melee fighter where two thirds or more of encounters you were not allowed to wear your armor, without anything else to offset that, do you feel that would be "exciting" and conducive to your concept as a heavily armored front-liner? Do you feel that would be the general response for players wanting to play such a fighter?

A Bladesinger is a Wizard that can fight, so your Fighter analogy is just not an apt comparison point.

Mage Armor and 16 Dex is an AC of 16, before Bladesong.
Then layer on Shield, Blur, Blink, and Mirror Image.
I'm just riffing here....the Wizard has defensive options.

There are plenty of non Bladesinger Wizards that mix it up in melee combat.