D&D 5E D&D Studio Blog - Sage Advice - Creature Evolutions

There's a new D&D Studio Blog - Jeremy's posted about "Creature Evolutions": Creature Evolutions | Dungeons & Dragons

Some quick takeaways:

• Some creatures that were formerly humanoids will, going forward, be monstrosities, fey, or something else. ("Humanoid" is reserved for creatures with similar "moral and cultural range" to humans.)
• Alignment got put in a "time out".
• They've started using class tags so that DMs know that a particular NPC can attune to magic items limited to a particular class.
• Bonus actions get their own section in the stat block now.
• They've merged the Innate Spellcasting and Spellcasting traits and have gotten rid of spell slots.

Also some stuff we've already guessed based on the stat blocks and playable races in Wild Beyond the Witchlight.

There's also some Sage Advice on "rabbit hops" for harengon PCs.

 

[Xethreau]

I don't really understand what similar "moral and cultural range" means. It is a basic understanding in writing that, given the limitations of human understanding, that all sapient characters in fiction are fundamentally, psychologically human. Talking bird? Human. The aliens from Arrival? Human. At least as far as the storyteller is concerned.

So to me, if a creature is sapient and has a culture and morality, then it is psychologically human. Real-life humans know of no other entities with culture and morality, which means that all creatures we create in fiction are reflections of humanity.

The human "moral and cultural range" is infinite.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I'm fine with them nerfing the hell out of counter spell, since it's one of main excuses people use for why psionics has to be spellcasting with a psychic patina.

 

[Scribe]

This repeated claim ignores that the "special rules" more clearly define races than attributes, and that story (often dismissed as fluff) still matters. There are 1000s of 1000s of words on every D&D race

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that is now all that will make up what a race is, by the rules.

 

[Hussar]

Well then maybe you want to ban Counterspell from your tables, and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you're a DM WotC is doing you no favors by setting you up to have to argue with players (and based on how you seem to characterize Counterspell it sounds like players you play with are pretty attached to Counterspell) about things that function like spells and that they can't tell aren't spells not being spells for the purpose of Counterspell.

Even if Counterspell is some sort of problem that needs to be fixed, nerfing it by making it just arbritrarily not work on lots of enemies, largely by oversight, with no clear guidance to the player trying to use it on when it can still be used can't possibly be a good solution.

Not sure why you are making assumptions about my table, but, sure?

Anyway, I started playing 5e using Primeval Thule, back when 5e first came out. Guess what? In 2014, in Primeval Thule, the big archmages in the PT monster manual had effects that blasted that weren't spells. This isn't anything new. I've been using monsters like this, with spell like powers that aren't actually spells, since 2014. Works fantastic. There's already tons of guidance. When the archmage does a big blasty Action? You can't Counterspell. When the archmage casts an actual named spell? Then you can. Easy peasy.

I mean, we already have this in 5e in core. Why can't I Counterspell a Medusa's gaze attack? After all, it's just a Flesh to Stone spell. I should be able to Counterspell it right? Why can't I Counterspell a Giant Spider's Web attack. After all, it's even got the spell name the same.

This is no different.

 

[Azzy]

EDIT: Technically, isn't it just as weird to declare that all races speak Common by default?

Yes, but the alternative is PCs that don't share a common tongue (because the party can't agree or because of those players). So, it's there more for gamist reasons.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm glad they're finally using things like tags. Here's to hoping that expands quite a bit. I wonder what other mechanical stuff they will hang on them besides attunement. I could easily see them using tags as short hand for assumed skills to save space. Maybe giving advantage for any skills or actions the tag would reasonable cover. Like a wizard having Arcana or a bard having Performance. You could do much the same with backgrounds. An acolyte will have Religion and a Charlatan will have Deception, for example.

Wasn't there something like that in the playtest? Player defined skills, or something.

Yes, but the alternative is PCs that don't share a common tongue (because the party can't agree or because of those players). So, it's there more for gamist reasons.

Well, that and it's the idea of a lingua franca.

 

[Tonguez]

I don't think it will happen. They aren't going to want to create new spells just to be able to heal Warforged. That is way outside the 5e design mentality.

Artificers already get to use Mend to heal their steelbots so theres already precedent in 5e for Mend to be applied to Warforged too. Fabricate and Restoration could provide higher level repair

 

[CM]

Am I the only one who banned Counterspell years ago and thus doesn't really care whether it's been nerfed now?

 

[Tonguez]

Yes, but the alternative is PCs that don't share a common tongue (because the party can't agree or because of those players). So, it's there more for gamist reasons

not really gamist, just a byproduct of different peoples interacting together over long periods. I assume that if characters can be brought together in the same tavern/town/castle then all of them probably know how to ask the Innkeeper for drink and the town guard for entry.

Its why there are so many French and Latin words in the English creole - the Norman Humans need to give orders to the Dwarf Saxons and beg merci from the Elf danes ( )

 

[Hussar]

Am I the only one who banned Counterspell years ago and thus doesn't really care whether it's been nerfed now?

To be perfectly honest, it's one of those spells I've almost never seen used. It's a 3rd level spell slot, so, it's not like it's a minor cost and it only works if the baddies are full on casters. Most monsters don't cast spells. Some do, sure. I'm sure counterspell would have been really nice in today's session when the warforged cleric in the party got Suggested, not once, but twice, by the yuan-ti purebloods they were fighting.

OTOH, simply beating the purebloods to death seemed to solve the problem too.

But, as I said earlier, since the monster manual is already chock a block with abilities that are spells but not really spells, this doesn't seem like a major change. It's a bit sad when the bad guy Lich gets totally shut down for three rounds because the PC's just keep counter spelling. Much better that that Lich has all sorts of weird magical powers that normal wizards don't have.

Then again, I've never once seen a player ask why they can't learn a spell like ability that a monster has. Seems like such a holdover 4e issue where you had things like kobold shaman blasting away with their staff, but, the staff wasn't actually magical if anyone picked it up. Players IME, really, really don't care.