D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Travelers of the Multiverse

New free content from WotC - the latest 4-page Unearthed Arcana introduces six new races: astral elf, autognome, giff, hadozee, plasmoid, and thri-kreen.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Looks like Spelljammer and/or Planescape is back on the menu!

 

[overgeeked]

While I personally agree with you, that's a much stricter reading of the rules than a lot of tables (apparently including the designers of the game) use, from what I understand.

Is that a personal feeling you have or do you have something to point to from the designers to support your assertion?

Because I have the book the designers wrote in my hands and it's pretty black and white. If they didn't mean what they wrote, then there's a problem. If they don't run the game as they wrote it, then there's a problem.

 

[Bolares]

If they don't run the game as they wrote it, then there's a problem.

I'd bet no designer plays the game as they wrote....

 

[overgeeked]

I'd bet no designer plays the game as they wrote....

I tend to assume they would design the game the way they’d play it and want it played. Otherwise why design it that way?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Is that a personal feeling you have or do you have something to point to from the designers to support your assertion?

Because I have the book the designers wrote in my hands and it's pretty black and white. If they didn't mean what they wrote, then there's a problem. If they don't run the game as they wrote it, then there's a problem.

Nah, I'm not fussy enough to keep track of where I read things, but someone else might help me out: I'm pretty sure a designer has allowed a Dragonborn Druid to breathe while shapeshifted into a beast.

I mean, where does the breath come from? Do Dragonborn really have a biological chemical sack in their esophagus from which to exhale a variety of breaths? (Again, I'd personally say "yes" but there's no reason every table has to.) Lots of stuff can be handwaved as "magic".

You're just being very strict. I don't have a problem with that, but you're going to find that it's not quite as black-and-white as you want it to be. People are going to disagree with you.

For another example: Why not let a Plasmoid Druid shapeshift into beasts while still remaining a jelly-like substance? I mean, that's clearly how they get their humanoid forms. Maybe they look like a gummy bear in bear form? Who knows? Not everyone will play it the same way, is the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Bolares]

Otherwise why design it that way?

Because they are designing for a major audience and not their particular tastes or rullings? Because opinions change after publication? Because sometimes you don't remember what you've wrote...

 

[Argyle King]

I don't think so. It's pretty black and white.

No, because the new form does not have limited shapechanging so cannot change its voice. This is also countered by the fact that you cannot talk while in wildshape.

You could decide as you wildshape what color things are, but not once you've already assumed the wildshape form. Unless you want to burn a wildshape use on changing colors.

Not really. It's there in black-and-white. Unless we're talking some serious rules lawyer action, it's not an option.

Does the stat block of the elemental say anything about sprouting limbs? If not, then no, you could not.

No it doesn't. If the new form cannot breathe fire, then a wildshaped dragonborn cannot breathe fire. Unless there's a specific exception to dragonborn that I missed.

Completely. As written.

Not according to the rules of polymorph or wildshape.

Exactly. An innate physical ability that their new form does not share, so they cannot use.

Dragonborn Breath has specifically been said to work.

The explanation has been (to paraphrase) that if a creature can exhale the ability works.

Likewise, being able to smite and rage work. The monk's fast movement likewise works. Yes, those are class abilities, but they're examples of something that the new forms are capable of doing because the character's base form generates an ability which still works.

While a creature may not be able to talk, that's irrelevant. I have two cats. Their meows sound different. Having a voice and having a language aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[overgeeked]

Dragonborn Breath has specifically been said to work.

The explanation has been (to paraphrase) that if a creature can exhale the ability works.

Likewise, being able to smite and rage work. The monk's fast movement likewise works. Yes, those are class abilities, but they're examples of something that the new forms are capable of doing because the character's base form generates an ability which still works.

While a creature may not be able to talk, that's irrelevant. I have two cats. Their meows sound different. Having a voice and having a language aren't necessarily the same thing.

Okay. Where does it say that these work?

 

[Maxperson]

I tend to assume they would design the game the way they’d play it and want it played. Otherwise why design it that way?

Gygax ran his game in a wildly different manner than the 1e rules state.

 

[Argyle King]

Okay. Where does it say that these work?

In regards to dragonborn breath weapons,, It was a question that Jeremy Crawford answered.

His response was basically that, if the creature is able to exhale, it can use the breath weapon.

Rage requires that the creature be able to rage. I'm not aware of any creatures which are incapable of doing so.

Smite requires being able to attack....

Fast movement requires being able to move, so that should work with pretty much anything other than a tree.

In contrast, an arakkoa's flight wouldn't work if the new form doesn't have wings.

Why I see the plasmoid as potentially different than the arakkoa is because the arakkoa loses a physical feature, while the plasmoid's ability is to generate a physical feature where one did not previously exist.

For animals, I can see the argument against allowing it to work because I think it's somewhat logical that an amorphous form or oozey quality be necessary.

Air, Fire, and Water elementals are similarly amorphous (in so much that they don't have a physical body in the same way a normal terrestrial creature would). I'm on the fence about the Earth Elemental. While it's more solid, I don't see elementals as being as beholden to specific humanoid form.

 

[overgeeked]

Gygax ran his game in a wildly different manner than the 1e rules state.

That's an incredibly bad example to use, considering the circumstances behind Gygax designing AD&D. He designed it that way to avoid paying Arneson royalties. Gygax's personal version of the game, from what I've been able to find, was apparently much closer to OD&D or a mix of OD&D and AD&D.