ELEMENTAL EVIL Player's Companion - FREE!

The Elemental Evil Player's Companion is available for free download over at DTRPG (and RPGNow). It includes new races (aarakocra, deep gnome, genasi, and goliath) and ove 40 new spells. The PDF is a full-colour 25-page PDF; according to the first page, the genasi in chapter 1 and all of the spells in chapter 2 also appear in the appendices of Princes of the Apocalypse, the adventure due to hit store shelves very soon.

"Not inherently evil, elemental power can be mastered by those with both malevolent and benign intentions. The Elemental Evil Player’s Companion provides everything players need to build a character that is tied directly into the Elemental Evil storyline.

New race options include the aarakocra, deep gnome, genasi, and goliath. Additionally, a plethora of new spells put the elements directly at your command.

The Elemental Evil Player’s Companion, was original designed by Richard Baker, Robert J. Schwalb and Stephen Schubert, with additional design and development by Wizards D&D R&D.

This accessory is specifically meant to support the Elemental Evil–Princes of the Apocalypse adventure product."

​

 

[BryonD]

And I think that's holding WOTC to an unfair standard. Much large companies than them are unaware of leaks. Huge Governments, including the U.S., have been unaware something's been leaked for months until a reporter tells them. I don't know where this high level standard for PR and knowledge-gathering for potential leaks for a company like WOTC is coming from, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable standard to me.

First, if someone thinks interacting with the public is fair, then they should not be interacting with the public.

Second, I don't think anyone is giving any of these other organizations as pass either. When they are oblivious, they hear about it.

Third, WotC was interacting about the title, so I don't think that really stands up.

How did they double down on it? That was their first reaction.

I don;t know that they are. But you are when you keep embracing it as ok.

Again, it is a fair and understandable mistake. Agree to that and move on. But if you want to act like it wasn't a mistake, that is doubling down.

How is that a fast one? I don't know of any definition of that phrase that seems to match the way you're using it. Fast one implies a nefarious intent, that they're trying to trick someone by misrepresenting something. I am just not getting your tone on this - it seems over the top.

They let the cover be out thus implicitly "announcing it" then they tried to trick the fans by misrepresenting something that was publicly available as something that was not publicly available.
I'm using YOUR words here, and as I've said, it isn't anywhere near as big a deal as this last statement implies. But that comes from forcing a harsh definition on "fast one".

My tone is "it is what it is, no big deal, but don't try to pretend it isn't'". From my perspective you seem to be suggesting that they did nothing wrong (wrong meaning "PR goof") and any disagreement is a claim they are "nefarious" borderline criminals.

 

[Mistwell]

The error you are making is to think that you need to announce something to cancel it.

Merriam-Webster defines cancel this way: to stop doing or planning to do (something) : to decide that something (such as a game, performance, etc.) will not happen. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel

Mike Mearls can go up to the guys at Sasquatch Games and say: "Sorry guys. You have been working very hard on the Adventurer's Handbook, but its release is cancelled. We will not print it. You can stop working on it." And this is how you cancel something that is not announced.

The answer to your post is contained within the parts of my post that you cut. Here you go again.

Your flippant comments notwithstanding, how DO you cancel something not announced? No, not with snark, think it through. If it's not announced, then how do you know it was a planned thing to begin with. If it is not a planned thing yet, it literally cannot be cancelled. And I don't mean literally in the messed up "figuratively" sense that such a word has come to mean, I mean literally in the more common sense - as in it really and truly cannot be cancelled if it was never the plan to begin with.

So show me evidence it was the actual plan. Mike says they do lots of speculative stuff which isn't necessarily planned for release, it's just R&D experimentation in-house. If I say to my art guy "mock up a cover for this, I want to see what it would look like in case we decide to do something like that" and then I don't release the book with that mocked-up cover, the book with that cover was not cancelled - it never was a planned release to begin with. It was just an experiment - a part of the whole development process.

If you're going to accuse Mike of lying, or being ignorant of his own business (and you seem to be saying one or both of those things), then the burden is on you to prove it was actually a planned thing to begin with. So far, you have not proven that. Which probably means you shouldn't be accusing him of lying or being ignorant until you can provide that evidence. To me, it looks like you're ignorant (as in lacking information) but just bullying ahead and drawing harsh conclusions anyway despite that ignorance. Hardly a position of strength or persuasion.

 

[TarionzCousin]

For what must be the third time on this site, there was no "leak". This is where all the information came from:
http://edelweiss.abovethetreeline.com/CatalogOverview.aspx?catalogID=407200

But can we trust you? Your sig says "Ignore me!"

 

[Mistwell]

First, if someone thinks interacting with the public is fair, then they should not be interacting with the public.

I think you meant UNfair. But, I am not saying their interaction with the public is unfair, I am saying YOUR reaction is unfair. Not "any" reaction from you would be considered fair, right? I mean, we both agree (I assume) that on the scale of reactions, had you said "They should all be executed at gun point for their failures", that would be an unfair reaction, right? So, some reactions will be fair and others not, and I am saying your personal reaction of holding them to that high of a standard is unfair under these circumstances. If entire Governments can't handle the standard you're proposing, it's probably unfair to expect it of WOTC. That's my point.

Second, I don't think anyone is giving any of these other organizations as pass either. When they are oblivious, they hear about it.

So is there ANY standard which is appropriate for a huge business, a huge Government, but not appropriate for a smaller entity like WOTC, in your opinion?

Third, WotC was interacting about the title, so I don't think that really stands up.

The only interaction I saw was them saying basically, "Huh? What? We never announced that!" That's not what I'd call interaction that's not standing up. If you have something different, I'd like to see it.

Again, it is a fair and understandable mistake. Agree to that and move on. But if you want to act like it wasn't a mistake, that is doubling down.

What mistake? Let's say someone illegally stole the cover. Is that a WOTC mistake?

They let the cover be out thus implicitly "announcing it"

Wait, WHERE is your evidence that they "let" the cover be out? That's the entire unknown of this matter, and you're assuming it's known? Show me that proof.

then they tried to trick the fans by misrepresenting something that was publicly available as something that was not publicly available.

What trick? How is it a trick for someone to, apparently, secretly swipe some R&D artwork and release it to a public website, and then when they find out they say "Hey, we didn't do that!" What trick has been demonstrated?

My tone is "it is what it is, no big deal, but don't try to pretend it isn't'". From my perspective you seem to be suggesting that they did nothing wrong (wrong meaning "PR goof") and any disagreement is a claim they are "nefarious" borderline criminals.

No the nefarious part is your description of it being a fast one. You're the only one who used that description, not "any" disagreement just your particular choice of disagreement.

 

[Mistwell]

For what must be the third time on this site, there was no "leak". This is where all the information came from:
http://edelweiss.abovethetreeline.com/CatalogOverview.aspx?catalogID=407200

How did Above the Treeline get it? I understand they pull data from various sources, but no other companies pulled that data that I saw, so why/how did they get that data?

 

[kettite]

How did Above the Treeline get it? I understand they pull data from various sources, but no other companies pulled that data that I saw, so why/how did they get that data?

Random House, distributor for Wizards of the Coast.

Catalog Search: Posted: Clear
1 catalog found
Wizards of the Coast, Spring 2015
8 Titles
Date Added: Aug 20, 2014
Posted By: Random House

 

[Mistwell]

Random House, distributor for Wizards of the Coast.

Catalog Search: Posted: Clear
1 catalog found
Wizards of the Coast, Spring 2015
8 Titles
Date Added: Aug 20, 2014
Posted By: Random House

Which begs the question, how did they get it? That's really what this is all about. How did an outside source (call them Kettie/Above the Treeline/Random House/Whatever) get something which the division head says he didn't release?

 

[neobolts]

Wow this thread got weird. Are we really debating the meaning of everyday words?

I'll say this: Diamond Distributors (the big hobby shop distributor where most FLGS get literally everything they stock) would rate things as how assured they were. It has been years since I went through a catalog, but they had number rankings of the different products coming to market. For a D&D book to show up on a retailer site with a date and MSRP means they were decently far along before they reversed course. They would've been right on the cusp of either announcing the product or dropping it right before the PotA announcement. I'm guessing they had some major concerns about the book when they got the finished draft.

 

[Mistwell]

Wow this thread got weird. Are we really debating the meaning of everyday words?

I'll say this: Diamond Distributors (the big hobby shop distributor where most FLGS get literally everything they stock) would rate things as how assured they were. It has been years since I went through a catalog, but they had number rankings of the different products coming to market. For a D&D book to show up on a retailer site with a date and MSRP means they were decently far along before they reversed course. They would've been right on the cusp of either announcing the product or dropping it right before the PotA announcement. I'm guessing they had some major concerns about the book when they got the finished draft.

Diamond is mostly a comics distributor, though they do distribute some things outside of comics. Comics is a much more volatile industry. The source here appears to be Random House, and as far as I can tell there is no rating system there - it's either on or off, no options outside of that. But all the other retailer sites (including Amazon and Barnes and Noble) did not list it that way. So it's quite unclear what happened here.

 

[phantomK9]

In an effort to get this thread back to talking about the document itself...

I like it.

One thing I'm seeing that no one else has brought up is that the Air and Earth Genasi seem weak relative to the other Genasi (or other races in general). Just compare Air to Water, for example--or compare Air to Aarakocra.

I'm thinking that Air and Earth's spell is supposed to refresh on a short rest, rather than a long rest.

Is anyone else thinking similarly about those subraces?

At first blush I didn't think so (too excited about looking at the new stuff), but after going over the stats several times, I'm left with the distinct impression that not only do the Air and Earth seem underpowered, it feels like all of them might be underpowered.

From what I can see, the base stats only give +2 to Con and access to Primordial.
The sub-races each have about the same number of abilities as say a dwarf or an elf sub-race (actually a couple short).

I guess the crux is:
1. How much is it worth having a non-common language? All Genasi start with Common and Primordial.
2. How powerful of an ability is Unending Breath? To me it gives complete immunity to any inhaled dangers like knockout gas and the like.

I'm confused at to why only the Fire and Water Genasi have access to the brand new cantrips that were released. And yet they also get access to another related elemental spell.

Why didn't the Air and Earth get access to each of the new types of elemental cantrips in addition to their once per long rest spell?

I think I will need to do a bit of a break down and in depth comparison between the Genasi and Dwarves/Elves. I have a feeling just a minor tweak might be needed (to make me happy in my game).

All in all however, I am loving this thing. A+ on the artwork. List of spells are great. I'm not a huge fan of the Aarakocra but this makes them at least playable. Deep gnomes look like fun which is something I have never said. Of course I would expect as much from 5e, which is the only edition I have played where I didn't instantly hate the gnomes.

Likewise, Goliath are never something I thought about before, but ater reading through them, I'm instantly thinking of characters for these guys and possibly allowing them in my game (when I get around to running one that is).