Yeah, the part where you're right, you're right. That some people didn't pick bladesinger to bladesing - be in melee combat. And that's kinda abusive.Many people didn't Bladesing to melee fight, many people used Bladesinging every combat to get an INT Bonus to AC and Concentration checks.
The intention behind Bladesong was never for Bladesong to be Always On.
"While your Bladesong is active, you gain the following benefits:"
In practice, the ability is always on.
I like the Wizard class, as a player, I enjoy Resource Management. The change to Bladesong, makes the subclass more appealing to me.
Now, my inner Power Gamer of course wants to have an Always On boost to AC and Concentration checks.....so that part of me is doing this:
You're misrepresenting my position, though I am not sure if it's intentional or just poor phrasing on my part.
I am not saying "never upgrade." At all, in any way. If that was implied by what I wrote, it's a mistake on my part and not my position.
I am saying all of the following:
1) don't use stealth errata to upgrade, use the errata which is the expected way to introduce errata,
2) make errata timely in nature, and do not wait 5 years if it's a known issue,
3) don't errata things which nobody was complaining about or which was a known real issue,
4) if you need to errata because of some new content you're creating, do it in a more elegant way that doesn't mess with older content such that existing players will suddenly feel like their characters are retroactively out of date.
IF this errata is so that new versions of classes can use these cantrips, then PUT THAT IN THE NEW CLASS. Or phrase the errata in such a way that those classes can use the cantrips while old characters outside of those classes can still use them the way they were previously using them. I am betting that's possible. In fact you're a pretty good rules-tinkerer yourself, and I bet you could have phrased these to be compatible with a an older existing class who just had the feat to make opportunity attacks with a cantrip, AND still be compatible with these new class versions, in a way that doesn't break anything.
Errata is different than optional rules. This looks to be errata on an existing set of spells. WOTC does in fact enforce errata on AL. And I tire of the "but you don't have to use it" response. You don't have to use the existing cantrips as they are either. Does that satisfy you without these changes? No? Then come on man, we can discuss changes we do or do not like without the "well you don't have to use it" retort.I have no knowledge of what will or will not be in the book. I did see a bit of a podcast hosted by Greg Tito..with Jeremy Crawford. Both the host and the guest emphasized that rules in this book are optional.
I do not use DDB, so if DDB is treating this optional product as a System patch, and the SCAG versions will no longer be available, then in that case, I would be Nonplused...at D&D Beyond.
Hasbro has never sent armed thugs to enforce/ensure that "you are playing right."...
....well not yet .
That is a pretty good description of Life in general.
George Carlin had a solid 30 minutes, easy on everything..being a bunch of stuff.
Fair enough, but let's discuss the last part of my response. I bet you could have phrased these to be compatible with a an older existing class who just had the feat to make opportunity attacks with a cantrip, AND still be compatible with these new class versions, in a way that doesn't break anything. So, how would you accomplish that if that was the task in front of you?Ok. I am sorry if I overreacted a bit. But for now errata appear in the document early enough. Goliath got a resistance to cold upgrade which was erratad in Volo's guide. It seems that they only do errata if really necessary and because they chose to bring an old subclass back, they made an update to a badly worded version.
Was it so bad, that it warranted an errata in isolation? No. But with a more elegant subclass that is more friendly for players, the upgrade was needed. And at that point it is better to improve the friendliness even if it means, that old builds are not officially valid anymore.
But here is a very distinct advantage over an unwanted software update. You can just chose to ignore the errata and play your old character as you always did.
In some computer games they actually allow legacy characters too and only newly created characters need to adjust.
The premise is wrong. I might think it actually does break things.Fair enough, but let's discuss the last part of my response. I bet you could have phrased these to be compatible with a an older existing class who just had the feat to make opportunity attacks with a cantrip, AND still be compatible with these new class versions, in a way that doesn't break anything. So, how would you accomplish that if that was the task in front of you?
It was probably more glib than I should have been. What I meant to express was that I’m not understanding what they actually wanted. “Inspiration, ideals, excitement, innovation” doesn’t really communicate meaningful information about what mirrorball would rather have seen. They might as well have said “stuff I like.” Ok, I get that, but what would that have looked like?That's not fair - Mirrorball clearly wants new stuff, and seems to feel that this is just a remix.
But you don't have to use it.Errata is different than optional rules. This looks to be errata on an existing set of spells. WOTC does in fact enforce errata on AL. And I tire of the "but you don't have to use it" response. You don't have to use the existing cantrips as they are either. Does that satisfy you without these changes? No? Then come on man, we can discuss changes we do or do not like without the "well you don't have to use it" retort.
If true then that's a good change. I've always felt the bladesinger should have war magic so this is a good change to have.So apparently, for Bladesinger, no Elven racial restriction and Bladesong feature can now be used a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus and refreshes on a long rest. Extra attack now includes the ability to cast a cantrip as one of your attacks.
Shame. I was hoping Purple Dragon Knight would get an alternate class feature giving them superiority dice to add to Persuasion instead of double proficiency to open up avenues to be better warlords.So at this point, the only parts of SCAG unrevised or reprinted are
- Ghostwise halflings
- Path of the Battlerager
- Arcana domain
- Oath of the Crown
- Way of Long Death
- Purple Dragon Knight
- Undying Pact
- The backgrounds (many of which were just FR themed variants of the PHB ones)
That is a vanishingly small list of things, and most of them are considered inferior options as is. I'm pretty sure they are almost done writing the SCAG out of existence.
Not too excited by those changes, but they won't hurt my characters. Just seems...unnecessary to change the Bladesong, to me.
It doesn't really make the sticky EK a thing of the past. You can just use the old version, for one thing. For another, the EK can still take an entire attack action adn then BB with a bonus action, so the warcaster part isn't that important. Just take a Sentinel instead.
I really strongly dislike them changing the class in a way that hurts melee focused Bladesingers. That's the point of the subclass. Luckily my group where I play a Bladesinger doesn't have long adventuring days, so I'm unlikely to run out of uses if we switch to the new version.
Maybe, not by much though. Mainly I always felt that the bladesinger needed more options to incentivise getting into melee and war magic, or this change, are good ways of doing it.
Why they hate Captain America so much?Fighter: Blindfighting, throwing, and unarmed fighting styles are in. Unarmed fighting die now goes up to d8 if you just aren’t using a weapon or shield instead of if you “use two hands to make an unarmed strike.” Other fighting styles are unconfirmed