log in or register to remove this ad

 

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.

ScreenOne.jpg
ScreenTwo.jpg
ScreenThree.jpg
ScreenFour.jpg
ScreenFive.jpg
ScreenSix.jpg
 
Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad


That's not fair - Mirrorball clearly wants new stuff, and seems to feel that this is just a remix.
It sounds like the kind of material that an AI would come up with once it’s read all 5e core books and "Everything" books. It feels like permutations of old stuff, like swapping stuff around, like rearranging furniture. There is nothing there that adds a new and unexpected dimension to the game.
 


cbwjm

Hero
I think lacking the price of a bonus action is pretty big.

they can still move a flame sphere, launch meteors, launch stars from crown of stars, or manipulate bigby’s hand, all while eventually getting as much as (1d8+10)x2 + 3d8 from BB/GFB. That’s eldritch blast damage.
Oh it's definitely a nice bonus, but like I said, I'm not too concerned about how much better it is than war magic, my main issue with bladesinger was that it didn't have an incentive to get into melee, this ability or war magic instead of just extra attack does do that while letting the bladesinger mix blade and spell.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
Well, I’d say they have it now. Upcast shadow blade sounds scary; 11d8+20, with bonus actions free, and comparable AC to a heavy armor wearer.

Plus they can be a variant human and start with war caster!
 

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?
Really, any kind of material that we haven’t seen in 5e: psionics, mass combat, weird science, significant support for the exploration pillar, resources management, radiance magic, diplomacy, generational play, etc.
 

First, let me disabuse the strawman you set up. I never said it was always on.
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.

Blue, if you were wondering if the tone of your post, comes off as needlessly Self-Important, let me disabuse of your doubt: it does. ✌️

The part I quoted is the first sentence. That feels like a rather hostile first sentence.
I'm not interested in engaging in hostilities. 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.
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'm not sure what you talking about. Something at first about "why change the spells now", to some concerns regarding the minutiae of what is or is not errata.

Errata is a topic that interests me not in the least. What I was inquiring about was if D&D Beyond was no longer supporting SCAG?
Rulewise, the only impact is you can no longer Twin BB nor use BB with Warcaster.

If your entire Character is solely actualized only by Twinning BB and BB opportunity attacking, then I would be low grade pissed. 🤬

Otherwise, what this indicates is the design intent for the Warcaster Feat was never for the feat to facilitate playing as a Gish. The feat was intended to give casters another opportunity to cast a targeted spell.

This does not strike me as an Extinction level biome event. I don't follow guides, or people on You Tube....old grognard here....so I have no emotion invested into a particular "build". Is there some emotional angle I'm being insensitive of?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You can't cast Booming Blade as a bonus action; you can use War Magic to cast it as a reaction when you'd usually have an opportunity attack (and it may still work that way, the specifics of targeting are obscured in the image - I hope so).
I wasn’t talking about Warcaster, which I’m guessing you meant here. If you did mean War Magic, then we both had it wrong.

It’s a bonus action, not a reaction, and I was wrong in my recollection that it was “attack action and then bonus action cantrip”, when it is in fact the other way around.
 


While I disagree, it's a fair opinion to have. But the fact that the SCAG cantrips were in line for a revision and de facto errata shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Those things were very sloppily designed and have been used in builds way outside their intended purpose.
I wasn't aware of this. What sort of errata is out there now for those Cantrips? I don't see it in the SCAG errata.
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
I wasn’t talking about Warcaster, which I’m guessing you meant here. If you did mean War Magic, then we both had it wrong.

It’s a bonus action, not a reaction, and I was wrong in my recollection that it was “attack action and then bonus action cantrip”, when it is in fact the other way around.
Yep, two issues in play - one, the change to the cantrips may make them no longer work with War Caster opportunity attacks - but there may be enough targeting information in the obscured part of the blurb that that isn't an issue. I hope not, as if so I don't think I'd even take one of these cantrips on an eldritch knight.

The other, the baseline Bladesinger extra attack feature is now better (by far) than the Eldritch Knight War Magic feature. I'm not sure they needed the help, but it is nice for their melee output. It just makes Eldritch Knights looks rather tame by comparison. It is still nice for multiclassing out of Fighter around level 8; but it conflicts with features from the base class (Extra Attack (2) and (3)). It wouldn't have been so bad if it were "as a bonus action when taking the attack action, you may replace one of your attacks with a cantrip". This might make eldritch knights more competitive for top dog in the DPR department, but I'm not sure an extra 2d8 at 11 and 3d8 at 17 really do that when pole arm master and great weapon master are around; both of which can compete for the bonus action needed to activate War Magic.

It would also let them strike with regular melee before the cantrip to let eldritch strike be more frequently used.
 

I wasn't aware of this. What sort of errata is out there now for those Cantrips? I don't see it in the SCAG errata.

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.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Really, any kind of material that we haven’t seen in 5e: psionics, mass combat, weird science, significant support for the exploration pillar, resources management, radiance magic, diplomacy, generational play, etc.
Ahh, gotcha. Well, psionics are in there, though I expect you meant a dedicated psionics subsystem, and we’ve known for a while that isn’t in the cards. For new subsystems, there’s puzzles and Sidekicks. For the most part though, I don’t think we’re likely to get the kind of thing it seems like you’re looking for in a WotC-published product this edition. You’ll probably want to look towards the DM’s guild and/ore homebrew, sorry to say.
 


Mistwell

Legend
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.

Blue, if you were wondering if the tone of your post, comes off as needlessly Self-Important, let me disabuse of your doubt: it does. ✌️

The part I quoted is the first sentence. That feels like a rather hostile first sentence.
I'm not interested in engaging in hostilities. 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.

❓❓⁉️🆘❓❓⁉️
I'm not sure what you talking about. Something at first about "why change the spells now", to some concerns regarding the minutiae of what is or is not errata.

Errata is a topic that interests me not in the least. What I was inquiring about was if D&D Beyond was no longer supporting SCAG?

They are making this errata. Obviously. Everyone in this thread, except you, agrees that's what is about to happen with this. That will, in fact, retroactively change SCAG. It's not minutia to say "it's errata, not optional". It's directly on point to your claim about this being just some optional rule. While this book will have many optional rules, the topic we're discussing about these cantrips is not in fact in the optional category of changes. If it were, we wouldn't be having this part of the discussion. Nobody here would care, if suddenly there were two optional versions of the cantrips and you could just pick the one you liked better. That's not what is happening here.

Rulewise, the only impact is you can no longer Twin BB nor use BB with Warcaster.

If your entire Character is solely actualized only by Twinning BB and BB opportunity attacking, then I would be low grade pissed. 🤬

1) Nobody said "entire character solely" anything. That is a total strawman.
2) Apparently, it's both BB and Green Flame Blade, and it's the Warcaster feat issue that is mostly in question as I'd argue a very larger percentage of the people who took that feat, took it with one or both of those cantrips in mind.
3) When a character is devoting that many resource to be able to use Green Flame Blade or BB along with the Warcaster feat, sometimes devoting TWO feats to it to get it with Magic Initiate and Warcaster, and they've been playing an AL game for years with that PC, and you suddenly pull the rug out from essentially BOTH of their feat choices, people are going to be reasonably a bit miffed about that.
4) The only excuse for doing #3 would be if you couldn't have supported that character concept AND support the new character concepts from this book without something breaking - and I totally do not buy that excuse. Because my argument is the new errata could have been drafted to accomplish both goals.

Otherwise, what this indicates is the design intent for the Warcaster Feat was never for the feat to facilitate playing as a Gish. The feat was intended to give casters another opportunity to cast a targeted spell.

All designer comments about this topic previously, for five years straight, was in fact to support their use with a gish-type character. I am not aware of a single tweet or other response on the topic from the creators (and there have been plenty) which would even vaguely hint it was not intended in that way. Because both cantrips depend on a weapon attack, OF COURSE they were always chosen by someone with the ability to be decent at weapon attacks and not the 20 intelligence 8 strength wizard with the dagger.

You're essentially arguing they had tons of opportunities to tell people "Well we didn't intend it that way but sure go ahead," and opted to not that for...reasons?
This does not strike me as an Extinction level biome event. I don't follow guides, or people on You Tube....old grognard here....so I have no emotion invested into a particular "build". Is there some emotional angle I'm being insensitive of?
Yes, see #3 above, where people may have devoted most of their ASI choices to supporting this concept, for years, with support from WOTC, only to find in their AL game (where no house rules are allowed) their PC no longer functions as it's functioned for years in a very meaningful way. And that it's happening for no particularly good reason, as it was no broken the way they were using it before, nobody was complaining about their use of it that way before, and the new errata could have been drafted to accommodate that interest but for some reason it was not.
 



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yep, two issues in play - one, the change to the cantrips may make them no longer work with War Caster opportunity attacks - but there may be enough targeting information in the obscured part of the blurb that that isn't an issue. I hope not, as if so I don't think I'd even take one of these cantrips on an eldritch knight.

The other, the baseline Bladesinger extra attack feature is now better (by far) than the Eldritch Knight War Magic feature. I'm not sure they needed the help, but it is nice for their melee output. It just makes Eldritch Knights looks rather tame by comparison. It is still nice for multiclassing out of Fighter around level 8; but it conflicts with features from the base class (Extra Attack (2) and (3)). It wouldn't have been so bad if it were "as a bonus action when taking the attack action, you may replace one of your attacks with a cantrip". This might make eldritch knights more competitive for top dog in the DPR department, but I'm not sure an extra 2d8 at 11 and 3d8 at 17 really do that when pole arm master and great weapon master are around; both of which can compete for the bonus action needed to activate War Magic.

It would also let them strike with regular melee before the cantrip to let eldritch strike be more frequently used.
I plan on fixing the EK issues by giving them a fighting style that adds proficiency bonus elemental damage of their choice 1/round, and maybe making War Magic “cast cantrip as bonus action when taking attack action” or something like that.
 

For the most part though, I don’t think we’re likely to get the kind of thing it seems like you’re looking for in a WotC-published product this edition. You’ll probably want to look towards the DM’s guild and/ore homebrew, sorry to say.
So from now on, the only things we’re going to get is endless permutations of subclasses? Path of the Bone Crusher? Circle of the Blood Harvest? Way of the Glass Ceiling? Oath of Muscles? This is going to get very boring very fast.
 

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top