D&D 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.

 

[Blue]

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:

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.

But I don't agree with anything else you said.

First, let me disabuse the strawman you set up. I never said it was always on. Said you could use it in most combats. Which implies that there are combats you can't use it in. Plus there's always times it's not up yet - get surprised, foes beat your initiative, you are worried about number of combats so you are waiting to see if this will be tough, you've dropped to zero and it's stopped, etc. So any point about "always on" isn't actually addressing any point I made nor the actual effects of play.

So, let's actually get to the point I actually made. Bladesinger is a subclass specifically about bladesinging. Going into combat and combining magic and melee. As a wizard chassis you have lowest HPs per level of any class, no or light armor, and are MAD so you're not pumping CON like a fighter. Regardless how your inner powergamer (your words) wants to use it, having an AC boost is actually integral in order for the class to function as designed because of the low survivability of the chassis otherwise.

That some people abuse it by not going into melee IN NEVER a reason to penalize those who use it correctly. Rather, find a limitation to the power that properly allows the class to function as described and intended while limiting those who want to abuse it for a high AC and Concentration boosts with normal caster usage.

Again, if we apply your solution to people multiclassing fighter for survivability, it would be to limit the number of encounters per day that a fighter could wear armor for all fighters.

So on one side, we have your thoughts that the wizard doesn't have enough resource management and you want more because you like that, and on the other side we have the actual suitability for the subclass to fulfill the role it's designed for.

It's a clear choice.

 

[ph0rk]

I'd also add that if you happen to have proficiency with a crossbow or longbow you can now firebolt and then make one ranged attack as a bladesinger at level 6; without using up your bonus action. That's pretty nice and just as strong as the Eldritch Knight's ranged capabilities with better action economy.

(Whether or not you're bladesinging, of course).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

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?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

What did you want from an expansion book other than stuff?

Inspiration, ideas, excitement, innovation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Inspiration, ideas, excitement, innovation.

Sounds like stuff.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Sounds like stuff.

That's not fair - Mirrorball clearly wants new stuff, and seems to feel that this is just a remix.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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?

The premise is wrong. I might think it actually does break things.

I would make it an at will smite spell.

Bonus action:
When you take the attack action on your turn, your next attack does x.

Would also not make the ability universally the best choice for a rogue as it does compete with your bonus action as does two weapon fighting.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not fair - Mirrorball clearly wants new stuff, and seems to feel that this is just a remix.

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?