Unearthed Arcana - Eberron update released!

[Human Paragon 3]

Eberron fans rejoice! WOTC has released an update for using material from the Eberron setting in 5e!

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Eberron_v1.pdf

Also, Unearthed Arcana is here. It is "A monthly workshop" where D&D R&D presents new material to use in your games.

Included:

Races -

Changeling

Shifter (all varieties)

Warforged

Classes -

Artificer (It is a Wizard subclass. Infusions begin at level 2. At 14th level, you can create magic items.)

Feats -

Dragonmarks (all houses).

[Baptor]

I'm happy about ebberon but where the heck is the update on the sundering in the realms?

[Human Paragon 3]

Maybe next month?

[broli]

nice!!
just starting a wizard, this comes at the perfect time!

[AirApparent]

My only issue with the dragonmarks as feats is that barring houserules you have to be human to have one at first level.

[Eslin]

Hahaha yesss.

Question: Does changeling's polymorph work like the spell? Do they get effective infinite HP?

[Human Paragon 3]

My only issue with the dragonmarks as feats is that barring houserules you have to be human to have one at first level.

Couldn't you have the dragonmark, but it doesn't manifest its power until level 4? Or whenever you decide to take the feat?

[Yagyujubei]

i must not be grasping artificer..but the first two features seem like your just swapping out one spell for another...if your spell slot/arcane recovery is gimped until you use the potion/scroll...then why not just use the spell slot to cast the actual spell rather than an item of the spell...seems weird.

the weapon/armor and master artificer features are really nice though.

[RedMage125]

Couldn't you have the dragonmark, but it doesn't manifest its power until level 4? Or whenever you decide to take the feat?

In the original 3.5e, the dragonmarks could manifest spontaneously. So you might be a scion of House Medani, and not manifest even a Least Dragonmark until you were of a higher level. There was nothing REQUIRING you to have a d-mark at first level.

Heck, you could even have a backstory wherin you were a member of one of the dragonmarked houses and did not know it, thinking yourself an orphan. When the d-mark manifested on you, the House would likely seek you out to formally adopt you.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The artificer idea is neat, but at level six he needs 50 minutes plus a short rest to make use of his features. Nearly two hours a day just doing rituals.

[CrusaderJoe]

So far, this is fantastic.

Not sure how broken said artificer will be but I like the idea.

But they need to stop with this type of stuff and start working on Magic of Incarnum already... :smalltongue:

[archaeo]

i must not be grasping artificer..but the first two features seem like your just swapping out one spell for another...if your spell slot/arcane recovery is gimped until you use the potion/scroll...then why not just use the spell slot to cast the actual spell rather than an item of the spell...seems weird..

Because the Artificer doesn't have to be the one to use the item.

[BRC]

Because the Artificer doesn't have to be the one to use the item.

Also because, if I'm reading this right, the Scroll lasts indefinitely, and works off your spells known, not spells prepared that day.

So, I can see a few uses.

1) You want to use a spell that you KNOW, but did not prepare today. So you take a short rest and make a scroll of the spell in question. Now you can use it once, while still keeping your full list of prepared spells.

2) You want to have lots of spells available Tommorow, but don't expect to be able to take short rests to recover spells. So, you make scrolls today and use them tomorrow.

3) there is somebody else in the party capable of using Scrolls. Lets say you want to hit an enemy with multiple high-damage spells as quickly as you can, so you make a scroll and hand it off to your party member so the enemy can get hit with two Fireballs during the surprise round, rather than just one.

That first use is incredibly powerful. It adds a ton of versatility to the wizard.

The Potions basically give you a bunch of extra spells that are always prepared provided you have 10 minute casting time, and can be handed out to be used later.

[Ichneumon]

But they need to stop with this type of stuff and start working on Magic of Incarnum already... :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, I know this is far from being a priority to them, I would like it if they'd publish an article on Incarnum and maybe the classes from 3.5's Tome of Magic (Binder, Truenamer and Shadowcaster). Although, seeing how 'rules light' these mechanics are, most of these would probably only be sub-classes and especially with Incarnum, you have to wonder what the point would be.

[Envyus]

Hahaha yesss.

Question: Does changeling's polymorph work like the spell? Do they get effective infinite HP?

No because they just look like another Humanoid they don't actually get their traits or stats or any hp. Also they just straight up die and turn back to their normal form when killed while Polymorphed.

[T.G. Oskar]

Pretty much nailed the concept behind the races (Changeling and Warforged would be in, Shifter would have its own set of subraces), but I'm sorely disappointed about Artificer being a Wizard subclass. That said, I'm quite surprised they worked something for Eberron as their first Unearthed Arcana installment. Seems Eberron is not forgotten.

It seems that there's a good reason why they're not going with that many splats - aside from being pretty much free, these columns seem to hold all the information to expand the game, and they're relying on using their back catalog to provide the information on the settings. It also says that this uses the playtest format if only because there's a chance a future supplement has them, so it seems to be a way to gauge attention. If there's a lot of sound behind it and perhaps a solid response in a survey, they might make an actual Eberron supplement; otherwise, at least they pay lip service.

Kinda surprised that they decided to go with Dragonmarks as feats, and make them auto-scale. It's the simplest way to handle it, but it kinda ruins the idea of having characters without more powerful Dragonmarks and it sorta begs the question of how they'll handle Siberys marks.

Surprised as well that they didn't dealt with Magic Items other than the Artificer providing a temporary boost to weapons and armor and creating temporary potions and scrolls. Not sure how many people will miss the Homunculus, though (then again, the Iron Defender might probably be a Familiar in this case, available only to Artificers?)

[Elusivemike]

Although, an ever-constantly changing NPC who can never be killed WOULD be kinda awesome.

Thanks for the link, by the by.

[Callin]

The scroll thing is nice because you can toss a spell on there that you know you will use sometime during the day first thing in the morning and then not have to worry about taking a short rest to use your feature to get back spells. Though at higher levels you get a scroll and the ability to get back a lesser amount of spells which works out pretty cool.

I like the potion infusions. At the end of the day you just trade out spells not cast for potions (up to 3) and replenish each night. Its awesome and I see no reason to NOT do this. Its free spells.

Infuse Weapon and Armor is a bit lackluster but could shore up a hole in someones gear.

Superior is honestly just a side grade. Ok I can Infuse 2 items. Not bad but not great.

Master is pretty cool. With bounded accuracy even just getting something off those 2 lists is still worth it.

Changling is about what I expected it to be

Shifters are pretty cool and I really like the way they were broken up. Shifting 1/short or long rest is awesome.

Warforged is a tad lackluster but its a beat stick. I do like the stacking armor bonus though.

The Dragonmarks are pretty cool and what many were expecting. A scaling feat though is a nice twist to what I was expecting.

[calebrus]

No because they just look like another Humanoid they don't actually get their traits or stats or any hp. Also they just straight up die and turn back to their normal form when killed while Polymorphed.

This.
Basically, at our table, it would be like disguise self, but actually a physical change rather than magical.

edit:
Halfling Dragonmarked Arcane Trickster 13 / Artificer 7 is Batman, and I will be playing exactly that if we ever run an Eberron campaign at our table.

[Chadamantium]

Well now I'm super excited. I included all the Eberron material in my 3.5 campaign so now a couple players that were using warforged and dragonmarks have those options again.

plus now I get to toy with the artificer though at first glance doesn't look very powerful. Not until the higher levels that is.

[Anderlith]

I think the warforged could use a slight stat increase. Their other traits really aren't that powerful, I'd say at least a +2 Con & maybe bring out two subraces reflecting the build/task the warforged was made for.

[Human Paragon 3]

+1 AC that stacks with everything is great! Warforged is plenty good.

[EvanescentHero]

I'd say a +1 to AC that actually stacks is pretty powerful, plus not needing to sleep AND being fully cognizant while resting is great. That said, I'm also surprised that there aren't sub-races to reflect different purposes. However, I don't think they're too weak, and I'm glad to see them here again. I'm also pleasantly surprised to see changelings so soon, and intrigued by shifters. On top of all that, I'm thrilled by the way they're expanding the game, with free pdf content as opposed to expensive and numerous splat books, and I'm excited that this is going to be a monthly occurrence.

[Flashy]

The Potions basically give you a bunch of extra spells that are always prepared provided you have 10 minute casting time, and can be handed out to be used later.

Not to mention they explicitly give the wizard access some pretty reasonable healing magic, a thing no other subclass has.


Infuse Weapon and Armor is a bit lackluster but could shore up a hole in someones gear.

I actually think that ability is pretty good. Even though this is created for Eberron where magic items should be reasonably plentiful the rules as written still don't expect the Eberron setting in the subclass design. It's essentially an eight hour +1 to attack and damage rolls as a 3rd level no concentration ritual spell. If that was a spell that was in the player's handbook people would call it the best buff in the game.

[mephnick]

Artificer: Concentration buffs without using concentration. Sounds good to me.

[CrusaderJoe]

Artificer: Concentration buffs without using concentration. Sounds good to me.

Didn't take wotc long to allow magic to break their own core rules now did it.

[Rfkannen]

What are all the shifters supposed to be decendants of again?

[Psikerlord]

Artificer: Concentration buffs without using concentration. Sounds good to me.

Aye, well spotted, that plus healing is a major adv of Artificers.

I like that the rules are "draft" and meant to be tweaked.

I will be stealing warforged, artificers and dragonmarks for my campaign. Very interesting to see the dragonmark feat scales with level, that is new for feats isnt it? Opens up more options for future feat development. Excellent!

[calebrus]

Artificer: Concentration buffs without using concentration. Sounds good to me.

Yes and no.
If a potion casts a spell (such as invisibility) that requires concentration, then the imbiber must maintain concentration.

DMG, Chapter 7, page 141 > Activating an Item (drinking a potion activates it) > Spells:
"Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.
Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell."

So the Artificer doesn't have to concentrate on it unless he's the one that drinks it. It still requires concentration, just maybe not from the Artificer.

[Atmosfear]

Artificer: Concentration buffs without using concentration. Sounds good to me.

One reliable concentration buff. One.


Didn't take wotc long to allow magic to break their own core rules now did it.

You mean Sorcerer and Death Cleric didn't tip you off?

I feel like everyone who loves this Artificer needs to take a good, long look at the actual potions and Magic Items Table A and B before they get too excited. They took one of the most unique and interesting classes and made him a generic, bland mess.

[ImperiousLeader]

The racial write-ups look okay. Changeling and Shifter are solid. Warforged ... are okay, though I'm tempted to create a variant with innate body armor.

And while as a quick and dirty conversion, it's okay, I'd rather see the Artificer as it's own base class.

Dragonmarks as a feat, is probably the only way to model it, though it does mean most PCs can't start with one.

[CrusaderJoe]

The racial write-ups look okay. Changeling and Shifter are solid. Warforged ... are okay, though I'm tempted to create a variant with innate body armor.

And while as a quick and dirty conversion, it's okay, I'd rather see the Artificer as it's own base class.

Dragonmarks as a feat, is probably the only way to model it, though it does mean most PCs can't start with one.

It bugs me that so many shifters sub races get a bonus to dexterity... They could have put a little thought into making sub races that got a +1 Cha (hey, kids today are all about twilight...).

Wotc really needs to think outside boring outdated cliches.

[archaeo]

I feel like everyone who loves this Artificer needs to take a good, long look at the actual potions and Magic Items Table A and B before they get too excited. They took one of the most unique and interesting classes and made him a generic, bland mess.

I mean, in all fairness, this is a pretty good way to get the Artificer feel from an existing class in the existing structure of 5e. I get the distinct impression that WotC won't be releasing new, full-fledged classes until they're done getting feedback on the classes that already exist. It'll be a lot easier for them to move forward and start filling the niches left behind in 5e's design space after they get a good idea of what players actually want from the edition.

It's a strategy I think will work for them in the long run, but right now, it does seem like 5e development is proceeding pretty slowly. I imagine they just want to get it right the first time without breaking any promises rather than pledging a bunch of stuff they can't deliver.

[calebrus]

I feel like everyone who loves this Artificer needs to take a good, long look at the actual potions and Magic Items Table A and B before they get too excited. They took one of the most unique and interesting classes and made him a generic, bland mess.

I think you're being too literal with that list.
Any L3-4 or lower spell which affects the caster can be made into potion form. Any L3-4 spell which can affect anyone, including the caster, can be made in a potion form which only affects the imbiber.
Yes, I realize that many of those spells aren't listed on the tables, but that doesn't mean a DM has to immediately disallow them.
Example: potion of disguise self isn't on the list, but why would a DM disallow it?

[Atmosfear]

I think you're being too literal with that list.
Any L3-4 or lower spell which affects the caster can be made into potion form. Any L3-4 spell which can affect anyone, including the caster, can be made in a potion form which only affects the imbiber.
Yes, I realize that many of those spells aren't listed on the tables, but that doesn't mean a DM has to immediately disallow them.
Example: potion of disguise self isn't on the list, but why would a DM disallow it?

Sorry, but no. If that's what they intended, they should've included that. Potion of Growth and Potion of Climbing are both based on second level spells, but cost a first-level slot. Potion of Invisibility is based on a second-level spell but costs a third-level slot.

If we're trying to divine RAI from this, then I'd choose to divine Keith Baker's version, which doesn't suck.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Seems strange that all the races only have a +1/+1 to stats, while almost all PHB races have +2/+1. (Except Dwarf. Don't know why mountain dwarves get +2/+2. Seems stronger than the rest. :/) Especially Changeling. The shapechanging seems to basically be the High Elves cantrip choice, but you don't get to choose the cantrip.

That being said, love to see that they're putting out new stuff. Especially changeling. One of my main characters in 3.5 was a changeling.

[CrusaderJoe]

Seems strange that all the races only have a +1/+1 to stats, while almost all PHB races have +2/+1. (Except Dwarf. Don't know why mountain dwarves get +2/+2. Seems stronger than the rest. :/) Especially Changeling. The shapechanging seems to basically be the High Elves cantrip choice, but you don't get to choose the cantrip.

That being said, love to see that they're putting out new stuff. Especially changeling. One of my main characters in 3.5 was a changeling.

Maybe wotc thinks that just the pleasure of olayingbonebof these races is worth the +1 to ASI.

[Forrestfire]

I feel like everyone who loves this Artificer needs to take a good, long look at the actual potions and Magic Items Table A and B before they get too excited. They took one of the most unique and interesting classes and made him a generic, bland mess.

I'm looking at it, and seeing that they can make spell scrolls of any spell of 3rd-level or lower, as well as a small pile of useful magic items. Any spellcaster can get formulas to make more powerful magic items, so the better crafting can be represented by that. Personally, I really like this iteration of the artificer. They've got some neat stuff to set them apart from the other wizards (focus on "storing" spells for later use, ability to enchant items), and the fact that they trade slots for their abilities means that it avoids the pitfalls of the 3.5 artificer's crafting and WBL-mancy.

I'm not seeing a viable way to import the 3.5 artificer wholesale into 5e without losing at least something, so they dropped the most problematic thing (breaking the game through item crafting) and kept some of the other cool stuff (buffing things, creating consumable items to use as needed). Artificer in 3.5 was the most broken class in the game, bar high-op Psion and Paladin. There's no possible way to import that sort of thing into 5e, a game already have less in the realms of christmas trees and magic items, without breaking the game into little pieces.

I would have given them some way to get construct minions, but overall, I am quite happy with what we got.

On the note of the races, I'm a bit annoyed that they're all +1/+1 for ability scores, but otherwise I'm glad that they're supporting the setting online. I'll probably buff them for my games to +2/+1.

[Zweisteine]

Yay for long replies!


My only issue with the dragonmarks as feats is that barring houserules you have to be human to have one at first level.
Ah, a houserule! Here's mine, which I just now made up:
If you with to take a dragonmark at level 1, you may do so without spending a feat. However, you only gain access to the cantrip, and you must spend your next available feat slot to get the dragon mark feat.


But they need to stop with this type of stuff and start working on Magic of Incarnum already... :smalltongue:
Yeah!


I would like it if they'd publish an article on Incarnum and maybe the classes from 3.5's Tome of Magic.
I think this would be bad. It's better to wait until the edition is well established to bring in entirely new rulesets, especially ones that add so much complexity. If they do these now, they'll be half-baked subclasses that lose the majority of the subsystems' flavor. I want to see incarnum done justice.
Oh, and a a low-quality instant-partial-homebrew binder:
(notes: I do not have my books on hand (which is why there are no spells here). Also, this has only a very vague semblance of balance.)

Instead of choosing one patron to make a pact with, you have chosen them all.
Binding: You may make temporary pacts with the other warlock patrons. As a 1-hour ritual (which may be part of a long rest), you may form a 1-day pact with one of the other warlock patrons. The powers granted by that patron lie silently within you until you choose to activate them, at which point you gain the full benefits of that patron for a number of hours equal to your charisma modifier. You must complete a short rest before you can use this ability again.

When you would get your next patron feature, you gain the ability to conduct a 1-hour ritual to change the pact that you benefit from. This effect is permanent. If you change pact then return to your previous pact, you keep the same version of the pact you previously possessed (for example, you may not change the spells in your book each time you choose the Pact of the Tome).

Alternate binding: At level 1, you get something. For the second patron feature, you gain the ability to choose one of the other patrons each day, and get the first ability they grant. As the third feature, you also gain the other patron's second feature, etc.

Pretty much nailed the concept behind the races (Changeling and Warforged would be in, Shifter would have its own set of subraces), but I'm sorely disappointed about Artificer being a Wizard subclass.
What about the Kalashtar?
And yeah, it sucks that artificer had to be lost inside wizard, but it's not bad.


If there's a lot of sound behind it and perhaps a solid response in a survey, they might make an actual Eberron supplement; otherwise, at least they pay lip service.
They'd better...
And such a supplement might contain a better artificer!


Kinda surprised that they decided to go with Dragonmarks as feats, and make them auto-scale. It's the simplest way to handle it, but it kinda ruins the idea of having characters without more powerful Dragonmarks and it sorta begs the question of how they'll handle Siberys marks.
1. If you don't want the bigger dragonmark, you could say you don't have it and never use the ability.
2. That does not beg any question. It raises the question.


Surprised as well that they didn't dealt with Magic Items other than the Artificer providing a temporary boost to weapons and armor and creating temporary potions and scrolls. Not sure how many people will miss the Homunculus, though (then again, the Iron Defender might probably be a Familiar in this case, available only to Artificers?)
Another houserule! Yay me!
Homunculus: When you cast the spell find familiar, your familiar is of the construct type instead of its normal type, ignoring the types normally used by that spell.


Basically, at our table, it would be like disguise self, but actually a physical change rather than magical.
Yeah, that seems like a good idea. IIRC, that's exactly what I did in my homebrew changeling, but with a much longer and more complex wording.


What are all the shifters supposed to be decendants of again?
All the were-things!


The racial write-ups look okay. Changeling and Shifter are solid. Warforged ... are okay, though I'm tempted to create a variant with innate body armor.
What? +1 AC isn't innate body armor?
Yeah, the Warforged here is a bit lackluster, but it has nice abilities. Personally, I'd give +2 Con (possibly replacing the strength bonus), and I'd make some sort of subraces for the different metals.
Ooh, ooh, ooh! More homebrew!
Ability Score Increase. Your Strength and Constitution scores increase by 1.
Size. Warforged are generally broader and heavier than humans. Your size is Medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
Composite Plating. Your construction incorporates wood and metal, granting you a +1 bonus to Armor Class.
Living Construct. Even though you were constructed, you are a living creature. You are immune to disease. You do not need to eat or breathe, but you can ingest food and drink if you wish.
Instead of sleeping, you enter an inactive state for 4 hours each day. You do not dream in this state; you are fully aware of your surroundings and notice approaching enemies and other events as normal.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and one other language of your choice.
Base (this is a variant of the normal warforged)
Abilities. +1 Str, +2 Con.
All others as presented in the article.

Adamantine
Abilities. +2 Con. This replaces the normal racial ability score modifiers
Composite Adamantine Plating. +2 AC. You have a maximum dexterity bonus to armor class of +2. This replaces the normal Composite Plating trait.
Speed. 25 feet.
(For additional balance, consider adding these: requires 6 hours pseudo-sleep instead of 4, only knows one language, speed down to 20 feet, and/or a max dex bonus of +3).

Mithral
Abilities. +1 Dex, +1 Con. This replaces the normal racial ability score modifiers.
Speed. 35 feet.
(Alternative: +1 Str, +1 Dex)


Tl;dr:
I made a bunch of quick home-brew!
Level 1 dragon marks, binders as a partial warlock subclass, an artificer's homunculus, and warforged subraces!

UP WITH EBERRON! DOWN WITH THE FORGOTTEN REALMS!

[mephnick]

One reliable concentration buff. One.

Yeah, but it's a sweet one.

Also, I'll be allowing all the other potions and this gives me a framework to base it around.

[SharkForce]

Yes and no.
If a potion casts a spell (such as invisibility) that requires concentration, then the imbiber must maintain concentration.

DMG, Chapter 7, page 141 > Activating an Item (drinking a potion activates it) > Spells:
"Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.
Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell."

So the Artificer doesn't have to concentrate on it unless he's the one that drinks it. It still requires concentration, just maybe not from the Artificer.

ok, and what's the next sentence after the bolded part say?

"Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration"

which is pretty important, because all the stuff before that is talking about how you handle items that let you cast a spell... ie not potions, because potions don't let you cast the spell. it bypasses casting the spell, and confers the spell's effects with their usual duration. the spell is never cast as such, and if nobody casts the spell, nobody needs to concentrate on the spell. the rules before are for things like, say, wands, which do allow you to cast a spell. if you use a wand of web to cast a web spell, you must concentrate it. if you were to drink a potion of web (if such a thing even exists), nobody casts a spell, you just get all webby and your life sucks.

additionally, as written, the artificer appears to be able to use the ability to create scrolls to create a scroll of any spell they know. I pretty much expect that to change, because right now the artificer can use that to essentially cast high level spells twice in one day... something which WotC seems to have gone to a great deal of effort to ensure does *not* happen in every other situation I can think of.

add to that the ability to give bonuses to AC and attack/damage (up to +3 AC and up to +4 attack/damage if used for a ranged character, +2 attack/damage for melee) which last 8 hours and take no concentration, as noted... admittedly not stacking with magic weapons or armour, but still, pretty significant.

it really does not look at all weak to me. quite the opposite, in fact.

[Callin]

Thats true a 20th level Wizard Artificer could make a 9th level Scroll at the start of the day and still have a bit of Spell Levels to refresh his lowers. That is a very good ability.

[calebrus]

ok, and what's the next sentence after the bolded part say?

"Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration"

which is pretty important, because all the stuff before that is talking about how you handle items that let you cast a spell... ie not potions, because potions don't let you cast the spell. it bypasses casting the spell, and confers the spell's effects with their usual duration. the spell is never cast as such, and if nobody casts the spell, nobody needs to concentrate on the spell. the rules before are for things like, say, wands, which do allow you to cast a spell. if you use a wand of web to cast a web spell, you must concentrate it. if you were to drink a potion of web (if such a thing even exists), nobody casts a spell, you just get all webby and your life sucks.

Wrong.
It says it bypasses the casting of the spell and confers the spell's effects, yes.
But that just means it reads like this instead:
"The spell potion uses its normal casting time range and duration, and the user of the item potion drinker must concentrate if the spell requires concentration."

It bypassed the "casting of the spell" because you didn't cast it, the potion did. You drank the potion to activate it. Beyond that, it works exactly like the spell, and if that spell required concentration, so does the potion (unless it specifically says otherwise, like the potion of growth).

[CrusaderJoe]

I would have given them some way to get construct minions, but overall, I am quite happy with what we got.


Animate Object usable 1/day no spell slot used up?

[SharkForce]

Wrong.
It says it bypasses the casting of the spell and confers the spell's effects, yes.
But that just means it reads like this instead:
"The spell potion uses its normal casting time range and duration, and the user of the item potion drinker must concentrate if the spell requires concentration."

It bypassed the "casting of the spell" because you didn't cast it, the potion did. You drank the potion to activate it. Beyond that, it works exactly like the spell, and if that spell required concentration, so does the potion (unless it specifically says otherwise, like the potion of growth).

eh, not seeing that.

the caster is the one who has to concentrate on the spell. if there is no caster (which is the case because casting the spell got bypassed), there is nobody who has to concentrate on the spell.

[RedMage125]

Kind of like what Zwei said, I had an idea for the homunculus.

Allow an artificer to craft a Small construct body around level 5 or 6. He may use the Find Familiar spell/ritual to infuse a fey/celestial/fiendish spirit into the body to animate it (or if he has a familiar already, put the spirit into the body, much like changing a familiar's shape). If the construct is destroyed, the familiar is as well. Should the artificer wish to change the homonculus' shape, he can craft a new body, and cast the spell again to move the spirit into a new body.

"Homonculus" familiars should probably not be able to disappear into a pocket dimension, but should probably be more hardy.

Give me some time, I could probably come up with some decent statistics for Iron Defender, Packmate, and maybe one or two more familiars.

[AirApparent]

Even if it did force the potion drinker to concentrate on it, you still get to split concentration among other party members who wouldn't have normally done so.

In an intrigue game, getting the rogue to concentrate on mind reading so you can cast charm person or somesuch

[calebrus]

if there is no caster (which is the case because casting the spell got bypassed), there is nobody who has to concentrate on the spell.

"and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration."
I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp here. The casting of the spell got bypassed by the drinking of the potion. Using the Artificer's spell slot, the potion essentially cast the spell instead of the Artificer.
There is someone to concentrate. The user of the item, in this case, the person who drank the potion.
Just like the rules say.

edit:
Unless you're saying that no magic items that cast spells ever have "someone" casting them, and therefore none of them ever require concentration.
If that's the case, why add that line about the user of the item in the first place?
If that's the case, why do some of the potions (growth, heroism, etc) specifically state that no concentration is required? That would be a completely redundant line of text, which only appears in a handful of the potions listed.

[Eslin]

To all those who are going to call this abuse - sure, way too strong for a racial ability. But remember to keep your arguments game balance based, because RaW I'm 100% right - we know how polymorph works, and shapechanger specifies that you're polymorphing.


No because they just look like another Humanoid they don't actually get their traits or stats or any hp. Also they just straight up die and turn back to their normal form when killed while Polymorphed.

See, that's actually not true. Polymorphing isn't a general condition, it's a specific spell, and it states that the target's game statistics are replaced by the new form's and that the transformation lasts until you hit 0 hp or die. The shapechanging ability has a few differences, namely that they revert to their new appearance if they die any can turn into any humanoid they have seen instead of beasts in general - which means, RaW, that they can flat out turn into party members and gain their stats. Great way to double up on the artificer's power at the start of the day!

Side note - 0hp or die for polymorph, the only part that is changed for shapechanger is dying. If you hit 0hp, out pops your full HP normal form.


Seems strange that all the races only have a +1/+1 to stats, while almost all PHB races have +2/+1. (Except Dwarf. Don't know why mountain dwarves get +2/+2. Seems stronger than the rest. :/) Especially Changeling. The shapechanging seems to basically be the High Elves cantrip choice, but you don't get to choose the cantrip.
Warforged get +1 AC, shifters get temporary HP+beasthide or razorclaw(others aren't worth using), changelings get a racial ability so absurdly good that they don't need stats at all - not sure why you're equating it to a cantrip, it's a humanoid only polymorph. Was a bit worried about the can't speak, cast etc part until I remembered it specified it was due to lack of hands or speech so the humanoid part fixes that.

[Giant2005]

To all those who are going to call this abuse - sure, way too strong for a racial ability. But remember to keep your arguments game balance based, because RaW I'm 100% right - we know how polymorph works, and shapechanger specifies that you're polymorphing.



See, that's actually not true. Polymorphing isn't a general condition, it's a specific spell, and it states that the target's game statistics are replaced by the new form's and that the transformation lasts until you hit 0 hp or die. The shapechanging ability has a few differences, namely that they revert to their new appearance if they die any can turn into any humanoid they have seen instead of beasts in general - which means, RaW, that they can flat out turn into party members and gain their stats. Great way to double up on the artificer's power at the start of the day!

Side note - 0hp or die for polymorph, the only part that is changed for shapechanger is dying. If you hit 0hp, out pops your full HP normal form.


Warforged get +1 AC, shifters get temporary HP+beasthide or razorclaw(others aren't worth using), changelings get a racial ability so absurdly good that they don't need stats at all - not sure why you're equating it to a cantrip, it's a humanoid only polymorph. Was a bit worried about the can't speak, cast etc part until I remembered it specified it was due to lack of hands or speech so the humanoid part fixes that.

That is all assuming that the Changeling is casting the Polymorph spell, which he isn't. The description makes no statement regarding the spell but it does state that he transforms into humanoids which is mutually exclusive with the spell that can only transform things into beasts.
The description is using the word polymorph as a verb, not some game defined term - it is merely stating that the Changeling can transform into other humanoids but it doesn't give us any specifics on what that actually means. However as the ability doesn't make any mention that the character's abilities are replaced in any way, it is safe to assume that the character's basic abilities remain as that is the status quo for any ability that doesn't state otherwise.

[Zweisteine]

"and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration."
I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp here.[QUTIf that's the case, why do some of the potions (growth, heroism, etc) specifically state that no concentration is required? That would be a completely redundant line of text, which only appears in a handful of the potions listed.
SharkForce is interpreting that DMG paragraph differently than you are.

I will attempt to clarify what Shark said, based on the passage from the DMG.


Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.
Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
The first bolded statement says that some items let people cast spells. The paragraph then describes what happens when an item lets you cast a spell.
The second bolded statement says that other items do not involve casting a spell, but simply grant the spell's effect.

So Shark is saying that the bit about concentration applies only to items that let you cast a spell, and not items that bypass the casting, such as potions.

This is the same position I hold, and might use in games I run. HOWEVER:


If that's the case, why do some of the potions (growth, heroism, etc) specifically state that no concentration is required? That would be a completely redundant line of text, which only appears in a handful of the potions listed.
This is the only reason I see to go the other way, and it's a powerful one. If one potion specifically states that it does not require concentration, I would be inclined to believe RAW is that other potions do require concentration.


So my opinion on this matter is:
The RAW is unclear and mildly contradictory. The RAI is unknown, and arguments could be made either way. It's entirely possible that whoever wrote the section about items and concentration meant for potions to bypass concentration, and whoever wrote the potions misread that.

I would allow potions to bypass concentration unless my players abused then, at which point they would reach the point where their bodies are so used to the magic that they have to concentrate to maintain it.


EDIT:
EPIPHANY!
I just realized what's wrong with this Eberron update.
It's meant as a quick update, something to show off with. It essentially amounts to official WotC homebrew. It didn't undergo playtesting, doesn't seem unreasonably powerful on paper, and, most importantly, is not meant to be used without common sense. These new rules were built only to be used.

They were not built to withstand the combined might of the internet. A reasonable DM most likely would rule that Changelings can not use polymorph as the spell at will, but have an ability more akin to a physical version of Disguise Self.

Similarly, these are not meant to be used by DM's who have no idea what they are supposed to be. These are meant for reasonable players and DMs who know about Eberron and want to bring that setting's rules into 5e.

EDIT 2:
HA! Would ya look at that!

You can think of the material presented in this series as similar to the first wave of the fifth edition playtest. These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your campaign but not fully tempered by playtests and design iterations. They are highly volatile and might be unstable; if you use them, be ready to rule on any issues that come up. They’re written in pencil, not ink.
It's right there in the article!

Oh, and look, I made a failed project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369196-Updating-Eberron-for-5e-(added-changeling)) to do all this stuff myself once!

[calebrus]

EDIT 2:
HA! Would ya look at that!

It's right there in the article!

Yeah I was about to quote it for you, but it looks like you found it between the time I read your post and hit reply myself.
Just like everything in 5e, these things require common sense rather than rules-lawyering (these things just moreso). The rules-lawyering need only happen in feedback. Common sense rules at the table.

Example: You can be certain that the word "polymorph" will be replaced with a phrase akin to " change shape to physically alter his appearance" under the Changeling feature.

[Zweisteine]

Yeah.

Actually, right after I made that post, I went and checked out Keith Baker's website to see if he'd said anything about this, and it was right there, that quote.

[calebrus]

Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.

The first bolded statement says that some items let people cast spells. The paragraph then describes what happens when an item lets you cast a spell.
The second bolded statement says that other items do not involve casting a spell, but simply grant the spell's effect.

So Shark is saying that the bit about concentration applies only to items that let you cast a spell, and not items that bypass the casting, such as potions.

The thing you both seem to be missing is the part I bolded.
"with their usual duration."
Take invisibility, for example. What is invisibility's "usual duration?"

Invisibility:
Duration: Concentration, up to one hour.

It doesn't matter if "someone" cast the spell or not. You use its usual duration. If its usual duration requires concentration, the the user of the item must maintain concentration.
There are exceptions which change durations and/or require no concentration, but those exceptions are spelled out in the potion's description. If no exceptions are listed, it works exactly like the potion drinker cast the spell.

The casting of the spell is bypassed, meaning it requires no verbal/somatic/material components. You drink the potion in place of doing these things. But unless it specifically states otherwise, the spell "uses their usual duration."
In the case that its usual duration requires concentration, it tells you that "the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration".

It's not ambiguous or murky. Like many other rules in 5e it's a little convoluted in how to reach that conclusion, but it's not ambiguous or murky.

[Envyus]

To all those who are going to call this abuse - sure, way too strong for a racial ability. But remember to keep your arguments game balance based, because RaW I'm 100% right - we know how polymorph works, and shapechanger specifies that you're polymorphing.



See, that's actually not true. Polymorphing isn't a general condition, it's a specific spell, and it states that the target's game statistics are replaced by the new form's and that the transformation lasts until you hit 0 hp or die. The shapechanging ability has a few differences, namely that they revert to their new appearance if they die any can turn into any humanoid they have seen instead of beasts in general - which means, RaW, that they can flat out turn into party members and gain their stats. Great way to double up on the artificer's power at the start of the day!

Side note - 0hp or die for polymorph, the only part that is changed for shapechanger is dying. If you hit 0hp, out pops your full HP normal form.



No your 100% wrong. Because this is not the spell Polymorph. You are polymorphing (Which is a word for shapechanging into another thing) The changling then takes the form of a humanoid it has a seen. When they die they turn back to normal. But are still dead. This is not the Polymorph spell. If it was the polymorph spell it would say it was like every ability in the game that uses a spell.

So no this is not even RaW because it's not the spell. Meaning you are a wrong here. Here is the guy that wrote the thing saying you are wrong.


@mikemearls The changelings stats are supposed to be the same no matter the form correct.
@CHoffos correct


Plus the Pencil not Ink thing as written above.

[Eslin]

That is all assuming that the Changeling is casting the Polymorph spell, which he isn't.
Yes he is. I've searched all the books for polymorph, it only comes up in the course of the polymorph spell - if it said the changeling got to nondetection or misty step, what would that mean? It would mean you used the spell. Polymorph exists nowhere in 5e apart from spells.


The description makes no statement regarding the spell but it does state that he transforms into humanoids which is mutually exclusive with the spell that can only transform things into beasts.
The description is using the word polymorph as a verb, not some game defined term - it is merely stating that the Changeling can transform into other humanoids but it doesn't give us any specifics on what that actually means. However as the ability doesn't make any mention that the character's abilities are replaced in any way, it is safe to assume that the character's basic abilities remain as that is the status quo for any ability that doesn't state otherwise.
Except as a verb it still applies as the spell, since the spell is the only description of polymorph we have in 5e. Only differences we can see is humans instead of beasts and equipment remains instead of melding, other than that it's the same - so yes, you replace the stats.


No your 100% wrong. Because this is not the spell Polymorph. You are polymorphing (Which is a word for shapechanging into another thing) The changling then takes the form of a humanoid it has a seen. When they die they turn back to normal. But are still dead. This is not the Polymorph spell. If it was the polymorph spell it would say it was like every ability in the game that uses a spell.

So no this is not even RaW because it's not the spell. Meaning you are a wrong here. Here is the guy that wrote the thing saying you are wrong.
But it is the spell. We have precisely one source of polymorph in 5e, and it's the polymorph spell - if you get an ability which uses haste as a verb, it pretty clearly means the spell haste. Don't get me wrong, not actually advocating it working like this - going to change how it works, because as-is changelings are insanely overpowered and if the ability is used RaI insanely underpowered (wow, +1 cha +1 dex and a cantrip! Amazing!). But RaW I am absolutely correct, though I expect the wording will be cleared up in the same round of editing that gives changelings better racial abilities.

Seriously, for the other two +1/+1 makes sense, but for RaI changelings it's incredibly underwhelming.

[Giant2005]

Yes he is. I've searched all the books for polymorph, it only comes up in the course of the polymorph spell - if it said the changeling got to nondetection or misty step, what would that mean? It would mean you used the spell. Polymorph exists nowhere in 5e apart from spells.


Except as a verb it still applies as the spell, since the spell is the only description of polymorph we have in 5e. Only differences we can see is humans instead of beasts and equipment remains instead of melding, other than that it's the same - so yes, you replace the stats.


But it is the spell. We have precisely one source of polymorph in 5e, and it's the polymorph spell - if you get an ability which uses haste as a verb, it pretty clearly means the spell haste. Don't get me wrong, not actually advocating it working like this - going to change how it works, because as-is changelings are insanely overpowered and if the ability is used RaI insanely underpowered (wow, +1 cha +1 dex and a cantrip! Amazing!). But RaW I am absolutely correct, though I expect the wording will be cleared up in the same round of editing that gives changelings better racial abilities.

Seriously, for the other two +1/+1 makes sense, but for RaI changelings it's incredibly underwhelming.

That is nonsense logic. Just because the verb in use has the same name as a spell doesn't mean that spell was being cast. DnD doesn't offer definitions for every verb used - we are supposed to use common sense. The verb polymorph is as undefined as any other verb used in the game and yu shouldn't be assigning extra game meanings just because you feel like it. Your argument is akin to saying making friends with someone must impose the bonuses and penalties of the "Friends" spell because we have no other rules on what the friends condition means.

[Envyus]

Yes he is. I've searched all the books for polymorph, it only comes up in the course of the polymorph spell - if it said the changeling got to nondetection or misty step, what would that mean? It would mean you used the spell. Polymorph exists nowhere in 5e apart from spells.


Except as a verb it still applies as the spell, since the spell is the only description of polymorph we have in 5e. Only differences we can see is humans instead of beasts and equipment remains instead of melding, other than that it's the same - so yes, you replace the stats.


But it is the spell. We have precisely one source of polymorph in 5e, and it's the polymorph spell - if you get an ability which uses haste as a verb, it pretty clearly means the spell haste. Don't get me wrong, not actually advocating it working like this - going to change how it works, because as-is changelings are insanely overpowered and if the ability is used RaI insanely underpowered (wow, +1 cha +1 dex and a cantrip! Amazing!). But RaW I am absolutely correct, though I expect the wording will be cleared up in the same round of editing that gives changelings better racial abilities.

Seriously, for the other two +1/+1 makes sense, but for RaI changelings it's incredibly underwhelming.

No it's not RaW.

You are still wrong anyway. Polymorphing is physically changing one's body into another shape. They simple forgot to put the stats remain the same no matter the form. Here is the same ability possessed by the Doppelganger aka the parents of Changlings.

I am going to Bold a part of it.


Shapechanger. The doppelganger can use its action to polymorph into a Small or Medium humanoid it has seen, or back into its true form. Its statistics, other than its size, are the same in each form. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying isn't transformed. It reverts to its true form if it dies.

This is literally the power changelings have. Also no it is not under powered RaI. The changeling can do fine in combat but it's main thing is way more helpful out of it. Being able to appear as any humanoid plus auto knowing the deception skill is useful as hell. Need into the Orc fortress changling pretends to be an Orc and lets everyone in. Along with tons of other uses being able to appear as anyone seen can have.

[Eslin]

No it's not RaW.

You are still wrong anyway. Polymorphing is physically changing one's body into another shape. They simple forgot to put the stats remain the same no matter the form. Here is the same ability possessed by the Doppelganger aka the parents of Changlings.

I am going to Bold a part of it.
Yep, for doppelgangers the stats remain the same, since it specifically states that. For changelings, who are working with the polymorph spell without that alteration, their stats change. And yes, they did simply forget that - this is a rough draft, as stated I fully expect the wording to be clarified at the same time as they buff the changeling to stop it being an inferior variant human.


This is literally the power changelings have. Also no it is not under powered RaI. The changeling can do fine in combat but it's main thing is way more helpful out of it. Being able to appear as any humanoid plus auto knowing the deception skill is useful as hell. Need into the Orc fortress changling pretends to be an Orc and lets everyone in. Along with tons of other uses being able to appear as anyone seen can have.
Except that's not even slightly worth it. It's worse than the first level spell which also changes your equipment, which a variant human can pick up with its bonus feat if really necessary - changeling gets a fixed +1/+1 and a fixed skill, variant human gets their choice of +1/+1 and their choice of skill. Changeling is strictly inferior, and needs at least a +2 there somewhere and some more minor abilities.

[Magic Myrmidon]

If it is the polymorph spell, then yeah, the +1/+1 is actually overpowered. Or rather, the race would be overpowered, since you could adjust your stats to be whatever you want whenever you want.

Sooo... you may be right. But if it is basically disguise self at will, the +1/+1 is a little meh, I think.

Edit: I did not check the topic before posting this. This is probably irrelevant/already stated.

[Envyus]

Yep, for doppelgangers the stats remain the same, since it specifically states that. For changelings, who are working with the polymorph spell without that alteration, their stats change. And yes, they did simply forget that - this is a rough draft, as stated I fully expect the wording to be clarified at the same time as they buff the changeling to stop it being an inferior variant human.


Except that's not even slightly worth it. It's worse than the first level spell which also changes your equipment, which a variant human can pick up with its bonus feat if really necessary - changeling gets a fixed +1/+1 and a fixed skill, variant human gets their choice of +1/+1 and their choice of skill. Changeling is strictly inferior, and needs at least a +2 there somewhere and some more minor abilities.

Minus that feat does not actually physically change their appearance. While the Changlings does.

You also still wrong as the Polymorph spell is not mentioned. If it was the spell it would say "like the spell of the same name" Same as the doppleganger. But you want to be annoying and pushy about everything so I give up. It's not RaW and you are the only person who would interpret this that way.:smallmad:

[Suichimo]

Seems strange that all the races only have a +1/+1 to stats, while almost all PHB races have +2/+1. (Except Dwarf. Don't know why mountain dwarves get +2/+2. Seems stronger than the rest. :/) Especially Changeling. The shapechanging seems to basically be the High Elves cantrip choice, but you don't get to choose the cantrip.

That being said, love to see that they're putting out new stuff. Especially changeling. One of my main characters in 3.5 was a changeling.

Mountain Dwarves get the extra +2 because their racial ability can be negated by their class extremely easily.


@Eslin

If someone said "Let us make haste!" do you assume they mean the spell as well?

[Lord Kristivas]

The Warforged was disappointing, in my opinion. I don't think it stacks up to other races.

Ability Score Increase.
Why? Most other races get +3 to +4 in bonuses. I don't see the +1 AC being so amazing as to only give WF two +1s. I think it would have worked better with subraces, and it seems like that got left out.

Composite Plating.
I'm not even going to try and say +1 AC is bad, because it's not. However, does this mean Warforged can stick on a suit of plate mail now? After years of 3.5 Eberron, I guess that just seems ridiculous to me. I really liked the faster, lighter Mithril models and the heavy tank Adamantine models. You could have several Warforged in a party and they not all be the same before even factoring in classes. How is putting on Studded Leather going to further protect a dude made of metal and wood?

Living Construct.
Good ability. Can apparently be healed normally with magic now.

[Envyus]

If it is the polymorph spell, then yeah, the +1/+1 is actually overpowered. Or rather, the race would be overpowered, since you could adjust your stats to be whatever you want whenever you want.

Sooo... you may be right. But if it is basically disguise self at will, the +1/+1 is a little meh, I think.

Edit: I did not check the topic before posting this. This is probably irrelevant/already stated.

Nah it's better then disguise self. This can't be seen through as an illuision and the changes are real. If you touched a Disguised self person it's pointed out the illusion would be discovered. With the changling it's an actual change.

But he is wrong anyway.

[Envyus]

@Eslin

If someone said "Let us make haste!" do you assume they mean the spell as well?

He is not even right about haste. here is the Clay Golem ability called Haste.


Haste (Recharge 5-6). Until the end of its next turn, the
golem magically gains a +2 bonus to its AC , has advantage
on Dexterity saving throws, and can use its slam attack as a
bonus action.

It's not the spell haste. It gives stuff like the spell but it's still different.

[calebrus]

Ability Score Increase.
Why? Most other races get +3 to +4 in bonuses. I don't see the +1 AC being so amazing as to only give WF two +1s. I think it would have worked better with subraces, and it seems like that got left out.

People are making WAY too big a deal out of the +1/+1 that these races get.
I'll explain why.
The article directly states that these were designed and are to be used like "similar to the first wave of the fifth edition play test."
Do you know which races had +1/+1 stat mods during the early play test?
ALL OF THEM.
Literally every single race had +1/+1 in the early play test. This document was designed in the same way. This way, they can see how things are working and decide where to place another bonus or two, if they are needed.
Remember, this is written in pencil, not in ink. The sky is not falling.

[Eslin]

Minus that feat does not actually physically change their appearance. While the Changlings does.

You also still wrong as the Polymorph spell is not mentioned. If it was the spell it would say "like the spell of the same name" Same as the doppleganger. But you want to be annoying and pushy about everything so I give up. It's not RaW and you are the only person who would interpret this that way.:smallmad:

It changes their equipment, which the changeling can't. Which is much more useful for infiltration. I'm not the only person who would interpret it that way, but it doesn't matter - it's bad wording, and it'll be fixed, just as the changeling being undertuned will be fixed.


Mountain Dwarves get the extra +2 because their racial ability can be negated by their class extremely easily.
@Eslin

If someone said "Let us make haste!" do you assume they mean the spell as well?

If it's an ability referring to haste and something clearly magical? Yes.


Nah it's better then disguise self. This can't be seen through as an illuision and the changes are real. If you touched a Disguised self person it's pointed out the illusion would be discovered. With the changling it's an actual change.

But he is wrong anyway.
Again, equipment>touch. The ability is decent, it's just definitely not worth being the only thing in a fixed +1/+1 race.


He is not even right about haste. here is the Clay Golem ability called Haste.

It's not the spell haste. It gives stuff like the spell but it's still different.
Yes, in a way that is clearly and explicitly different. The changeling ability just says you polymorph into someone, and we know how polymorph works.

[Envyus]

Yes, in a way that is clearly and explicitly different. The changeling ability just says you polymorph into someone, and we know how polymorph works.

yeah it works like the changeling shape shift ability works. if they wanted you to use the polymorph spells and the stuff it does for this abilty it would have directed you there. As polymorph is not in the basic rules even. Lots don't know how polymorph works. Meaning it's supposed to work with what is written in the abilty. If more was meant it would say so.

[Giant2005]

People are making WAY too big a deal out of the +1/+1 that these races get.
I'll explain why.
The article directly states that these were designed and are to be used like "similar to the first wave of the fifth edition play test."
Do you know which races had +1/+1 stat mods during the early play test?
ALL OF THEM.
Literally every single race had +1/+1 in the early play test. This document was designed in the same way. This way, they can see how things are working and decide where to place another bonus or two, if they are needed.
Remember, this is written in pencil, not in ink. The sky is not falling.

I assumed that those races were intended to have subraces that would give them the extra stat. We just don't have those subraces yet.

[calebrus]

I assumed that those races were intended to have subraces that would give them the extra stat. We just don't have those subraces yet.

No, it's because of the early play test style of design.
Look at Shifter.
+1 Dex for race, +1 something for subrace.
They have subraces, and they only have +1/+1 (or a single +2, which is kind of the same thing at +1dex/+1dex, depending on subrace choice).

[Envyus]

It changes their equipment, which the changeling can't. Which is much more useful for infiltration. I'm not the only person who would interpret it that way, but it doesn't matter - it's bad wording, and it'll be fixed, just as the changeling being undertuned will be fixed.

Again, equipment>touch. The ability is decent, it's just definitely not worth being the only thing in a fixed +1/+1 race.


When the equipment is fake no it's not as useful. Plus changling can just change it's outfit manually. The disguise self spell can be seen through the Changlings can't.

[Eslin]

When the equipment is fake no it's not as useful. Plus changling can just change it's outfit manually. The disguise self spell can be seen through the Changlings can't.

Yes, it is. If you have time to actually gather the equipment necessary you have time to do better than just using the changeling ability - disguise self works much better than changing does without prep time, and from experience those are the instances are the important ones. You want either general use abilities (since they'll often or always apply) or specific use abilities that work without preparation (since if you have prep time, you can just acquire specific use abilities). Changeling has neither.

[Envyus]

Yes, it is. If you have time to actually gather the equipment necessary you have time to do better than just using the changeling ability - disguise self works much better than changing does without prep time, and from experience those are the instances are the important ones. You want either general use abilities (since they'll often or always apply) or specific use abilities that work without preparation (since if you have prep time, you can just acquire specific use abilities). Changeling has neither.

Give me a Scenario. When getting touched can give away your disguise. I vote Changeling.

Then I will tell you how it could work just as good if not better with the Changeling.

[T.G. Oskar]

It bugs me that so many shifters sub races get a bonus to dexterity... They could have put a little thought into making sub races that got a +1 Cha (hey, kids today are all about twilight...).

Wotc really needs to think outside boring outdated cliches.

Thing is, most of the original "subraces" of the Shifter had a bonus to Dexterity. At least, Cliffwalk and Longstride had a Dexterity bonus. Razorclaw is the one that surprised me, since originally it was a Strength bonus, not Dexterity, but then again, Wildhunt raised Constitution and went for Wisdom, when the ONLY "subrace" (or, as it was originally called, Shifter Trait) that raised Wisdom was Dreamsight. Most likely, they went for Dexterity with Razorclaw Shifters if only to provide options for Dex-based attackers (Monks, most likely?), while Longtooth keeps Strength because it allows for an automatic grapple when using your bite (which requires a Strength [Athletics] check).

That said, Shifters NEVER had Traits that boosted Intelligence or Charisma; in 3.5, those were the penalized stats. In a system that imposes no penalties by means of race (except Monster races, as per the DMG, but official races have no penalties to ability scores), this is the closest thing, and it fits the original vision.


Seems strange that all the races only have a +1/+1 to stats, while almost all PHB races have +2/+1. (Except Dwarf. Don't know why mountain dwarves get +2/+2. Seems stronger than the rest. :/) Especially Changeling. The shapechanging seems to basically be the High Elves cantrip choice, but you don't get to choose the cantrip.

They're using the playtest format, apparently. All races in the playtest had +1 to two scores; this changed on the PHB. In fact, the Warforged write-up is exactly as the one from the playtest, complete with the way Composite Plating was worked (in actual PHB rules, it'd be a replacement to armor, much like Barkskin or Mage Armor). The only differences between the playtest version and this one is some added fluff in the Size and Composite Plating descriptions. Likely, this was the playtest approach to these classes.

If anything, it's easy to figure out which are the stats that gain a +2: Changelings get +2 to Charisma, Shifters get +2 to Dexterity (making Cliffwalk, Longstride and Razorclaw Shifters gain a massive +3 to Dexterity), Warforged get +2 to Constitution.


What about the Kalashtar?
And yeah, it sucks that artificer had to be lost inside wizard, but it's not bad.

I still say the Artificer could have been its own class, particularly since it has been a class in 3.5 and 4e, and there's other classes that work better as subclasses (the Swashbuckler is one that comes to mind, probably the Soulknife as a Psychic Warrior Archetype/whatever name they give it; the Battlemaster works decent as a Samurai). As someone mentioned, it has the capability of 3-4 subclasses of its own (though, the way they handled Potions, Alchemist Savant won't be one of them. Still can have a pet-based subclass (Effigy Master, perhaps?)


1. If you don't want the bigger dragonmark, you could say you don't have it and never use the ability.

It's still there.

That said, thinking it after a while, it really doesn't matter with NPCs. The way they handled Dragonmarks, and how they organized the content, makes for a large amount of new NPC builds. Say, a Deneith Blademark? Take the Guard, slap on the Blade Ward cantrip and the Compelled Duel spell, make it exclusively human. Kundarak Warder? Take a Dwarf, give it proficiency with Thieves' Tools and at least one of the Thief's features, good Dex and Int, Alarm as a spell and Resistance as a cantrip. Jorasco Healer? Even easier: Halfling, proficiency in Medicine, Cure Wounds as a spell and Spare the Dying as a Cantrip, and a fair boost to Wisdom.

The weirdness of not having a feat at 1st level does affect the way many Dragonmarked characters are built, though. It's getting dangerously close to force every character to have a free feat at 1st level, if only because it's rare to see a table that doesn't use them (even if they're optional)


Another houserule! Yay me!
Homunculus: When you cast the spell find familiar, your familiar is of the construct type instead of its normal type, ignoring the types normally used by that spell.

Don't think it'll work. There is already a Homunculus in the Monster Manual (it IS a construct, though; can't be used as a familiar, oddly enough, but IS constructed as one). Maybe, rather than as Find Familiar, the Iron Defender will be a variant of the Homunculus, with a different ritual? It's actually stronger (Medium sized, and similar to a Mastiff otherwise).


UP WITH EBERRON! DOWN WITH THE FORGOTTEN REALMS!

Hush! Elminster and the Drizzt Clone Army will hunt you down!

Though, it'd be fun to play as a Drow, infiltrate the Underdark culture, then do a sweet backstab and say "Never trust a scorpion". Vulkoor instilled admiration in the Drow, making their nature as backstabbers more awesome given their helping of "tribal survivability". Then again, a Drow fighting against a Klingon-Mongol Valenar elf...who said Elves had to be pansies?

[Eslin]

Give me a Scenario. When getting touched can give away your disguise. I vote Changeling.

Then I will tell you how it could work just as good if not better with the Changeling.

Sure. Scenario: you are walking along and get attacked by a group of orcs.
You are part of a large battle, a fantasy version of the battle of Hastings.
You need to figure out a way to get to the end of the booby trapped room.
You need to convince a merchant to sail to a distant island so you can retrieve an amulet.
The king will be returning in a few minutes and you need to be in and out of his room to retrieve the scepter of plottiness before he comes back.
The town is under attack by an army of undead, you need to bolster their defenses and weather the night.
You are travelling the wilderness and end up in a fight with a hydra.


You'll notice the changeling's ability is only useful in one of these instances, and even there it is at best equal to what other classes can pull out of their hat, while the shifter's +2 dex and ability to attack as a bonus action will come in useful in most of them.

[calebrus]

If anything, it's easy to figure out which are the stats that gain a +2: Changelings get +2 to Charisma, Shifters get +2 to Dexterity (making Cliffwalk, Longstride and Razorclaw Shifters gain a massive +3 to Dexterity), Warforged get +2 to Constitution.

I HIGHLY doubt that Shifters will get a base +2 Dex with so many subraces getting a +1 Dex. My prediction is that the base race will have either +1dex/+1str or +1dex/+1wis, with subraces making that +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 overall.

[SharkForce]

The thing you both seem to be missing is the part I bolded.
"with their usual duration."
Take invisibility, for example. What is invisibility's "usual duration?"

Invisibility:
Duration: Concentration, up to one hour.

It doesn't matter if "someone" cast the spell or not. You use its usual duration. If its usual duration requires concentration, the the user of the item must maintain concentration.
There are exceptions which change durations and/or require no concentration, but those exceptions are spelled out in the potion's description. If no exceptions are listed, it works exactly like the potion drinker cast the spell.

The casting of the spell is bypassed, meaning it requires no verbal/somatic/material components. You drink the potion in place of doing these things. But unless it specifically states otherwise, the spell "uses their usual duration."
In the case that its usual duration requires concentration, it tells you that "the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration".

It's not ambiguous or murky. Like many other rules in 5e it's a little convoluted in how to reach that conclusion, but it's not ambiguous or murky.

ok, and who concentrates?

nobody is casting the spell. the person the spell is being cast on does not have to concentrate, only the caster.

the paragraph states that some items are used to cast a spell, and when they do, you have to do all the things related to casting a spell. then, at the end of the paragraph it also says there are items that are not used to cast a spell, but which do grant a spell effect. if those things function identically to casting a spell, there is no need to mention them as being in any way distinct. you could just say that items like potions function as if the person drinking the potion is casting the spell. but that's not what it says. it says that it isn't the same thing. it goes out of it's way to state that it isn't the same thing, and goes on to state how it functions, rather than just saying it functions exactly like the other things it just described.

if it was intended to use the exact same rules as the items that allow you to cast spells, why did they state that they are different and provide different rules for them? if they intend for you to not change anything, it seems rather odd that they would go out of their way to point out the difference and especially odd that they would explain the mechanical difference if what they actually meant was that the mechanics are not in any way different at all.

edit:


Sure. Scenario: you are walking along and get attacked by a group of orcs.
You are part of a large battle, a fantasy version of the battle of Hastings.
You need to figure out a way to get to the end of the booby trapped room.
You need to convince a merchant to sail to a distant island so you can retrieve an amulet.
The king will be returning in a few minutes and you need to be in and out of his room to retrieve the scepter of plottiness before he comes back.
The town is under attack by an army of undead, you need to bolster their defenses and weather the night.
You are travelling the wilderness and end up in a fight with a hydra.


You'll notice the changeling's ability is only useful in one of these instances, and even there it is at best equal to what other classes can pull out of their hat, while the shifter's +2 dex and ability to attack as a bonus action will come in useful in most of them.

I think you misunderstood his question... he asked for examples where the changeling is worse off with their disguise than the change self spell. not for examples of situations where the changelings ability is less valuable than any other ability in the game.

[T.G. Oskar]

Sure. Scenario: you are walking along and get attacked by a group of orcs.
You are part of a large battle, a fantasy version of the battle of Hastings.
You need to figure out a way to get to the end of the booby trapped room.
You need to convince a merchant to sail to a distant island so you can retrieve an amulet.
The king will be returning in a few minutes and you need to be in and out of his room to retrieve the scepter of plottiness before he comes back.
The town is under attack by an army of undead, you need to bolster their defenses and weather the night.
You are travelling the wilderness and end up in a fight with a hydra.


You'll notice the changeling's ability is only useful in one of these instances, and even there it is at best equal to what other classes can pull out of their hat, while the shifter's +2 dex and ability to attack as a bonus action will come in useful in most of them.

Which one, the battle or the theft? Or maybe the town?

Also, where's the booby-trapped room? Is it on a dungeon, or on a bank vault?

[calebrus]

ok, and who concentrates?

nobody is casting the spell. the person the spell is being cast on does not have to concentrate, only the caster.

Do you not understand that this is the exact reason that the rules tell you that the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration? They tell you this so that you will NOT come to the conclusion that no one needs to concentrate on it.
The only exceptions specifically say as much in their descriptions.

It rules are not going out of their way to say how they're different. They rules are going out of their way to make sure you don't come to the conclusion that you have mistakenly arrived at. They tried to make certain that you would not assume no one has to concentrate on it, and you have misread it completely.

They did this so that you would understand that even a Monk with no spell slots might have to maintain concentration on a spell if he drinks a potion that requires concentration for its duration.

[Envyus]

Sure. Scenario: you are walking along and get attacked by a group of orcs.
You are part of a large battle, a fantasy version of the battle of Hastings.
You need to figure out a way to get to the end of the booby trapped room.
You need to convince a merchant to sail to a distant island so you can retrieve an amulet.
The king will be returning in a few minutes and you need to be in and out of his room to retrieve the scepter of plottiness before he comes back.
The town is under attack by an army of undead, you need to bolster their defenses and weather the night.
You are travelling the wilderness and end up in a fight with a hydra.


You'll notice the changeling's ability is only useful in one of these instances, and even there it is at best equal to what other classes can pull out of their hat, while the shifter's +2 dex and ability to attack as a bonus action will come in useful in most of them.

Man did you miss the point.

Anyway the power can be useful with the Orc's, the Merchant, the king and the battle of hastings. But seriously you missed the point. :smallsigh:

[Eslin]

Man did you miss the point.

Anyway the power can be useful with the Orc's, the Merchant, the king and the battle of hastings. But seriously you missed the point. :smallsigh:

No, I didn't. I chose to give a list of scenarios to show that the ability wasn't generally useful like other races get.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Was talking to some people, and one of them said that he felt the Artificer subclass should be converted to a Sorcerer subclass. His reasoning was that the technical/inventive abilities are far more a mechanical, routine one, not demanding of incredible intellect, but rather mere labor. The real inventors are the ones with the charisma/force of personality to see their wacky creation brought to life.

Anyone else think he has a point? I'm looking to make the conversion.

[Envyus]

No, I didn't. I chose to give a list of scenarios to show that the ability wasn't generally useful like other races get.

It's still useful in comparison to what other races get, But like the other guy said I meant in comparison to disguise self. So no you missed the point. You were not even right about it only being useful in one situation you named. It's still a good power it's just not meant for direct combat.

[Rowan Wolf]

The shifter sub-races almost lend themselves to a resurgence of Racial Feats in the form of gain the additional ability score increase and the additional shifting feature, perhaps even building in additional uses from the taking the feat(s).

[Logosloki]

Was talking to some people, and one of them said that he felt the Artificer subclass should be converted to a Sorcerer subclass. His reasoning was that the technical/inventive abilities are far more a mechanical, routine one, not demanding of incredible intellect, but rather mere labor. The real inventors are the ones with the charisma/force of personality to see their wacky creation brought to life.

Anyone else think he has a point? I'm looking to make the conversion.

I think they have a good point there. Sorcerer's spell points would make a better base for brewing/scribing/enchanting. You give up one form of metamagic for another form of metamagic (transmuting magic into items). Heck the way they worded spell scrolls would be slightly less cumbersome if it was talking about spell points rather than spell slots.

[iTreeby]

No, I didn't. I chose to give a list of scenarios to show that the ability wasn't generally useful like other races get.

I don't know man, if i was a changeling at the battle of hastings i'd probably try to start a rumor that the duke was dead or something. It probably wouldn't work though.

[Giant2005]

Sure. Scenario: you are walking along and get attacked by a group of orcs.
Changeling uses his party as a distraction while he gets enough distance between him and the Orcs to hide. He re-emerges as an Orc War Chief and tells them to piss off.

You are part of a large battle, a fantasy version of the battle of Hastings.
You impersonate an enemy general and offer conflicting orders to the genuine general. The resulting chaos in their lines puts them at an insurmountable disadvantage.

You need to figure out a way to get to the end of the booby trapped room.
You go to the local orphanage, impersonate their guardian and order the children to follow you. When you reach the trapped area, you instruct them to walk ahead of you.

You need to convince a merchant to sail to a distant island so you can retrieve an amulet.
You impersonate someone of known wealth and position and ask politely.

The king will be returning in a few minutes and you need to be in and out of his room to retrieve the scepter of plottiness before he comes back.
You ignore the deadline while impersonating the queen and hope the king isn't feeling frisky while you take it at your leisure.

The town is under attack by an army of undead, you need to bolster their defenses and weather the night.
You are travelling the wilderness and end up in a fight with a hydra.
Being able to reliably impersonate others could help with both of these situations but not as a random encounter (ie no preparation). At least it couldn't help in any way I can think of.

[iTreeby]

The boat one and the scepter one can both be made easier with the changeling ability the ones where you are in a battle against undead or an army it can be useful only if you are a more competent leader than the person who you are imitating or if it would be better for moral if so-and-so were here.

[CrusaderJoe]

You ignore the deadline while impersonating the queen and hope the king isn't feeling frisky while you take it at your leisure.


Pshaw, you want him to get frisky. Having an heir to the thrown wouldn't be the worst thing.

One of my college games started off like this. The PC rolled for pregnancy, was pregnant, and became the NPC we had to protect. Ended up upsurping the current rule and placing the child as the next in line with the NPC as the placeholder till the child is of age. The old queen ended up being the avatar of Lolth or something like that... She wasn't too happy.

Yay sandbox!

(Which explains why my group never really got into game of thrones, our old D&D games were better than watching a HBO show every week.)

[Maxilian]

Pshaw, you want him to get frisky. Having an heir to the thrown wouldn't be the worst thing.

One of my college games started off like this. The PC rolled for pregnancy, was pregnant, and became the NPC we had to protect. Ended up upsurping the current rule and placing the child as the next in line with the NPC as the placeholder till the child is of age. The old queen ended up being the avatar of Lolth or something like that... She wasn't too happy.

Yay sandbox!

(Which explains why my group never really got into game of thrones, our old D&D games were better than watching a HBO show every week.)


That actually sounds pretty cool, well... it looks like i'm going to find a way to get my character pregnant, sadly my character is male... but hey.... we have MAGIC!, so is possible :P

[Inevitability]

Eberron? In 5e? I approve of this so much. Now only to convince my DM to allow this...

[Fwiffo86]

This evokes a feeling that I can only describe as... meh.

[SharkForce]

Do you not understand that this is the exact reason that the rules tell you that the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration? They tell you this so that you will NOT come to the conclusion that no one needs to concentrate on it.
The only exceptions specifically say as much in their descriptions.

It rules are not going out of their way to say how they're different. They rules are going out of their way to make sure you don't come to the conclusion that you have mistakenly arrived at. They tried to make certain that you would not assume no one has to concentrate on it, and you have misread it completely.

They did this so that you would understand that even a Monk with no spell slots might have to maintain concentration on a spell if he drinks a potion that requires concentration for its duration.

that makes no sense whatsoever.

they tell us how items that let you cast spells work. then they tell us that some items *don't* let you cast spells, you just get the spell effects.

if they wanted us to use the rules for items that let you cast spells, why would they both point out that those items do not let you cast spells and then give us a different set of rules to use? if the intent was to use the standard rules for potions, why would they have ever mentioned potions as being different in any way? why do we even need to know that potions don't technically count as casting the spell if everything about drinking a potion functions *exactly* the same as using any other type of item that creates spell effects?

clearly, either the potions or the paragraph about items that cast spells had some editing missed. you can argue that it is one or the other, but you have absolutely no proof of which one it is. it could be the paragraph. it could be the potions that specifically state no concentration is required. until it gets errata (or at the least, an official clarification from WotC), we have no way of knowing which.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I think they have a good point there. Sorcerer's spell points would make a better base for brewing/scribing/enchanting. You give up one form of metamagic for another form of metamagic (transmuting magic into items). Heck the way they worded spell scrolls would be slightly less cumbersome if it was talking about spell points rather than spell slots.

Only trouble I'm in is you don't have Sorcery Points at level 1, so do I keep it as Slots? Or move the abilities around?

[EvanescentHero]

until it gets errata (or at the least, an official clarification from WotC), we have no way of knowing which.

Then why doesn't one of you ask?

[Forrestfire]

Mystery solved. (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/562732056757927936?cn=cmVwbHk%3D)

[EvanescentHero]

Mystery solved. (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/562732056757927936?cn=cmVwbHk%3D)

Thank you! This is what I was assuming because it doesn't make much sense otherwise, but I'm glad to see it confirmed.

[calebrus]

Mystery solved. (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/562732056757927936?cn=cmVwbHk%3D)

I didn't need it confirmed.
"the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration" explained it perfectly.
But some others obviously needed it confirmed, so thanks.

[DireSickFish]

I like how they handled Warforged construct traits. It was my one major worry with having a construct race, that they would get far to many immuneties. Immunity to disease is good and not at all overboard. The bonus to AC seems strong and can help out any character.

This is my first hearing about ****er. I've never known a lot about the Eberron setting. The shifiability as a subclass seems cool but I think they need to go over the shifting powers one more time. A lot of them are rather useless. Only having it for 1min a short or long rest makes it mostly useful for the temp HP and a few builds or the leader feat invalidate it.

I like the abilities of the Artificer. Never got to play one in 3.5 but the abilities make me want to try it in 5th. Very versatile but you need to manage your downtime or prep time effectively. One use I can see for scrolls is to break action economy. Have another caster, or a partial caster like an eldritch knight casting a high level spell the same round you do. Or hand it out to NPC casters you want to help you out in a big fight that normally couldn't.

Magic weapons and armor that you can swap out seems legit, helping out the party with buffs.

[SharkForce]

I didn't need it confirmed.
"the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration" explained it perfectly.
But some others obviously needed it confirmed, so thanks.

1) that's mike mearls, the guy who has gone on record as officially saying he is not the official person to provide rules responses, and who on multiple occasions has clarified that he meant "this is how I would rule" when he answers a question.
2) he said "iirc", which means he apparently didn't even open his rulebooks to check.

considering it apparently must have gone through different iterations in development (again, there is no point in calling out something as being different when your intent is for it to not be different in any way), that's not really something I would want to rely on. these people have probably seen most of the rules change half a dozen times or more.

if the answer came from the rules expert (I think that's Jeremy Crawford, but could be wrong), and actually was prefaced with any indication whatsoever that research was done, it would have a lot more credibility.

it could very well be that potions are supposed to require concentration. it is quite probable that if they are not in this iteration, that they were in one or more previous iterations. but I would not consider that tweet to be definitive, particularly when the author of the tweet prefaced it with an acronym that basically says it is not definitive.

[Chronos]

Warforged still end up with a heck of a lot of immunities. There are a lot of spells that say in the spell description that constructs and undead are immune, and nothing in the warforged description changes that. The race description says that they're alive, but that doesn't matter, because no spell works as "this spell does not work on nonliving creatures".

As for changeling polymorph, the problem is that if you don't assume it's as the spell, then how does it work? It gives you something, but what? The only answer we have to that question is the polymorph spell. It's a bad answer, but it's all we've got.

[calebrus]

One use I can see for scrolls is to break action economy.

....once per day.
Yes, I realize that it doesn't specifically state that you can only make one scroll (like it says that you can only make three potions), but that is implied because of the level 10 ability to create one more.
Since scrolls rely on Arcane Recovery, and there is no way to increase your recovery in any way, the implication is that you can only have a single scroll at a time until level 10 (when you can have two).
I'm sure that will be spelled out in future drafts

edit:
Consider:
Level 9 Artificer. Arcane Recovery allows 5 spell levels worth of recovery (which means 5 spell levels worth of scrolls for an Arty). OK, so the Arty makes a scroll of a level 3 spell and a level 2 spell.
Next level (level 10) he still has 5 levels of recovery, but now he can make one extra scroll.
What does that even mean?
It only works if there was a limit on how many scrolls he could have made previously. Since there was no limit specified, the implication is that the number was one, which would be confirmed to a certain degree by this line:
"You can use your Arcane Recovery ability to create a scroll instead of regaining expended spell slots."


1) that's mike mearls, the guy who has gone on record as officially saying he is not the official person to provide rules responses, and who on multiple occasions has clarified that he meant "this is how I would rule" when he answers a question.
2) he said "iirc", which means he apparently didn't even open his rulebooks to check.

So "IIRC it's exactly what calebrus said" isn't good enough for you.
Yeah, we all get it.

[SharkForce]

So "IIRC it's exactly what calebrus said" isn't good enough for you.
Yeah, we all get it.

it's a tweet from a guy who explicitly said he is not the person to ask rules questions of, who has specifically stated when he answers rules questions they're just his opinions, and from a guy who gave an answer, was contradicted by the guy who *is* the person to ask rules questions of, and immediately said "this is the person who actually has the ability to give official rules answers".

and on top of that, he qualified it by basically saying "I think it's this, but I'm not sure".

so... in terms of getting an official ruling? no. it isn't good enough for me. what would be good enough for me would be if the person who he actually designated as the one who gives official answers to questions about the rules were to say in a clear way: "this is how it is supposed to work".

find a tweet from that guy that doesn't include a clear disclaimer that he might be wrong, and you're good to go. otherwise, you've got the opinion of a fan. a fan who happens to work for the company and did much of the work in designing the game, yes, but nevertheless, still just the opinion of a fan. in much the same way as a police officer who has finished their shift and comes home and talks to their family is not speaking as a police officer, but as a family member, when Mike Mearls answers questions about the rules, he is not answering questions as a WotC employee, he's answering questions as a fan. it certainly provides an interesting perspective. but it is also certainly not official until it is supported by something official.

[silveralen]

As for changeling polymorph, the problem is that if you don't assume it's as the spell, then how does it work? It gives you something, but what? The only answer we have to that question is the polymorph spell. It's a bad answer, but it's all we've got.

You change to look like the target physically, but none of your statistics change. Honestly, shouldn't be that complicated.

[Forrestfire]

it's a tweet from a guy who explicitly said he is not the person to ask rules questions of, who has specifically stated when he answers rules questions they're just his opinions, and from a guy who gave an answer, was contradicted by the guy who *is* the person to ask rules questions of, and immediately said "this is the person who actually has the ability to give official rules answers".

and on top of that, he qualified it by basically saying "I think it's this, but I'm not sure".

so... in terms of getting an official ruling? no. it isn't good enough for me. what would be good enough for me would be if the person who he actually designated as the one who gives official answers to questions about the rules were to say in a clear way: "this is how it is supposed to work".

find a tweet from that guy that doesn't include a clear disclaimer that he might be wrong, and you're good to go. otherwise, you've got the opinion of a fan. a fan who happens to work for the company and did much of the work in designing the game, yes, but nevertheless, still just the opinion of a fan. in much the same way as a police officer who has finished their shift and comes home and talks to their family is not speaking as a police officer, but as a family member, when Mike Mearls answers questions about the rules, he is not answering questions as a WotC employee, he's answering questions as a fan. it certainly provides an interesting perspective. but it is also certainly not official until it is supported by something official.

Well, my apologies, then. I was under the impression that Mearls was the person to ask. I recommend that you go and ask the person you know is the person to ask rules questions to (or, if you don't mind, giving me the name so I can go bug their twitter as well), then, since the burden of proof for this is on you, at this point.

[Chronos]

Quoth silveralen:

You change to look like the target physically, but none of your statistics change. Honestly, shouldn't be that complicated.
But you also feel like the target tactilely, right? So if you change into a humanoid with scaly skin, for instance, your skin will feel scaly. But what if you change into a humanoid with claws-- Do your claws feel sharp? Do they feel sharp enough to do damage? If so, how can you use them? Do you smell like the creature you're mimicking? What if the creature has a stench attack?

[pwykersotz]

Reading over the section, I agree with Sharkforce that it's ambiguous, and even sides with not requiring concentration. Now I'd definitely keep concentration in there with my own game, I think Mearls ruled well. But it's pretty well divided.


Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration.

Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.

Space for the obvious point where it splits. I see two equally valid interpretations.

First, that items such as potions bypass all the requirements listed above, including concentration, range, components, all of it, but that it keeps duration as specifically white-listed.
Second, that it pretty much just means it can't be counter-spelled and is not subject to other effects that change magic when it is "cast".

Seems to boil down to opinion to me.

[silveralen]

But you also feel like the target tactilely, right? So if you change into a humanoid with scaly skin, for instance, your skin will feel scaly. But what if you change into a humanoid with claws-- Do your claws feel sharp? Do they feel sharp enough to do damage? If so, how can you use them? Do you smell like the creature you're mimicking? What if the creature has a stench attack?

You give the appearance but not the functionality. In short, it is limited to things which don''t give benefits. You might have the appearance of claws, but using them would be a mistake as they won't stand up to combat, even if they are claws. In the same way, your skin may be scaley but the scales aren't actually hard enough to grant the bonus to AC that they normally would, though people won't actually notice unless they try to stab you. You couldn't mimic a firey aura though, nor a stench attack, too big a change (not that any humanoids have either as a racial feature to my knowledge).

Common sense makes it incredibly obvious. Such abilities would be too power and don't represent the changeling's ability to imitate others. Anyone claiming to be confused is looking for absuive loopholes imo, and its fine to point out the wording could be clarified to shut that sort of thing down, but the intent is obvious.

[SharkForce]

Well, my apologies, then. I was under the impression that Mearls was the person to ask. I recommend that you go and ask the person you know is the person to ask rules questions to (or, if you don't mind, giving me the name so I can go bug their twitter as well), then, since the burden of proof for this is on you, at this point.

already said I think it's Jeremy Crawford (though I could be wrong).

and it's not my burden to prove anything. right now, we have unclear rules text, and two different possible interpretations. my observation is that there are two possible ways to interpret it. I have pointed out the rules text that presents one possible way to interpret the information, and others have presented the information that presents a second possible way. the way that I am presenting as being more official (for the moment) is the one that has actual rules text backing it up (again, note that the rest of the paragraph is discussing items that *do* cast spells, and then the sentence makes a statement about items that *do not* cast spells but do grant spell effects; by definition, items which do not cast spells are not items which cast spells, and therefore the rest of the paragraph *cannot* apply to them logically), while the other way is an extrapolation based on rules text within certain specific potions.

one of those two things exist in error. it is entirely possible for that one thing to be the thing that actually has clear rules text, if that rules text was simply left in place accidentally when the rule was supposed to be changed. it is also possible that the one thing that shouldn't be there is the statement in certain potions that no concentration is required (or alternately, that statement should be in all potions).

until we get an actual official answer from someone who is empowered to give that answer, either interpretation could be valid. in the absence of such an answer, we have one statement (whether it should be there or not, it *is* there) and one extrapolation; in my mind, as far as determining which is more "official", the extrapolation cannot bear more weight than the statement (though again, if an official clarification or errata from someone empowered to make such clarifications or errata were to be made, that would change things entirely).

[Xetheral]

Reading over the section, I agree with Sharkforce that it's ambiguous, and even sides with not requiring concentration. Now I'd definitely keep concentration in there with my own game, I think Mearls ruled well. But it's pretty well divided.


Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration.

Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration.

Space for the obvious point where it splits. I see two equally valid interpretations.

First, that items such as potions bypass all the requirements listed above, including concentration, range, components, all of it, but that it keeps duration as specifically white-listed.
Second, that it pretty much just means it can't be counter-spelled and is not subject to other effects that change magic when it is "cast".

Seems to boil down to opinion to me.

I concur with pwykersotz and Sharkforce: I read the text of the rules as ambiguous.

Additionally, if potions *do* require concentration, that raises some interesting questions:

Do you have to know what a potion's effects are to concentrate on them? Or can you just concentrate on "potion"? How does one RP that?
Does drinking a potion that confers the effect of a spell that requires concentration break existing concentration? Explicitly, a spell was never cast ("Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell..."), so your existing concentration won't end (PHB 203), but you still run into the general rule that you can't concentrate on two spells at once (Id).
If drinking a potion that confers the effect of a spell that requires concentration breaks existing concentration, can someone be force-fed such a potion or tricked into drinking it to automatically break their concentration?
What happens when a potion conferring the effect of a spell that requires concentration is administered to someone who is incapacitated? By the rules, becoming incapacitated ends concentration (Id), but it (very reasonably) says nothing about incapacitated creatures gaining new effects that require concentration.

All of these are easily resolvable at the table, but the point is that requiring concentration with potions leads to a range of questions that the rules are poorly-constructed to deal with. This weighs against the interpretation that potions require concentration. On the other hand, not requiring concentration goes against the general principle that limits concentration spells.

There are problems with both interpretations, the text is ambiguous, and the tweet was not written in a way to inspire confidence in the ruling. This one could go either way.

[calebrus]

Reading over the section, I agree with Sharkforce that it's ambiguous, and even sides with not requiring concentration.

<snip>

First, that items such as potions bypass all the requirements listed above, including concentration, range, components, all of it, but that it keeps duration as specifically white-listed.

These two points are completely at odds with one another.
You can't possibly state that it sides with not requiring concentration when you also admit that it specifically white-lists duration.
Why is that, you ask?

Because concentration is part of duration!

The spell keeps its normal duration. If that duration requires concentration, it keeps it, because that is the spell's normal duration. It even tells you who needs to concentrate on it.
The item user.

[rollingForInit]

As for changeling polymorph, the problem is that if you don't assume it's as the spell, then how does it work? It gives you something, but what? The only answer we have to that question is the polymorph spell. It's a bad answer, but it's all we've got.

Not really. The only thing that might've made it clearer is a "All changes are cosmetic only and do not affect your abilities". That would've been neat.

Or they could have gone with the disguise part of the the Alter Self spell.

[Envyus]

Not really. The only thing that might've made it clearer is a "All changes are cosmetic only and do not affect your abilities". That would've been neat.

Or they could have gone with the disguise part of the the Alter Self spell.

It was brought up that it was a botched copy paste of the doppleganger ability. Which I posted on the last page. The abilities are identical other then the forgetting to mention that the stats don't change.

[Envyus]

until we get an actual official answer from someone who is empowered to give that answer, either interpretation could be valid. in the absence of such an answer, we have one statement (whether it should be there or not, it *is* there) and one extrapolation; in my mind, as far as determining which is more "official", the extrapolation cannot bear more weight than the statement (though again, if an official clarification or errata from someone empowered to make such clarifications or errata were to be made, that would change things entirely).

Mike Mearls the one who wrote the article said the stats don't change.

[Eslin]

Mike Mearls the one who wrote the article said the stats don't change.

Did he also say why everything has a +1/+1? Obviously the intention was that the stats don't change, the wording just needs to get fixed when they do the rebalancing.

[calebrus]

Did he also say why everything has a +1/+1?

I've already explained that, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?396296-Unearthed-Arcana-Eberron-update-released!&p=18758701&viewfull=1#post18758701) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?396296-Unearthed-Arcana-Eberron-update-released!&p=18758830&viewfull=1#post18758830).

[silveralen]

Okay, don't get me wrong I like free stuff and all but....

Anyone else feel like this is the sort of thing that could have been cranked out in an afternoon?

I had some basic homebrew for races, action points, and dragon marks that are not that different from what is presented in the pdf, and that was literally a couple hours of work. I'm not even entirely sure the versions in that PDF are strictly better designed or balanced than what I had.

The only part that actually looks somewhat complicated is artificer, which I had been struggling with, but honestly I'm not at all impressed with their variation on it. It seems to greatly miss the point of what artificer was, which was something distinct from a normal wizard. I don't think the artificer they gave us was bad, but it isn't what I wanted. I'd tried modifying a bard and arcane trickster to get more the feel of what I wanted, I was satisfied with neither but figured eventually they'd provide something.

I hate to complain about free articles, but if this is what we get with free unearthed arcana I'd prefer to pay a subscription fee and get something a bit meatier. It isn't bad, it's just very underwhelming and feels downright sloppy.

[Eslin]

Okay, don't get me wrong I like free stuff and all but....

Anyone else feel like this is the sort of thing that could have been cranked out in an afternoon?

I had some basic homebrew for races, action points, and dragon marks that are not that different from what is presented in the pdf, and that was literally a couple hours of work. I'm not even entirely sure the versions in that PDF are strictly better designed or balanced than what I had.

The only part that actually looks somewhat complicated is artificer, which I had been struggling with, but honestly I'm not at all impressed with their variation on it. It seems to greatly miss the point of what artificer was, which was something distinct from a normal wizard. I don't think the artificer they gave us was bad, but it isn't what I wanted. I'd tried modifying a bard and arcane trickster to get more the feel of what I wanted, I was satisfied with neither but figured eventually they'd provide something.

I hate to complain about free articles, but if this is what we get with free unearthed arcana I'd prefer to pay a subscription fee and get something a bit meatier. It isn't bad, it's just very underwhelming and feels downright sloppy.

Agreed, though it should be noted I'd prefer free rules to nothing. Would be happy to pay for something with a lot more thought put into it than the artificer (+1 scrolls made? You never said there was a limit in the first place! Equipment stuff is straight out balance breaking buffs to stats rather than interesting magic item based stuff)

[pwykersotz]

These two points are completely at odds with one another.
You can't possibly state that it sides with not requiring concentration when you also admit that it specifically white-lists duration.
Why is that, you ask?

Because concentration is part of duration!

The spell keeps its normal duration. If that duration requires concentration, it keeps it, because that is the spell's normal duration. It even tells you who needs to concentrate on it.
The item user.

This is an excellent point. I missed that.

[rollingForInit]

Okay, don't get me wrong I like free stuff and all but....

Anyone else feel like this is the sort of thing that could have been cranked out in an afternoon?

I had some basic homebrew for races, action points, and dragon marks that are not that different from what is presented in the pdf, and that was literally a couple hours of work. I'm not even entirely sure the versions in that PDF are strictly better designed or balanced than what I had.

The only part that actually looks somewhat complicated is artificer, which I had been struggling with, but honestly I'm not at all impressed with their variation on it. It seems to greatly miss the point of what artificer was, which was something distinct from a normal wizard. I don't think the artificer they gave us was bad, but it isn't what I wanted. I'd tried modifying a bard and arcane trickster to get more the feel of what I wanted, I was satisfied with neither but figured eventually they'd provide something.

I hate to complain about free articles, but if this is what we get with free unearthed arcana I'd prefer to pay a subscription fee and get something a bit meatier. It isn't bad, it's just very underwhelming and feels downright sloppy.

It is explicitly stated in the Unearthed Arcana that the material is still considered untested, that it's to be considered as the early 5e playtests. Presumably, they're going to either release more fleshed out versions either free later (in PHB Basic Rules style) or in printed books.

[calebrus]

This is an excellent point. I missed that.

Thank you! Someone finally understands what I've been trying to say here!
Like I said, unfortunately like many other parts of 5e it's a bit convoluted in reaching the correct conclusion, but that doesn't make it ambiguous. That just makes it a little tricky for some people to understand properly.

[silveralen]

It is explicitly stated in the Unearthed Arcana that the material is still considered untested, that it's to be considered as the early 5e playtests. Presumably, they're going to either release more fleshed out versions either free later (in PHB Basic Rules style) or in printed books.

The problem is, a lot of this stuff looks early playtest. It would be nice if they had extrapolated some of the stuff they learned from what we already have. The races being the most glaring examples.

Not to mention... why have they been sitting on this so long if it still needs to be tested? This does not look like it took months of effort. They could have done these in an afternoon and had them released a month ago.

[calebrus]

The problem is, a lot of this stuff looks early playtest.

How is that a problem?
Read the first paragraph of the article.

You can think of the material presented in this series as similar to the first wave of the fifth edition play test. These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your campaign but not fully tempered by play tests and design iterations. They are highly volatile and unstable; if you use them, be ready to rule on any issues that come up. They're written in pencil, not ink.

I don't see how that's a problem when they have an entire paragraph devoted to that exact disclaimer.

[silveralen]

How is that a problem?
Read the first paragraph of the article.


I don't see how that's a problem when they have an entire paragraph devoted to that exact disclaimer.

Because... they shouldn't need to start from scratch. That's like every edition of DnD rebuilding the game from the ground up and ignoring the previous editions. You take what you have and learn from/build on it. It simply shouldn't be needed.

Putting a disclaimer up doesn't suddenly nullifiy all criticisms related to the disclaimer. If I say "no offense" then say say something hugely offensive, people don't have to just grit their teeth because I put a disclaimer up first.

If the disclaimer up top said "look, we didn't feel like spending more than 2 hours on this, we will fix it later" we could still be bothered by the lack of effort. The fact they can't build on the things they already learned from the playtest can be frustrating regardless of whether or not they put a disclaimer up.

[Eslin]

Because... they shouldn't need to start from scratch. That's like every edition of DnD rebuilding the game from the ground up and ignoring the previous editions. You take what you have and learn from/build on it. It simply shouldn't be needed.

Putting a disclaimer up doesn't suddenly nullifiy all criticisms related to the disclaimer. If I say "no offense" then say say something hugely offensive, people don't have to just grit their teeth because I put a disclaimer up first.

I dunno, in his case I might put whatever came into my head out and rapidly change it with feedback.

'How's longstride?'

'Too weak, pretty much every class finds something to do with its bonus action, it gets useless for everyone sooner or later'

'Ok it's flat +30 feet speed, good now?'

'A little too good, though they could use a better stat bump'

'Ok, +1 dex +1 con and +10 speed while shifting?'

'Better, though the once per short rest feels restrictive...'

[silveralen]

I dunno, in his case I might put whatever came into my head out and rapidly change it with feedback.

'How's longstride?'

'Too weak, pretty much every class finds something to do with its bonus action, it gets useless for everyone sooner or later'

'Ok it's flat +30 feet speed, good now?'

'A little too good, though they could use a better stat bump'

'Ok, +1 dex +1 con and +10 speed while shifting?'

'Better, though the once per short rest feels restrictive...'

I suppose. Though it depends on how rapidly we see updates. If we see big tweaks in a week, okay sure fine. I think it could have been fine tuned a bit in house, but it works.

[Chronos]

On the topic of potions and concentrating, there's already at least one mechanic to remove concentration from spells. If you put a spell in a Glyph of Warding, once it's triggered it lasts for the full duration without need for concentration.

[Broken Twin]

Hey, cool, free stuff. Playtest level material, so be prepared to balance it as needed... written in casual text, so basic interpretation required.

I'm just happy they chose to give us this stuff to play with until the official stuff is codified and released. The feedback they're probably going to get from this document should help them determine where they want to go with the material as well.

And I wouldn't be surprised if this is all we see of the Eberron stuff until the official book is released. I doubt they're planning on doing an open playtest for all of their releases.

[SharkForce]

These two points are completely at odds with one another.
You can't possibly state that it sides with not requiring concentration when you also admit that it specifically white-lists duration.
Why is that, you ask?

Because concentration is part of duration!

The spell keeps its normal duration. If that duration requires concentration, it keeps it, because that is the spell's normal duration. It even tells you who needs to concentrate on it.
The item user.


except for the part where the rule that says the user is the one who needs to concentrate is only in the paragraph that's talking about items which *do* cast spells, and as I've already established items which do not cast spells are by definition not items that do cast spells.

not only are the rules ambiguous, it's also completely silly to suggest that you need to concentrate on a spell from a potion. think about it. when was the last time you read *anything* where somebody drank a potion and you thought "hey, I bet they have to concentrate if they want to keep the effect of the potion"?

it's fine for items that let you cast spells, because you actually just cast a spell. it's not so fine for items that explicitly do not cast a spell at all. nobody cast it. nobody "owns" that spell. it would be as silly as having the target of an invisibility spell need to concentrate on it to keep the spell working to have a potion of invisibility require concentration.

as to breaking the limits of concentrating on one spell at a time, we're talking about spending money to get a hard-to-find magic item that you can only use once. I should bloody well hope it has *some* sort of advantage to it, otherwise, what's the point?

[RedMage125]

In this particular instance, Mearls IS the one to go to, since he wrote the article.

"Mike “Unearthed” Mearls has wrote the Eberron Setting for the 5th edition of Dungeons&Dragons rules."

And...again...

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/562790612018401283

Changelings shape-changing ability is NOT treated like the spell, and does NOT give you the stats.

[Inevitability]

On warforged: I really hope the official writeup for them includes either a 'not really constructs' or a 'can be healed' wording. If they are simple constructs, spells like Cure Wounds won't work on them.

Aaaaand now I realize that there is nothing stating they are constructs in the PDF, merely that they are 'constructed', which is another level of weird.

[Envyus]

On warforged: I really hope the official writeup for them includes either a 'not really constructs' or a 'can be healed' wording. If they are simple constructs, spells like Cure Wounds won't work on them.

Aaaaand now I realize that there is nothing stating they are constructs in the PDF, merely that they are 'constructed', which is another level of weird.

It says they are living constructs and that healing spells work on them as normal.

[calebrus]

except for the part where the rule that says the user is the one who needs to concentrate is only in the paragraph that's talking about items which *do* cast spells, and as I've already established items which do not cast spells are by definition not items that do cast spells.

What part of "with their usual duration" are you having a hard time with?
I'm not going back to the other paragraph for that. I'm right there in the same sentence, as a matter of fact, with the word potion.
Concentration is part of duration. The spell within the potion keeps its usual duration. If the duration requires concentration, it keeps it, because it keeps its usual duration, just like it says in the exact same sentence as the word potion.

The previous statement in the same entry which tells you who needs to concentrate wasn't repeated because it would have been redundant. Each sentence isn't a rule in a vacuum. The entire entry needs to be read to understand things in context. You are ignoring context and reading two sentences as two different rules, when in fact they are all rules about item usage with spell effects.

Whether or not a spell was actually *cast* is irrelevant. The spell's effect is all that matters, and that spell's effect keeps its usual duration. The sentence claiming that the item user needs to concentrate doesn't say that the *person who cast the spell* needs to concentrate. It says that the *item user* needs to concentrate.
If you drink a potion, you have activated a magic item. If you are the one that used the item, you are the one that needs to concentrate on the spell if it is required.
That's all there is to it.

[Xetheral]

What part of "with their usual duration" are you having a hard time with?
I'm not going back to the other paragraph for that. I'm right there in the same sentence, as a matter of fact, with the word potion.
Concentration is part of duration. The spell within the potion keeps its usual duration. If the duration requires concentration, it keeps it, because it keeps its usual duration, just like it says in the exact same sentence as the word potion.

If the phrase "bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects" is interpreted as bypassing the concentration requirement, then the phrase "with their usual duration" cannot be interpreted to add that concentration requirement back in.


The previous statement in the same entry which tells you who needs to concentrate wasn't repeated because it would have been redundant. Each sentence isn't a rule in a vacuum. The entire entry needs to be read to understand things in context. You are ignoring context and reading two sentences as two different rules, when in fact they are all rules about item usage with spell effects.

Page 141 is constructed by cases:

Case 1:"Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item..."
-> Rules for Case 1
Case 2: "Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell..."
-> Rules for Case 2

The phrase "the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration." appears in the rules for Case 1. If Case 2 is NOT interpreted as removing the concentration requirement, then it's reasonable to look to the rules for Case 1 for how to answer the question of who must concentrate. But if Case 2 IS interpreted as removing the concentration requirement, then there is no reason to consider who must concentrate, and the rules in Case 1 don't apply.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I'm only saying that both interpretations are viable and reasonable.

[calebrus]

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I'm only saying that both interpretations are viable and reasonable.

No, they're not. If you can find me one single case where concentration is required but is not a factor of duration, then you may have a case. But concentration is included in duration in every single case, so that argument falls flat.


If the phrase "bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects" is interpreted as bypassing the concentration requirement, then the phrase "with their usual duration" cannot be interpreted to add that concentration requirement back in.

But that's the problem. There is no reason to interpret "bypassing the casting of the spell" with removing concentration. Bypassing the casting of the spell only bypasses the need for verbal/material/somatic components, and if you can find a way to get the potion in your mouth with your hands full it also bypasses the need for a free hand. That's it.
Bypassing the casting of the spell has zero affect on the concentration requirement. This is further evidenced by the fact that even when describing potions, the entry specifically states that the spell keeps its usual duration.
And once again, that's where the concentration requirement stems from.

In fact, the very same sentence which tells you it bypasses the casting also tells you it keeps its duration. That doesn't get "removed and added back in." It keeps it. Just like it says to keep it. In that same sentence.
"Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration."
If the argument is that Case 1, Case 2 junk, then how do you reconcile the fact that it all appears in the same sentence? There is zero room for different cases here.

[Xetheral]

There is no reason to interpret "bypassing the casting of the spell" with removing concentration. Bypassing the casting of the spell only bypasses the need for verbal/material/somatic components, and if you can find a way to get the potion in your mouth with your hands full it also bypasses the need for a free hand. That's it.

I see no reason to assume your interpretation of that phrase is exclusively correct. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that an item that conveys a spell effect without casting the spell could be interpreted to not require concentration.


Bypassing the casting of the spell has zero affect on the concentration requirement. This is further evidenced by the fact that even when describing potions, the entry specifically states that the spell keeps its usual duration. And once again, that's where the concentration requirement stems from.

"Usual duration" still makes perfectly good sense as a phrase whether or not potions require concentration. Accordingly, it doesn't help inform the above question of whether "bypassing the casting of the spell" removes the concentration requirement.

For example, if potions were intended to bypass concentration requirements, a reasonable formulation would have been: "Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and therefore do not require concentration. They merely confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration." The inclusion of "usual duration" in this alternate formulation does not create a contradiction. Therefore, the use of "usual duration" in the actual formulation cannot be said to preclude the possibility that potions bypass concentration requirements.


In fact, the very same sentence which tells you it bypasses the casting also tells you it keeps its duration. That doesn't get "removed and added back in." It keeps it. Just like it says to keep it. In that same sentence.
"Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration."
If the argument is that Case 1, Case 2 junk, then how do you reconcile the fact that it all appears in the same sentence? There is zero room for different cases here.

The cases I mentioned differentiate items such as potions from items that cast spells. They are indeed different sentences dealing with different types of items.

[calebrus]

The inclusion of "usual duration" in this alternate formulation does not create a contradiction. Therefore, the use of "usual duration" in the actual formulation cannot be said to preclude the possibility that potions bypass concentration requirements.

Usual: habitually or typically occurring or done; customary.

Lets use invisibilty as an example once again.
Invisibility: Duration: Concentration, up to one hour.
That is Invisibility's customary, or typical, or usual duration. This means that in potion form, that duration doesn't change. The fact that it doesn't change means that concentration remains a requirement.

That's all there is to this, and no amount of jumping through legalese will change that.

@v: I've already been down that road with them. They still won't admit it.

[EvanescentHero]

The fact that some potions specify that they don't require concentration means that any potions that are based on concentration spells that don't specify that, do require concentration.

[SharkForce]

Usual: habitually or typically occurring or done; customary.

Lets use invisibilty as an example once again.
Invisibility: Duration: Concentration, up to one hour.
That is Invisibility's customary, or typical, or usual duration. This means that in potion form, that duration doesn't change. The fact that it doesn't change means that concentration remains a requirement.

That's all there is to this, and no amount of jumping through legalese will change that.

@v: I've already been down that road with them. They still won't admit it.

the rules that tell us who concentrates are not in the sentence about potions. they're in a sentence about items that allow the user to cast spells, which potions are explicitly not.

so the duration is the same as the spell. who needs to concentrate? the caster, right? not the subject of the spell. the caster. nobody is the caster (on account of the spell never having been cast), therefore, nobody has to concentrate.

which is good, because having to concentrate on something that you drank is stupid and counterintuitive, and if it was included in any story the audience/reader(s)/whatever would sit there baffled as to why anyone would have to concentrate as if they were casting a spell when they were explicitly not casting a spell.


The fact that some potions specify that they don't require concentration means that any potions that are based on concentration spells that don't specify that, do require concentration.

ummm... no.

suppose I have lions, tigers, and bears in a zoo that I own. at some point I mention that bears are animals. does this mean that lions and tigers are *not* animals, or does it just mean that bears are animals and I haven't specified the other two?

[calebrus]

having to concentrate on something that you drank is stupid

Thinking it's stupid is perfectly acceptable as a reason to house rule that potions don't require concentration at your table. But that doesn't change the fact that the rules state that the spell effect keeps its usual duration and that the item user maintains concentration.

[EvanescentHero]

ummm... no.

suppose I have lions, tigers, and bears in a zoo that I own. at some point I mention that bears are animals. does this mean that lions and tigers are *not* animals, or does it just mean that bears are animals and I haven't specified the other two?

Wanna try an example that has anything to do with the situation, or could you not think of one? Everyone knows that lions, tigers, and bears are animals; there's no possible debate you can have about it. You omitting lions and tigers from the list of things that qualify as animals would be taken either with the assumption that the other creatures still qualify as animals, or that you were deeply stupid and/or spouting nonsense. Zoos don't have game rules to be debated.

What possible reason is there to include that line if not to set those potions apart from other potions? The text is utterly pointless if every other potion in the game does not act in a manner contrary to said text. Can you think of a legitimate reason they would include that line if not to separate non-concentration potions from their normal concentration-required counterparts?

EDIT: In addition, you counting bears as animals and omitting lions and tigers is in fact the exact opposite situation as this. You're saying that certain things ARE animals, while this situation points out potions that ARE NOT the norm.

[SharkForce]

Wanna try an example that has anything to do with the situation, or could you not think of one? Everyone knows that lions, tigers, and bears are animals; there's no possible debate you can have about it. You omitting lions and tigers from the list of things that qualify as animals would be taken either with the assumption that the other creatures still qualify as animals, or that you were deeply stupid and/or spouting nonsense. Zoos don't have game rules to be debated.

What possible reason is there to include that line if not to set those potions apart from other potions? The text is utterly pointless if every other potion in the game does not act in a manner contrary to said text. Can you think of a legitimate reason they would include that line if not to separate non-concentration potions from their normal concentration-required counterparts?

EDIT: In addition, you counting bears as animals and omitting lions and tigers is in fact the exact opposite situation as this. You're saying that certain things ARE animals, while this situation points out potions that ARE NOT the norm.

I've already presented reasons. the simple fact is, they state in the descriptions that those two potions function one way. that does not mean that other potions cannot function the same way. we cannot base the rules on what the books don't say, because that is crazy and leads to there being an infinite number of (mostly conflicting) rules. an example that would be valid is if there was a rule that said something about potions (and not about a different group of items which potions are EXPLICITLY not included in) in general.

as to why they might have included it, who knows? they've seen dozens of iterations of the rules. it may have been relevant once. it may just be a simple reminder, the lack of which on other potions does not necessarily mean anything. it could, admittedly, even mean that they intended for potions generally to require concentration and just did an awful job of writing that down.

but by the same logic, if the rules for potions are *not* in any way different from other items, why did they bring it up? if potions work exactly like everything else, why would they ever say that potions are different? and unlike the text in the specific potions, it is incredibly unlikely that this could have been intended as a mere reminder because there's nowhere else that would be appropriate to have the primary rule source.

@ calebrus: no houserule required. as I've pointed out repeatedly, the statement about items requiring the user to concentrate is in the rules about items that DO cast spells. as those rules are *not* repeated in the rules about items that don't cast spells, but do generate a spell effect (which are specifically singled out as being different). the rules give the same duration. they do not anywhere state anything about concentration. you could *extrapolate* that they intended the drinker to concentrate, but the rules do not cover the situation.

and as far as it goes, the requirement to concentrate being stupid is equally a good reason to make it an official rule as it is to make a house rule. half the reason they made 5th edition the way they did was because a lot of people complained D&D didn't feel like D&D any more. you think having to concentrate on the magical liquid you drank feels like... well, any setting at all that you can name? because I have never heard of any setting where you have to concentrate on the potion (or equivalent) that you just drank to keep it functioning. it certainly doesn't sound like D&D. it certainly doesn't sound like anything that makes any sense. and considering that potions are not exactly an unlimited resource, it doesn't seem likely to break anything if potions are actually useful instead of just being something that isn't worth spending the action to drink it.

[calebrus]

the rules give the same duration. they do not anywhere state anything about concentration.

Q: Do the rules tell you that the spell effect from a potion keeps its usual duration, or do they not?
A: They do.

Q: Where does it tell you if concentration is required?
A: In the duration entry.

It is telling you that the part that contains the concentration requirement does not change in any way unless otherwise specified.
There is nothing more to *extrapolate* as you put it. It's pretty damned simple.

[Xetheral]

Q: Do the rules tell you that the spell effect from a potion keeps its usual duration, or do they not?
A: They do.

Q: Where does it tell you if concentration is required?
A: In the duration entry.

It is telling you that the part that contains the concentration requirement does not change in any way unless otherwise specified.
There is nothing more to *extrapolate* as you put it. It's pretty damned simple.

And we consider the alternative interpretation to be just as simple. We're reading the same rules and disagree on whether they are ambiguous--it happens.

[Lord Raziere]

Just saw this now and....

while I sigh at Artificer just being a Wizard subclass, I'm just like "whatever" by now about that, and instead am focusing on how happy I am to have 5e rules for Eberron. guess I'll have to focus on fluff to make sure my Artificer as magi-technological as possible.

[Kryx]

This potion debate is so painful to read. So much debate to avoid RAW and RAI. At this point it really needs it's own thread so it can stop polluting the Eberron thread.

The Eberron stuff is great, though as others said it should've used the knowledge gained from the playtest to get rid of things like flat AC boosts and +1/+1.

[silveralen]

Just saw this now and....

while I sigh at Artificer just being a Wizard subclass, I'm just like "whatever" by now about that, and instead am focusing on how happy I am to have 5e rules for Eberron. guess I'll have to focus on fluff to make sure my Artificer as magi-technological as possible.

Yeah I'm going to have to change how artificer works, I just can't stand the version we have.

I'm thinking a half caster with a special spell list who has to cast onto items, like 3.5, who counts as knowing any spell of a level he can cast in terms of creating magic items or something. Use some of the abilities mentioned in the write up, but otherwise alter it. Probably base it on rogue (maybe remove sneak attack?).

I'm not sure, this was the one thing I really wanted an official write up for because it was the only thing big enough to be really difficult to homebrew imo, and what we got has left me totally underwhelmed. I really hope they completely shift focus on it.

[EvanescentHero]

Has anyone asked Crawford about it, or is this going to go the way of every single other internet debate ever? We have a way to find out the answer at our fingertips, so fighting about it instead of asking him is ridiculous, which is why I'm not gonna say any more about it; no one's going to convince anyone else, and when one side of this debate turns out to be wrong, they'll just houserule it back to their way anyway.

[SharkForce]

Q: Do the rules tell you that the spell effect from a potion keeps its usual duration, or do they not?
A: They do.

Q: Where does it tell you if concentration is required?
A: In the duration entry.

It is telling you that the part that contains the concentration requirement does not change in any way unless otherwise specified.
There is nothing more to *extrapolate* as you put it. It's pretty damned simple.

sure, and how does concentration work unless otherwise specified? does the *caster* concentrate, or does the *target* concentrate?

last time I checked the rules, it was the caster.

now, who is the caster for the effect generated by a potion? nobody. nobody is the caster. it doesn't cast spells, that step is completely bypassed.

you keep referring back to the rules that say items which cast spells make the person who activates the item concentrate, but the rules for potions explicitly don't include that rule. as far as potions are concerned, that rule does not exist, so it cannot be applied to potions.

by your own logic, then, we should use the *default* rules for concentration. which in this case, results in nobody needs to concentrate, because nobody is the caster.

[DireSickFish]

Can we get this potion debate moved to another thread? It's kinda intrusive.

[mephnick]

Plus it was already answered by Mearls a pages ago so....everyone can shut up about it.

[EvanescentHero]

Plus it was already answered by Mearls a pages ago so....everyone can shut up about it.

Evidently his answer's not good enough because he's not the rules guy.

[calebrus]

sure, and how does concentration work unless otherwise specified? does the *caster* concentrate, or does the *target* concentrate?

last time I checked the rules, it was the caster.

now, who is the caster for the effect generated by a potion? nobody. nobody is the caster. it doesn't cast spells, that step is completely bypassed.

you keep referring back to the rules that say items which cast spells make the person who activates the item concentrate, but the rules for potions explicitly don't include that rule. as far as potions are concerned, that rule does not exist, so it cannot be applied to potions.

by your own logic, then, we should use the *default* rules for concentration. which in this case, results in nobody needs to concentrate, because nobody is the caster.

I have already addressed each and every one of your points here multiple times. I will do so once more and elaborate.



sure, and how does concentration work unless otherwise specified? does the *caster* concentrate, or does the *target* concentrate?

last time I checked the rules, it was the caster.

Yes, it's the "caster" that needs to concentrate, but in the case of activating magical items, the item user is considered the caster by virtue of activating the item. The actual *casting* part is bypassed, but the spell still needs someone to initiate and control it. In this case, that person becomes the player that activated the item.
The item user.
The item user initiates and controls the spell effect by activating the item.
The item user needs to maintain concentration, just like the rules say.

ACTIVATING AN ITEM
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated.
Certain items use one or more of the following rules for their activation.
If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
COMMAND WORD wands, certain rings, etc
A command word is a word or phrase that must be spoken for an item to work. A magic item that requires a command word can't be activated in an area where sound is prevented, as in the area of the silence spell.
CONSUMABLES potions, scrolls, Quall's Tokens, etc
Some items are used up when they are activated. A potion or an elixir must be swallowed, or an oil applied to the body. The writing vanishes from a scroll when it is read. Once used, a consumable item loses its magic.
SPELLS most potions and scrolls, staves, rods, etc. I would like to point out that this is all one set of rules, and that there is no "different part" for potions. I'll use {P} here to denote paragraph separation.
{P} Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
{P} A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability-perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature- your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
CHARGES some wands and staves, etc
Some magic items have charges that must be expended to activate their properties. The number of charges an item has remaining is revealed when an identify spell is cast on it, as well as when a creature attunes to it. Additionally, when an item regains charges, the creature attuned to it learns how many charges it regained.

Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
Meaning that "these" rules are all cohesive, and are meant to be read as a whole, and that there is no "different part" for potions. The exceptions are specified in the item's description, not in "these rules."

If you activate an item, you are the "caster," even if the actual casting of the spell was bypassed by virtue of you doing something else to cast the spell such as activating the item via a command word, or by drinking a potion, or whatever other means is required by the item.

Every spell effect has a "caster." But sometimes that "caster" initiated the spell effect by some means other than "casting" the spell.

Let's look at a wand.
If you activate a wand (let's say by command word) then by your logic the spell has no caster. The casting was bypassed by command word. Are you going to tell me that no one needs to concentrate on Hold Person as long as it comes from a wand?

If that's the case, then literally the only magic item that actually "has a caster" at all is a scroll.
But any item which casts a spell has a rule telling you who needs to maintain concentration if it is required. And that rule says that it is the user of the item.

If you activate an item which casts a spell which requires concentration, you are considered the "caster" for the purposes of who controls the spell, which means you need to maintain concentration.
That's all there is to it.

[Inevitability]

It says they are living constructs and that healing spells work on them as normal.

It does? While it does say 'warforged are living constructs', I see no reference to healing spells. If they are living constructs, then Cure Wounds wouldn't work on them.

[Callin]

It also says they are Living Creatures. Those are healed by Cure Spells.

[DireSickFish]

It does? While it does say 'warforged are living constructs', I see no reference to healing spells. If they are living constructs, then Cure Wounds wouldn't work on them.

"Even though you are constructed you are a living creature"

Therfore you don't have the construct type, because it never gives it to you.

[Callin]

Yep "Living Construct" is just the ability name. Same as Lucky for Halfling. It does not confer upon you the Construct type.

edit- Also nowhere does it say it gives you or you are a Constuct. The only mention of anything like that is it calling you a Living Creature.

[Chronos]

Quoth Callin:

It also says they are Living Creatures. Those are healed by Cure Spells.
No, creatures who are not undead or constructs are healed by cure spells. If they want Warforged to be affected by cure spells, then you either need to explicitly say that they are (and then repeat for all of the other spells that use that language), or you need to make them not constructs.

[DireSickFish]

No, creatures who are not undead or constructs are healed by cure spells. If they want Warforged to be affected by cure spells, then you either need to explicitly say that they are (and then repeat for all of the other spells that use that language), or you need to make them not constructs.

But they aren't constructs. They have Constructed traits, but nowhere in the text does it say they are constructs.

[Cap'n Kobold]

Regarding the Potion/concentration issue, how many of the potions that the Artificer can actually make require concentration?

The only one that would appear to is the Potion of Mind Reading, assuming "gain the effect of" means you count as having cast the spell. (Supported by the Potion of Growth text.)
All the others either explicitly say they don't, or don't reference spells at all.

Or is the discussion based on a variant where you can turn any spell into a potion? (Where it would be more relevant.)

[Chronos]

So, what type are warforged, anyway?

(this was a problem with the PHB, too: None of the races are said to be humanoid, so one might think that elves were fey, or tieflings were fiends, or dragonborn were dragons)

[Forrestfire]

Regarding the Potion/concentration issue, how many of the potions that the Artificer can actually make require concentration?

The only one that would appear to is the Potion of Mind Reading, assuming "gain the effect of" means you count as having cast the spell. (Supported by the Potion of Growth text.)
All the others either explicitly say they don't, or don't reference spells at all.

Or is the discussion based on a variant where you can turn any spell into a potion? (Where it would be more relevant.)

It's about being able to turn any spell into a potion.

[DireSickFish]

It's about being able to turn any spell into a potion.

But you can't turn any spell into any spell potion. You expend a spell slot then you can make a potion from the table based off the level of slot expended.

[D.U.P.A.]

Meh, pretty disappointed at Artificer, especially being subclass of Wizard, which already has most paths. Kinda does not make sense to improve weapons and armor if he does not use weapons and armor.

Infuse potions: Since they cost nothing and you can make 3 of them, they can be very useful since you can heal as a wizard. Other potions can be very useful too, because you basically store a spell for 1 week.

Infuse scrolls: You can basically use your arcane recovery to get an extra spell, which can be used later, good thing is that it lasts until you use it, but it after that you must take a long rest, so it does not come handy very often.

Infuse weapons and armor: Too situtational, 10 minutes are a lot, since you cannot really expect an ambush, furthermore you can do it only on weapons and armor, which require your companions, since you have no proficiences at all, which means you will be attacking with cantrips. Magic weapon despite concentration is better, because using lower spell slot and casting time 1 action.

Superior Artificer: Infusing even one weapon/armor at the time is questionable, let alone two. Even with scrolls and potions is not really useful

Master Artificer: Table B has some useful items, but generally are weak and consumables are not really useful if you can create only once a month.

Honestly, in 4e it was way more exciting, despite certain bad rules in that edition.

[Chronos]

Note that the infusion for weapons lasts 8 hours, while the spell lasts only one hour (and requires concentration). So you don't need to anticipate an ambush to us it; you just need to use it in the morning and then go most of the day with it up.

[Inevitability]

The warforged were made as the ideal soldiers to serve in the devastating Last War. Although they are constructs, they have much in common with living creatures, including emotions and social bonds, and perhaps even souls.

Emphasis mine. Apparently they are constructs.

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's about being able to turn any spell into a potion.

Ah. Thank you. I was wondering why such a discussion over a single item.

But surely, since you would have to houserule that in anyway, its up to each DM to rule how those houseruled potions interact with concentration anyway.

[EvanescentHero]

It's about being able to turn any spell into a potion.

It was actually about whether potions based on concentration spells (invisibility, flying, etc.) required concentration to use.

[silveralen]

Emphasis mine. Apparently they are constructs.

Flavor text and rules text are very different things.

I mean, are you going to declare that a character can't, by RAW, be a gnome who lives above ground or a dragonborn who doesn't consider their clan the most important thing? Would you disallow a shifter from wildshaping if they were a druid, because the flavor text mentions shifters can't fully assume animal form? It's written in common language because it isn't in the aprt that actually discuss the rules of said race.

[MadGrady]

Good news is that this is a first attempt to bring these rules into 5e, and are not intended to be full canon immediately. Great job everyone hashing out the issues with the way something is written!

[archaeo]

Meh, pretty disappointed at Artificer, especially being subclass of Wizard, which already has most paths. Kinda does not make sense to improve weapons and armor if he does not use weapons and armor.

I think that you'll find that a significant percentage of Wizards travel with other people who do use weapons and armor, and that said Wizard has numerous incentives to ensure that said weapons and armor are working fine.

Artificer seems like a pretty neat way to do a "team player" Wizard. I absolutely respect the idea that previous editions and settings had different Artificers, who were neat in different ways, but this one isn't bad, and seems worth a play.

[Inevitability]

Flavor text and rules text are very different things.

I mean, are you going to declare that a character can't, by RAW, be a gnome who lives above ground or a dragonborn who doesn't consider their clan the most important thing? Would you disallow a shifter from wildshaping if they were a druid, because the flavor text mentions shifters can't fully assume animal form? It's written in common language because it isn't in the aprt that actually discuss the rules of said race.

There is no game mechanic called 'living underground' or 'thinking clans are important'. There is, however, the game mechanic 'construct type'. That's a huge difference right there.

[Cap'n Kobold]

It was actually about whether potions based on concentration spells (invisibility, flying, etc.) required concentration to use.
The DMG versions of those potions don't seem to be based on the spells at all, so probably don't need concentration I would suppose. A Potion of Invisibility doesn't cast the Invisibility spell on the drinker: they just turn invisible for an hour or until they attack or cast a spell. No reference to the Invisibility spell at all.
Likewise a Potion of Flying doesn't seem to reference any spells either.

Wouldn't that be a bit like requiring concentration using a +1 magic weapon because there is a spell that gives the same effect which does require concentration?

[calebrus]

The DMG versions of those potions don't seem to be based on the spells at all, so probably don't need concentration I would suppose. A Potion of Invisibility doesn't cast the Invisibility spell on the drinker: they just turn invisible for an hour or until they attack or cast a spell. No reference to the Invisibility spell at all.
Likewise a Potion of Flying doesn't seem to reference any spells either.

Well potion of flying is not the Fly spell. They have two different effects.
A potion of invisibility doesn't specifically state that it casts the invisibility spell, but the two effects are literally identical, so I could see the ruling going either way on that one. In that case it's kind of a moot point because the only things that will likely pull you out of invisibility unintentionally basically won't happen (when will you need to make a concentration check while you're invisible?). So this only becomes an issue for the purposes of possible stacking buffs.

If you want an example from the Arty's list in the UA article, the potion of mind reading is the most obvious.
It gives you detect thoughts (DC 13). It does not say that no concentration is required, like a few of the other potions do. That is a very important distinction, because it sets a precedent. That precedent just so happens to follow exactly what the entry on activating magic devices with a spell effect says.
If potions never require concentration, as some people claim, then why do some of the potions specifically state that no concentration is required? That becomes a completely redundant line of text present in a handful of descriptions.
That text exists because potions which grant a spell effect do require concentration unless otherwise specified, just like it says in the rules.

Most of the discussion is in regards to any spell made into potion form. But there are examples from the Arty list (such as mind reading, and arguably invisibility, etc) where it is pertinent.

[RedMage125]

There is no game mechanic called 'living underground' or 'thinking clans are important'. There is, however, the game mechanic 'construct type'. That's a huge difference right there.

But nothing in the racial features says "Construct Type". They have a feature called "Living Construct", which explicitly calls them out as living creatures, and therefore valid targets of healing magic.

[silveralen]

There is no game mechanic called 'living underground' or 'thinking clans are important'. There is, however, the game mechanic 'construct type'. That's a huge difference right there.

The thing is they will be referred to as a type of construct in flavor text... a living construct. Which doesn't follow the rules for normal constructs except where explictly mentioned.

They are, in the context of the world, constructs. In the context of the rules they are living constructs, a whole different thing.

It's like a fiend or devil being described as humanoid, referring to how people perceive them, even though they wouldn't be classified as such in rules terms.

In short: ignore flavor text.

[Giant2005]

But nothing in the racial features says "Construct Type". They have a feature called "Living Construct", which explicitly calls them out as living creatures, and therefore valid targets of healing magic.

But it also calls them out as being "Constructs"... You quoted it yourself. Within the description of healing spells and various other spells, they specifically say that they do not function on Constructs. It doesn't matter if your a living construct, a marginally overweight construct, a well-oiled construct, a charming construct, or a construct with any other adjective stuck in front of it. Spells that state they have no effect on constructs have no effect on any constructs.

[silveralen]

But it also calls them out as being "Constructs"... You quoted it yourself. Within the description of healing spells and various other spells, they specifically say that they do not function on Constructs. It doesn't matter if your a living construct, a marginally overweight construct, a well-oiled construct, a charming construct, or a construct with any other adjective stuck in front of it. Spells that state they have no effect on constructs have no effect on any constructs.

If The flavor text describes a monster as a humanoid demon, do spells that target humanoids work despite the fact ts type is fiend (or whatever they are this edition).

The flavor text calls them constructs, in the same way a bipedal human shaped demon might be called humanoid.

[calebrus]

But it also calls them out as being "Constructs"... You quoted it yourself. Within the description of healing spells and various other spells, they specifically say that they do not function on Constructs. It doesn't matter if your a living construct, a marginally overweight construct, a well-oiled construct, a charming construct, or a construct with any other adjective stuck in front of it. Spells that state they have no effect on constructs have no effect on any constructs.

Living Construct: Even though you were constructed, you are a living creature.

This tells me that they were intended to be healed just like every other living creature, and I'm certain that future refinement to the living construct ability will tell us so. The fact that they did not specify that regular healing is only half as effective (as in 3e) reinforces this conclusion.
Remember, this is a first draft, not a complete ruleset for Eberron.

[Giant2005]

If The flavor text describes a monster as a humanoid demon, do spells that target humanoids work despite the fact ts type is fiend (or whatever they are this edition).

The flavor text calls them constructs, in the same way a bipedal human shaped demon might be called humanoid.

You are asking that question backwards (You confused your adjectives). The more accurate question to ask would be: "If The flavor text describes a monster as a demonic humanoid, do spells that target humanoids work?" And the answer is yes. It wouldn't matter what kind of humanoid they are, spells that target humanoids would work on all of them. The only time they wouldn't would be if their ability "Demonic Humanoid" had an explicit exception clause within it.
The "Living Construct" ability has no exception clause to suggest that it doesn't experience the usual benefits and penalties that apply to all Constructs.

[calebrus]

Do you really think that they'd create a PC race that simply cannot be healed in any way except by spending its HD, or taking a long rest, or drinking potions that may never come into their hands?
Obviously they were meant to be able to be healed by some source, right?
Well, they are living creatures, so they heal like living creatures until and unless something changes that in the future.

[silveralen]

You are asking that question backwards (You confused your adjectives). The more accurate question to ask would be: "If The flavor text describes a monster as a demonic humanoid, do spells that target humanoids work?" And the answer is yes. It wouldn't matter what kind of humanoid they are, spells that target humanoids would work on all of them. The only time they wouldn't would be if their ability "Demonic Humanoid" had an explicit exception clause within it.
The "Living Construct" ability has no exception clause to suggest that it doesn't experience the usual benefits and penalties that apply to all Constructs.

Flavor text literally means the portion of the text not about abilities (as in, before the stat block).

The living construct has nothing to suggest that the creature is treated as a construct. If the stat block read construct (living), yes it would be a construct with the living subtype. It isn't, it is a living construct, something completely distinct from normal constructs.

[Eslin]

I think that you'll find that a significant percentage of Wizards travel with other people who do use weapons and armor, and that said Wizard has numerous incentives to ensure that said weapons and armor are working fine.

Artificer seems like a pretty neat way to do a "team player" Wizard. I absolutely respect the idea that previous editions and settings had different Artificers, who were neat in different ways, but this one isn't bad, and seems worth a play.
Yep, they just need to give it a different name so it doesn't interfere with the appearance of an actual artificer.

[RedMage125]

But it also calls them out as being "Constructs"... You quoted it yourself. Within the description of healing spells and various other spells, they specifically say that they do not function on Constructs. It doesn't matter if your a living construct, a marginally overweight construct, a well-oiled construct, a charming construct, or a construct with any other adjective stuck in front of it. Spells that state they have no effect on constructs have no effect on any constructs.

No, they have a racial triat called "Living Construct", this is no different than a racial trait called "Lucky" or "Infernal Heritage". It also calls them out as living creatures.

[Giant2005]

Flavor text literally means the portion of the text not about abilities (as in, before the stat block).

The living construct has nothing to suggest that the creature is treated as a construct. If the stat block read construct (living), yes it would be a construct with the living subtype. It isn't, it is a living construct, something completely distinct from normal constructs.

By that same logic, Dragons too would need to be named in the same format: Dragon (Black) because as long as the descriptor comes first, they aren't Dragons, they are Black Dragons that are so radically different from Dragons that items like the Dragon Slayer Sword can't effect them.

[Logosloki]

By that same logic, Dragons too would need to be named in the same format: Dragon (Black) because as long as the descriptor comes first, they aren't Dragons, they are Black Dragons that are so radically different from Dragons that items like the Dragon Slayer Sword can't effect them.
While we are on the subject are Tieflings Fiends? Dragonborn Dragons? Half-orcs Goblinoids? Are gnomes aberrations?

[pwykersotz]

Are gnomes aberrations?

Yes. Kill them with fire. :smalltongue:

[silveralen]

By that same logic, Dragons too would need to be named in the same format: Dragon (Black) because as long as the descriptor comes first, they aren't Dragons, they are Black Dragons that are so radically different from Dragons that items like the Dragon Slayer Sword can't effect them.

But a black dragon's type is just "dragon", exactly what is mentioned under dragon slayer. It's type is explictly stated to be dragon, the exact thing dragon slayer calls out.

Now, if black dragon's type was "black dragon" and dragon slayer specified type "dragon", then yes they would need to edit the black dragon stat block if black dragon's were meant to be effected. Because they'd be listed as a seperate. However, that is not the case currently, because they did label them properly.

As it stands, war forged are not a construct type creature, or a construct with the living subtype. They are a living construct type creature, which is a distinction, and yes means they are not treated as constructs normally. If the intention was for them to be treated as constructs, then it would need to be clarified.

[Giant2005]

If the intention was for them to be treated as constructs, then it would need to be clarified.
No.
The opposite is true. The fluff calls them constructs and the mechanics calls them constructs (Living Constructs). If the usual rules regarding Constructs were not to apply, then the Warforged would need an exception written for them to that effect. Without said exemption, the standard rules apply and we know how they interract because the separate conditions and spells offer their own rules regarding how they interact with Constructs.
All of this talk about the adjective "living" somehow devaluing the following noun (Construct) is pure nonsense. That isn't how the English language works - those adjectives merely describe the noun, they do not change its nature. If a "Living Construct" were to be its own entity (As in, the term "Living" wasn't merely an adjective), it would need a hyphen. Without that hyphen it isn't some unique entity (Living-Construct), it is merely a standard Construct that is living and as per all of the other Constructs, it is subject to the same rules.
What you are trying to twist the phrase into isn't something that is a reasonable interpretation in the English language. It is akin to saying a "Big Dog" isn't a Dog because it is a Big Dog. The noun is always going to be the operative word.

[Kryx]

The fluff calls them constructs and the mechanics calls them constructs (Living Constructs).

Each race has everything necessary specified. You don't see humans have Humanoid which you then reference somewhere else to find the things that come with that.

I may have missed it, but it seems this is all that is defined for construct:

Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to 'follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs shaped from the raw material ofthe plane by the will of more powerful creatures.

There are no immunities or anything of the sort there.

[pwykersotz]

You are asking that question backwards (You confused your adjectives). The more accurate question to ask would be: "If The flavor text describes a monster as a demonic humanoid, do spells that target humanoids work?" And the answer is yes. It wouldn't matter what kind of humanoid they are, spells that target humanoids would work on all of them. The only time they wouldn't would be if their ability "Demonic Humanoid" had an explicit exception clause within it.
The "Living Construct" ability has no exception clause to suggest that it doesn't experience the usual benefits and penalties that apply to all Constructs.


No.
The opposite is true. The fluff calls them constructs and the mechanics calls them constructs (Living Constructs). If the usual rules regarding Constructs were not to apply, then the Warforged would need an exception written for them to that effect. Without said exemption, the standard rules apply and we know how they interract because the separate conditions and spells offer their own rules regarding how they interact with Constructs.
All of this talk about the adjective "living" somehow devaluing the following noun (Construct) is pure nonsense. That isn't how the English language works - those adjectives merely describe the noun, they do not change its nature. If a "Living Construct" were to be its own entity (As in, the term "Living" wasn't merely an adjective), it would need a hyphen. Without that hyphen it isn't some unique entity (Living-Construct), it is merely a standard Construct that is living and as per all of the other Constructs, it is subject to the same rules.
What you are trying to twist the phrase into isn't something that is a reasonable interpretation in the English language. It is akin to saying a "Big Dog" isn't a Dog because it is a Big Dog. The noun is always going to be the operative word.

These kind of logical extrapolations from English don't always matter in the context of a rulebook and its expansions. It's a rough draft race, it's okay if it has an aspect that is currently undefined.

[Giant2005]

Each race has everything necessary specified. You don't see humans have Humanoid which you then reference somewhere else to find the things that come with that.

I may have missed it, but it seems this is all that is defined for construct:


There are no immunities or anything of the sort there.

There are a lot of spells that state they do not work on Constructs.

[Kryx]

There are a lot of spells that state they do not work on Constructs.

Right, then it does matter.
But I agree with the others. It does not specify the creature type therefore don't assume anything based on flavor text.

If it matters 4e had them as "Natural humanoid (living construct)". 3e had them as "Construct (living construct)".

[silveralen]

What you are trying to twist the phrase into isn't something that is a reasonable interpretation in the English language. It is akin to saying a "Big Dog" isn't a Dog because it is a Big Dog. The noun is always going to be the operative word.

Except, as the rules work, an animal whose type was specified as "wild dog" will not be subject to effects which specify a type "dog" target. It would need to be a type of "dog (wild)" for such an ability to work by RAW.

They are not, in the rules text, mentioned as type "construct" or type "construct (living)" only as type "living construct". By RAW, this is an existing distinction. If they were to be treated as constructs then living construct has to be changed to construct (living) or construct (living construct).

I'd be saying the same thing if they improperly put a type as "shapeshifting fiend" rather than "fiend (shapeshifter)". The intent might be clear, but by RAW that character wouldn't be applicable for things which effect type fiend or shapeshifter.

If they are to be treated as constructs they must explictly be mentioned as having the type construct by itself.

[DireSickFish]

No.
The opposite is true. The fluff calls them constructs and the mechanics calls them constructs (Living Constructs). If the usual rules regarding Constructs were not to apply, then the Warforged would need an exception written for them to that effect. Without said exemption, the standard rules apply and we know how they interract because the separate conditions and spells offer their own rules regarding how they interact with Constructs.
All of this talk about the adjective "living" somehow devaluing the following noun (Construct) is pure nonsense. That isn't how the English language works - those adjectives merely describe the noun, they do not change its nature. If a "Living Construct" were to be its own entity (As in, the term "Living" wasn't merely an adjective), it would need a hyphen. Without that hyphen it isn't some unique entity (Living-Construct), it is merely a standard Construct that is living and as per all of the other Constructs, it is subject to the same rules.
What you are trying to twist the phrase into isn't something that is a reasonable interpretation in the English language. It is akin to saying a "Big Dog" isn't a Dog because it is a Big Dog. The noun is always going to be the operative word.

You are misquoting the source page. Nowhere does it call them Living Constructs. It calls them Living Constructed. They are not the same word. An easy mistake to make but one that has been pointed out on this thread numerous times. Living Constructed is a trait that they have and not there creature type. For all intents and purposes they are humanoids.

[Giant2005]

You are misquoting the source page. Nowhere does it call them Living Constructs. It calls them Living Constructed. They are not the same word. An easy mistake to make but one that has been pointed out on this thread numerous times. Living Constructed is a trait that they have and not there creature type. For all intents and purposes they are humanoids.

I don't know where you are getting that but the trait is called "Living Construct" not "Living Constructed", it also says " they are constructs".

[silveralen]

It also says " they are constructs".

Flavor text is not a factor in game abilities.

[SharkForce]

While we are on the subject are Tieflings Fiends? Dragonborn Dragons? Half-orcs Goblinoids? Are gnomes aberrations?

half-orcs are definitely not goblinoids.

goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears are goblinoids. orcs are just orcs; no relation whatsoever to goblinoids (which is actually kinda important to an eberron campaign, what with their being an actual goblinoid empire that only includes those 3 races... otherwise I probably wouldn't have known that orcs are not goblinoids either :P )

[RedMage125]

I don't know where you are getting that but the trait is called "Living Construct" not "Living Constructed", it also says " they are constructs".

It does not.

This is the following, mechanical effects of the warforged race:


Traits
As a warforged, you have the following racial traits.
Ability Score Increase. Your Strength and Constitution scores increase by 1.
Size. Warforged are generally broader and heavier than humans. Your size is Medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
Composite Plating. Your construction incorporates wood and metal, granting you a +1 bonus to Armor Class.
Living Construct. Even though you were constructed, you are a living creature. You are immune to disease. You do not need to eat or breathe, but you can ingest food and drink if you wish.
Instead of sleeping, you enter an inactive state for 4 hours each day. You do not dream in this state; you are fully aware of your surroundings and notice approaching enemies and other events as normal.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and one other language of your choice.

It says that the warforged was "constructed", not that its type is "construct". It also EXPLICITLY says warforged are living creatures.

The trait being called "Living Construct" is no different from a racial trait called "Brave" or "Fey Ancestry" or "Lucky". It's just the name of the trait. There's no mechanical rules precluding a cowardly halfling. The mechanical effect of the "Living Construct" trait is the lack of need to eat or breathe, and the alternate sleep effect. That's it. From a rules perspective, that is the sum total of what that ability does.

[Inevitability]

But nothing in the racial features says "Construct Type". They have a feature called "Living Construct", which explicitly calls them out as living creatures, and therefore valid targets of healing magic.

Yes, warforged are living.
No, this does not matter in any way.

Read your spells, people! Cure Wounds says it 'does not work on undead or constructs'. If we ever get a nonliving creature that's not an undead/construct, the spell will work fine. However, a living creature that is a construct/undead won't be able to benefit from the spell.

[silveralen]

Yes, warforged are living.
No, this does not matter in any way.

Read your spells, people! Cure Wounds says it 'does not work on undead or constructs'. If we ever get a nonliving creature that's not an undead/construct, the spell will work fine. However, a living creature that is a construct/undead won't be able to benefit from the spell.

However, the warforged is not explictly said to be a construct in game terms. Merely in flavor. If cure wounds is not going to effect him he needs the construct type which he currently does not have by RAW.

By RAW they aren't construct types, by RAI anything which can benefit from healing potions sure be able to be healed by cure wounds. The only time it doesn't benefit is if you decide it has construct type by RAI and ignore the numerous ways it is already district from existing construct, because cure wounds isn't mentioned explictly by RAW. It's this weird fusion that makes no sense.

[Chronos]

OK, so again, if a warforged is not a construct like the book says they are, then what creature type are they?

[silveralen]

OK, so again, if a warforged is not a construct like the book says they are, then what creature type are they?

Humanoid with the living construct subtype would be my vote.

[calebrus]

Humanoid with the living construct subtype would be my vote.

Until we get an MM entry for Warforged, it's complete speculation no matter what you answer. It doesn't sppecify, except in flavor text. There isn't an actual type listed. Just like until the MM was released, you couldn't tell me with absolute certainty that a human was a humanoid, because that information is not in the PHB (just like that information isn't listed in the UA article).

Until then, this is my stand on it.

Living Construct: Even though you were constructed, you are a living creature.

This tells me that they were intended to be healed just like every other living creature, and I'm certain that future refinement to the living construct ability will tell us so. The fact that they did not specify that regular healing is only half as effective (as in 3e) reinforces this conclusion.
Remember, this is a first draft, not a complete ruleset for Eberron.


Do you really think that they'd create a PC race that simply cannot be healed in any way except by spending its HD, or taking a long rest, or drinking potions that may never come into their hands?
Obviously they were meant to be able to be healed by some source, right?
Well, they are living creatures, so they heal like living creatures until and unless something changes that in the future.

[silveralen]

Until we get an MM entry for Warforged, it's complete speculation no matter what you answer. It doesn't sppecify, except in flavor text. There isn't an actual type listed. Just like until the MM was released, you couldn't tell me with absolute certainty that a human was a humanoid, because that information is not in the PHB (just like that information isn't listed in the UA article).

Until then, this is my stand on it.

Oh yes, I was merely placing my bet for what they would end up being. I figure they will end up being humanoid so that things like hold person work.

[calebrus]

Oh yes, I was merely placing my bet for what they would end up being. I figure they will end up being humanoid so that things like hold person work.

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you. I quoted you, but that was directed more towards the people insisting that they are without question constructs even though no type is listed in a single race entry anywhere.

[Logosloki]

half-orcs are definitely not goblinoids.

goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears are goblinoids. orcs are just orcs; no relation whatsoever to goblinoids (which is actually kinda important to an eberron campaign, what with their being an actual goblinoid empire that only includes those 3 races... otherwise I probably wouldn't have known that orcs are not goblinoids either :P )

I just re-checked the basic DM and the MM, you are right, Orcs are just written in as humanoid. I misunderstood when the text moved on to the other races listed and thought it was continuing on with the goblinoid sub-type.

[Logosloki]

OK, so again, if a warforged is not a construct like the book says they are, then what creature type are they?

Humanoid. Otherwise Dragonborn are Dragons, Tieflings are fiends, Gnomes are monstrosities (they aren't mentioned as being humanoid in the descriptor for humanoid), Shifters are beasts, Changlings are Monstrosities (Changling is just a doppleganger right?) and finally, even though the MM has them as humanoids, Half-dragons are dragons.

[Chronos]

So, when flavor text says they're constructs, we obviously can't say they're constructs, but when nothing at all says they're humanoids, we can say that they're humanoids? Why the double standard?

[pwykersotz]

So, when flavor text says they're constructs, we obviously can't say they're constructs, but when nothing at all says they're humanoids, we can say that they're humanoids? Why the double standard?

Technically there shouldn't be a double standard, you're right.

But when every other player race is Humanoid, it makes sense as a default. It also makes more sense when you consider that they wouldn't have needed to list the lack of need to eat and sleep and immunity to disease if they were Constructs that resembled Humanoids, instead they would have listed the ways they're MORE squishy and lifelike. However the list of traits makes much more sense when you assume Humanoid with Construct traits, making them tougher than usual.

But that's pure speculation and interpretation, and more of that lovely double standard when in reality we were provided with nothing. :smallsmile:

[silveralen]

So, when flavor text says they're constructs, we obviously can't say they're constructs, but when nothing at all says they're humanoids, we can say that they're humanoids? Why the double standard?

Technically they are nothing. They don't have a type by RAW.

By the most tacit RAI/RAW combo, you can claim they are a new type called living construct, which wouldn't be the same as construct type. This is questionable, but living construct can be read as a creature type.

By RAI, you can assume they are going to be treated the same as every other PC race, and that locking them out from certain abilities, like healing, was not intended.

RAI requires consideration of all factors, including the way the abilities are laid out and balance, while RAW only goes by listed abilities. So the fact the flavor text calls them constructs is irrelevant for both. RAI cares more about balance and intent than a single word on a page, a minor consideration at best, while RAW ignores flavor text when determing abilities.

It isn't a double standard, it's just irrelevant for both of he milestones by which people read rules.